Constitution, Jefferson's Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress (House Document No. 116-177)
Summary
House Document No. 116-177 is the Constitution, Jefferson's Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, with Jason A. Smith named as Parliamentarian and printed in 2021. House Resolution 1233 of November 20, 2020 ordered it printed with three thousand additional copies, nine hundred eighty of them bound in leather with thumb index. The preface says the rules for the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress were adopted on January 4, 2021, when the House agreed to House Resolution 8. That resolution also included separate free-standing orders for procedures to be followed in that Congress, and the annotations after each rule explain the changes.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Constitution, Jefferson's Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress (House Document No. 116-177).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/cdoc-cdoc-116hdoc177-cdoc-116hdoc177-054b1587b0/
, SHA-256 097b87fbcde14bef624a65f46a440593b336282d3002986331910e94ad89e546.Full text
This is the first part of the text (the first 2,056,570 of 3,760,723 characters). The full document is in our copy of the file, CDOC_cdoc-116hdoc177_cdoc-116hdoc177.htm, listed under File and source.
[House Document 116-177]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
116th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - House Document No. 116-177
________________________________________________________________________
CONSTITUTION
JEFFERSON'S MANUAL
AND
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE UNITED STATES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
JASON A. SMITH
PARLIAMENTARIAN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-700 WASHINGTON : 2021
________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office
Washington, DC 20402
HOUSE RESOLUTION 1233
In the House of Representatives, U.S.,
November 20, 2020.
Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual of the
House of Representatives for the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress be
printed as a House document, and that three thousand additional copies
shall be printed and bound for the use of the House of Representatives,
of which nine hundred eighty copies shall be bound in leather with thumb
index and delivered as may be directed by the Parliamentarian of the
House.
Attest:
Cheryl L. Johnson,
Clerk.
(III)
[[Page [v]]]
PREFACE
The House Rules and Manual contains the fundamental source material
for parliamentary procedure used in the House of Representatives: the
Constitution of the United States; applicable provisions of Jefferson's
Manual; Rules of the House (as of the date of this preface); provisions
of law and resolutions having the force of Rules of the House; and
pertinent decisions of the Speakers and other presiding officers of the
House and Committee of the Whole interpreting the rules and other
procedural authority used in the House of Representatives.
The rules for the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress were adopted on
January 4, 2021, when the House agreed to House Resolution 8. In
addition to a series of changes to various standing rules, House
Resolution 8 included separate free-standing orders constituting
procedures to be followed in the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress.
Explanations of the changes to the standing rules appear in the
annotations following each rule in the text of this Manual.
The substantive changes in the standing rules made by House
Resolution 8 of the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress included:
(1) removal of outdated authority for Clerk maintenance of former
Speaker staff on the House payroll (clause 2(i) of rule II);
(2) codification of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and Office
of the Whistleblower Ombuds and establishment of policy direction and
oversight thereof (clauses 9 and 10 of rule II; clause 4(d) of rule X);
(3) clarification that continuing litigation authority includes the
authority to issue subpoenas (clause 8(c) of rule II);
(4) expansion of admission in the Hall of the House to the Mayor of
the District of Columbia and prohibition of admission in the Hall of the
House for former Members, officers, and staff convicted of any crime
related to the individual's election or service to the House (clause 2
and 4 of rule IV);
(5) modification of numerous provisions to establish gender-neutral
terminology and elimination of a blanket gen
[[Page [vi]]]
der-neutrality clause (rules X, XXIII, XXVII, and clause 2 of rule
XXIX);
(6) clarification of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed
Services to include the Space Force and Marine Corps (clause 1(c) of
rule X);
(7) modification to the committee oversight plan requirement to
require priority consideration of diversity-related inequities in the
development of such plans (clause 2(d) of rule X);
(8) elimination of the printing requirement for availability of a
report by the Committee on House Administration on expense resolutions
(clause 6 of rule X);
(9) modification of the availability requirement for the report on a
Senate amendment reported in disagreement to permit availability
pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXIX (clause 8(b) of rule XXII);
(10) removal of the requirement that committee votes be made
available by the committee for physical inspection in the committee
offices, and expansion of amendment text availability requirement to
include all amendments disposed of or withdrawn (clause 2(e) of rule
XI);
(11) expansion of the committee hearing witness disclosure
requirements to include disclosure of any fiduciary interest in an
entity with an interest in the subject matter of the hearing, to include
grants as part of the foreign government disclosure, and to extend the
disclosure window to 36 months (clause 2(g) of rule XI);
(12) codification of a prior separate order to allow electronic
filing of reports and to permit electronic signatures to satisfy certain
signature requirements under the rules (rules XIII, XXV, and XXVII);
(13) clarification of the application of committee subpoena
authority to all persons, including current and former Presidents and
Vice Presidents, as well as current or former employees of Presidential
offices (clause 2(m) of rule XI);
(14) modernization of the restriction on the use of committee audio
and visual coverage for partisan political campaign purposes (clause
4(b) of rule XI);
(15) modification of the cosponsorship process to permit Members to
remove themselves as cosponsors as a matter of right (clause 7(b) of
rule XII);
(16) elimination of certain comparative print requirements (clause
12 of rule XXI);
(17) codification of points of order against the consideration of an
unreported bill or joint resolution and against
[[Page [vii]]]
the consideration of a reported bill or joint resolution that fails to
include in the report a list of related committee and subcommittee
hearings and the designation of at least one committee or subcommittee
hearing used to develop or consider such bill or joint resolution
(clause 3(c) of rule XIII; clause 12 of rule XXI);
(18) elimination of the motion to recommit with instructions and of
debatability of the motion to recommit, and establishment of automatic
ordering of previous question thereon (clause 2 of rule XIX; clause 7(d)
of rule XXII), and conforming modification to the restriction of the
authority of the Committee on Rules to report a special order of
business preventing the offering of a motion to recommit (clause 6(c) of
rule XIII);
(19) elimination of the special days for the consideration of
District of Columbia business (clause 4 of rule XV);
(20) restriction of the authority to offer a motion to amend the
title of a measure to the Majority Leader or a designee (clause 6 of
rule XVI);
(21) elimination of a point of order against consideration of a
concurrent resolution on the budget containing reconciliation directives
that specify changes in law that would require reported reconciliation
legislation to cause an increase in net direct spending (clause 7 of
rule XXI);
(22) modification of the availability requirement for unreported
bills and joint resolutions to allow the publicly-available text of an
unintroduced bill or joint resolution to count for purposes of
availability under the rule (clause 11 of rule XXI);
(23) removal of outdated proscriptive regulatory requirement for the
ethics rule prohibiting Members from serving as an officer or director
of a public company (clause 19(c) of rule XXIII);
(24) prohibition against the prevention of or retaliation for the
provision of truthful information by an individual to the Committee on
Ethics, the Office of Congressional Ethics, the Office of Congressional
Workplace Rights, or law enforcement (clause 20 of rule XXIII);
(25) prohibition against the disclosure of the identity of or
personally identifiable information about individuals providing
information pursuant to specified whistleblower laws (clause 21 of rule
XXIII); and
(26) conforming update to the name of the House Communications
Standards Commission (clause 5 of rule XXIV).
[[Page [viii]]]
In addition to the amendments cited above, the definition of ``mass
mailing'' in clause 9 of rule XXIV was expanded (P.L. 116-260, Dec. 27,
2020) and clause 3(g) of rule II was modified to conform the Committee
on Ethics appeals process under such clause to similar appeals processes
established in the 117th Congress (sec. 8, H. Res. 85, Feb. 2, 2021, p.
_).
Citations in this edition refer to:
(1) Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United
States (volumes I through V) and Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives of the United States (volumes VI through VIII), by
volume and section (e.g., V, 5763; VIII, 2852);
(2) Deschler's Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives
(volumes 1 through 9), Deschler-Brown Precedents of the U.S. House of
Representatives (volumes 10 through 16), Deschler-Brown-Johnson
Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives (volume 17), and
Deschler-Brown-Johnson-Sullivan Precedents of the U.S. House of
Representatives (volume 18), by chapter and section (e.g., Deschler, ch.
26, Sec. 79.7; Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 4.26);
(3) Precedents of the U.S. House of Representatives (volumes 1
through 2), by Parliamentarian last name, chapter and section (e.g.,
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 1.1);
(4) the Congressional Record, by date and page (e.g., Jan. 29, 1986,
p. 684);
(5) House Practice (2017), by chapter and section (e.g., House
Practice, ch. 1, Sec. 2);
(6) Deschler-Brown Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives
(4th edition and 1987 supplement), by chapter and section (e.g.,
Procedure, ch. 5, Sec. 8.1);
(7) the United States Code, by title and section (e.g., 2 U.S.C.
287); and
(8) the United States Reports, by volume and page (e.g., 395 U.S.
486).
All of the members of the Office of the Parliamentarian - Anne
Gooch, Kyle T. Jones, Julia Cook, Ben Osheroff, Christina Reid, Lloyd
Jenkins, Kristen Donahue, and Matthew Kowalewski, as well as Charles
Johnson, Max Spitzer, Andrew Neal, Catherine Moran, and Bryan Feldblum -
worked diligently to annotate the decisions of the Chair and other
parliamentary precedents of the 116th Congress and of the 117th Congress
to the date of publication of this edition. Their contributions, and
their devotion to the pursuit of excellence in the procedural practices
of the House, are gratefully acknowledged.
[[Page [ix]]]
Finally, we take a moment to express our gratitude to Thomas J.
Wickham, Jr., not only for his significant contribution to this
publication but for his decades of service to the office. Tom's
immeasurable knowledge and adroit application of House procedure were
matched only by his reverence for the institution and his commitment to
mentorship. Like his predecessors, Tom has left an indelible mark on his
colleagues and on the procedure of the House.
Jay Smith
March 31, 2021
[[Page [xi]]]
CONTENTS
__________
THE CONSTITUTION
Page
Preamble.......................................................... 3
Article I.--The legislative power..................... 4
II.--The executive power....................... 68
III.--The judicial power........................ 81
IV.--Obligations, duties, etc., of the States.. 83
V.--Amendments to............................. 85
VI.--Law of the land, etc...................... 87
VII.--Ratification of........................... 92
Amendments ratified....................... 94
JEFFERSON'S MANUAL
Section I.--Importance of adhering to rules........... 129
III.--Privilege................................. 132
VI.--Quorum.................................... 153
VII.--Call of the House......................... 154
IX.--Speaker................................... 154
X.--Address................................... 157
XI.--Committees................................ 157
XII.--Committee of the Whole.................... 161
XIII.--Examination of witnesses.................. 170
XIV.--Arrangement of business................... 175
XV.--Order..................................... 176
XVI.--Order respecting papers................... 177
XVII.--Order in debate........................... 178
XVIII.--Orders of the House....................... 203
XIX.--Petition.................................. 207
XX.--Motion.................................... 208
XXI.--Resolutions............................... 209
XXIII.--Bills, leave to bring in.................. 211
XXIV.--Bills, first reading...................... 212
XXV.--Bills, second reading..................... 212
XXVI.--Bills, commitment......................... 213
XXVII.--Report of committee....................... 224
[[Page [xii]]]
Page
Section XXVIII.--Bill, recommitment........................ 225
XXIX.--Bills, reports taken up................... 226
XXX.--Quasi-committee........................... 228
XXXI.--Bill, second reading in the House......... 231
XXXII.--Reading papers............................ 234
XXXIII.--Privileged questions...................... 236
XXXIV.--The previous question..................... 249
XXXV.--Amendments................................ 251
XXXVI.--Division of the question.................. 260
XXXVII.--Coexisting questions...................... 263
XXXVIII.--Equivalent questions...................... 264
XXXIX.--The question.............................. 266
XL.--Bills, third reading...................... 267
XLI.--Division of the House..................... 271
XLII.--Titles.................................... 276
XLIII.--Reconsideration........................... 276
XLIV.--Bills sent to the other House............. 280
XLV.--Amendments between the Houses............. 281
XLVI.--Conferences............................... 291
XLVII.--Messages.................................. 304
XLVIII.--Assent.................................... 309
XLIX.--Journals.................................. 311
L.--Adjournment............................... 314
LI.--A session................................. 315
LII.--Treaties.................................. 319
LIII.--Impeachment............................... 322
RULES OF THE HOUSE
Rule I.--The Speaker............................... 345
II.--Other Officers and Officials.............. 371
III.--The Members, Delegates, and Resident
Commissioner of Puerto Rico............... 396
IV.--The Hall of the House..................... 401
V.--Broadcasting the House.................... 410
VI.--Official Reporters and News Media
Galleries................................. 412
VII.--Records of the House...................... 425
VIII.--Response to Subpoenas..................... 429
IX.--Questions of Privilege.................... 432
X.--Organization of Committees................ 454
XI.--Procedures of Committees and Unfinished
Business.................................. 567
XII.--Receipt and Referral of Measures and
Matters................................... 639
XIII.--Calendars and Committee Reports........... 655
XIV.--Order and Priority of Business............ 691
XV.--Business in Order on Special Days......... 701
[[Page [xiii]]]
Page
Rule XVI.--Motions and Amendments.................... 720
XVII.--Decorum and Debate........................ 776
XVIII.--The Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union........................ 809
XIX.--Motions Following the Amendment Stage..... 840
XX.--Voting and Quorum Calls................... 854
XXI.--Restrictions on Certain Bills............. 884
XXII.--House and Senate Relations................ 943
XXIII.--Code of Official Conduct.................. 970
XXIV.--Limitations on Use of Official Funds...... 987
XXV.--Limitations on Outside Earned Income and
Acceptance of Gifts....................... 992
XXVI.--Financial Disclosure...................... 1021
XXVII.--Disclosure by Members and Staff of
Employment Negotiations................... 1047
XXVIII.--Statutory Limit on the Public Debt........ 1048
XXIX.--General Provisions........................ 1051
Provisions of Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as Amended by the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, Applicable to Both Houses
Congressional adjournment......................................... 1057
Preservation of committee hearings................................ 1058
Joint and Select Committees
Economic Committee, Joint......................................... 1059
Taxation, Joint Committee on...................................... 1059
Library, Joint Committee of Congress on the....................... 1060
Printing, Joint Committee on...................................... 1060
Inaugural Ceremonies, Joint Congressional Committee on............ 1060
Select committees................................................. 1060
House and Congressional Offices
House Communications Standards Commission......................... 1063
House Office Building Commission.................................. 1063
Government Accountability Office.................................. 1063
Office of Congressional Workplace Rights.......................... 1063
Congressional Research Service.................................... 1064
Legislative Counsel............................................... 1064
Congressional Budget Office....................................... 1064
Law Revision Counsel.............................................. 1064
Technology Assessment............................................. 1064
Office of the Parliamentarian..................................... 1064
Speaker's Office for Legislative Floor Activities................. 1065
[[Page [xiv]]]
Page
Office of Interparliamentary Affairs.............................. 1065
House Recording Studio............................................ 1065
United States Capitol Preservation Commission..................... 1065
Office of General Counsel......................................... 1065
Former Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations. 1066
Office of Attending Physician..................................... 1066
Office of Architect of the Capitol................................ 1066
House Democracy Partnership....................................... 1066
Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission................................ 1066
Office of Congressional Ethics.................................... 1067
Early organization of the House................................... 1069
Miscellaneous Provisions of Congressional Budget Laws
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.................................. 1075
Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.................................... 1157
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010............................... 1161
Legislative Procedures Enacted in Law
Measures privileged for consideration in House.................... 1165
Index
Index............................................................. 1361
[
[[Page [xv]]]
GENERAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Rule XIV
First. Prayer by Chaplain.
Second. Approval of Journal.
Third. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Fourth. Correction of reference of public bills.
Fifth. Disposal of business on Speaker's table.
Sixth. Unfinished business.
Seventh. The morning hour for the consideration of bills.
Eighth. Motions to go into Committee of the Whole.
Ninth. Orders of the day.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mondays
Every Monday:
Motions to suspend rules. Rule XV, clause 1.
Tuesdays
First Tuesday:
Private Calendar. Rule XV, clause 5. Individual private bills
considered on first Tuesday of each month.
Every Tuesday:
Motions to suspend rules. Rule XV, clause 1.
Wednesdays
Call of Committees under Calendar Wednesday. Rule XV, clause 6.
Every Wednesday:
Motions to suspend rules. Rule XV, clause 1.
[[Page [1]]]
========================================================================
CONSTITUTION
========================================================================
[[Page [3]]]
__________
We the People <> of the United States, in
Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.
The First Continental <> Congress met in Philadelphia in September, 1774 and
adopted the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress,
embodying rights and principles later to be incorporated into the
Constitution of the United States. The Second Continental Congress
adopted in November, 1777 the Articles of Confederation, which the
States approved in July, 1778. Upon recommendation of the Continental
Congress, a convention of State representatives met in May, 1787 to
revise the Articles of Confederation and reported to the Continental
Congress in September a new Constitution, which the Congress submitted
to the States for ratification. Nine States, as required by the
Constitution for its establishment, had ratified by June 21, 1788, and
eleven States had ratified by July 26, 1788. The Continental Congress
adopted a resolution on September 13, 1788, putting the new Constitution
into effect; the First Congress of the United States convened on March
4, 1789, and George Washington was inaugurated as the first President on
April 30, 1789.
[[Page [4]]]
ARTICLE I.
Section 1. All <> legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House
of Representatives.
The power to legislate includes the power to conduct inquiries and
investigations. See Kilbourn v. <> Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880); McGrain v. Daugherty, 273
U.S. 135 (1927); Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957);
Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959). The Chair cannot
unilaterally grant a request for an investigation (Jan. 12, 2017, p. _).
For the power of the House to punish for contempt in the course of
investigations, see Sec. 293, infra.
<> Section 2. \1\The House of Representatives shall be composed
of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,
* * *
This clause requires election by the people and State authority may
not determine a tie by lot (I, 775).
The phrase ``by the people of the several States'' means that as
nearly as practicable one person's vote in a congressional election is
to be worth as much as another's. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1
(1964); Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526 (1969). 2 U.S.C. 2a
mandates apportionment of Representatives based upon population, and 2
U.S.C. 2c requires the establishment by the States of single-Member
congressional districts. For elections generally, see Deschler, ch. 8.
The term of a <> Congress, before
ratification of the 20th amendment to the Constitution, began on the 4th
of March of odd-numbered years and extended through two years. This
resulted from the action of the Continental Congress on September 13,
1788, in declaring, on authority conferred by the Federal Convention,
``the first Wednesday in March next'' to be ``the time for commencing
proceedings under the said Constitution.'' This date was March 4, 1789.
Soon after the first Congress assembled a joint committee determined
that the terms of Representatives and Senators of the first class
commenced on that day, and must necessarily terminate with the 3d of
March, 1791 (I, 3). Under the 20th amendment to the Constitution the
terms of Representatives and Senators begin on the 3d of January of the
odd-numbered years, regardless of when Congress actually convenes. By a
practice having the force of common law, the House meets at noon when
[[Page [5]]]
no other hour is fixed (I, 4, 210). In the later practice a resolution
fixing the daily hour of meeting is agreed to at the beginning of each
session.
Before adoption of the 20th amendment, the legislative day of March 3
extended to noon on March 4 (V, 6694-6697) and, unless earlier
adjourned, the Speaker could at that time declare the House adjourned
sine die, without motion or vote, even to the point of suspending a roll
call then in progress (V, 6715-6718).
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) provides
that unless Congress otherwise specifies the two Houses shall adjourn
sine die not later than the last day in July. This requirement is not
applicable, under the terms of that Act, if a state of war exists
pursuant to a congressional declaration or if, in an odd-numbered
(nonelection) year, the Congress has agreed to adjourn for the month
preceding Labor Day. For more on this provision, see Sec. 1106, infra.
<> * * * and
the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for
Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
The House, in the decision of an election case, has rejected votes
cast by persons not naturalized citizens of the United States, although
they were entitled to vote under the statutes of a State (I, 811); but
where an act of Congress had provided that a certain class of persons
should be deprived of citizenship, a question arose over the proposed
rejection of their votes in a State wherein citizenship in the United
States was not a qualification of the elector (I, 451). In an
exceptional case the House rejected votes cast by persons lately in
armed resistance to the Government, although by the law of the State
they were qualified voters (I, 448); but later, the House declined to
find persons disqualified as voters because they had formerly borne arms
against the Government (II, 879).
The power <> of the States to
set qualifications for electors is not unlimited, being subject to the
15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments, and to the equal protection
clause of the United States Constitution. Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S.
89 (1965); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969).
Congress has some power in setting qualifications for electors, as in
protecting the right to vote and lowering the minimum age for electors
in congressional elections. Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966);
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).
<> \2\No
Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained
to the Age of twenty five Years, * * *
[[Page [6]]]
A Member-elect not being of the required age, was not enrolled by the
Clerk and he did not take the oath until he had reached the required age
(I, 418).
<> * * *
and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, * * *
Henry Ellenbogen, Pa., had not been a citizen for seven years when
elected to the 73d Congress, nor when the term commenced on March 4,
1933. He was sworn at the beginning of the second session on January 3,
1934, when a citizen for seven and one-half years (see H. Rept. 1431 and
H. Res. 370, 73d Cong.). A native of South Carolina who had been abroad
during the Revolution and on his return had not resided in the country
seven years, was held to be qualified as a citizen (I, 420). A woman who
forfeited her citizenship through marriage to a foreign subject and
later resumed it through naturalization less than seven years before her
election, was held to fulfill the constitutional requirement as to
citizenship and entitled to a seat in the House (VI, 184). A Member who
had long been a resident of the country, but who could not produce
either the record of the court nor his final naturalization papers, was
nevertheless retained in his seat by the House (I, 424).
<> * * *
and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which
he shall be chosen.
The meaning of the word ``inhabitant'' and its relation to citizenship
has been discussed (I, 366, 434; VI, 174), and the House has held that a
mere sojourner in a State was not qualified as an inhabitant (I, 369),
but a contestant was found to be an actual inhabitant of the State
although for sufficient reason his family resided in another State (II,
1091). Residence abroad in the service of the Government does not
destroy inhabitancy as understood under the Constitution (I, 433). One
holding an office and residing with his family for a series of years in
the District of Columbia exclusively was held disqualified to sit as a
Member from the State of his citizenship (I, 434); and one who had his
business and a residence in the District of Columbia and had no business
or residence in Virginia was held ineligible to a seat from that State
(I, 436). One who had a home in the District of Columbia, and had
inhabited another home in Maryland a brief period before his election,
but had never been a citizen of any other State, was held to be
qualified (I, 432). Also a Member who had resided a portion of a year in
the District of Columbia, but who had a home in the State of his
citizenship and was actually living there at the time of the election,
was held to be qualified (I, 435). In the Updike v. Ludlow case, 71st
Congress, it was decided that residence in the District of Colum
[[Page [7]]]
bia for years as a newspaper correspondent and maintenance there of
church membership were not considered to outweigh payment of poll and
income taxes, ownership of real estate, and a record for consistent
voting in the district from which elected (VI, 55), and in the same case
excuse from jury duty in the District of Columbia on a plea of
citizenship in the State from which elected and exercise of incidental
rights of such citizenship, were accepted as evidence of inhabitancy
(VI, 55).
Whether Congress <> may by law establish qualifications
other than those prescribed by the Constitution has been the subject of
much discussion (I, 449, 451, 457, 458, 478); but in a case wherein a
statute declared a Senator convicted of a certain offense ``forever
thereafter incapable of holding any office of honor, trust, or profit
under the Government of the United States,'' the Supreme Court expressed
the opinion that the final judgment of conviction did not operate, ipso
facto, to vacate the seat or compel the Senate to expel or regard the
Senator as expelled by force alone of the judgment (II, 1282). Whether
the House or Senate alone may set up qualifications other than those of
the Constitution has also been a subject often discussed (I, 414, 415,
443, 457, 458, 469, 481, 484). The Senate has always declined to act on
the supposition that it had such a power (I, 443, 483), and during the
stress of civil war the House of Representatives declined to exercise
the power, even under circumstances of great provocation (I, 449, 465).
But later, in one instance, the House excluded a Member-elect on the
principal argument that it might itself prescribe a qualification not
specified in the Constitution (I, 477). The matter was extensively
debated in the 90th Congress in connection with the consideration of
resolutions relating to the seating of Representative-elect Adam C.
Powell of New York (H. Res. 1, Jan. 10, 1967, p. 14; H. Res. 278, Mar.
1, 1967, p. 4997). In Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), the
Supreme Court found that the power of Congress to judge the
qualifications of its Members was limited to an examination of the
express qualifications stated in the Constitution.
It has been decided by the House and Senate that no State may add to
the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution (I, 414-416, 632); and
the Supreme Court so ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thornton, 514
U.S. 779 (1995). There, the Court held that States may not ``change, add
to, or diminish'' constitutional qualifications of Members, striking
down a State statute prohibiting three-term incumbents from appearing on
the general election ballot. For qualifications generally, see Deschler,
ch. 7, Sec. Sec. 9-14.
For expulsion of seated Members, which requires a two-thirds vote
rather than a majority vote, see article I, section 5, clause 2
(Sec. 62, infra).
[[Page [8]]]
Both Houses of <> Congress have decided, when a Member-
elect is found to be disqualified, that the person receiving the next
highest number of votes is not entitled to the seat (I, 323, 326, 450,
463, 469; VI, 58, 59), even in a case wherein reasonable notice of the
disqualification was given to the electors (I, 460). In the event of the
death of a Member-elect, the candidate receiving the next highest number
of votes is not entitled to the seat (VI, 152).
\3\[Representatives and direct <> Taxes shall be
apportioned among the several States which may be included within this
Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined
by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to
Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three
fifths of all other Persons.] * * *
The part of this clause relating to the mode of apportionment of
Representatives was changed after the Civil War by section 2 of the 14th
amendment and, as to taxes on incomes without apportionment, by the 16th
amendment.
* * * The actual <> Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the
first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every
subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law
direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every
thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;
and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire
shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode- Island and
Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey
four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland
[[Page [9]]]
six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia
three.
The census has been taken decennially since 1790, and, with the
exception of 1920, was followed each time by reapportionment. In the
First Congress the House had 65 Members; increased after each census,
except that of 1840, until 435 was reached in 1913 (VI, 39, 40). The Act
of June 18, 1929 (46 Stat. 26), as amended by the Act of November 15,
1941 (55 Stat. 761), provides for reapportionment of the existing number
(435) among the States following each new census (VI, 41-43; see 2
U.S.C. 2a). Membership was temporarily increased to 436, then to 437,
upon admission of Alaska (72 Stat. 345) and Hawaii (73 Stat. 8), but
returned to 435 on January 3, 1963, the effective date of the
reapportionment under the 18th Decennial census.
Under the later but not the earlier practice, bills relating to the
census and apportionment are not privileged for consideration (I, 305-
308; VI, 48, VII, 889; Apr. 8, 1926, p. 7147).
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.)
393 (1857); Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 533 (1869); Scholey
v. Rew, 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 331 (1874); De Treville v. Smalls, 98 U.S.
517 (1878); Gibbons v. District of Columbia, 116 U.S. 404 (1886);
Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (Income Tax case), 157 U.S. 429
(1895); Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (Rehearing), 158 U.S. 601
(1895); Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363 (1904); Flint v. Stone
Tracy Co. (Corporation Tax cases), 220 U.S. 107 (1911); Eisner v.
Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920); New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S.
345 (1921); Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992); Utah v.
Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002).
\4\When vacancies <> happen in the Representation from any State, the
Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such
Vacancies.
Vacancies are caused by death, resignation, declination, withdrawal,
or by action of the House in declaring a vacancy as existing or causing
one by expulsion. When a vacancy occurs, or when a new Member is sworn,
the Speaker announces the resulting adjustment in the whole number of
the House pursuant to clause 5(d) of rule XX (see Sec. 1024b, infra).
Clause 5(c) of rule XX permits the House to operate with a provisional
number of the House if the House is without a quorum due to catastrophic
circumstances (see Sec. 1024a, infra). In extraordinary circumstances,
section 8 of title 2, United States Code, prescribes special election
rules to expedite the filling of vacancies in representation of the
House.
[[Page [10]]]
It was long the <> practice to
notify the executive of the State when a vacancy was caused by the death
of a Member during a session (II, 1198-1202); but it is now the practice
for State authorities to take cognizance of the vacancies without
notice. When a Member dies while not in attendance in the House or
during a recess, the House is sufficiently informed of the vacancy by
the credentials of the successor, when they set forth the fact of the
death (I, 568). The death of a Member-elect creates a vacancy, although
no certificate may have been awarded (I, 323), and in such a case the
candidate having the next highest number of votes may not receive the
credentials (I, 323; VI 152). The Clerk announces any vacancy created by
the death of a Member-elect following the call of the roll at the
beginning of a Congress (Jan. 3, 2021, p. _). A Member whose seat was
contested having died, the House did not admit a claimant with
credentials until contestant's claim was settled (I, 326); where a
contestant died after a report in his favor, the House unseated the
returned Member and declared the seat vacant (II, 965), and in a later
case the contestant having died, the committee did not recommend to the
House a resolution it had agreed to declaring he had not been elected
(VI, 112). In the 93d Congress, when two Members-elect were passengers
on a missing aircraft and were presumed dead, the Speaker laid before
the House documentary evidence of the presumptive death of one Member-
elect and the declaration of a vacancy by the Governor, as well as
evidence that the status of the other Member-elect had not been
officially determined by State authority. The House then adopted a
privileged resolution declaring vacant the seat of the latter Member-
elect to enable the Governor of that State to call a special election
(Jan. 3, 1973, p. 15). For further discussion, see Sec. 23, infra.
In recent practice <> the
Member informs the House by letter that a resignation has been sent to
the State executive (II, 1167-1176) and this is satisfactory evidence of
the resignation (I, 567). Both a letter to the Speaker and a copy of the
letter to the State executive are laid before the House. However,
Members have resigned by letter to the House alone, it being presumed
that the Member would also notify the Governor (VI, 226). Where a Member
resigned by letter to the House the Speaker was authorized to notify the
Governor (Nov. 27, 1944, p. 8450; July 12, 1957, p. 11536; Sept. 1,
1976, p. 28887). If a Member does not inform the House, the State
executive may do so (II, 1193, 1194; VI, 232). The House has learned of
a Member's resignation by means of the credentials of the successor (II,
1195, 1356). Where the fact of a Member's resignation has not appeared
either from the credentials of the successor or otherwise, the Clerk has
been ordered to make inquiry (II, 1209) or the House has ascertained the
vacancy from information given by other Members (II, 1208).
It has been established that a Member or Senator may select a future
date for a resignation to take effect and, until the arrival of that
date, participate in the proceedings (II, 1220-1225, 1228, 1229; VI,
227, 228;
[[Page [11]]]
Dec. 15, 1997, p. 26709; June 5, 2001, p. 9882; Nov. 27, 2001, p. 23006;
Jan. 27, 2003, pp. 1750, 1751). It has been possible even for a Member
to resign a seat in the House to be effective on a date following the
anticipated date of a special election that might fill the vacancy
thereby created (Deschler, ch. 8, Sec. 9.3). However, the State
concerned must be willing to treat the prospective resignation as a
constitutional predicate for the issuance of a writ of election to fill
a vacancy. For examples of resignation letters indicating that the State
executive took cognizance of a prospective resignation, see January 8,
1952 (p. 14) (New York); July 9, 1991 (p. 17301) (Virginia); June 5,
2001 (p. 9882) (Florida), and January 27, 2003 (p. 1751) (Texas). When
the Governor of Oklahoma received a prospective resignation from one of
its Members, the State provided by statute (enrolled Senate Bill Number
7X) for the holding of a special election before the effective date of
the resignation (Feb. 28, 2002, p. 2245).
For the State to take cognizance of a prospective resignation, it must
have assurances that there is no possibility of withdrawal (or
modification). In one case a Member who had resigned was not permitted
by the House to withdraw the resignation (II, 1213). However, the House
has allowed withdrawal in the case of defective resignation; that is, in
which the Member had not actually transmitted the letter of resignation
(VI, 229), or had transmitted it to an improper state official (Oct. 9,
1997, p. 22020). A Member may include in a letter of prospective
resignation a statement of intention that the resignation be
``irrevocable'' in order to allay any concern about the prospect of
withdrawal (June 5, 2001, p. 9882).
Acceptance of the resignation of a Member from the House is
unnecessary (VI, 65, 226), and the refusal of a Governor to accept a
resignation cannot operate to continue membership in the House (VI, 65).
Only in a single exceptional case has the House taken action in the
direction of accepting a resignation (II, 1214). Sometimes Members who
have resigned have been reelected to the same House and taken seats (II,
1210, 1212, 1256; Jan. 28, 1965 and June 16, 1965, pp. 1452, 13774; Jan.
6, 1983 and Feb. 22, 1983, pp. 114, 2575). A Member-elect may resign
before taking the oath (II, 1230-1232).
A letter of resignation is presented as privileged (II, 1167-1176);
but a resolution to permit a Member to withdraw a resignation was not so
treated (II, 1213). The Speaker, having been elected Vice President and
a Representative of the succeeding Congress at the same election,
transmitted to the Governor of his State his resignation as a Member-
elect (VI, 230, 453). A Member of the House, having been nominated and
confirmed as Vice President pursuant to the 25th amendment, submitted a
letter of resignation as a Representative to the Governor of his State,
and a copy of his letter of resignation was laid before the House by the
Speaker following the completion of a joint meeting for his swearing as
Vice President (Dec. 6, 1973, p. 39927).
[[Page [12]]]
A Member who <> has been
elected to a seat may decline to accept it, and in such a case the House
informed the executive of the State of the vacancy (II, 1234). The House
has decided an election contest against a returned Member who had not
appeared to claim the seat (I, 638). In one instance a Member-elect who
had been convicted in the courts did not appear during the term (IV,
4484, footnote). On November 7, 1998, less than a week after his re-
election as Representative from Georgia, Speaker Gingrich announced that
he would not be a candidate for Speaker in the 106th Congress and that
he would resign his seat as a Member of the 106th Congress. Although the
letter of ``withdrawal'' was tendered on November 22, the Governor did
not attempt to call a special election until after the term began on
January 3, 1999 (Jan. 6, 1999, p. 42). A Member has notified the Speaker
and the Governor in one Congress of an intention not to take a seat in
the next Congress (Jan. 6, 2009, pp. 2, 3; Jan. 3, 2013, p. 21; Jan. 3,
2013, p. 21; Jan. 6, 2015, p. 29).
At the time <> of the secession
of several States, Members of the House from those States withdrew (II,
1218). In the Senate, in cases of such withdrawals, the Secretary was
directed to omit the names of the Senators from the roll (II, 1219), and
the act of withdrawal was held to create a vacancy that the legislature
might recognize (I, 383).
If the House, <> by
its action in a question of election or otherwise, creates a vacancy,
the Speaker is directed to notify the Executive of the State (I, 502,
709, 824; II, 1203-1205; Mar. 1, 1967, p. 5038; Jan. 3, 1973, p. 15;
Feb. 24, 1981, pp. 2916-18). A resolution as to such notification is
presented as a question of privilege (III, 2589), as is a resolution
declaring a vacancy in which a Member-elect was unable to take the oath
of office or to decline the office because of an incapacitating illness
(Feb. 24, 1981, pp. 2916-18).
A vacancy exists <> where the Clerk does not receive a certificate of election
from a State and there is no election contest or any person seeking to
be sworn as a Member, and the Clerk announces such lack of certification
when announcing the official roll of Members immediately prior to the
call of the roll at the beginning of a Congress (Jan. 3, 2019, p. _;
Jan. 3, 2021, p. _). On opening day of the 116th Congress the Clerk
announced that no certificate of election had been received from the
state of North Carolina with respect to its Ninth Congressional District
and therefore only 434 certificates of election had been received (Jan.
3, 2019, p. _). No election contest was filed and no person sought to
take the oath of office. Soon thereafter, the state ordered a special
election for the district and a letter from the state board of elections
informing the Clerk of the dates of such election was laid before the
House (Mar. 14, 2019, p. _). On the opening day of the 117th Congress
the Clerk announced that no certificate of election had been received
from the state of New York with respect to its Twenty-Second
[[Page [13]]]
Congressional District and therefore only 434 certificates of election
had been received (Jan. 3, 2021, p. _). Soon thereafter, the state of
New York certified the election results for its Twenty-Second
Congressional District and the Member-elect appeared in the Chamber to
take the oath of office (Feb. 11, 2021, p. _).
The House declines <> to give prima facie effect to credentials, even though they
be regular in form, until it has ascertained whether or not the seat is
vacant (I, 322, 518, 565, 569), and a person returned as elected at a
second election was unseated on ascertainment that another person had
actually been chosen at the first election (I, 646). Where a Member was
reelected to the House, although at the time of the election he had been
unaccounted for for several weeks following the disappearance of the
plane on which he was a passenger, the Governor of the State from which
he was elected transmitted his certificate to the House in the regular
fashion. When the Member-elect was still missing at the time the new
Congress convened, and circumstances were such that other passengers on
the missing plane had been presumed dead following judicial inquiries in
the State where the plane was lost, the House declared the seat vacant
(H. Res. 1, 93d Cong., Jan. 3, 1973, p. 15). In the 108th Congress the
House codified in clause 5 of rule XX its practice of accounting for
vacancies (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7).
The term ``vacancy'' <> as occurring in this paragraph of the
Constitution has been examined in relation to the functions of the State
executive (I, 312, 518). A Federal law empowers the States and
Territories to provide by law the times of elections to fill vacancies
(I, 516; 2 U.S.C. 8); but an election called by a governor in pursuance
of constitutional authority was held valid although no State law
prescribed the time, place, or manner of such election (I, 517). Where
two candidates had an equal number of votes, the governor did not issue
credentials to either, but ordered a new election after they had waived
their respective claims (I, 555). A candidate elected for the 104th
Congress was appointed by the Governor to fill a vacancy for the
remainder of the 103d Congress pursuant to a State law requiring the
Governor to appoint the candidate who won the election to the 104th
Congress. In that case the House authorized the Speaker to administer
the oath to the Member-elect and referred the question of his final
right to the seat in the 103d Congress to the Committee on House
Administration (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 3.9). For a discussion
of a State election to fill a prospective vacancy of the House, see
Sec. 19, supra.
<> A
Member elected to fill a vacancy serves no longer time than the
remainder of the term of the Member whose place he fills (I, 3). For the
compensation and allowances of such Members, see Sec. 87, infra.
[[Page [14]]]
<> \5\The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker
and other Officers; * * *
The officers of the House are the Speaker, who has always been one of
its Members and whose term as Speaker must expire with the term as a
Member; and the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief Administrative Officer,
and Chaplain (I, 187), no one of whom has ever been chosen from the
sitting membership of the House and who continue in office until their
successors are chosen and qualified (I, 187). In one case the officers
continued through the entire Congress succeeding that in which they were
elected (I, 244, 263). Former officers include Doorkeeper (abolished by
the 104th Congress, see Sec. 663b, infra) and Postmaster (abolished
during the 102d Congress, see Sec. 668, infra). The House formerly
provided by special rule that the Clerk should continue in office until
another should be chosen (I, 187, 188, 235, 244). Currently, certain
statutes impose on the officers duties that contemplate their
continuance (I, 14, 15; 2 U.S.C. 5602).
The Speaker, who <> was at
first elected by ballot, has been chosen viva voce by surname in
response to a call of the roll since 1839 (I, 187). The Speaker is
elected by a majority of Members-elect voting by surname, a quorum being
present (I, 216; VI, 24; Jan. 7, 1997, p. 117). Because the House is
composed of Members elected by the people of the several States, and
because the House elects its Speaker, the Delegates-elect and the
Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico are not constitutionally
qualified to vote in the House for Speaker (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1,
Sec. 4.2; Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). The Clerk appoints tellers for this
election (I, 217). Ultimately, the House, and not the Clerk, decides by
what method it shall elect the Speaker (I, 210). On two occasions, by
special rules, Speakers were chosen by a plurality of votes; but in each
case the House by majority vote adopted a resolution declaring the
result (I, 221, 222). The House has declined to choose a Speaker by lot
(I, 221).
The motion to proceed to the election of a Speaker is privileged (I,
212, 214; VIII, 3383), and debatable unless the previous question is
ordered (I, 213). Relying on the Act of June 1, 1789 (2 U.S.C. 25), the
Clerk recognized for nominations for Speaker as being of higher
constitutional privilege than a resolution to postpone the election of a
Speaker and instead provide for the election of a Speaker pro tempore
pending the disposition of certain ethics charges against the nominee of
the majority party (Jan. 7, 1997, p. 115). On several occasions the
choice of a Speaker has been delayed for several weeks by contests (I,
222; V, 5356, 6647, 6649; VI, 24). The contest over the election of a
Speaker in 1923 was resolved after a procedure for the adoption of rules
for the 68th Congress had been presented (VI, 24). In 1860 the voting
for Speaker proceeded slowly, being interspersed with debate (I, 223),
and in one instance the House asked
[[Page [15]]]
candidates for Speaker to state their views before proceeding to
election (I, 218).
A proposition <> to elect a Speaker is in order at any time a vacancy exists
and presents a question of the highest privilege (VIII, 3383). In the
108th Congress the House adopted clause 8(b)(3) of rule I, under which
the Speaker is required to deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the
order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore in the case of a
vacancy in the Office of Speaker (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p.
7). The Speaker delivered to the Clerk the first such letter on February
10, 2003 (Mar. 13, 2003, p. 6118). A resolution declaring vacant the
Office of Speaker is presented as a matter of high constitutional
privilege (VI, 35), but in the 116th Congress the House adopted clause
2(a)(3) of rule IX, providing that such a resolution only constitutes a
question of the privileges of the House if offered by direction of a
party caucus or conference (sec. 102(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
Upon a vacancy in the Office of Speaker, the House elects a new Speaker
either viva voce following nominations (in the case in which a Speaker
has died between sessions of Congress or resigned) or by resolution (in
the case in which a Speaker has died during a session of Congress). For
example, in the case in which the Speaker had died between sessions of
Congress, the Clerk at the next session called the House to order,
ascertained the presence of a quorum, and then the House proceeded to
elect a successor viva voce following nominations (I, 234; Jan. 10,
1962, p. 5). In a case in which the Speaker died during a session of
Congress, but not while the House was sitting, the Clerk on the
following day called the House to order and the Speaker's successor was
elected by resolution (June 4, 1936, p. 9016; Sept. 16, 1940, p. 12231).
Form of resolution offered on death of a Speaker (Sept. 16, 1940, p.
12232; Jan. 10, 1962, p. 9) and of a former Speaker (VIII, 3564; Mar. 7,
1968, p. 5742; H. Res. 328, Jan. 25, 1994, p. 89; H. Res. 418, Feb. 8,
2000, p. 834; H. Res. 383, Oct. 22, 2013, p. 16056; H. Res. 254, May 12,
2015, pp. 6455, 6492).
Speakers have resigned by addressing the House (I, 231, 233;
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 1.2), by calling a Member to the Chair
and tendering the resignation verbally from the floor (I, 225), by
tendering the resignation during recognition under a question of
personal privilege (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 7.4), or by
sending a letter that the Clerk reads to the House at the beginning of a
new session (I, 232). In cases in which a Speaker resigned ``on the
election of my successor'' (May 31, 1989, p. 10440; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 1.2), he entertained nominations for Speaker and,
following the roll call, declared the winner of the election ``duly
elected Speaker'' (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 4.6; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 1.2). In one instance a Speaker resigned on the
last day of the Congress, and the House unanimously adopted a motion to
elect a successor for the day (I, 225). When the Speaker resigns no
action of the House excusing him from service is taken (I, 232).
Instance wherein the Speaker, following a vote upon an essential
question indicating a
[[Page [16]]]
change in the party control of the House, announced that under the
circumstances it was incumbent upon the Speaker to resign or to
recognize for a motion declaring vacant the Office of Speaker (VI, 35).
In the 108th Congress the House adopted clause 8(b)(3) of rule I,
under which the Speaker is required to deliver to the Clerk a list of
Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore in
the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). The Speaker delivered to the Clerk the first such
letter on February 10, 2003 (Mar. 13, 2003, p. 6118).
<> The effect of a law to regulate the action of the House in
choosing its own officers has been discussed (IV, 3819), and such a law
has been considered of doubtful validity (V, 6765, 6766) in theory and
practice (I, 241, 242). The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2
U.S.C. 5501) authorizes the Speaker to fill temporary vacancies in the
offices of Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief Administrative Officer, and
Chaplain. For a history of the Speaker's exercise of such authority, see
Sec. 640, infra; and, for further information on the elections of
officers, see Deschler, ch. 6.
<> It has
been held that the Act of June 1, 1789 (2 U.S.C. 25) binds the House to
elect a Clerk before proceeding to business (I, 237, 241; contrast, I,
242, 244). When a vacancy arises in the Office of Clerk during a
session, business has intervened before the election of a new Clerk (I,
239).
* * * <> and
[the House of Representatives] shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
In 1868 the Senate ceased in its rules to describe the House, acting
in an impeachment, as the ``grand inquest of the nation'' (III, 2126).
See also art. II, sec. 4 (Sec. 173, infra); Deschler, ch. 14.
A Federal court having subpoenaed certain evidence gathered by a
committee of the House in an impeachment inquiry, the House adopted a
resolution granting such limited access to the evidence as would not
infringe upon its sole power of impeachment (Aug. 22, 1974, p. 30047).
Until the law expired on June 30, 1999, an independent counsel was
required to advise the House of any substantial and credible information
that may constitute grounds for impeachment of an officer under
investigation (28 U.S.C. 595(c)). For a description of impeachment
proceedings prompted by a communication from an independent counsel, see
Sec. 176, infra.
Section 3. \1\[The Senate <> of the United States shall be composed of two Senators
from each State, chosen by the Leg
[[Page [17]]]
islature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.]
This provision was changed by the 17th amendment.
\2\Immediately <> after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first
Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes.
The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the
Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of
the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of
the <> sixth Year,
so that one-third may be chosen every second Year; [and if Vacancies
happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the
Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary
Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then
fill such Vacancies.]
That part of the above paragraph in brackets was changed by the 17th
amendment.
\3\No Person <> shall be a
Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been
nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
In 1794 the Senate decided that Albert Gallatin was disqualified, not
having been a citizen nine years although he had served in the war of
Independence and was a resident of the country when the Constitution was
formed (I, 428); and in 1849 that James Shields was disqualified, not
having been a citizen for the required time (I, 429). But in 1870 the
Senate declined to examine as to H. R. Revels, a citizen under the
recently adopted 14th amendment (I, 430). As to inhabitancy the Senate
seated one who, being a citizen of the United States, had been an
inhabitant of the State
[[Page [18]]]
from which he was appointed for less than a year (I, 437). Also one who,
while stationed in a State as an army officer had declared his intention
of making his home in the State, was admitted by the Senate (I, 438). A
Senator who at the time of his election was actually residing in the
District of Columbia as an officeholder, but who voted in his old home
and had no intent of making the District his domicile, was held to be
qualified (I, 439).
\4\The Vice <> President
of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no
Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The right of the Vice President to vote has been construed to extend
to questions relating to the organization of the Senate (V, 5975), the
election of officers of the Senate (V, 5972-5974), the title of a
claimant to a seat (V, 5976, 5977), or the confirmation of a Cabinet
nominee (Feb. 6, 2017, p. _). The Senate has declined to make a rule
relating to the vote of the Vice President (V, 5974).
<> \5\The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and
also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or
when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
In the 107th Congress the Senate elected two Presidents of the Senate
pro tempore for different periods when the majority of the Senate
shifted after inauguration of the Vice President (S. Res. 3, Jan. 3,
2001, p. 7).
- \6\The Senate <> shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.
When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice
shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence
of two thirds of the Members present.
For the exclusive power of the Senate to try impeachment under the
United States Constitution, see Ritter v. United States, 84 Ct. Cl. 293
(1936), cert. denied, 300 U.S. 668 (1937). See also Mississippi v.
Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475 (1867) (dictum). For the
nonjusticiability of a claim
[[Page [19]]]
that a Senate impeachment rule (XI) violates the impeachment trial
clause by delegating to a committee of 12 Senators the responsibility to
receive evidence, hear testimony, and report to the Senate thereon, see
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). For a discussion of Senate
impeachment procedures, see Sec. Sec. 608-20, infra.
\7\Judgment in <> Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office
of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial,
Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
There has been discussion as to whether or not the Constitution
requires both removal and disqualification on conviction (III, 2397);
but in the case of Pickering, the Senate decreed only removal (III,
2341). In the case of Humphreys, judgment of both removal and
disqualification was pronounced (III, 2397). In the Ritter case, it was
first held that upon conviction of the respondent, judgment of removal
required no vote, following automatically from conviction under article
II, section 4 (Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5607). In the 99th Congress, having
tried to conviction the first impeachment case against a Federal
district judge since 1936, the Senate ordered his removal from office
(Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29870). In the 101st Congress, two other Federal
district judges were removed from office following their convictions in
the Senate (Oct. 20, 1989, p. 25335; Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27101). In the
111th Congress, a Federal district judge was removed from office
following his conviction in the Senate (Dec. 8, 2010, p. 19349). For a
further discussion of judgments in cases of impeachment, see Sec. 619,
infra.
Section 4. \1\The Times, <> Places and Manner of
holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed
in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any
time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the places of
chusing Senators.
The relative powers of the Congress and the States under this
paragraph have been the subject of much discussion (I, 311, 313, 507,
footnote); but
[[Page [20]]]
Congress has in fact fixed by law the time of elections (I, 508; VI, 66;
2 U.S.C. 7), and has controlled the manner to the extent of prescribing
a ballot or voting machine (II, 961; VI, 150; 2 U.S.C. 9). When a State
delegated to a municipality the power to regulate the manner of holding
an election, a question arose (II, 975). A question has arisen as to
whether or not a State, in the absence of action by Congress, might make
the time of election of Members of Congress contingent on the time of
the State election (I, 522). This paragraph gives Congress the power to
protect the right to vote in primaries in which they are an integral
part of the election process. United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396
(1930); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). Congress may
legislate under this paragraph to protect the exercise of the franchise
in congressional elections. Ex parte Siebolt, 100 U.S. 371 (1880); Ex
parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884).
The meaning of <> the word ``legislature'' in this
clause of the Constitution has been the subject of discussion (II, 856),
as to whether or not it means a constitutional convention as well as a
legislature in the commonly accepted meaning of the word (I, 524). The
House has sworn in Members chosen at an election the time, etc., of
which was fixed by the schedule of a constitution adopted on that
election day (I, 519, 520, 522). But the House held that where a
legislature has been in existence a constitutional convention might not
exercise the power (I, 363, 367). It has been argued generally that the
legislature derives the power herein discussed from the Federal and not
the State Constitution (II, 856, 947), and therefore that the State
constitution might not in this respect control the State legislature
(II, 1133). The House has sustained this view by its action (I, 525).
But where the State constitution fixed a date for an election and the
legislature had not acted, although it had the opportunity, the House
held the election valid (II, 846). Title III of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2006, amended Federal election law to require States
to hold special elections for the House within 49 days after a vacancy
is announced by the Speaker in the extraordinary circumstance that
vacancies in representation from the States exceed 100 (P.L. 109-55; 2
U.S.C. 8).
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1880); Ex
parte Clark, 100 U.S. 399 (1880); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651
(1884); In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731 (1888); Ohio v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565
(1916); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915); United States v.
Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476 (1917); Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232
(1921); Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932); United States v. Classic,
313 U.S. 299 (1941); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944); Roudebush
v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974);
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976); U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thorton,
514 U.S. 779 (1995); and Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997). In Public
Law 91-
[[Page [21]]]
285, Congress lowered the minimum age of voters in all Federal, State,
and local elections from 21 to 18 years. In Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S.
112 (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the power of Congress under article
I, section 4 and under section 5 of the 14th amendment to the
Constitution to fix the age of voters in Federal elections, but held
that the 10th amendment to the Constitution reserved to the States the
power to establish voter age qualifications in State and local
elections. The 26th amendment to the Constitution extended the right of
persons 18 years of age or older to vote in elections held under State
authority.
\2\[The Congress <> shall
assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the
first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different
Day.]
This provision has been superseded by the 20th amendment.
In the later but not the earlier practice (I, 5), before the 20th
amendment, the fact that Congress had met once within the year did not
make uncertain the constitutional mandate to meet on the first Monday of
December (I, 6, 9-11). Early Congresses, convened either by proclamation
or law on a day earlier than the constitutional day, remained in
continuous session to a time beyond that day (I, 6, 9-11). But in the
later view an existing session ends with the day appointed by the
Constitution for the regular annual session (II, 1160); see Sec. 84,
infra. Congress has frequently appointed by law a day for the meeting
(I, 4, 5, 10-12, footnote; see also Sec. 243, infra).
Section 5. \1\Each <> House shall be the Judge of the
Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, * * *
In judging the qualifications of its Members, the House may not add
qualifications to those expressly stated in the United States
Constitution. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). This phrase
allows the House or Senate to deny the right to a seat without
unlawfully depriving a State of its right to equal representation. Barry
v. United States ex rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929). But a State
may conduct a recount of votes without interfering with the authority of
the House under this phrase. Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972).
For discussion of the power of the House to judge elections, see
Deschler, ch. 8 (elections) and ch. 9 (election contests); for
discussion of the power of the House to judge qualifications, see
Deschler, ch. 7.
The House has the same authority to determine the right of a Delegate
to a seat that it has in the case of a Member (I, 423). The House may
not delegate the duty of judging its elections to another tribunal (I,
608),
[[Page [22]]]
and the courts of a State have no role in such matters (II, 959). The
House has once examined the relations of this power to the power to
expel (I, 469).
As nearly all <> the laws governing the elections of
Representatives in Congress are State laws, questions have often arisen
as to the relation of this power of judging to those laws (I, 637). The
House decided very early that the certificate of a State executive
issued in strict accordance with State law does not prevent examination
of the votes by the House and a reversal of the return (I, 637). The
House has also held that it is not confined to the conclusions of
returns made up in strict conformity to State law, but may examine the
votes and correct the returns (I, 774); and the fact that a State law
gives canvassers the right to reject votes for fraud and irregularities
does not preclude the House from going behind the returns (II, 887). The
highest court in one State (Colorado) has ruled that it lacked
jurisdiction to pass upon a candidate's allegations of irregularities in
a primary election and that the House had exclusive jurisdiction to
decide such questions and to declare the rightful nominee (Sept. 23,
1970, p. 33320).
When the question <> concerns not the acts of returning
officers, but the act of the voter in voting, the House has found more
difficulty in determining the proper exercise of its constitutional
power. Although the House has always acted on the principle of giving
expression to the intent of the voter (I, 575, 639, 641; II, 1090), it
has held that a mandatory State law, even though arbitrary, may cause
the rejection of a ballot on which the intent of the voter is plain (II,
1009, 1056, 1077, 1078, 1091). See Deschler, ch. 8, Sec. 8.11, for
discussion of distinction between directory State laws governing the
conduct of election officials as to ballots, and mandatory laws
regulating the conduct of voters.
Where the State <> courts have upheld a State election
law as constitutional the House does not ordinarily question the law
(II, 856, 1071). But if there has been no such decision the House, in
determining its election cases, has passed on the validity of State laws
under State constitutions (II, 1011, 1134), and has acted on its
decision that they were unconstitutional (II, 1075, 1126), but it is not
the policy of the House to pass upon the validity of State election laws
alleged to be in conflict with the State constitution (VI, 151).
The courts of <> a State do not have a direct role in
judging the elections, qualifications, and returns of Representatives in
Congress (II, 959), but where the highest State court has interpreted
the State law the House has concluded that it should generally be
governed by this interpretation (I, 645, 731; II, 1041, 1048), but does
not consider itself bound by such interpretations (VI, 58), especially
by a decision on an analo
[[Page [23]]]
gous but not the identical question in issue (II, 909); and where the
alleged fraud of election judges was in issue, the acquittal of those
judges in the courts was held not to be an adjudication binding on the
House (II, 1019). For an illustration of a protracted election dispute
lasting four months see House Report 99-58, culminating in House
Resolution 146 of the 99th Congress (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2,
Sec. 3.8).
The statutes of <> the United States
provide specific methods for institution of a contest as to the title to
a seat in the House (I, 678, 697-706) (2 U.S.C. 381-396), which the
House regards as not of absolute binding force, but rather a prudent
rule not to be departed from except for cause (I, 597, 719, 825, 833).
It sometimes by resolution modifies the procedure prescribed by the law
(I, 449, 600).
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: In re Loney, 134 U.S. 317 (1890); Reed v.
County Commissioners, 277 U.S. 376 (1928); Barry v. United States ex
rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929); Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15
(1972).
* * * and a <> Majority of each [House]
shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may
adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance
of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each
House may provide.
Out of conditions <> arising between 1861 and 1891 the
rule was established that a majority of the Members chosen and living
constituted the quorum required by the Constitution (IV, 2885-2888); but
later examination has resulted in a decision confirming in the House of
Representatives the construction established in the Senate that a quorum
consists of a majority of Senators duly chosen and sworn (I, 630; IV,
2891-2894). So the decision of the House now is that after the House is
once organized the quorum consists of a majority of those Members
chosen, sworn, and living whose membership has not been terminated by
resignation or by the action of the House (IV, 2889, 2890; VI, 638).
Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, when a vacancy occurs or when a new Member
is sworn, the Speaker announces the resulting adjustment in the whole
number of the House (see Sec. 1024b, infra). Under clause 5(c) of rule
XX, the House may establish a provisional number of the House where, due
to catastrophic circumstances, a quorum fails to appear (sec. 2(h), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43; see Sec. 1024a, infra).
[[Page [24]]]
For many years <> a quorum was determined only by noting the
number of Members voting (IV, 2896, 2897), with the result that Members
by refusing to vote could often break a quorum and obstruct the public
business (II, 1034; IV, 2895, footnote; V, 5744). However, in 1890
Speaker Reed directed the Clerk to enter on the Journal as part of the
record of a yea-and-nay vote names of Members present but not voting,
thereby establishing a quorum of record (IV, 2895). This decision, which
was upheld by the Supreme Court (IV, 2904; United States v. Ballin, 144
U.S. 1 (1892)), established the principle that a quorum present made
valid any action by the House, although an actual quorum might not vote
(I, 216, footnote; IV, 2932). Thenceforth the point of order as to a
quorum was required to be that no quorum was present and not that no
quorum had voted (IV, 2917). At the time of the establishment of this
principle the Speaker revived the count by the Chair as a method of
determining the presence of a quorum at a time when no record vote was
ordered (IV, 2909). The Speaker has permitted his count of a quorum to
be verified by tellers (IV, 2888), but has not conceded it as a right of
the House to have tellers under the circumstances (IV, 2916; VI, 647-
651; VIII, 2369, 2436), claiming that the Chair might determine the
presence of a quorum in such manner as he should deem accurate and
suitable (IV, 2932). The Chair counts all Members in sight, whether in
the cloak rooms, or within the bar (IV, 2970; VIII, 3120). Later, as the
complement to the new view of the quorum, the early theory that the
presence of a quorum was as necessary during debate or other business as
on a vote was revived (IV, 2935-2949). Also, a line of rulings made
under the old theory was overruled; and it was established that the
point of no quorum might be made after the House had declined to verify
a division by tellers or the yeas and nays (IV, 2918-2926). For a
discussion of the Ballin decision and the Chair's count to determine a
quorum, see House Practice, ch. 43, Sec. 5. In the 116th and 117th
Congresses the House adopted a provision, effective during a designated
public health emergency, to count for the purpose of establishing a
quorum all Members voting or recording their presence by proxy (sec.
3(b), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4,
2021, p. _).
The absence of <> a quorum having been disclosed, there must be a quorum of
record before the House may proceed to business (IV, 2952, 2953; VI,
624, 660, 662), and the point of no quorum may not be withdrawn even by
unanimous consent after the absence of a quorum has been ascertained and
announced by the Chair (IV, 2928-2931; VI, 657; Apr. 13, 1978, p. 10119;
Sept. 25, 1984, p. 26778). But when an action has been completed, it is
too late to make the point of order that a quorum was not present when
it was done (IV, 2927; VI, 655). But where action requiring a quorum was
taken in the ascertained absence of a quorum by ruling of a Speaker pro
tempore, the Speaker on the next day ruled that the action was null
[[Page [25]]]
and void (IV, 2964; see also VIII, 3161). But such absence of a quorum
should appear from the Journal if a legislative act is to be vacated for
such reason (IV, 2962), and where the assumption that a quorum was
present when the House acted was uncontradicted by the Journal, it was
held that this assumption might not be overthrown by expressions of
opinion by Members individually (IV, 2961).
Major revisions in the House rules concerning the necessity and
establishment of a quorum occurred in the 94th, 95th, and 96th
Congresses. Under the practice in the 93d Congress, for example, a point
of no quorum would prevent the report of the chair of a Committee of the
Whole (VI, 666); but in the 93d Congress clause 7 of rule XX (formerly
clause 6 of rule XV) was adopted to provide that after the presence of a
quorum is once ascertained on any day, a point of no quorum could not be
entertained after the Committee had risen and pending the report of the
chair to the House. Clause 7 of rule XX now specifically precludes a
point of no quorum unless a question has been put to a vote. However,
the Speaker retains the right to recognize a Member to move a call of
the House at any time (but may, under clause 7(c) of rule XX, recognize
for a call of the House after the previous question has been ordered
only when the Speaker determines by actual count that a quorum is not
present). A point of order of no quorum during debate only in the House
does not lie independently under this clause of the Constitution because
clause 7 of rule XX (formerly clause 6 of rule XV) is a proper exercise
of the House's constitutional rulemaking authority that can be
interpreted consistently with the requirement that a quorum be present
to conduct business (as opposed to mere debate) (Sept. 8, 1977, pp.
28123, 28124; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 3.1).
Before these changes to rule XX (formerly rule XV), a quorum was
required at all times during the reading of the Journal (IV, 2732, 2733;
VI, 625, 629) or messages from the President or the Senate (IV, 3522);
but the modern practice would require the presence of a quorum only when
the question is put on a pending motion or proposition in the House such
as on a motion incident to the reading, amendment, or approval of the
Journal or on the referral or other disposition of other papers read to
the House. The practice in the Committee of the Whole is now governed by
clause 6 of rule XVIII. No motion is in order on the failure of a quorum
but the motions to adjourn and for a call of the House (IV, 2950; VI,
680) and the motion to adjourn has precedence over the motion for a call
of the House (VIII, 2642). A call of the House is in order under the
Constitution before the adoption of the rules (IV, 2981). Those present
on a call of the House may prescribe a fine as a condition on which an
arrested Member may be discharged (IV, 3013, 3014), but this is rarely
done. A quorum is not required on motions incidental to a call of the
House (IV, 2994; VI, 681; Oct. 8, 1940, p. 13403; Oct. 8, 1968, p.
30090). Adjournment sine die is in order notwithstanding the absence of
a quorum if both Houses
[[Page [26]]]
have already adopted a concurrent resolution providing for an
adjournment sine die on that day (Oct. 18, 1972, p. 37200).
At the time <> of organization the two Houses inform one another of the
appearance of the quorum in each, and the two Houses jointly inform the
President (I, 198-203). A message from one House that its quorum has
appeared is not delivered in the other until a quorum has appeared there
also (I, 126). But at the beginning of a second session of a Congress
the House proceeded to business, although a quorum had not appeared in
the Senate (I, 126). At the beginning of a second session of a Congress
unsworn Members-elect were taken into account in ascertaining the
presence of a quorum (I, 175); however, at the beginning of the second
session of the 87th Congress, the Clerk called the House to order,
announced the death of Speaker Rayburn during the adjournment sine die,
and did not call unsworn Members-elect or Members who had resigned
during the hiatus to establish a quorum or elect a new Speaker (Jan. 10,
1962, p. 5). In both Houses the oath has been administered to Members-
elect in the absence of a quorum (I, 174, 181, 182; VI, 22), although in
one case the Speaker objected to such proceedings (II, 875). Prayer by
the Chaplain is not business requiring the presence of a quorum and the
Speaker declines to entertain a point of no quorum before prayer is
offered (VI, 663; clause 7 of rule XX).
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 190 (1880);
United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892); Burton v. United States, 202
U.S. 344 (1906).
<> \2\Each House may
determine the Rules of its Proceedings, * * *
The power of <> each House of Representatives to make its own rules may
not be impaired or controlled by the rules of a preceding House (I, 187,
210; V, 6002, 6743-6747), or by a law passed by a prior Congress (I, 82,
245; IV, 3298, 3579; V, 6765, 6766). The House in adopting its rules
may, however, incorporate by reference as a part thereof all applicable
provisions of law that constituted the Rules of the House at the end of
the preceding Congress (e.g., H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., Jan. 4, 1977, p.
53) and has also incorporated provisions of concurrent resolutions that
were intended to remain applicable under the Budget Act (e.g., H. Res.
5, 107th Cong., Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). Ordinary rights and functions of
the House under the Constitution are exercised in accordance with the
rules (III, 2567), and under later decisions questions of so-called
constitutional privilege should also be considered in accordance with
the rules (VI, 48; VII, 889; Apr. 8, 1926, p. 7147). But a law passed by
an existing Congress with the concurrence of the House has been
recognized by that House as of binding force in
[[Page [27]]]
matters of procedure (V, 6767, 6768). In exercising its constitutional
power to change its rules the House may confine itself within certain
limitations (V, 6756; VIII, 3376); but the attempt of the House to
deprive the Speaker of a vote as a Member by a rule was successfully
resisted (V, 5966, 5967). Although the Act of June 1, 1789 (see 2 U.S.C.
25) requires the election of a Clerk before the House proceeds to
business, the House has held that it may adopt rules before electing a
Clerk (I, 245). Although the Speaker ceases to be an officer of the
House with the expiration of a Congress, the Clerk, by old usage,
continues in a new Congress (I, 187, 188, 235, 244; see 2 U.S.C. 26).
The House has adopted a rule before election of a Speaker (I, 94, 95);
but in 1839 was deterred by the Act of June 1, 1789 and the Constitution
from adopting rules before the administration of the oath to Members-
elect (I, 140). The earlier theory that an officer might be empowered to
administer oaths by a rule of either House has been abandoned in later
practice and the authority has been conferred by law (III, 1823, 1824,
2079, 2303, 2479; 2 U.S.C. 191).
Before the adoption <> of rules the House is governed by general
parliamentary law, but Speakers have been inclined to give weight to the
rules and precedents of the House in modifying the usual constructions
of that law (V, 5604, 6758-6760; VIII, 3384; Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24; Jan.
10, 1967, p. 14). The general parliamentary law as understood in the
House is founded on Jefferson's Manual as modified by the practice of
American legislative assemblies, especially of the House of
Representatives (V, 6761-6763; Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24), but the provisions
of the House's accustomed rules are not necessarily followed (V, 5509).
Before the adoption of rules, the statutory enactments incorporated into
the rules of the prior Congress as an exercise of the rulemaking power
do not control the proceedings of the new House until it adopts rules
incorporating those provisions (Jan. 22, 1971, p. 132).
Before the adoption of rules, it is in order for any Member who is
recognized by the Chair to offer a proposition relating to the order of
business without asking consent of the House (IV, 3060). Relying on the
Act of June 1, 1789 (2 U.S.C. 25), the Clerk recognized for nominations
for Speaker as being of higher constitutional privilege than a
resolution to postpone the election of a Speaker and instead provide for
the election of a Speaker pro tempore pending the disposition of certain
ethics charges against the nominee of the majority party (Jan. 7, 1997,
p. 115). The Speaker may recognize the Majority Leader to offer an
initial resolution providing for the adoption of the rules as a question
of privilege in its own right (IV, 3060; Deschler, ch. 1, Sec. 8), even
before recognizing another Member to offer as a question of privilege
another resolution calling into question the constitutionality of that
resolution (Speaker Foley, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 6.9). The
Speaker also may recognize a Member to offer for immediate consideration
a special order providing for the consideration of a resolution adopting
the rules (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 6.10; Precedents
[[Page [28]]]
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 5.2). The resolution adopting rules for a
Congress has included a special order of business for consideration of
specified legislation (sec. 108, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463; sec.
3, H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 76; secs. 506-510, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
2007, p. 30; sec. 5, H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 10; sec. 5(b), H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _), as has a special order providing for the
consideration of the resolution adopting the rules (Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
The Speaker held as not cognizable a point of order that a resolution
adopting the rules of the House contained a provision that the House had
no constitutional authority to adopt, stating that the House decides
such issues by way of the question of consideration or disposition of
the resolution (Speaker Hastert, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 6.8).
During debate on the resolution adopting rules, any Member may make a
point of order that a quorum is not present based upon general
parliamentary precedents, because the provisions of clause 7 of rule XX
(formerly clause 6(e) of rule XV) prohibiting the Chair from
entertaining such a point of order unless the question has been put on
the pending proposition are not yet applicable (Precedents (Wickham),
ch. 5, Sec. 5.3). Before adoption of rules, under general parliamentary
law as modified by usage and practice of the House, an amendment may be
subject to the point of order that it is not germane to the proposition
to which offered (Jan. 3, 1969, p. 23). Before adoption of rules, the
Speaker may maintain decorum by directing a Member who has not been
recognized in debate beyond an allotted time to be removed from the well
and by directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to present the mace as the
traditional symbol of order (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 6.5).
The motion to commit is permitted after the previous question has been
ordered on the resolution adopting the rules (V, 5604; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 5.5; Jan. 3, 1991, p. 61; Precedents (Wickham),
ch. 1, Sec. 6.4) but is not debatable (Jan. 7, 1997, p. 139). It is the
prerogative of the minority to offer a motion to commit even before the
adoption of the rules, but at that point the proponent need not qualify
as opposed to the resolution (Jan. 3, 1991, p. 61; Jan. 4, 1995, p.
457). Such a motion to commit is not divisible, but if it is agreed to
and more than one amendment is reported back pursuant thereto, then
separate votes may be had on the reported amendments (Jan. 5, 1993, p.
98). The motions to refer and postpone have also been permitted upon the
offering of a resolution adopting the rules, and before debate thereon,
subject to the motion to lay on the table (e.g., Precedents (Wickham),
ch. 5, Sec. 5.9; Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
The two Houses <> of Congress adopted in
the early years of the Government joint rules to govern their procedure
in matters requiring concurrent action; but in 1876 these joint rules
were abrogated (IV, 3430; V, 6782-6787). The most useful of their
provision continued to be observed in practice, however (IV, 3430; V,
6592).
[[Page [29]]]
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: United States v. Smith, 286 U.S. 6 (1932);
Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84 (1949); United States v.
Bryan, 339 U.S. 323 (1950); Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109
(1963); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).
* * * [Each House may] <> punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Among the <> punishments that the House may impose under this provision,
the rules of the Committee on Ethics outline the following: (1)
expulsion from the House; (2) censure; (3) reprimand; (4) fine; (5)
denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or immunity of the
Member if under the Constitution the House of Representatives may impose
such denial or limitation; or (6) any other sanction determined by the
Committee to be appropriate (rule 24, Committee on Ethics, 115th Cong.).
Under rule 10 of the rules of that committee, a statement of alleged
violation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
In action for censure or expulsion, the House has discussed whether or
not the principles of the procedure of the courts should be followed
(II, 1255, 1264). The House, in a proceeding for expulsion, declined to
give the Member a trial at the bar (II, 1275); but the Senate has
permitted a counsel to appear at its bar (II, 1263), although it
declined to grant a request for a specific statement of charges or
compulsory process for witnesses (II, 1264). In one instance, pending
consideration of a resolution to censure a Member, the Speaker informed
him that he should retire (II, 1366), but this is not usual. Members or
Senators, against whom resolutions have been pending, have participated
in debate either by consent to make a personal explanation (II, 1656) or
without question as to consent (II, 1246, 1253, 1269, 1286). A Member
against whom a resolution of censure was pending was asked by the
Speaker if he desired to be heard (VI, 236). However, after the House
had voted to censure and the Member had been brought to the bar by the
Sergeant-at-Arms to be censured, it was held that he might not then be
heard (II, 1259). In the modern practice, the manager of the resolution
proposing the punishment (who controls the entire hour) yields a portion
of the time to the accused (Oct. 2, 1980, p. 28966; July 24, 2002, p.
14309; Dec. 2, 2010, p. 18721).
A resolution recommending reprimand, censure, or expulsion of a Member
presents a question of privilege (II, 1254; III, 2648-2651; VI, 236;
Dec. 9, 1913, pp. 584-86; July 26, 1990, p. 19717; May 22, 2007, p.
13525; Oct. 23, 2007, p. 27966; July 31, 2008, pp. 17463, 17464; Jan.
16, 2019, p. _), as does one disapproving of the behavior of a Member
inside (Sept. 15, 2009, p. 21662; Mar. 18, 2010, pp. 3847, 3848) or
outside (Dec. 20, 2011,
[[Page [30]]]
p. 21435; Sept. 25, 2019, p. _; Sept. 27, 2019, p. _; Oct. 21, 2019, p.
_) the Chamber. If reported by the Committee on Ethics (or a derivation
thereof), the resolution may be called up at any time after the
committee has filed its report (Jan. 21, 1997, p. 393; Dec. 2, 2010, p.
18721). A proposition to censure is not germane to a proposition to
expel (VI, 236).
The Senate once expelled several Senators by a single resolution (II,
1266); however, the House has refused to censure more than one Member by
a single resolution (II, 1240, 1621).
In <> the 94th Congress the
House by adopting a report from the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct (now Ethics) reprimanded a Member for failing to report certain
financial holdings in violation of rule XXVI (formerly rule XLIV) and
for investing in stock in a Navy bank the establishment of which he was
promoting, in violation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service (H.
Res. 1421, July 29, 1976, pp. 24379-82). (For the Code of Ethics for
Government Service, see H. Con. Res. 175, 85th Cong., 72 Stat. B12.) In
the 95th Congress following an investigation by the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) into whether Members or
employees had improperly accepted things of value from the Republic of
Korea or representatives thereof, the House reprimanded three Members,
one for falsely answering an unsworn questionnaire relative to such
gifts and violating the Code of Official Conduct, one for failing to
report as required by law the receipt of a campaign contribution and
violating the Code of Official Conduct, and one for failing to report a
campaign contribution, converting a campaign contribution to personal
use, testifying falsely to the committee under oath, and violating the
Code of Official Conduct (Oct. 13, 1978, pp. 36984, 37009, 37017). In
the 100th Congress the House adopted a resolution reprimanding a Member
for ``ghost voting,'' improperly diverting government resources, and
maintaining a ``ghost employee'' on his staff (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36266).
In the 101st Congress another was reprimanded for seeking dismissal of
parking tickets received by a person with whom he had a personal
relationship and not related to official business and for misstatements
of fact in a memorandum relating to the criminal probation record of
that person (July 26, 1990, p. 19717). In the 105th Congress the House
reprimanded the Speaker and ordered him to reimburse a portion of the
costs of the investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct (now Ethics) (Jan. 21, 1997, p. 393). In the 112th Congress the
House by adopting a report from the Committee on Ethics reprimanded a
Member for using official resources of the House for unofficial purposes
and compelling staff to perform campaign work, and imposed a fine (Aug.
2, 2012, pp. 13191, 13194, 13195). In the 116th Congress the House by
adopting a report from the Committee on Ethics reprimanded a Member for
the misuse of campaign funds for personal purposes, and imposed a fine
(July 31, 2020, p. _).
[[Page [31]]]
Censure <> is inflicted by the
Speaker (II, 1259) and the words are entered in the Journal (II, 1251,
1656; VI 236), but the Speaker may not pronounce censure except by order
of the House (VI, 237). When Members have resigned pending proceedings
for censure, the House has nevertheless adopted the resolutions of
censure (II, 1239, 1273, 1275, 1656). Members have been censured for
personalities and other disorder in debate (II, 1251, 1253, 1254, 1259),
assaults on the floor (II, 1665), for presenting a resolution alleged to
be insulting to the House (II, 1246), and for corrupt acts (II, 1274,
1286). For abuse of the leave to print, the House censured a Member
after a motion to expel him had failed (VI, 236). In one instance
Members were censured for acts before the election of the then existing
House (II, 1286). In the 96th Congress two Members were censured by the
House as follows: (1) A Member who during a prior Congress both
knowingly increased an office employee's salary for repayment of that
Member's personal expenses and who was unjustly enriched by clerk-hire
employees' payments of personal expenses later compensated by salary
increases, was censured and ordered to repay the amount of the unjust
enrichment with interest (July 31, 1979, p. 21592); (2) a Member was
censured for receiving over a period of time sums of money from a person
with a direct interest in legislation in violation of clause 3 of rule
XXIII (formerly clause 4 of rule XLIII), and for transferring campaign
funds into office and personal accounts (June 10, 1980, pp. 13801-20)).
In the 98th Congress the House adopted two resolutions (as amended in
the House), each censuring a Member for an improper relationship with a
House Page in a prior Congress (July 20, 1983, p. 20020 and p. 20030).
In the 111th Congress, after the House defeated an amendment to instead
punish by reprimand, a Member was censured for using official resources
to solicit funds for an educational center, failing to file complete
financial disclosure forms, accepting the benefits of a rent-stabilized
residence in a manner creating an appearance of impropriety, and failing
to pay taxes on certain property, and was ordered to pay restitution for
such unpaid taxes (Dec. 2, 2010, pp. 18729-30).
Five <> Members have been
expelled in the history of the House. Among those, three were expelled
for various offenses related to their service for the Confederacy in the
Civil War: John B. Clark of Missouri (a Member-elect) (II, 1262, July
13, 1861); Henry C. Burnett of Kentucky (II, 1261, Dec. 3, 1861); and
John W. Reid of Missouri (II, 1261, Dec. 6, 1861). Michael J. Myers of
Pennsylvania was expelled after being convicted in a Federal court of
bribery and conspiracy for accepting funds to perform official duties
(Oct. 2, 1980, p. 28978). James A. Traficant of Ohio was expelled after
being convicted in a Federal court for crimes including (1) trading
official acts and influence for things of value; (2) demanding and
accepting salary kickbacks from his congressional employees; (3)
influencing a congressional employee to destroy evidence and to provide
false testimony to a Federal grand jury; (4) receiving personal labor
and the services of his congressional
[[Page [32]]]
employees while they were being paid by the taxpayers to perform public
service; and (5) filing false income tax returns (July 24, 2002, p.
14319). Three Senators were expelled for their association with the
Confederates during the Civil War (II, 1268-1270).
The power of expulsion has been the subject of much discussion (I,
469, 476, 481; II, 1264, 1265, 1269; VI, 56, 398; see Powell v.
McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)). In one case a Member-elect who had not
taken the oath was expelled (II, 1262), and in another case the power to
do this was discussed (I, 476). In one instance the Senate assumed to
annul its action of expulsion (II, 1243). The Supreme Court has decided
that a judgment of conviction under a disqualifying statute does not
compel the Senate to expel (II, 1282; Burton v. United States, 202 U.S.
344 (1906)). The power of expulsion in its relation to offenses
committed before the Members' election has been discussed (II, 1264,
1284, 1285, 1286, 1288, 1289; VI, 56, 238). In one case the Committee on
the Judiciary of the House concluded that a Member might not be punished
for an offense alleged to have been committed against a preceding
Congress (II, 1283); but the House itself declined to express doubt as
to its power to expel and proceeded to inflict censure (II, 1286). In
addition, the 96th Congress punished Members on two occasions for
offenses committed during a prior Congress (H. Res. 378, July 31, 1979,
p. 21592; H. Res. 660, June 10, 1980, pp. 13801-20). It has been held
that the power of the House to expel one of its Members is unlimited; a
matter purely of discretion to be exercised by a two-thirds vote, from
which there is no appeal (VI, 78). The resignation of the accused Member
has always caused a suspension of proceedings for expulsion (II, 1275,
1276, 1279; VI, 238). Following the expulsion of a Member, the Clerk
notifies the Governor of the relevant state of the action of the House
(July 24, 2002, p. 14319).
In the 117th <> Congress the House adopted an unreported resolution
(referred to the Committee on Ethics and considered pursuant to a
special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules) removing a
Member from committee assignments based on such Member's conduct (H.
Res. 72, Feb. 4, 2021, p. _).
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204
(1821); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1881); United States v.
Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892); In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661 (1897); Burton v.
United States, 202 U.S. 344 (1906); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486
(1969).
\3\Each House <> shall
keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the
same, excepting such
[[Page [33]]]
Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; * * *
The Journal and <> not the Congressional Record is the official record of the
proceedings of the House (IV, 2727). Its nature and functions have been
the subject of extended discussions (IV, 2730, footnote). The House has
fixed its title (IV, 2728). Although it ought to be a correct transcript
of proceedings, the House has not insisted on a strict chronological
order of entries (IV, 2815). The Journal is dated as of the legislative
and not the calendar day (IV, 2746).
The Journal records <> proceedings but not the reasons therefor (IV,
2811) or the circumstances attending (IV, 2812), or the statements or
opinions of Members (IV, 2817-2820). Exceptions to this rule are rare
(IV, 2808, 2825). Protests have on rare occasions been admitted by the
action of the House (IV, 2806, 2807), but the entry of a protest on the
Journal may not be demanded by a Member as a matter of right (IV, 2798)
and such demand does not present a question of privilege (IV, 2799). A
motion not entertained is not entered on the Journal (IV, 2813, 2844-
2846).
The House <> controls the Journal and may decide what are proceedings,
even to the extent of omitting things actually done or recording things
not done (IV, 2784; VI, 634). Although the Speaker has entertained
motions to amend the Journal so as to cause it to state what was not the
fact, leaving it for the House to decide on the propriety of such act
(IV, 2785), and holding that he could not prevent a majority of the
House from so amending the Journal as to undo an actual transaction (IV,
3091-3093), in none of those rulings was an amendment permitted to
correct the Journal that had the effect of collaterally changing the
tabling of a motion to reconsider. In fact, under the precedents cited
in Sec. 902, infra, under clause 1 of rule XVI it has been held not in
order to amend or strike a Journal entry setting forth a motion exactly
as made (IV, 2783, 2789), and thus it was held not in order to amend the
Journal by striking a resolution actually offered (IV, 2789), but on one
occasion the House vacated the Speaker's referral of an executive
communication by amending the Journal of the preceding day (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 14.1). Only on rare occasions has the House
nullified proceedings by rescinding the records of them in the Journal
(IV, 2787), the House and Senate usually insisting on the accuracy of
its Journal (IV, 2783, 2786). In rare instances the House and Senate
have rescinded or expunged entries in Journals of preceding Congresses
(IV, 2730, footnote, 2792, 2793).
The Journal should <> record the result of every vote and state in general terms
the subject of it (IV, 2804); but the result of a vote is recorded in
figures only when the yeas and nays are taken (IV, 2827), when the vote
is recorded by electronic device or by clerks, or when a vote is taken
by ballot, it having
[[Page [34]]]
been determined in latest practice that the Journal should show not only
the result but the state of the ballot or ballots (IV, 2832).
It is the <> uniform practice
of the House to approve its Journal for each legislative day (IV, 2731).
If Journals of more than one session remain unapproved, they are taken
up for approval in chronological order (IV, 2771-2773; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 12.6).
The former rule required the reading of the Journal on each
legislative day. The reading could be dispensed with only by unanimous
consent (VI, 625) or suspension of the rules (IV, 2747-2750) and had to
be in full when demanded by any Member (IV, 2739-2741; VI, 627-628; Feb.
22, 1950, p. 2152).
The present form of the rule (clause 1 of rule I; see Sec. 621, infra)
was drafted from section 127 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970 (84 Stat. 1140), incorporated into the standing rules in the 92d
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144), and was further amended in
the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16). Under the
current practice, the Speaker is authorized to announce approval of the
Journal, which is deemed agreed to by the House, subject to the right of
any Member to demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval
(which, if decided in the affirmative, is not subject to the motion to
reconsider). In the 98th Congress, the Speaker was given the authority
to postpone a record vote on agreeing to the approval of the Journal to
a later time on that legislative day (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34).
Although the transaction of any business is not in order before approval
of the Journal (IV, 2751; VI, 629, 637; Oct. 8, 1968, p. 30096),
approval of the Journal yields to the simple motion to adjourn (IV,
2757), administration of the oath (I, 171, 172), an arraignment of
impeachment (VI, 469), and questions of the privileges of the House (II,
1630), and the Speaker has discretion to recognize for a parliamentary
inquiry before approval of the Journal (VI, 624). Under clause 1 of rule
I, as amended in the 96th Congress, a point of order of no quorum is not
in order before the Speaker announces approval of the Journal. Clause 7
of rule XX generally prohibits the making of points of order of no
quorum unless the Speaker has put the question on the pending matter.
Under the practice <> before clause 1 of rule I was adopted in its present form,
the motion to amend the Journal took precedence over the motion to
approve it (IV, 2760; VI, 633); but the motion to amend may not be
admitted after the previous question is demanded on a motion to approve
(IV, 2770; VI, 633; VIII, 2684). An expression of opinion as to a
decision of the Chair was held not in order as an amendment to the
Journal (IV, 2848). A proposed amendment to the Journal being tabled
does not carry the Journal with it (V, 5435, 5436). Although a proposed
correction of the Journal may be recorded in the Journal, it is not in
order to insert in full in this indirect way what has been denied
insertion in the first instance (IV, 2782, 2804, 2805). The earlier
practice was otherwise, however (IV, 2801-2803). The
[[Page [35]]]
Journal of the last day of a session is not approved on the assembling
of the next session, and is not ordinarily amended (IV, 2743, 2744). For
further discussion of the composition and approval of the Journal, see
Deschler, ch. 5.
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); United
States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892).
* * * and the <> Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question
shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the
Journal.
The yeas and <> nays may be ordered before the organization of the House (I, 91;
V, 6012, 6013), but are not taken in the Committee of the Whole (IV,
4722, 4723). They are not necessarily taken on the passage of a
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution (V, 7038, 7039;
VIII, 3506), but are required to pass a bill over a veto (Sec. 104; VII,
1110). In the earlier practice of the House it was held that less than a
quorum might not order the yeas and nays, but for many years the
decisions have been uniformly the other way (V, 6016-6028). Neither is a
quorum necessary on a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the yeas and
nays are ordered (V, 5693). When a quorum fails on a yea and nay vote it
is the duty of the Speaker and the House to take notice of that fact
(IV, 2953, 2963, 2988). If the House adjourns, the order for the yeas
and nays remains effective whenever the bill again comes before the
House (V, 6014, 6015; VI, 740; VIII, 3108), and it has been held that
the question of consideration might not intervene on a succeeding day
before the second calling of the yeas and nays (V, 4949). However, when
the call of the House is automatic, the Speaker directs the roll to be
called or the vote to be taken by electronic device without motion from
the floor (VI, 678, 679, 694, 695); and should a quorum fail to vote and
the House adjourn, proceedings under the automatic call are vacated and
the question recurs de novo when the bill again comes before the House
(Oct. 10, 1940, pp. 13534, 13535; Oct. 13, 1962, p. 23474; Oct. 19,
1966, p. 27641). Although the Constitution and the Rules of the House
guarantee that votes taken by the yeas and nays be spread upon the
Journal, neither requires that a Member's vote be announced to the
public immediately during the vote (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
Sec. 10.3).
[[Page [36]]]
The yeas and nays may not be demanded until the Speaker has put the
question in the form prescribed by clause 6 of rule I (formerly clause
5) (Oct. 2, 1974, p. 33623).
The yeas and <> nays may
be demanded while the Speaker is announcing the result of a division (V,
6039), while a vote by tellers is being taken (V, 6038), and even after
the announcement of the vote if the House has not passed to other
business (V, 6040, 6041; VIII, 3110) and if the Member seeking the yeas
and nays is actively seeking recognition for that purpose when the Chair
announces the result of the voice vote (Nov. 22, 1991, p. 34075; Sept.
21, 2005, p. 20856). But after the Speaker has announced the result of a
division on a motion and is in the act of putting the question on
another motion it is too late to demand the yeas and nays on the first
motion (V, 6042). And it is not in order during the various processes of
a division to repeat a demand for the yeas and nays that has once been
refused by the House (V, 6029, 6030, 6031). The constitutional right of
a Member to demand the yeas and nays may not be overruled as dilatory
(V, 5737; VIII, 3107); but this constitutional right does not exist as
to a vote to second a motion when such second is required by the rules
(V, 6032-6036; VIII, 3109). The right to demand yeas and nays is not
waived by the fact that the Member demanding them has just made the
point of no quorum and caused the Chair to count the House (V, 6044). A
demand for the yeas and nays is not timely when further proceedings have
been postponed on a measure pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX (Dec. 19,
2018, p. _).-
In passing on <> a
demand for the yeas and nays the Speaker need determine only whether
one-fifth of those present sustain the demand (V, 6043; VIII, 3112,
3115). In ascertaining whether one-fifth of those present support a
demand for the yeas and nays the Speaker counts the entire number
present and not merely those who wish to be counted (VIII, 3111, 3120).
Such count is not subject to verification by appeal (Sept. 12, 1978, p.
28984; Mar. 8, 2006, p. 2954; Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22745; Mar. 18, 2010, p.
3842), a request for a count of those opposed to the demand is not in
order (VIII, 3112-3114), and the Speaker may refuse to entertain a
parliamentary inquiry regarding the number of Members counted by the
Chair (Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22745). If the Chair prolongs the count of the
House in determining whether one-fifth have supported the demand for
yeas and nays, the Speaker counts latecomers in support of the demand as
well as for the number present (Sept. 24, 1990, p. 25521). After the
House, on a vote by tellers, has refused to order the yeas and nays it
is too late to demand the count of the negative on an original vote (V,
6045).
A motion to <> reconsider the vote ordering the yeas and nays is in
order (V, 6029; VIII, 2790), and the vote may be reconsidered by a
majority. If the House votes to reconsider the yeas and nays may again
be ordered by one-fifth (V, 5689-5691). But when the House, having
reconsidered, again
[[Page [37]]]
orders the yeas and nays, a second motion to reconsider may not be made
(V, 6037). In one instance it was held that the yeas and nays might be
demanded on a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the yeas and nays
were ordered (V, 5689), but evidently there must be a limit to this
process. The vote whereby the yeas and nays are refused may be
reconsidered (V, 5692).
A motion <> to adjourn may be admitted after the yeas and nays are ordered
and before the roll call has begun (V, 5366); and a motion to suspend
the rules has been entertained after the yeas and nays have been
demanded on another matter (V, 6835). Consideration of a conference
report (V, 6457), and a motion to reconsider the vote by which the yeas
and nays were ordered (V, 6029; VIII, 2790) may be admitted. A demand
for tellers or for a division is not precluded or set aside by the fact
that the yeas and nays are demanded and refused (V, 5998; VIII, 3103).
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); United
States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892); Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S.
196 (1897); Wilkes County v. Coler, 180 U.S. 506 (1901); Marshall v.
Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1917).
\4\Neither House, <> during the Session of Congress shall,
without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor
to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
The word ``Place'' in <> the above paragraph was construed to mean the seat of
Government, and consent of the Senate is not required if the House
orders its meetings to be held in another structure at the seat of
Government (Speaker Rayburn, Aug. 17, 1949, pp. 11651, 11683). Under
clause 12(d) of rule I, the Speaker may convene the House in a place
within the District of Columbia, other than the Hall of the House, if,
in the opinion of the Speaker, the public interest shall warrant it
(Sec. 639, infra). The two Houses once granted joint leadership (or
their designees) authority for an entire Congress to assemble the
Congress at a place outside the District of Columbia whenever the public
interest warranted it (H. Con. Res. 1, Feb. 13, 2003, p. 4080). The
Speaker executed by letter his designation under that authority (Mar.
13, 2003, p. 6123). The House, but not the Senate, re-adopted similar
concurrent resolutions in succeeding Congresses (e.g., H. Con. Res. 1,
Jan. 4, 2005, p. 68; H. Con. Res. 1, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 42; H. Con. Res.
1, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 22; H. Con. Res. 1, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 103). After
September 11, 2001, recall authority carried in adjournment resolutions
has allowed
[[Page [38]]]
reassembly at such place as may be designated (see Sec. 84, infra). The
President may convene Congress at places outside the seat of Government
during hazardous circumstances (2 U.S.C. 27; Deschler, ch. 1, Sec. 4).
On November 22, 1940 (p. 13715), the House adopted a resolution
providing that thereafter until otherwise ordered its meetings be held
in the Caucus room of the new House Office Building. Likewise the Senate
on the same day (p. 13709) provided that its meetings be held in the
Chamber formerly occupied by the Supreme Court in the Capitol. The two
Houses continued to hold their sessions in these rooms until the opening
of the 77th Congress. These actions were necessitated by the precarious
condition of the roofs in the two Chambers. On June 28, 1949 (p. 8571),
and on September 1, 1950 (p. 14140), the House provided that until
otherwise ordered its meetings be held in the Caucus room of the new
House Office Building, pending the remodeling of its Chamber. On June
29, 1949 (p. 8584), and on Aug. 9, 1950 (p. 12106), the Senate provided
that its meetings be held in the Chamber formerly occupied by the
Supreme Court in the Capitol, pending remodeling of its Chamber. The
House returned to its Chamber on January 3, 1950, and again on January
1, 1951. The Senate returned to its Chamber on January 3, 1950, and
again on January 3, 1951.
There has been no occasion for the convening of a session of Congress
outside the seat of Government. However, the Congress has engaged in
commemorative or ceremonial functions outside the seat of Government,
which were authorized by concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 131, May
28, 1987, p. 14031; H. Con. Res. 96, Apr. 18, 1989, p. 6834; H. Con.
Res. 448, July 25, 2002, p. 14645).-
The House of <> Representatives in adjourning for not more than three
days must take into the count either the day of adjourning or the day of
the meeting, but not Sundays (V, 6673, 6674). The House may provide for
a session of the House on a Sunday, traditionally a ``dies non'' under
the precedents of the House (e.g., Dec. 17, 1982, p. 31946; Nov. 17,
1989, p. 30029; Aug. 20, 1994, p. 23367). The House has by standing
order provided that it should meet on two days only of each week instead
of daily (V, 6675). Before the election of Speaker, the House has
adjourned for more than one day (I, 89, 221). The House has by unanimous
consent agreed to an adjournment for not more than three days but
specified that it would continue in adjournment pursuant to a concurrent
resolution adopted by the House if it received a message of the Senate's
adoption of the concurrent resolution before the time of the House's
reconvening (e.g., Nov. 20, 1987, p. 33054). The Committee on Rules has
reported a rule authorizing the Speaker to declare the House in recesses
subject to calls of the Chair during multiple discrete periods, each
consistent with the constitutional constraint that neither House adjourn
(or recess) for more than three days without consent of the other House
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 2.9; Jan. 5, 1996, p. 357).
[[Page [39]]]
Clause 12(e) of <> rule I provides certain authorities for
reconvening or postponing the time for reconvening during any recess or
adjournment of not more than three days when warranted by the public
interest (see Sec. 639, infra), and the Speaker has reconvened the House
before the time previously appointed pursuant to such authority (Dec. 3,
2018, p. _). The House had previously provided such authority by
standing order (H. Res. 479, 112th Cong., Dec. 6, 2011, p. 18998; H.
Res. 66, Feb. 14, 2013, p. 1405) and on one occasion convened earlier
than previously ordered (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 11.12). The
Senate has adopted similar authority, applicable also to the place of
convening, which may be exercised by the Senate Majority and Minority
Leaders when warranted by intervening circumstances (S. Res. 296, 108th
Cong., Feb. 3, 2004, p. 731). Pursuant to such authority, during an
adjournment of the Senate for not more than three days, the Senate
convened earlier than previously ordered to adopt a House concurrent
resolution providing for an adjournment of the two Houses (H. Con. Res.
103, Mar. 17, 2005, p. 5143), section 2 of which enabled a recall of the
House (Mar. 20, 2005, p. 5446).
Congress enables an <> adjournment for more than three days by a concurrent
resolution (IV, 4031, footnote). When it adjourns in this way, but not
to or beyond the day fixed by Constitution or law for the next regular
session to begin, the session is not thereby necessarily terminated (V,
6676, 6677). At the close of the first session of the 66th Congress, the
two Houses adjourned sine die under authority granted each House by
simple resolutions consenting to such adjournment sine die at any time
before a specified date (Nov. 19, 1919, p. 8810).
Until the 67th Congress neither House had adjourned for more than
three days by itself with the consent of the other, but resolutions had
been offered for the accomplishment of that end (V, 6702, 6703). In the
modern practice it is common for a concurrent resolution to provide for
a one-House adjournment or to provide for each House to adjourn for
different time periods. For example: (1) the House adjourned until
August 15, 1922, with the consent of the Senate (June 29, 1922, p.
10439); (2) the two Houses provided for an adjournment sine die of the
House on August 20, 1954, and of the Senate at any time before December
25, 1954 (H. Con. Res. 266; Aug. 20, 1954, p. 15554); (3) the two Houses
provided for an adjournment sine die of the House on December 20 or
December 21, 1982, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or a
designee, and of the Senate at any time before January 3, 1983, as
determined by the Senate, and for adjournments or recesses of the Senate
for periods of more than three days as determined by the Senate during
such period (H. Con. Res. 438, Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32951); (4) the two
Houses provided for an adjournment of the Senate to a day certain and of
the House for more than three days to a day certain, or to any day
before that day as determined by the House (S. Con. Res. 102, May 27,
1982, pp. 12504, 12505); (5) the two Houses
[[Page [40]]]
provided for an adjournment to a day certain, with a provision that if
there should be no quorum present on that day the session should
terminate (V, 6686).
A concurrent resolution adjourning both Houses for more than three
days, or sine die, normally includes authority to reassemble the Members
whenever the public interest shall warrant it, either separately (see,
e.g., Dec. 26, 2013, p. 19517) or jointly (see, e.g., July 8, 1943, p.
7516; July 26, 1947, p. 10521; Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41815; Nov. 21, 1989,
p. 31156; Oct. 3, 1996, p. 12275; Dec. 15, 2000, p. 27019). Similarly, a
concurrent resolution adjourning one House typically provides for recall
of that House (see, e.g., Sept. 28, 2016, p. _).
Pursuant to such recall authority: (1) the Speaker and the Majority
Leader of the Senate notified Members of the House to reassemble, the
Senate already being in session (Mar. 20, 2005, p. 5446, pursuant to H.
Con. Res. 103, Mar. 17, 2005, p. 5143; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1,
Sec. 11.10); (2) the Speaker and the Majority Leader of the Senate
notified Members of both Houses to reassemble (Sept. 2, 2005, p. 19424,
pursuant to H. Con. Res. 225, July 28, 2005, p. 18356; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 11.13).
Joint leadership and House-only recall provisions were included in the
sine die adjournment resolution for the second session of the 105th
Congress (H. Con. Res. 353, Oct. 20, 1998, p. 27348), and the Speaker
exercised recall authority under that resolution to reassemble the House
(Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27802). One-House recall authority, with provision to
again adjourn for more than three days, was included in two
complementary one-House adjournment resolutions of the 111th Congress
(H. Con. Res. 307, H. Con. Res. 308, July 29, 2010, p. 14604) and the
Speaker (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 11.11) and Majority Leader of
the Senate (Aug. 12, 2010, p. 15504) each exercised recall authority
under the respective adjournment resolution.
After September 11, 2001, such recall authority has allowed reassembly
at such place as may be designated (see, e.g., S. Con. Res. 160, Nov.
22, 2002, p. 23512; H. Con. Res. 531, Dec. 7, 2004, p. 25708). More
recently, such recall authority permitted recall by designees of the
Speaker and the Majority Leader of the Senate (see, e.g., S. Con. Res.
132, July 26, 2002, p. 15138). The Speaker executes by letter the
designation under a concurrent resolution of adjournment (e.g., Mar. 13,
2003, p. 6123). Such letter was expanded in the 114th Congress to
account for the increased use of separate recall authority and for new
designation authority in clause 12(f) of rule I (Precedents (Wickham),
ch. 1, Sec. 11.8). The Speaker also executes by letter the designation
of another Member to utilize reassembly authority under a joint
resolution changing the convening date of the next session (H. J. Res.
80, Dec. 15, 2003, p. 32411).
A resolution adopted in the first session of the 106th Congress
provided for an adjournment to a date certain, unless the House sooner
received a specified message from the Senate, in which case it would
stand adjourned sine die (H. Con. Res. 235, Nov. 18, 1999, p. 30734). A
simple
[[Page [41]]]
resolution adopted in the first session of the 111th Congress provided
for a series of adjournments of not more than three days, unless the
House sooner received: (1) a specified message from the Senate, (2)
confirmation that the President had approved a certain bill, and (3) a
message that the Senate had concurred in an adjournment resolution, in
which case it would stand adjourned pursuant to such adjournment
resolution (H. Res. 976, Dec. 16, 2009, p. 32039). It has become the
common practice for the House, by unanimous consent adopted after
originating an adjournment resolution, to fix a time to which it would
adjourn within three days unless the House were sooner to receive a
message from the Senate transmitting its adoption of the adjournment
resolution, in which case the House would stand adjourned pursuant to
that resolution (see, e.g., Nov. 3, 2000, p. 25993; Mar. 20, 2002, p.
3726).
A concurrent resolution providing for adjournment sine die of the
first session may contain a proviso that when the second session
convenes the Senate or House may not conduct organizational or
legislative business but shall adjourn on that day until a date certain,
unless sooner recalled (H. Con. Res. 232, Dec. 20, 1979, p. 37317; H.
Con. Res. 260, Nov. 26, 1991, p. 35840; H. Con. Res. 235, Nov. 18, 1999,
p. 30734). The prohibition on the conduct of such business may be
applied to the House by simple resolution and may vest the Speaker with
the authority to dispense with such business over a period of time
(e.g., Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 2.10). Such a prohibition does
not preclude recognition for one-minute speeches and special-order
speeches by unanimous consent (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 2.8) or
the introduction and numbering of bills and resolutions (which would not
be noted in the Congressional Record or referred by the Speaker until
the next legislative day, when executive communications, petitions, and
memorials also would be numbered and referred) (Jan. 24, 2000, p. 48).
The House has passed a joint resolution appointing a day for the
convening of a second session of a Congress and provided for possible
earlier assembly by joint-leadership recall (see, e.g., Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 2.3; H. J. Res. 80, Nov. 21, 2003, pp. 30856,
30857).
A concurrent resolution to provide for adjournment for more than three
days or an adjournment sine die is offered in the House as a matter of
privilege (V, 6701-6706), and is not debatable (VIII, 3372-3374), though
a Member may be recognized under a reservation of objection to a
unanimous-consent request that the resolution be agreed to (Oct. 27,
1990, p. 36850). The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 provides for
an adjournment sine die, or (in an odd-numbered year) an adjournment of
slightly over a month (from that Friday in August which is at least 30
days before Labor Day to the Wednesday following Labor Day) unless the
nation is in a state of war, declared by Congress (sec. 461(b); 84 Stat.
1140). Congress may, of course, waive this requirement and make other
determinations regarding its adjournment (see Sec. 1106, infra).
[[Page [42]]]
The requirement that resolutions providing for an adjournment sine die
of either House may not be considered until Congress has completed
action on the second concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal
year in question, and on any reconciliation legislation required by such
a resolution, contained in section 310(f) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344), was repealed by the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177). That law amended
sections 309 and 310 of the Congressional Budget Act to prohibit the
consideration of concurrent resolutions providing adjournments for more
than three calendar days during the month of July until the House has
approved annual appropriation bills within the jurisdictions of all the
subcommittees on Appropriations for the ensuing fiscal year, and until
the House has completed action on all reconciliation legislation for the
ensuing fiscal year required to be reported by the concurrent resolution
on the budget for that year (see Sec. 1127, infra).
Section 6. \1\The Senators <> and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their
Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the
United States.
The 27th amendment to the Constitution addresses laws varying the
compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives (see
Sec. 258, infra). The present rate of compensation of Representatives,
the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, Delegates, the Speaker, the
Majority and Minority Leaders of the House, and the Vice President is
established by law (2 U.S.C. 4501; 3 U.S.C. 104) with an additional
amount per annum to assist in defraying expenses for the Speaker and
Vice President (2 U.S.C. 5121; 3 U.S.C. 111). These rates of
compensation are all (except for the expense allowances) subject to
annual cost of living adjustments (2 U.S.C. 4501(2)). The present rate
of compensation of Senators is that fixed by section 1101 of Public Law
101-194, as adjusted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 4501(2).
Under <> the Federal Salary Act
of 1967 (2 U.S.C. 351-362), the Citizens' Commission on Public Service
and Compensation (formerly the Commission on Executive, Legislative and
Judicial Salaries) is authorized and directed to conduct quadrennial
reviews of the rates of pay of specified government officials, including
Members of Congress, and to report to the President the results of each
review and its recommendations for adjustments in such rates. The
enactment of those recommendations is governed by the Federal Salary Act
(see Sec. 1130(12), infra).
The statute also provides for deductions from the pay of Members and
Delegates who are absent from the sessions of the House for reasons
other than illness of themselves and families, or who retire before the
end of
[[Page [43]]]
the Congress (2 U.S.C. 5306; IV, 3011, footnote). The law as to
deductions has been held to apply only to Members who have taken the
oath (II, 1154). Members and Delegates are paid monthly on certificate
of the Speaker (2 U.S.C. 5301, 5302, 5304). The residence of a Member of
Congress for purpose of imposing State income tax laws shall be the
State from which elected and not the State, or subdivision thereof, in
which the Member maintains an abode for the purpose of attending
sessions of Congress (4 U.S.C. 113). The pension of a Member may be
forfeited upon conviction involving abuse of the public trust (5 U.S.C.
8312, 8411).
Questions have arisen <> frequently as to compensation of Members especially in
cases of Members elected to fill vacancies (I, 500; II, 1155) and in
which there have been questions as to incompatible offices (I, 500) or
claims to a seat (II, 1206). The Supreme Court has held that a Member
chosen to fill a vacancy is entitled to salary only from the time that
the compensation of the predecessor has ceased. Page v. United States,
127 U.S. 67 (1888); see also 2 U.S.C. 5304.
In the 92d <> Congress, the provisions of H. Res. 457 of that Congress,
authorizing the Committee on House Administration to adjust allowances
of Members and committees without further action by the House, were
enacted into permanent law (2 U.S.C. 4313), but the 94th Congress
enacted into permanent law H. Res. 1372 of that Congress, stripping the
committee of that authority and requiring House approval of the
committee's recommendations, except in cases made necessary by price
changes in materials and supplies, technological advances in office
equipment, and cost of living increases (2 U.S.C. 4314). The Committee
on House Administration retains authority under 2 U.S.C. 4313 to
independently adjust amounts under certain conditions outlined in 2
U.S.C. 4314 (Mar. 21, 1977, p. 8227; Apr. 21, 1983, p. 9339). The text
of those statutes follow:
``Sec. 4313. Adjustment of House of Representatives allowances by
Committee on House Administration
``(a) In general.--Subject to the provision of law specified in
subsection (b) of this section, the Committee on House Administration of
the House of Representatives may, by order of the Committee, fix and
adjust the amounts, terms, and conditions of, and other matters relating
to, allowances of the House of Representatives within the following
categories:
``(1) For Members of the House of Representatives, the
Members' Representational Allowance, including all aspects of
official mail within the jurisdiction of the Committee under
section 503 of this title.
``(2) For committees, the Speaker, the Majority and Minority
Leaders, the Clerk, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Chief
Administrative Officer, allowances for official mail (including
all aspects of official
[[Page [44]]]
mail within the jurisdiction of the Committee under section 503
of this title), stationery, and telephone and telegraph and
other communications.
``(b) Provision specified.--The provision of law referred to in
subsection (a) of this section is section 503 of this title.
``(c) Member of the House of Representatives defined.--As used in this
section, the term `Member of the House of Representatives' means a
Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the
Congress.''
``Sec. 4314. Limitation on allowance authority of Committee on House
Administration.
``(a) In general.--An order under the provision of law specified in
subsection (c) of this section may fix or adjust the allowances of the
House of Representatives only by reason of--
``(1) a change in the price of materials, services, or office
space;
``(2) a technological change or other improvement in office
equipment; or
``(3) an increase under section 5303 of title 5 in rates of
pay under the General Schedule.
``(b) Resolution requirement.--In the case of reasons other than the
reasons specified in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a) of
this section, the fixing and adjustment of the allowances of the House
of Representatives in the categories described in the provision of law
specified in subsection (c) of this section may be carried out only by
resolution of the House of Representatives.
``(c) Provision specified.--The provision of law referred to in
subsections (a) and (b) of this section is section 4313 of this title.''
In the 104th Congress the Committee on House Administration
promulgated an order abolishing separate allowances for Clerk Hire,
Official Expenses, and Official Mail, in favor of a single ``Members'
Representational Allowance'' (MRA), which was ultimately enacted into
law (2 U.S.C. 5341). The MRA is provided for the employment of staff in
the Member's Washington and district offices, official expenses incurred
by the Member, and the postage expenses of first, third, and fourth
class frankable mail.
Until January 1, 1988, the maximum salary for staff members was the
rate of basic pay authorized for Level V of the Executive Schedule (by
order of the Committee on House Administration, Mar. 21, 1977, p. 8227).
Under section 311 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1988, as
contained in section 101(i) of Public Law 100-202 (2 U.S.C. 4532), the
maximum salary for staff members is set by pay order of the Speaker. A
Member may not employ a relative on an MRA (5 U.S.C. 3110). The Code of
Official Conduct also precludes certain hiring practices of Members (see
Sec. 1095, infra).
Until the 103d Congress, a Member could employ a ``Lyndon Baines
Johnson Congressional Intern'' for a maximum of two months at not to
[[Page [45]]]
exceed $1,160 per month. Such internships were available for college
students and secondary or postsecondary school teachers (H. Res. 420,
Sept. 18, 1973, p. 30186; 2 U.S.C. 5322). In the 115th Congress there
was established a separate allowance available to Members for the
compensation of interns (2 U.S.C. 5322a).
The statutes provide for continuation of the pay of clerical
assistants to a Member upon death or resignation, until a successor is
elected to fill the vacancy, and such clerical assistants perform their
duties under the direction of the Clerk of the House (2 U.S.C. 5323-
5329). Upon the expulsion of a Member in the 96th Congress, the House by
resolution extended those provisions to any termination of service by a
Member during the term of office (H. Res. 804, Oct. 2, 1980, p. 28978).
For current information on the MRA and the method of its accounting
and disbursement, see current U.S. House of Representatives Members'
Congressional Handbook, Committee on House Administration.
At its <> organization the 104th Congress prohibited the
establishment or continuation of any legislative service organization
(as that term had been understood in the 103d Congress) and directed the
Committee on House Administration to take such steps as were necessary
to ensure an orderly termination and accounting for funds of any
legislative service organization in existence on January 3, 1995 (sec.
222, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 477). The 114th through 117th
Congresses authorized the payment of salaries and expenses by certain
Congressional Member Organizations that had registered with the
Committee on House Administration during the previous Congress (sec.
3(p), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 37; (sec. 3(n), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
2017, p. _; sec. 103(p), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; sec. 3(o), H.
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Separate from the <> MRA
specified above, the leaders of the House (the Speaker, Majority Leader,
Minority Leader, Majority Whip, and Minority Whip) are entitled to
office staffing allowances consisting of certain statutory positions as
well as lump-sum appropriations authorized by section 473 of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140). The portion of
these allowances for leadership office personnel may be adjusted by the
Clerk of the House in certain situations when the President effects a
pay adjustment for certain classes of Federal employees under the
Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-656; 84 Stat. 1946).
Under <> section 311(d) of
the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1988 (2 U.S.C. 4532), the
Speaker may issue ``pay orders'' that adjust pay levels for officers and
employees of the House to maintain certain relationships with comparable
levels in the Senate and in the other branches of government. For the
text of section 311(d), see Sec. 1130(12), infra.
[[Page [46]]]
* * * They [the <> Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except
Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest
during their attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and
in going to and returning from the same; * * *
The word ``felony'' <> in this provision has been interpreted not to
refer to a delinquency in a matter of debt (III, 2676), and ``treason,
felony, and breach of the peace'' have been construed to mean all
indictable crimes (III, 2673). The Supreme Court has held that the
privilege does not apply to arrest in any criminal case. Williamson v.
United States, 207 U.S. 425 (1908). The courts have discussed and
sustained the privilege of the Member in going to and returning from the
session (III, 2674); and where a person assaulted a Member on his way to
the House, although at a place distant therefrom, the House arrested him
on warrant of the Speaker, arraigned him at the bar and had him
imprisoned (II, 1626, 1628). Other assaults under these circumstances
have been treated as breaches of privilege (II, 1645). Where a Member
had been arrested and detained under mesne process in a civil suit
during a recess of Congress, the House decided that he was entitled to
discharge on the assembling of Congress, and liberated him and restored
him to his seat by the hands of its own officer (III, 2676). Service of
process is distinguished from arrest in civil cases and related
historical data are collected in Long v. Ansell, 293 U.S. 76 (1934), in
which the Supreme Court held that the clause was applicable only to
arrests in civil suits, now largely obsolete but common at the time of
the adoption of the United States Constitution. Rule VIII (formerly rule
L) was added in the 97th Congress to provide a standing procedure
governing subpoenas to Members, officers, and employees directing their
appearance as witnesses relating to the official functions of the House,
or for the production of House documents.
<> * * * and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they
[the Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other
place.
This privilege as <> to ``any
speech or debate'' applies generally to ``things done in a session of
the House by one of its Members in relation to the business before it.''
Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880), cited at III, 2675. See also
II, 1655 and Sec. Sec. 301, 302, infra, for provisions in Jefferson's
Manual
[[Page [47]]]
on the privilege; and Deschler, ch. 7. Moreover, it applies to all acts
within the ``legislative sphere,'' which includes matters that are ``an
integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which
Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to
the consideration or passage or rejection of proposed legislation or
with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the
jurisdiction of either House.'' Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606,
624, 625 (1972). The clause precludes judicial inquiry into the
motivation, preparation, or content of a Member's speech on the floor
and prevents such a speech from being made the basis for a criminal
conspiracy charge against the Member. United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S.
169 (1966). The Supreme Court held in United States v. Helstoski, 442
U.S. 447 (1979), that under the Speech or Debate Clause, neither
evidence of nor references to legislative acts of a Member of Congress
may be introduced by the Government in a prosecution under the official
bribery statute. But the Supreme Court has limited the scope of
legislative activity that is protected under the clause by upholding
grand jury inquiry into the possession and nonlegislative use of
classified documents by a Member. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606
(1972). The Court has also sustained the validity of an indictment of a
Member for accepting an illegal bribe to perform legislative acts in
which the prosecution established a prima facie case without relying on
the Member's constitutionally-protected legislative speech. United
States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972). Nor does the clause protect
transmittal of allegedly defamatory material issued in press releases
and newsletters by a Senator, because neither was essential to the
deliberative process of the Senate. Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111
(1979). For a discussion of waivers of the Speech or Debate clause, see
Sec. 301, infra.
Legislative employees acting under orders of the House are not
necessarily protected under the clause from judicial inquiry into the
constitutionality of their actions. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 165
(1880); Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967); Powell v. McCormack,
395 U.S. 486 (1969). But see Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606
(1972), in which the Supreme Court held that the aide of a Senator was
protected under the clause when performing legislative acts that would
have been protected under the clause if performed by the Senator
himself. There is no distinction between the members of a Senate
subcommittee and its chief counsel insofar as complete immunity under
the Speech or Debate Clause is provided for the issuance of a subpoena
pursuant to legitimate legislative inquiry. Eastland v. U.S.
Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975). See also Doe v. McMillan, 412
U.S. 306 (1973) (relating to the dissemination of a congressional
report) for the immunity under this clause of Members of the House and
their staffs, and for the common-law immunity of the Public Printer (now
the Director of the Government Publishing Office) and Superintendent of
Documents.
For Federal court decisions on the applicability of the clause to
unofficial circulation of reprints from the Congressional Record, see
McGovern v.
[[Page [48]]]
Martz, 182 F. Supp. 343 (1960); Long v. Ansell, 69 F.2d 386 (1934),
aff'd, 293 U.S. 76 (1934); Methodist Federation for Social Action v.
Eastland, 141 F. Supp. 729 (1956). For inquiry into a Member's use of
the franking privilege, see Hoellen v. Annunzio, 468 F.2d 522 (1972),
cert. denied, 412 U.S. 953 (1973); Schiaffo v. Helstoski, 350 F. Supp.
1076 (1972), rev'd 492 F.2d 413 (1974). For inquiry into the printing of
committee reports, see Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973); Hentoff v.
Ichord, 318 F. Supp. 1175 (1970).
For assaulting a <> Member for
words spoken in debate, Samuel Houston, not a Member, was arrested,
tried, and censured by the House (II, 1616-1619). Where Members have
assaulted other Members for words spoken in debate (II, 1656), or
proceeded by duel (II, 1644), or demanded explanation in a hostile
manner (II, 1644), the House has considered the cases as of privilege. A
communication addressed to the House by an official in an Executive
Department calling in question words uttered by a Member in debate was
criticized as a breach of privilege and withdrawn (III, 2684). An
explanation having been demanded of a Member by a person not a Member
for a question asked of the latter when a witness before the House, the
matter was considered but not pressed as a breach of privilege (III,
2681). A letter from a person supposed to have been assailed by a Member
in debate, asking properly and without menace if the speech was
correctly reported, was held to involve no question of privilege (III,
2682). Unless it is clear that a Member has been questioned for words
spoken in debate, the House declines to act (II, 1620; III, 2680).
For assaulting a Member, Charles C. Glover was arrested, arraigned at
the bar of the House, and censured by the Speaker by direction of the
House, although the provocation of the assault was words spoken in
debate in the previous Congress (VI, 333).
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880);
Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951); United States v. Johnson, 383
U.S. 169 (1966); Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967); Powell v.
McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969); Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606
(1972); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972); Doe v. McMillan,
412 U.S. 306 (1973); Eastland v. United States Serviceman's Fund, 421
U.S. 491 (1975); United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1979);
Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979); Helstoski v. Meanor, 442
U.S. 500 (1979).
\2\No Senator or <> Representative shall, during the Time for which he
was elected, be appointed to any Civil Office under the Authority of the
United States, which shall have been created, or the
[[Page [49]]]
Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; * * *
In a few cases questions have arisen under this paragraph (I, 506,
footnote; and see 42 Op. Att'y Gen. 36 (1969); see also Deschler, ch. 7;
P.L. 110-455 (emoluments of Secretary of State); P.L. 111-1 (emoluments
of Secretary of the Interior).
<> * * * and no Person holding any Office under the United
States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in
Office.
The meaning of the word ``office'' as used in this paragraph has been
discussed (I, 185, 417, 478, 493; II, 993; VI, 60, 64), as has also the
general subject of incompatible offices (I, 563).
The Committee on the Judiciary <> has concluded that members of commissions
created by law to investigate and report, but having no legislative,
executive, or judicial powers, and visitors to academies, regents,
directors, and trustees of public institutions, appointed under the law
by the Speaker, are not officers within the meaning of the Constitution
(I, 493). Membership on joint committees created by statute is not an
office in the contemplation of the constitutional provision prohibiting
Members of Congress from holding simultaneously other offices under the
United States (VII, 2164). A Member of either House is eligible to
appointment to any office not forbidden him by law, the duties of which
are not incompatible with those of a Member (VI, 63) and the question as
to whether a Member may be appointed to the Board of Managers of the
Soldiers' Home and become local manager of one of the homes, is a matter
for the decision of Congress itself (VI, 63). The House has also
distinguished between the performance of paid services for the Executive
(I, 495), like temporary service as assistant United States attorney
(II, 993), and the acceptance of an incompatible office. The House has
declined to hold that a contractor under the Government is
constitutionally disqualified to serve as a Member (I, 496). But the
House, or its committees, have found disqualified a Member who was
appointed a militia officer in the District of Columbia (I, 486) and in
various States (VI, 60), and Members who have accepted commissions in
the Army (I, 491, 492, 494). But the Committee on the Judiciary has
expressed the opinion that persons on the retired list of the Army do
not hold office under the United States in the constitutional sense (I,
494). A Member-elect has continued to act as governor of a State after
the assembling of the Congress to which he was elected (I, 503), but the
duties of a Member of the House and the Governor of a State are
absolutely inconsistent and may not be simultaneously discharged by the
same Member (VI, 65). The House adopted a privileged resolution
authorizing and directing the Speak
[[Page [50]]]
er to administer the oath of office to a Member-elect then serving as
president of a city council (H. Res. 1161, Nov. 29, 2018, p. _). For an
insertion by the Speaker, in concurrence with the Minority Leader, on
this case and relevant precedents, see Dec. 6, 2018, p. _.-
The House decided <> that the status of a Member-elect was
not affected by the constitutional requirement (I, 499), the theory
being advanced that the status of the Member-elect is distinguished from
the status of the Member who has qualified (I, 184). A Member-elect, who
continued in an office after his election but resigned before taking his
seat, was held entitled to the seat (I, 497, 498). However, when a
Member-elect held an incompatible office after the meeting of Congress
and his taking of the oath, he was held to have disqualified himself (I,
492). In other words, the Member-elect may defer until the meeting of
Congress and his taking of the oath, his choice between the seat and an
incompatible office (I, 492). As early as 1874 the Attorney General
opined that a Member-elect is not officially a Member of the House, and
thus may hold any office until sworn (14 Op. Att'y Gen. 408 (1874)).
The House has <> manifestly subscribed to the idea that a
contestant holding an incompatible office need not make an election
until the House has declared the contestant entitled to the seat (I,
505). Although a contestant had accepted and held a State office in
violation of the State constitution, if he were really elected a Member,
the House did not treat his contest as abated (II, 1003). Where a Member
had been appointed to an incompatible office a contestant not found to
be elected was not admitted to fill the vacancy (I, 807).
Where a Member <> has accepted an incompatible
office, the House has assumed or declared the seat vacant (I, 501, 502;
VI, 65). In the cases of Baker and Yell, the Elections Committee
concluded that the acceptance of a commission as an officer of
volunteers in the national army vacated the seat of a Member (I, 488),
and in another similar case the Member was held to have forfeited his
right to a seat (I, 490). The House has seated a person bearing regular
credentials on ascertaining that his predecessor in the same Congress
had accepted a military office (I, 572). But usually the House by
resolution formally declares the seat vacant (I, 488, 492). A Member-
elect may defer until the meeting of Congress and the taking of the oath
of office the choice between the seat and an incompatible office (I,
492). But when he retains the incompatible office and does not qualify,
a vacancy has been held to exist (I, 500). A resolution excluding a
Member who has accepted an incompatible office may be agreed to by a
majority vote (I, 490). A Member charged with acceptance of an
incompatible office was heard in his own behalf during the debate (I,
486).
Where it was held in Federal court that a Member of Congress may not
hold a commission in the Armed Forces Reserve under this clause,
[[Page [51]]]
the U.S. Supreme Court reversed on other grounds, the plaintiff's lack
of standing to maintain the suit. Reservists Committee to Stop the War
v. Laird, 323 F. Supp. 833 (1971), aff'd, 595 F.2d 1075 (1972), rev'd on
other grounds, 418 U.S. 208 (1974).
Section 7. \1\All Bills <> for raising Revenue shall originate in the
House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills.
This provision has been the subject of much discussion (II, 1488,
1494). In the earlier days the practice was not always correct (II,
1484); but in later years the House has insisted on its prerogative and
the Senate has often shown reluctance to infringe thereon (II, 1482,
1483, 1493). In several instances, however, the subject has been a
matter of contention, conference (II, 1487, 1488), and final
disagreement (II, 1485, 1487, 1488). Sometimes, however, when the House
has questioned an invasion of prerogative, the Senate has receded (II,
1486, 1493). The disagreements have been especially vigorous over the
right of the Senate to concur with amendments (II, 1489), and although
the Senate has acquiesced in the sole right of the House to originate
revenue bills, it has at the same time held to a broad power of
amendment (II, 1497-1499). The House has frequently challenged the
Senate on this point (II, 1481, 1491, 1496; Sept. 14, 1965, p. 23632).
When the House has perceived an invasion of its prerogative, it has
ordered the bill or Senate amendment to be returned to the Senate (II,
1480-1499; VI, 315, 317; Mar. 30, 1937, p. 2930; July 2, 1960, p. 15818;
Oct. 10, 1962, p. 23014; May 20, 1965, p. 11149; June 20, 1968, p.
22127; Nov. 8, 1979, p. 31518; May 17, 1983, p. 12486; Oct. 1, 1985, p.
25418; Sept. 25, 1986, p. 26202; July 30, 1987, p. 21582; June 16, 1988,
p. 14780; June 21, 1988, p. 15425; Sept. 23, 1988, p. 25094; Sept. 28,
1988, p. 26415; Oct. 21, 1988, pp. 33110-11; June 15, 1989, p. 12167;
Nov. 9, 1989, p. 28271; Oct. 22, 1991, p. 27087; Oct. 31, 1991, p.
29284; Feb. 25, 1992, p. 3377; July 14, 1994, p. 16593; July 21, 1994,
p. 17280; July 21, 1994, p. 17281; Aug. 12, 1994, pp. 7642, 7643; Oct.
7, 1994, p. 29136, 29137; Mar. 21, 1996, p. 5950; Apr. 16, 1996, pp.
7642, 7643; Sept. 27, 1996, p. 25542; Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25931; Mar. 5,
1998, p. 2618; Oct. 15, 1998, p. 26483; July 15, 1999, p. 16317; Nov.
18, 1999, p. 30732; Oct. 24, 2000, p. 24149; Sept. 20, 2001, p. 17454;
Sept. 23, 2010, pp. 16379, 16380; Dec. 12, 2012, p. 16984), or declined
to proceed further with it (II, 1485).
Among the measures the House has returned to the Senate: a Senate-
passed bill providing for the sale of Conrail and containing provisions
relating to the tax treatment of the sale, notwithstanding inclusion in
that bill of a disclaimer section requiring all revenue provisions
therein to be contained in separate legislation originating in the House
(Sept. 25, 1986, p. 26202); a Senate-passed bill dealing with the tax
treatment of income
[[Page [52]]]
derived from the exercise of Indian treaty fishing rights (June 21,
1988, p. 15425); a Senate-passed bill creating a tax-exempt government
corporation (June 15, 1989, p. 12167); a Senate-passed bill addressing
the tax treatment of police-corps scholarships and the regulation of
firearms under the Internal Revenue Code (Oct. 22, 1991, p. 27087); a
Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill prohibiting funds for
the Internal Revenue Service to enforce a requirement to use undyed
diesel fuel for use in recreational boats (July 14, 1994, p. 16593);
Senate-passed bills prescribing the tax treatment of certain benefits to
members of the Armed Forces (Nov. 18, 1999, p. 30732), of public-sector
retirement plans (Nov. 18, 1999, p. 30734), or of a military retirement
fund (June 25, 2015, p. 10498); a Senate-passed bill prohibiting the
importation of commodities subject to tariff (July 30, 1987, p. 21582);
a Senate-passed bill banning all imports from Iran, a tariff measure as
affecting revenue from dutiable imports (June 16, 1988, p. 14780); a
Senate-passed bill including certain import sanctions in an export
administration statute (Oct. 31, 1991, p. 29284); a Senate-passed bill
requiring the President to impose sanctions including import
restrictions against countries that fail to eliminate large-scale
driftnet fishing (Feb. 25, 1992, p. 3377); a Senate-passed bill
proposing to regulate toxic substances by prohibiting the import of
products containing more than specified level of lead (July 21, 1994, p.
17280); a Senate-passed bill proposing new import restrictions on
products containing any substance derived from rhinoceroses or tigers
(Oct. 15, 1998, p. 26483); Senate-passed bills proposing an amendment to
the criminal code that would make it unlawful to import certain assault
weapons (Oct. 22, 1991, p. 27087) or to import large capacity ammunition
feeding devices (July 15, 1999, p. 16317); a Senate-passed bill
proposing to create a new basis for applying import restrictions on bear
viscera or products derived therefrom (Oct. 24, 2000, p. 24149); a
Senate amendment proposing to enact by reference a Senate bill providing
for a ban on (dutiable) imports of diamonds from certain countries
(Sept. 20, 2001, p. 17454); a Senate amendment to a general
appropriation bill proposing a user fee raising revenue to finance
broader activities of the agency imposing the levy, thereby raising
general revenue (Aug. 12, 1994, p. 21656); a Senate amendment to a
general appropriation bill proposing to increase two fees to finance
general government operations (Sept. 23, 2010, pp. 16379, 16380); a
Senate-passed bill proposing to repeal a fee on electricity generated by
nuclear energy that otherwise would raise revenue (Mar. 5, 1998, p.
2618).
The House has adopted a resolution recommitting a House bill to
conference upon determining that a conference report (on which the House
was acting first) accompanying such bill originated provisions in
derogation of the constitutional prerogative of the House (July 24,
2018, p. _), but has laid on the table a similar resolution (July 27,
2000, p. 16565). The House has also laid on the table a resolution that
Senate amendments, including those subsequently agreed to in a
conference report (on which the House was acting first), originated
provisions in derogation of the con
[[Page [53]]]
stitutional prerogative of the House and resolving that such bill and
Senate amendments be returned to the Senate (July 28, 1982, p. 18375;
Aug. 19, 1982, p. 22127).
The House, by adopting one resolution, has returned multiple measures
to the Senate (Sept. 23, 2010, pp. 16379, 16380; Dec. 12, 2012, p.
16984).
A bill raising revenue incidentally was held not to infringe upon the
constitutional prerogative of the House to originate revenue legislation
(VI, 315). A question relating to the invasion of the constitutional
prerogatives of the House by a Senate amendment may be raised at any
time when the House is in possession of the papers, but not otherwise;
thus, the question has been presented pending the motion to call up a
conference report on the bill (June 20, 1968, Deschler, ch. 13,
Sec. 14.2; Aug. 19, 1982, p. 22127), but has been held nonprivileged
with respect to a bill already presented to the President (Apr. 6, 1995,
p. 10700). The Senate decided that a bill proposing a gasoline tax in
the District of Columbia should not originate in the Senate (VI, 316).
Clause 5(a) of rule XXI prohibits consideration of any amendment,
including any Senate amendment, proposing a tax or tariff during
consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee not
having that jurisdiction (Sec. 1066, infra).
For a discussion of the prerogatives of the House under this clause,
and discussion of the prerogatives of the House to originate
appropriation bills, see Deschler, ch. 13. For a discussion of the
prerogatives of the House with respect to treaties affecting revenue,
see Sec. 597, infra. For a discussion of how the House exercises its
origination clause responsibilities by a former chair of the Committee
on Ways and Means, see Dec. 12, 2014, p. 18729. For examples of Senate
messages requesting the return of Senate revenue measures, see Sec. 565,
infra.
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); Twin
City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 (1897); Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220
U.S. 107 (1911); Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429 (1906); Rainey v.
United States, 232 U.S. 310 (1914); United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495
U.S. 385 (1990).
\2\Every Bill <> which shall have passed the House of Representatives
and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the
President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if
not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it
shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on
[[Page [54]]]
their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such
Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill,
it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by
which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds
of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of
both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the
Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal
of each House respectively. * * *
Under the usual <> practice,
bills are considered to have been presented to the President at the time
they are delivered to the White House. In 1959, bills delivered to the
White House while the President was abroad were held for presentation to
the President upon his return to the United States by the White House.
The United States Court of Claims held, in Eber Bros. Wine and Liquor
Corp. v. United States, 337 F.2d 624 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 950
(1965), that where the President had determined, with the informal
acquiescence of leaders of Congress, that bills from the Congress were
to be received at the White House only for presentation to him upon his
return to the United States and the bill delivered to the White House
was so stamped, the Presidential veto of the bill more than 10 days
after delivery to the White House but less than 10 days after his return
to the country was timely. The second session of the 89th Congress
adjourned sine die while President Johnson was on an Asian tour and
receipts for bills delivered to the White House during that time were
marked in like manner. The approval of a bill by the President of the
United States is valid only with his signature (IV, 3490). Before the
adoption of the 20th amendment to the Constitution (which changed the
date of meeting of Congress to January 3), at the close of a Congress,
when the two Houses prolonged their sessions into the forenoon of March
4, the approvals were dated on the prior legislative day, because the
legislative portion of March 4 belonged to the term of the new Congress.
In one instance, however, bills signed on the forenoon of March 4 were
dated as of that day with the hour and minute of approval given with the
date (IV, 3489). The act of President Tyler in filing with a bill an
exposition of his reasons for signing it was examined and severely
criticized by a committee of the House (IV, 3492); and in 1842 a
committee of the House discussed the act of President Jackson in writing
above his signature of approval a memo
[[Page [55]]]
randum of his construction of the bill (IV, 3492). But if the President
has accompanied his message announcing the approval with a statement of
his reasons there has been no question in the House (IV, 3491). The
statutes require that bills signed by the President shall be received by
the Archivist of the United States and deposited in his office (1 U.S.C.
106a). Formerly these bills were received by the Secretary of State (IV,
3485) and deposited in his office (IV, 3429).
Notice of the <> signature of a bill by the President is sent by message to
the House in which it originated (VII, 1089) and that House informs the
other (IV, 3429). But this notice is not necessary to the validity of
the act (IV, 3495). Sometimes, at the close of a Congress the President
informs the House of such bills as have been approved and of such as
have been allowed to fail (IV, 3499-3502). In one instance he
communicated his omission to sign a bill through the committee appointed
to notify him that Congress was about to adjourn (IV, 3504). A bill that
had not actually passed having been signed by the President, he
disregarded it and a new bill was passed (IV, 3498). Messages of the
President giving notice of bills approved are entered in the Journal and
published in the Congressional Record (V, 6593).
A message withholding <> approval of a bill, called a veto message, is sent to the House
in which the bill originated; but it has been held that such a message
may not be returned to the President on his request after it has been
laid before the Senate (IV, 3521). In one instance a veto message that
had not been laid before the House was returned to the President on his
request (Aug. 1, 1946, p. 10651). A vetoed bill received in the House by
way of the Senate is considered as if received directly from the
President and supersedes the regular order of business (IV, 3537; VII,
1109). A veto message may not be read after the absence of a quorum has
been ascertained, even though the House be about to adjourn sine die
(IV, 3522; VII, 1094); but the message may be read and acted on at the
next session of the same Congress (IV, 3522). When the President has
been prevented by adjournment from returning a bill with his objections
he has sometimes at the next session communicated his reasons for not
approving (V, 6618-6620).
For enrollments returned with ``memoranda of disapproval,'' see
Sec. 113, infra.
It is possible, <> although not invariable, that a bill returned with the
objections of the President shall be voted on at once (IV, 3534-3536)
and when laid before the House the question on the passage is considered
as pending and no motion from the floor is required (VII, 1097-1099),
but it has been held that the constitutional mandate that the House
shall ``proceed to reconsider'' means that the House shall immediately
proceed to consider it under the Rules of the House, such that the
ordinary motions under the Rules of the House (e.g., to refer or to
postpone to a day certain)
[[Page [56]]]
are in order (IV, 3542-3550; VII, 1100, 1105, 1113; Speaker Wright, Aug.
3, 1988, p. 20280) and (for the stated examples) debatable under the
hour rule (VIII, 2740). The House may by unanimous consent (e.g., August
17, 1978, pp. 26802, 26803) or special order of business (Jan. 7, 2016,
p. 133; Dec. 21, 2020, p. _) postpone consideration of a vetoed bill, or
any motion related to its disposition, in advance of its receipt by the
House, and such a special order of business may supersede an earlier
unanimous-consent request in order to further postpone consideration
(May 27, 2020, p. _). When consideration of a veto message is postponed
to a date certain it has the status of unfinished business on that day,
such that the House may proceed to its consideration without motion from
the floor (e.g., May 9, 1996, p. 10807; Nov. 6, 2007, pp. 29822, 29823).
Although under clause 4 of rule XVI, and under the precedents the motion
for the previous question takes precedence over motions to postpone or
to refer when a question is under debate, if the Speaker has laid before
the House a veto message from the President but has not yet stated the
question to be on overriding the veto, that question is not ``under
debate'' and the motion for the previous question does not take
precedence (Speaker Wright, Aug. 3, 1988; Procedure, ch. 24, Sec. 15.8).
A resolution asserting that to recognize for a motion to refer a veto
message before stating the question on overriding the veto would
interfere with the constitutional prerogative of the House to proceed to
that question, and directing the Speaker to state the question on
overriding the veto as pending before recognizing for a motion to refer,
did not give rise to a question of the privileges of the House (Speaker
Wright, Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20281). A motion to refer a vetoed bill, either
with or without the message, has been held allowable within the
constitutional mandate that the House shall ``proceed to reconsider''
(IV, 3550; VII, 1104, 1105, 1108, 1114), and in the 101st Congress, a
veto pending as unfinished business was referred with instructions to
consider and report promptly (Jan. 24, 1990, p. 421). But although the
ordinary motion to refer may be applied to a vetoed bill, it is not in
order to move to recommit it pending the demand for the previous
question or after it is ordered (IV, 3551; VII, 1102). When a veto
message is before the House for consideration de novo or as unfinished
business, a motion to refer the message to committee takes precedence
over the question of passing the bill, the objections of the President
to the contrary notwithstanding (Procedure, ch. 24, Sec. 15.8; Oct. 25,
1983, p. 29188), but the motion to refer may be laid on the table (Oct.
25, 1983, p. 29188). A vetoed bill having been rejected by the House,
the message was referred (IV, 3552; VII, 1103). Committees to which
vetoed bills have been referred have sometimes neglected to report (IV,
3523, 3550, footnotes; VII, 1108, 1114).
A vetoed bill may be laid on the table (IV, 3549; VII, 1105), but it
is still highly privileged and a motion to take it from the table is in
order (IV, 3550; V, 5439). Also a motion to discharge a committee from
the consideration of such a bill is privileged (IV, 3532; Aug. 4, 1988,
p. 20365; Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23815) and (in the modern practice) is
debatable (Mar. 7, 1990,
[[Page [57]]]
p. 3620) but is subject to the motion to lay on the table (Sept. 7,
1965, p. 22958; Aug. 4, 1988, p. 20365). When the motion to discharge is
agreed to, the veto message is pending as unfinished business (Mar. 7,
1990, p. 3621). Although a vetoed bill is always privileged, the same is
not true of a bill reported in lieu of it (IV, 3531; VII, 1103).
If two-thirds of <> the
House to which a bill is returned with the President's objections agree
to pass it, and then two-thirds of the other House also agree, it
becomes a law (IV, 3520). The yeas and nays are required to pass a bill
over the President's veto (art. I, sec. 7; IV, 2726, 3520; VII, 1110).
The two-thirds vote required to pass the bill is two-thirds of the
Members present and voting and not two-thirds of the total membership of
the House (IV, 3537, 3538; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 276
(1919)). Only Members voting should be considered in determining whether
two-thirds voted in the affirmative (VII, 1111). The motion to
reconsider may not be applied to the vote on reconsideration of a bill
returned with the objections of the President (V, 5644; VIII, 2778).
It is the practice for one House to inform the other by message of its
decision that a bill returned with the objections of the President shall
not pass (IV, 3539-3541). A bill passed notwithstanding the objections
of the President is sent by the presiding officer of the House that last
acts on it to the Archivist, who receives it and deposits it in his
office (1 U.S.C. 106a). Formerly these bills were sent to the Secretary
of State (IV, 3524) and deposited in his office (IV, 3485).
A bill incorrectly <> enrolled has been recalled from the President, who erased
his signature (IV, 3506). Bills sent to the President but not yet signed
by him are sometimes recalled by concurrent resolution of the two Houses
(IV, 3507-3509; VII, 1091; Sept. 4, 1962, p. 18405; May 6, 1974, p.
13076), and amended; but this proceeding is regarded as irregular (IV,
3510-3518). When the two Houses of Congress request the President by
concurrent resolution to return an enrolled bill and the President
honors the request, the ten-day period under this clause runs anew from
the time the bill is re-enrolled and is again presented to the
President. Thus, in the 93d Congress the President returned on May 7,
1974 a bill pursuant to the request of Congress (H. Con. Res. 485, May
6, 1974, p. 13076). The bill was again enrolled, presented to the
President on May 7, and marked ``received May 7'' at the White House. An
error in an enrolled bill that has gone to the President may also be
corrected by a joint resolution (IV, 3519; VII, 1092). In the 99th
Congress, two enrollments of a continuing appropriation bill for FY 1987
were presented to and signed by the President, the second correcting an
omission in the first (see P.L. 99-500 and 99-591). In Clinton v. City
of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the
cancellation procedures of the Line Item Veto Act violated the
presentment clause of article I, section 7 of the Constitution. For a
discussion of the
[[Page [58]]]
operation of the Act during the period of its effectiveness, see
Sec. 1130(6b), infra.
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: Matthews v. Zane, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 164
(1822); Gardner v. Collector, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 499 (1868); Lapeyre v.
United States, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 191 (1873); La Abra Silver Mining Co.
v. United States, 175 U.S. 423 (1899); Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v.
Kansas, 248 U.S. 276 (1919); Edwards v. United States, 286 U.S. 482
(1932); Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938); Clinton v. City of
New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).
* * * If any <> Bill shall not be returned by the President
within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to
him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it,
unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which
Case it shall not be a Law.
A bill signed by the President within 10 days (Sunday excepted) after
it has been presented becomes a law even though such signing takes place
when Congress is not in session, whether during the period of an
adjournment to a day certain or after the final adjournment of a session
(IV, 3486). A President may sign a bill after adjournment sine die but
within 10 days after its receipt. For example, President Truman, after
the convening of the 82d Congress, approved bills passed and presented
in the 81st Congress (e.g., P.L. 81-910); President Reagan, after the
convening of the 98th Congress, approved bills passed and presented in
the 97th Congress (e.g., P.L. 97-414); and President Obama, after the
convening of the 113th Congress, approved bills passed and presented in
the 112th Congress (e.g., P.L. 112-241). It was formerly contended that
the President might not approve bills during a recess (IV, 3493, 3494),
and in one instance, in 1864, when the President signed a bill after
final adjournment of Congress but within 10 days grave doubts were
raised and an adverse report was made by a House committee (IV, 3497).
Later opinions of the Attorney General have been to the effect that the
President has the power to approve bills within 10 days after they have
been presented during the period of an adjournment to a day certain (IV,
3496) and after an adjournment sine die (VII, 1088). The Supreme Court
has held valid as laws bills signed by the President within 10 days
during a recess for a specified time (La Abra Silver Mining Co. v.
United States, 175 U.S. 451 (1899); IV, 3495) and also those signed
after an adjournment sine die (Edwards v. United States, 286 U.S. 482
(1932)).
[[Page [59]]]
A bill that <> is passed by both
Houses of Congress during the first regular session of a Congress and
presented to the President less than 10 days (Sundays excepted) before
the adjournment sine die of that session, but is neither signed by the
President, nor returned to the House in which it originated, does not
become a law (``The Pocket Veto Case,'' 279 U.S. 655 (1929); VII, 1115).
The Supreme Court has held that the adjournment of the House of origin
for not exceeding three days while the other branch of the Congress
remained in session did not prevent a return of the vetoed bill to the
House of origin. Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938). President
Truman during an adjournment to a day certain pocket vetoed several
bills passed by the 81st Congress and also, after the convening of the
82d Congress, pocket vetoed one bill passed in the 81st Congress.
Doubt has existed <> as to whether a bill that remains with the President 10 days
without his signature, Congress meanwhile before the tenth day having
adjourned to a day certain, becomes a law (IV, 3483, 3496; VII, 1115);
an opinion of the Attorney General in 1943 stated that under such
circumstances a bill not signed by the President did not become a law
(40 Op. Att'y Gen. 274 (1943)). However, more recently, where a Member
of the Senate challenged in Federal court the effectiveness of such a
pocket veto, a United States Court of Appeals held that a Senate bill
could not be pocket-vetoed by the President during an ``intrasession''
adjournment of Congress to a day certain for more than three days, where
the Secretary of the Senate had been authorized to receive Presidential
messages during such adjournment. Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d 430 (D.C.
Cir., 1974). See also Kennedy v. Jones, 412 F. Supp. 353 (D.D.C. 1976).
Following a consent decree in this case, it was announced that President
Ford would utilize a ``return'' veto, subject to override, in
intersession and intrasession adjournments where authority exists for
the appropriate House to receive such messages notwithstanding the
adjournment.
In the 101st, 110th, and 111th Congresses, when the President returned
an enrolled bill during an intersession adjournment, not by way of
message under seal but with a ``memorandum of disapproval'' setting
forth his objections, the House treated it as a return veto subject to
override under article I, section 7 (Jan. 23, 1990, p. 4; Jan. 15, 2008,
pp. 11, 12; Jan. 12, 2010, p. 7). For similar treatment by the Senate in
the 114th Congress, including holding the veto message at the desk, see
January 11, 2016, pp. 253, 254. Similarly, in the 102d, 106th, and 111th
Congresses, an enrolled House bill returned to the Clerk during an
intrasession recess, not by way of message under seal but with a
``memorandum of disapproval'' setting forth the objections of the
President, was considered as a return veto (Sept. 11, 1991, p. 22643;
Sept. 6, 2000, p. 17156; Nov. 13, 2000, p. 26022; Nov. 15, 2010, p.
17521). Also in the 102d Congress, President Bush purported on December
20, 1991, to pocket veto a bill (S. 1176) that was presented to him on
December 9, 1991, notwithstanding that the Congress was in
[[Page [60]]]
an intrasession adjournment (from Nov. 27, 1991, until 11:55 a.m., Jan.
3, 1992) rather than an adjournment sine die (see Jan. 23, 1992 [Daily
Digest]); and during debate on a subsequent bill (S. 2184) purporting to
repeal the provisions of S. 1176 and to enact instead provisions
acceding to the objections of the President, the Speaker inserted
remarks on the pocket veto in light of modern congressional practice
concerning the receipt of messages and communications during recesses
and adjournments (Mar. 3, 1992, p. 4081).
In the 93d Congress, the President returned a House bill without his
signature to the Clerk of the House, who had been authorized to receive
messages from the President during an adjournment to a day certain, and
the President asserted in his veto message that he had ``pocket vetoed''
the bill during the adjournment of the House to a day certain. The House
regarded the President's return of the bill without his signature as a
veto within the meaning of article I, section 7 of the Constitution and
proceeded to reconsider and to pass the bill over the President's veto,
after postponing consideration to a subsequent day (motion to postpone,
Nov. 18, 1974, p. 36246; veto override, Nov. 20, 1974, p. 36621).
Subsequently, on November 21, 1974, the Senate also voted to override
the veto (p. 36882) and pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 106a the Enrolling Clerk of
the Senate forwarded the bill to the Archives for publication as a
public law. The Administrator of General Services at the Archives (now
Archivist), upon instructions from the Department of Justice, declined
to promulgate the bill as public law on the day received. The question
as to the efficacy of the congressional action in passing the bill over
the President's veto was mooted when the House and Senate passed on
November 26, 1974 (pp. 37406, 37603), an identical bill that was signed
into law on December 7, 1974 (P.L. 93-516).
As part of the concurrent resolution providing for the adjournments
sine die of the first sessions of the 101st Congress and 105th Congress,
the Congress reaffirmed its position that an intersession adjournment
did not prevent the return of a bill where the Clerk and the Secretary
of the Senate were authorized to receive messages during the adjournment
(H. Con. Res. 239, Nov. 21, 1989, p. 31156; S. Con. Res. 68, Nov. 13,
1997, p. 26538). For the views of the Speaker, the Minority Leader, and
the Attorney General concerning pocket veto authority during an
intrasession adjournment, see correspondence inserted in the
Congressional Record (Jan. 23, 1990, p. 3; Sept. 19, 2000, p. 18594;
Nov. 13, 2000, p. 26022; Oct. 2, 2008, pp. 23874, 23875; May 26, 2010,
pp. 9473, 9474); and for discussions of the constitutionality of
intersession or intrasession pocket vetoes see Kennedy, ``Congress, The
President, and The Pocket Veto,'' 63 Va. L. Rev. 355 (1977), and
Hearing, Subcommittee on Legislative Process, Committee on Rules, on
H.R. 849, 101st Congress.
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States,
175 U.S. 423 (1899); Wilkes County v. Coler, 180 U.S. 506 (1901); the
Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929); Edwards v. United
[[Page [61]]]
States, 286 U.S. 482 (1932); Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583
(1938); Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361 (1987) (vacating and remanding as
moot the decision sub nom. Barnes v. Kline, 759 F.2d 21 (D.C. Cir.
1984)).
\3\Every Order, <> Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence
of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a
question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the
United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved
by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of
the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and
Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
It has been settled conclusively that a joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution should not be presented to the President
for his approval (V, 7040; Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.)
378 (1798)). Such joint resolutions, after passage by both Houses, are
presented to the Archivist (1 U.S.C. 106b). Although the requirement of
the Constitution seems specific, the practice of early Congresses was to
present to the President for approval only such concurrent resolutions
as were legislative in effect (IV, 3483, 3484).
For discussion of Presidential approval of a joint resolution
extending the period for State ratification of a constitutional
amendment already submitted to the States, see Sec. 192, infra.
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); United
States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892); Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United
States, 183 U.S. 176 (1901); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983); Process
Gas Consumer's Group v. Consumer Energy Council of America 463 U.S. 1216
(1983).
Section 8. The Congress <> shall
have Power\1\ To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to
pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of
the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;
[[Page [62]]]
<> \2\To borrow Money on the
credit of the United States:
\3\To regulate <> Commerce with
foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
Tribes;
\4\To establish <> an
uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of
Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
<> \5\To coin Money,
regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of
Weights and Measures;
\6\To provide <> for the Punishment
of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;-
-
<> \7\To establish Post
Offices and Post Roads;
\8\To promote <> the Progress
of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries;
<> \9\To constitute Tribunals
inferior to the supreme Court;
<> \10\To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on
the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
<> \11\To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,
and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
[[Page [63]]]
The 93d <> Congress passed over the President's veto Public Law 93-
148, relating to the power of Congress to declare war under this clause
and the power of the President as Commander in Chief under article II,
section 2, clause 1. The law requires that the President report to
Congress on the introduction of United States Armed Forces in the
absence of a declaration of war. The President must terminate use of the
Armed Forces unless Congress, within 60 calendar days after a report is
submitted or is required to be submitted, (1) declares war or authorizes
use of the Armed Forces; (2) extends by law the 60-day period; or (3) is
physically unable to meet as result of armed attack. The Act also
provided that Congress could adopt a concurrent resolution requiring the
removal of Armed Forces engaged in foreign hostilities, a provision that
should be read in light of INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Sections
6 and 7 of the Act provide congressional procedures for joint
resolutions, bills, and concurrent resolutions introduced pursuant to
the provisions of the Act (see Sec. 1130(2), infra). For further
discussion of that Act, and war powers generally, see Deschler, ch. 13.
\12\To raise <> and
support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a
longer Term than two Years;
<> \13\To provide and
maintain a Navy;
<> \14\To make Rules for the
Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
\15\To provide <> for
calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions;
\16\To provide <> for organizing,
arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of
them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving
to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
Authority of train
[[Page [64]]]
ing the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
\17\To exercise <> exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over
all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Congress has provided <> by law that ``all that part of the territory
of the United States included within the present limits of the District
of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of government of the United
States'' (4 U.S.C. 71). Pursuant to its authority under this clause,
Congress provided in 1970 for the people of the District of Columbia to
be represented in the House of Representatives by a Delegate and for a
Commission to report to the Congress on the organization of the
government of the District of Columbia (P.L. 91-405; 84 Stat. 845). For
the powers and duties of the Delegate from the District of Columbia, see
rule III (Sec. 675, infra) and Deschler, ch. 7, Sec. 3. In 1973,
Congress passed the District of Columbia Self-Government and
Governmental Reorganization Act, which reorganized the governmental
structure of the District, provided a charter for local government
subject to acceptance by a majority of the registered qualified voters
of the District, delegated certain legislative powers to the District,
and implemented certain recommendations of the Commission on the
Organization of the Government of the District of Columbia (P.L. 93-198;
87 Stat. 774). Section 604 of that Act provides for congressional action
on certain district matters by providing a procedure for approval and
disapproval of certain actions by the District of Columbia Council. The
section, as amended by Public Law 98-473, permits a highly privileged
motion to discharge a joint resolution of approval or disapproval that
has not been reported by the committee to which referred within 20
calendar days after its introduction (see Sec. 1130(5), infra).
[[Page [65]]]
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (1805);
National Mutual Insurance Co. of D.C. v. Tidewater Transfer Co, 337 U.S.
582 (1945).
- \18\To make <> all Laws
which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in
the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer
thereof.
Section 9. \1\The <> Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States
now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a
Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten
dollars for each Person.
\2\The Privilege of <> the
Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of
Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
<> \3\No
Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
\4\[No Capitation, <> or
other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or
Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.]
This provision was changed in 1913 by the 16th amendment.
<> \5\No Tax or Duty shall be laid on
Articles exported from any State.
[[Page [66]]]
\6\No Preference <> shall be
given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State
over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State,
be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
\7\No Money <> shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the
Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from
time to time.
\8\No Title of <> Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no
Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without
the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office,
or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Consent has been <> granted to officers and employees of the government,
under enumerated conditions, to accept certain gifts and decorations
from foreign governments (see 5 U.S.C. 7342). The adoption of this act
largely has obviated the practice of passing private bills to permit the
officer or employee to retain the award. However, where the Speaker (who
was one of the officers empowered by an earlier law to approve retention
of decorations by Members of the House) was himself tendered an award
from a foreign government, a private law (Private Law 91-244) was
enacted to permit him to accept and wear the award so that he would not
be in the position of reviewing his own application under the provisions
of the law.
Public Law 95-105 amended the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (now 5
U.S.C. 7342) to designate the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
(now Ethics) of the House of Representatives as the employing agency for
the House with respect to foreign gifts and decorations received by
Members and employees; under that statute the Committee may approve the
acceptance of foreign decorations and has promulgated regulations to
carry out the Act with respect to Members and employees (Jan. 23, 1978,
p. 452), and disposes of foreign gifts that may not be retained by the
donee.
[[Page [67]]]
Opinions of Attorneys General: Gifts from Foreign Prince, 24 Op. Att'y
Gen. 117 (1902); Foreign Diplomatic Commission, 13 Op. Att'y Gen. 538
(1871); Marshal of Florida, 6 Op. Att'y Gen. 409 (1854).
Section 10. \1\No <> State shall
enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of
Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing
but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of
Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of
Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
\2\No State <> shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or
Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary
for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties
and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the
Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be
subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
\3\No State <> shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay
any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,
enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a
foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such
imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
[[Page [68]]]
ARTICLE II.
Section 1. \1\The <> executive Power shall be vested in a President of the
United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of
four years, and together with the Vice President, chosen for the same
Term, be elected, as follows:
George <> Washington took the oath of office as the first President on
April 30, 1789 (III, 1986). The two Houses of the First Congress found,
after examination by a joint committee, that by provisions made in the
Federal Constitution and by the Continental Congress, the term of the
President had, notwithstanding, begun on March 4, 1789 (I, 3). The 20th
amendment, declared to have been ratified on February 6, 1933, provides
that Presidential terms shall end and successor terms shall begin at
noon on January 20. Thus, Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term began on
March 4, 1933, but ended at noon on January 20, 1937. Formerly, when
March 4 fell on Sunday, the public inauguration of the President
occurred at noon on March 5 (III, 1996; VI, 449). Following ratification
of the 20th amendment, the first time inauguration day fell on Sunday
was January 20, 1957, and President Eisenhower took the oath for his
second term in a private ceremony at the White House on that day
followed by a public inauguration ceremony on the steps of the East
Front of the Capitol on Monday, January 21, 1957. A similar scenario was
followed at the beginning of the second terms of President Reagan and
President Obama, with the oath being given at the White House on Sunday
(1985 and 2013), followed by a public ceremony on Monday in the Rotunda
(1985) or the East Front of the Capitol (2013). The 22d amendment
provides that no person shall be elected President more than twice.
\2\Each <> State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole
Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be
entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person
holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be
appointed an Elector.
[[Page [69]]]
Questions <> of the qualifications of electors have arisen, and in one
instance certain ones were found disqualified, but because their number
was not sufficient to affect the result and there was doubt as to what
tribunal should pass on the question the votes were counted (III, 1941).
In other cases there were objections, but the votes were counted (III,
1972-1974, 1979). In one instance an elector found to be disqualified
resigned both offices, whereupon he was made eligible to fill the
vacancy thus caused among electors (III, 1975).
\3\[The <> Electors shall meet in their respective States and
vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an
Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List
of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which
List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of
Government of the United States, directed to the President of the
Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate
and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes
shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes
shall be the President, if such Number be a majority of the whole Number
of Electors appointed: and if there be more than one who have such
Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of
Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for
President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest
on the List the said House shall in like manner chuse the President. But
in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the
Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this pur
[[Page [70]]]
pose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States,
and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In
every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the
greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President.
But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate
shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.]
This third clause of article II, section 1 was superseded by the 12th
amendment (see Sec. Sec. 219-223, infra).
<> \4\The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the
Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day
shall be the same throughout the United States.
The time for choosing electors has been fixed on ``the Tuesday next
after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year''; and the
electors in each State ``meet and give in their votes on the first
Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their
appointment, at such place in each State as the legislature of such
State shall direct'' (III, 1914; VI, 438; 3 U.S.C. 1, 7). The statute
also provides for transmitting to the President of the Senate
certificates of the appointment of the electors and of their votes (III,
1915-1917; VI, 439; 3 U.S.C. 11).
\5\No <> Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall
be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be
eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty
five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
[[Page [71]]]
\6\In <> Case of
the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation,
or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the
Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law
provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both
of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then
act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the
Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The <> 25th amendment
provides for filling a vacancy in the Office of the Vice President and,
when the President is unable to perform the duties of his office, for
the Vice President to assume those powers and duties as Acting
President. During the 93d Congress, President Richard M. Nixon resigned
from office on August 9, 1974, by delivering a signed resignation to the
Office of the Secretary of State, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. 20. Pursuant to
the 25th amendment, Vice President Gerald R. Ford became President and
the House and Senate confirmed his nominee, Nelson A. Rockefeller, to
become Vice President (December 19, 1974, p. 41516).
Congress also has provided for the performance of the duties of the
President in case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of
the President and Vice President (3 U.S.C. 19).
\7\The <> President shall,
at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall
neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall
have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other
Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
The compensation of the President is established by law (3 U.S.C.
102). In addition, the law provides an expense allowance (3 U.S.C. 102)
and a travel allowance (3 U.S.C. 103).
[[Page [72]]]
\8\Before <> he enter on the
Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or
Affirmation:--``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the
best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States.''
The <> taking of this
oath, which is termed the inauguration, is made the occasion of certain
ceremonies that are arranged for by a joint committee of the two Houses
(III, 1998, 1999; VI, 451). For many years the oath was normally taken
at the east portico of the Capitol, although in earlier years it was
taken in the Senate Chamber or Hall of the House (III, 1986-1995). On
March 4, 1909, owing to inclement weather, the President-elect took the
oath and delivered his inaugural address in the Senate Chamber (VI,
447). And when Vice President Fillmore succeeded to the vacancy in the
Office of President, Congress being in session, he took the oath in the
Hall of the House in the presence of the Senate and House (III, 1997).
In 1945 Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had been elected for his fourth term
as President, took the oath of office on the south portico at the White
House. On August 9, 1974, Gerald R. Ford, who as Vice President
succeeded to the Presidency following the resignation of President Nixon
on that day, was sworn in in the East Room of the White House. The West
Front of the Capitol was first used for the inaugural ceremony for
Ronald W. Reagan, Jan. 20, 1981. Because of extreme cold, the public
administration of the oath was for the first time held in the Rotunda of
the Capitol, rather than on the West Front, as scheduled, on January 21,
1985. Permission for such use is authorized by concurrent resolution
(see, e.g., Oct. 9, 1984, p. 30926).
Section 2. \1\The <> President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
into the actual Service of the United States; he may require
the <> Opinion,
in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive
Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their re
[[Page [73]]]
spective <> Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and
Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of
Impeachment.
The <> 93d
Congress passed over the President's veto Public Law 93-148, relating to
the power of Congress to declare war under article I, section 8, clause
11 (Sec. 127, supra) and the power of the President as Commander in
Chief under this clause. For further discussion of the reports to
Congress required and the procedure for congressional action provided
under Public Law 93-148, see Sec. 128, supra.
In <> 1974, President
Ford exercised his power under the last phrase of this clause by
pardoning former President Nixon for any crimes he might have committed
during a certain period in office (Proclamation 4311, September 8,
1974). President Nixon had resigned on August 9, 1974, following the
decision of the Committee on the Judiciary to report to the House a
recommendation of impeachment (H. Rept. 93-1305, Aug. 20, 1974, p.
29219).
\2\He <> shall have Power,
by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,
provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall
nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
appoint Ambassadors, <> other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments
are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by
Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of
Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The power of the President to appoint diplomatic representatives to
foreign governments and to determine their rank is derived from the
Constitution and may not be circumscribed by statutory enactments (VII,
1248). In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court held
that any
[[Page [74]]]
appointee exercising significant authority (not merely internal
delegable authorities within the legislative branch) pursuant to the
laws of the United States is an Officer of the United States and must
therefore be appointed pursuant to this clause, and that Congress cannot
by law vest such appointment authority in its own officers or require
that Presidential appointments be subject to confirmation by both
Houses. For a discussion of the role of the House with respect to
treaties affecting revenue, see Sec. 597, infra.
\3\The <> President shall have Power to fill up all
Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting
Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Decision <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: National Labor Relations Bd. v. Noel
Canning, 573 U.S. 513 (2014).
Section 3. <> He shall
from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the
Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall
judge necessary and expedient; * * *
In the early years of the Government the President made a speech to
Congress on its assembling (V, 6629), but in 1801 President Jefferson
discontinued this practice and transmitted a message in writing. This
protocol was followed until April 8, 1913, when the custom of addressing
Congress in person was resumed by President Wilson and, with the
exception of President Hoover (VIII, 3333) has been followed generally
by subsequent Presidents. A message in writing is usually communicated
to both Houses on the same day, but an accompanying document can be sent
to but one House (V, 6616, 6617). The President's State of the Union
message is referred on motion to the Union Calendar and ordered printed
(e.g., Jan. 15, 1975, p. 177). This motion may also refer a separate
hand-delivered written message from the President (e.g., Jan. 19, 1978,
p. 152). In response to a series of inquiries regarding the potential
destruction of such written message, the Chair affirmed that such
message is part of the proceedings of the House and is used by the House
for archival and printing purposes (Feb. 5, 2020, p. _). A resolution
disapproving of the Speaker's conduct relating to the handling of such
message constitutes a question of the privileges of the House (Feb. 6,
2020, p. _). In early years confidential messages
[[Page [75]]]
were often sent and considered in secret session of the House (V, 7251,
7252).
By <> law (31 U.S.C. 1105),
the President is required to transmit the budget to Congress on or after
the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in
February each year. In addition, the President is required to submit a
supplemental budget summary by July 16 each year (31 U.S.C. 1106).
Submission of the Economic Report of the President is required within 10
days after the submission of the budget (15 U.S.C. 1022). The
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601)
requires the transmittal to Congress by the President of amendments and
revisions related to the budget on or before April 10 and July 15 of
each year. In addition, the Act provides for the transmittal of messages
proposing rescissions and deferrals of budget authority (2 U.S.C. 683,
684).
When the President has expressed desire to address Congress in person
a concurrent resolution is adopted by both Houses arranging for a joint
session to receive the message. The Speaker presides and the President
of the Senate (the Vice President) sits to the right of the Speaker, but
in the absence of the Vice President, the President pro tempore sits to
the left of the Speaker (Nov. 27, 1963, p. 22838).
The <> ceremony of receiving a message in writing is simple (V,
6591), and may occur during consideration of a question of privilege (V,
6640-6642) or before the organization of the House (V, 6647-6649) and in
the absence of a quorum (V, 6650; VIII, 3339; clause 7 of rule XX).
But, with the exception of vetoes, messages are regularly laid before
the House only at the time prescribed by the rule for the order of
business (V, 6635-6638) within the discretion of the Speaker (VIII,
3341). Although a message of the President is always read, the latest
rulings have not permitted the reading of the accompanying documents to
be demanded as a matter of right (V, 5267-5271; VII, 1108). A concurrent
resolution providing for a joint session to receive the President's
message was held to be of the highest privilege (VIII, 3335).
* * * <> he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both
Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them,
with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such
Time as he shall think proper; * * *
In certain exigencies the President may convene Congress at a place
other than the seat of government (I, 2; 2 U.S.C. 27). Congress has on
occasion been convened by the President (I, 10, 11; Nov. 17, 1947, p.
10578; July 26, 1948, p. 9362), and in one instance, when Congress had
provided
[[Page [76]]]
by law for meeting, the President called it together on an earlier day
(I, 12). The Congress having adjourned on July 27, 1947, p. 10521, and
on June 20, 1948, p. 9350, to a day certain, the President called it
together on an earlier date than that to which it adjourned (Nov. 17,
1947, p. 10577; July 26, 1948, p. 9362). There has been some discussion
as to whether or not there is a distinction between a session called by
the President and other sessions of Congress (I, 12, footnote).
* * * <> he shall receive Ambassadors and other
public Ministers; he shall take Care That the Laws be faithfully
executed, and shall Commission all the officers of the United States.
Section 4. <> The
President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States,
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
In <> the
Blount trial the managers contended that all citizens of the United
States were liable to impeachment, but this contention was not admitted
(III, 2315), and in the Belknap trial both managers and counsel for
respondent agreed that a private citizen, apart from offense in an
office, might not be impeached (III, 2007). But resignation of the
office does not prevent impeachment for crime or misdemeanor therein
(III, 2007, 2317, 2444, 2445, 2459, 2509). In Blount's case it was
decided that a Senator was not a civil officer within the meaning of the
impeachment provisions of the Constitution (III, 2310, 2316). Questions
have also arisen as to whether or not the Congressional Printer (III,
1785), or a vice consul-general (III, 2515), might be impeached.
Proceedings for the impeachment of territorial judges have been taken in
several instances (III, 2486, 2487, 2488), although various opinions
have been given that such an officer is not impeachable (III, 2022,
2486, 2493). A committee of the House by majority vote held a
Commissioner of the District of Columbia not to be a civil officer
subject to impeachment under the Constitution (VI, 548). An independent
counsel appointed under 28 U.S.C. 593 (a statute currently ineffective
under 28 U.S.C. 599) may be impeached under 28 U.S.C. 596(a), and a
resolution impeaching such an independent counsel constitutes a question
of the privileges of the House under rule IX (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21560).
A resolution impeaching the United States Ambassador to the United
Nations (July 13, 1978, p. 20606) or the Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue
[[Page [77]]]
Service (Dec. 6, 2016, p. _) constitutes a question of the privileges of
the House under rule IX.
As <> to what are
impeachable offenses there has been much discussion (III, 2008, 2019,
2020, 2356, 2362, 2379-2381, 2405, 2406, 2410, 2498, 2510; VI, 455;
Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States,
Committee on the Judiciary, H. Rept. 93-1305, Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219;
Associate Justice William O. Douglas, Final Report by the Special
Subcommittee on H. Res. 920, Committee on the Judiciary, Sept. 17, 1970;
Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
States, H. Rept. 105-830, Dec. 16, 1998; Impeachment of Donald J. Trump,
President of the United States, H. Rept. 116-346, Dec. 15, 2019). For a
time the theory that indictable offenses only were impeachable was
stoutly maintained and as stoutly denied (III, 2356, 2360-2362, 2379-
2381, 2405, 2406, 2410, 2416); but on the 10th and 11th articles of the
impeachment of President Andrew Johnson the House concluded to impeach
for other than indictable offenses (III, 2418), and in the Swayne trial
the theory was definitely abandoned (III, 2019). Although there has not
been definite concurrence in the claim of the managers in the trial of
the President that an impeachable offense is any misbehavior that shows
disqualification to hold and exercise the office, whether moral,
intellectual, or physical (III, 2015), the House has impeached judges
for improper personal habits (III, 2328, 2505), and in the impeachment
of President Johnson one of the articles charged him with ``intemperate,
inflammatory, and scandalous harangues'' in public addresses, tending to
harm the Government (III, 2420). There was no conviction under these
charges except in the single case of Judge Pickering, who was charged
with intoxication on the bench (III, 2328-2341). As to the impeachment
of judges for other delinquencies, there has been much contention as to
whether they may be impeached for any breach of good behavior (III,
2011, 2016, 2497), or only for judicial misconduct occurring in the
actual administration of justice in connection with the court (III,
2010, 2013, 2017). The intent of the judge (III, 2014, 2382) as related
to mistakes of the law, and the relations of intent to conviction have
been discussed at length (III, 2014, 2381, 2382, 2518, 2519). The
statutes make nonresidence of a judge an impeachable offense, and the
House has taken steps to impeach for this cause (III, 2476, 2512). There
has, however, been some question as to the power of Congress to make an
impeachable offense (III, 2014, 2015, 2021, 2512). Usurpation of power
has been examined several times as a cause for impeachment (III, 2404,
2508, 2509, 2516, 2517). There also has been discussion as to whether or
not there is distinction between a misdemeanor and a high misdemeanor
(III, 2270, 2367, 2492). Review of impeachments in Congress showing the
nature of charges upon which impeachments have been brought and
judgments of the Senate thereon (VI, 466). Reports accompanying
resolutions to impeach Presidents Clinton and Trump, and the debate in
the House thereon, as well as debate in the House during the
[[Page [78]]]
second impeachment of President Trump, included discussion of the nature
of an impeachable offense (H. Rept. 105-830; Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27828; H.
Rept. 116-346, Dec. 15, 2019, p. _; Jan. 13, 2021, p. _). Of the four
articles of impeachment of President Clinton reported by the Committee
on the Judiciary ((1) perjury in grand jury, (2) perjury in a civil
deposition, (3) obstruction of justice, and (4) improper responses to
written questions from the Committee on the Judiciary), only the first
and third were adopted by the House (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28110).
The <> articles of
impeachment adopted by the House in 1936 against Judge Ritter charged a
variety of judicial misconduct, including violations of criminal law.
The seventh and general article, upon which Judge Ritter was convicted
by the Senate, charged general misconduct to bring his court into
scandal and disrepute and to destroy public confidence in his court and
in the judicial system (Impeachment by the House, Mar. 2, 1936, p. 3091;
Conviction by the Senate, Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606). Following his
conviction by the Senate, former Judge Ritter brought an action for back
salary, contending that the Senate had tried and convicted him for
nonimpeachable offenses. The U.S. Court of Claims held that the Senate's
power to try impeachments was exclusive and not subject to judicial
review. Ritter v. United States, 84 Ct. Cls. 293 (1936), cert. denied,
300 U.S. 668 (1937).
In 1970 a special subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary
considered charges of impeachment against Associate Justice Douglas of
the Supreme Court. The subcommittee recommended against his impeachment
but concluded that a Federal judge could be impeached (1) for judicial
conduct that is a serious dereliction from public duty and (2) for
nonjudicial conduct that is criminal in nature (Associate Justice
William O. Douglas, Final Report by the Special Subcommittee on H. Res.
920, Committee on the Judiciary, September 17, 1970).
In 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary investigated charges of
impeachment against President Nixon (Feb. 6, 1974, p. 2349), and
determined to recommend his impeachment to the House. The President
having resigned, the committee reported to the House without submitting
a resolution of impeachment, and the House accepted the report by
resolution (Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29361). The report of the committee
included the text of the three articles of impeachment adopted by the
committee. The committee had concluded that impeachable offenses need
not be indictable offenses and recommended impeachment of the President:
(1) for violating his oath of office and his duty under the Constitution
by preventing, obstructing, and impeding the administration of justice;
(2) for engaging in a course of conduct violating the constitutional
rights of citizens, impairing the administration of justice, and
contravening the laws governing executive agencies; and (3) for failing
to honor subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary in the
course of its impeachment inquiry (Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon,
President of the United States, Committee on the Judiciary,
[[Page [79]]]
H. Rept. 93-1305, Aug. 20, 1974, printed in full in the Cong. Record,
Aug. 22, 1974, p. 29219).
In 1986, for the first time since 1936, the House agreed to a
resolution impeaching a Federal district judge. Judge Harry Claiborne
had been convicted of falsifying Federal income tax returns. His final
appeal was denied by the Supreme Court in April, and he began serving
his prison sentence in May. Because he declined to resign, however,
Judge Claiborne was still receiving his judicial salary and, absent
impeachment, would resume the bench on his release from prison.
Consequently, a resolution of impeachment was introduced on June 3, and
on July 16, the Committee on the Judiciary reported to the House four
articles of impeachment against Judge Claiborne. On July 22, the
resolution was called up as a question of privilege and agreed to by a
recorded vote of 406 yeas, 0 nays. After trial in the Senate, Judge
Claiborne was convicted on three of the four articles of impeachment and
removed from office on October 9, 1986.
In 1988, the House agreed to a resolution reported from the Committee
on the Judiciary and called up as a question of the privileges of the
House impeaching Federal district judge Alcee L. Hastings for high
crimes and misdemeanors specified in 17 articles of impeachment, some of
them addressing allegations on which the judge had been acquitted in a
Federal criminal trial (Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206). No trial in the Senate
was had before the adjournment of the 100th Congress. In the 101st
Congress, the House reappointed managers to conduct this impeachment in
the Senate (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84); the Senate began its deliberations on
March 15, 1989 (p. 4219); conviction and removal from office occurred on
October 20, 1989 (p. 25335). Also in the 101st Congress, the Senate
convicted Federal district judge Walter L. Nixon on two of the three
impeachment charges brought against him (Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27101). For
further discussion of the continuance of impeachment proceedings in a
succeeding Congress, see Sec. 620, infra.
In 1998 the House agreed to a privileged resolution reported from the
Committee on Rules, referring to the Committee on the Judiciary a
communication from an independent counsel transmitting under 28 U.S.C.
595(c) evidence of possible impeachable offenses by President Clinton,
and restricting access to the communication and to meetings and hearings
thereon (Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the House adopted a
privileged resolution reported from the Committee on the Judiciary
authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee and investing it
with special investigative authorities to facilitate the inquiry (Oct.
8, 1998, p. 24679). The Committee on the Judiciary filed with the House
a privileged report accompanying a resolution containing four articles
of impeachment against President Clinton that alleged: (1) the President
gave perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a grand jury; (2)
the President gave perjurious, false, and misleading testimony in a
Federal civil action; (3) the President prevented, obstructed, and
impeded the administration of justice relating to a Federal civil
action; and (4) the President abused his office, impaired
[[Page [80]]]
the administration of justice, and contravened the authority of the
legislative branch by his response to 81 written questions submitted by
the Committee on the Judiciary (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27819). The chair of
the Committee on the Judiciary called up the resolution on December 18,
1998 (p. 27828).
In 2008, the House agreed to an unreported resolution authorizing an
impeachment inquiry of Federal district Judge G. Thomas Porteous by the
Committee on the Judiciary and investing it with special investigative
authorities to facilitate the inquiry (Sept. 17, 2008, p. 19517), which
was continued in the next Congress (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1,
Sec. 8.1). In 2010, the House adopted a resolution reported from the
committee and called up as a question of the privileges of the House
impeaching the judge for high crimes and misdemeanors specified in 4
articles of impeachment (Mar. 11, 2010, p. 3147).
In 2009, the House agreed to a resolution reported from the Committee
on the Judiciary and called up as a question of the privileges of the
House impeaching Federal district judge Samuel B. Kent for high crimes
and misdemeanors specified in 4 articles of impeachment, some of them
addressing allegations on which the judge had been convicted in a
Federal criminal trial (June 19, 2009, p. 15747).
In 2019, the House agreed to a privileged resolution reported from the
Committee on Rules directing the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs,
the Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means to ``continue
their ongoing investigations as part of the existing . . . inquiry into
whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to
exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald J. Trump'' (H. Res.
660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _). The resolution directed further ongoing
investigation by all listed committees and established a two-phase
public committee procedure, beginning with the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and concluding in the Committee on the
Judiciary. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence adopted a
report detailing its findings and transmitted such report to the
Committee on the Judiciary and to the House (H. Rept. 116-335, Dec. 9,
2019, p. _). The Committee on the Judiciary subsequently filed with the
House a privileged report accompanying a resolution containing two
articles of impeachment against President Trump that alleged: (1) the
President used the powers of his office to solicit and pressure a
foreign government, Ukraine, to investigate his domestic political rival
and interfere in the upcoming United State Presidential election; and
(2) the President categorically obstructed the Congressional impeachment
inquiry into his conduct (H. Rept. 116-346, Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). Upon
the adoption of a special order of business, the House proceeded to the
immediate consideration of the impeachment resolution (Dec. 18, 2019, p.
_).
A resolution offered from the floor to permit the Delegate of the
District of Columbia to vote on the articles of impeachment was held not
to con
[[Page [81]]]
stitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX (Dec.
18, 1998, p. 27825). To a privileged resolution of impeachment, an
amendment proposing instead censure, which is not privileged, was held
not germane (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28100).
For further discussion of impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 601-
620, infra; Sec. 31, supra, and Deschler, ch. 14.
ARTICLE III.
Section 1. <> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested
in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may
from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme
and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and
shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation,
which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2. \1\The <> judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all
Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all
Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which
the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or
more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between
Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State
claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or
the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
[[Page [82]]]
Decisions <> of the Supreme Court involving legislative standing to bring
cases in Federal court include Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939);
Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979); Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737
(1984); Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990); and, most recently,
Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), holding that Member plaintiffs must
have alleged a ``personal stake'' in having an actual injury redressed,
rather than an ``institutional injury'' that is ``abstract and widely
dispersed.'' See also the 11th amendment (Sec. 218, infra).
\2\In <> all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme
Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before
mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as
to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the
Congress shall make.
\3\The <> Trial of
all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such
Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been
committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be
at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3. \1\Treason <> against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony
of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
\2\The <> Congress shall have
Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason
shall work Cor
[[Page [83]]]
ruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person
Attainted.
ARTICLE IV.
Section 1. <> Full Faith and Credit shall be given
in each State to the Public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of
every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the
Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and
the Effect thereof.
<> Section 2.
\1\The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
\2\A <> Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other
Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall
on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be
delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the
Crime.
\3\No <> Person
held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping
into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be
discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on
Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
[[Page [84]]]
Section 3. \1\New <> States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no
new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any
other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more
States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of
the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
\2\The <> Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make
all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other
Property belonging to
the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so
construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any
particular State.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held
that the property clause does not prohibit the transfer of United States
property to foreign nations through self-executing treaties. Edwards v.
Carter, 580 F.2d 1055 (1978), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 907 (1978).
Section 4. The <> United
States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the
Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
[[Page [85]]]
ARTICLE V.
The <> Congress,
whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall
propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a
Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be
valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or
by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of
Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment
which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight
shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth
Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent,
shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Amendments <> to the Constitution are proposed in the form of joint
resolutions, which have their several readings and are enrolled and
signed by the presiding officers of the two Houses (V, 7029, footnote),
but are not presented to the President for his approval (V, 7040; see
discussion under Sec. 115, supra; Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3
Dall.) 378 (1798)). They are filed with the Archivist who, under the law
(1 U.S.C. 106b; 1 U.S.C. 112), has the responsibility for the
certification and publication of such amendments, once they are ratified
by the States. Under the earlier procedure, the two Houses sometimes
requested the President to transmit to the States certain proposed
amendments (V, 7041, 7043), but a concurrent resolution to that end was
without privilege (VIII, 3508). The President notified Congress by
message of the promulgation of the ratification of a constitutional
amendment (V, 7044). The House in the 114th through 117th Congresses
required that petitions from state legislatures purporting to call for
constitutional conventions or to rescind such calls be made publicly
available (sec. 3(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35; sec. 3(d), H. Res.
[[Page [86]]]
5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _; sec. 103(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; sec.
3(m), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).-
The <> vote required on a joint resolution proposing an amendment
to the Constitution is two-thirds of those voting, a quorum being
present, and not two-thirds of the entire membership (V, 7027, 7028;
VIII, 3503). The majority required to pass a constitutional amendment,
like the majority required to pass a bill over the President's veto
(VII, 1111) and the majority required to adopt a motion to suspend the
rules (Dec. 16, 1981, pp. 31850, 31851, 31855, 31856), is two-thirds of
those Members voting either in the affirmative or negative, a quorum
being present, and Members who only indicate that they are ``present''
are not counted in this computation (Nov. 15, 1983, p. 32685). The
requirement of the two-thirds vote applies to the vote on final passage
and not to amendments (V, 7031, 7032; VIII, 3504), or prior stages (V,
7029, 7030), but is required if the House votes on agreeing to Senate
amendments (V, 7033, 7034; VIII, 3505), or on agreeing to a conference
report (V, 7036). One House having, by a two-thirds vote, passed in
amended form a proposed constitutional amendment from the other House,
and then having by a majority vote receded from its amendment, the
constitutional amendment was held not to be passed (V, 7035).
In the 95th Congress, both the House and Senate passed by a majority
vote House Joint Resolution 638, extending the time period for
ratification by the States of the Equal Rights Amendment, where House
Joint Resolution 208 of the 92d Congress, proposing the amendment, had
provided for a seven-year ratification period. The House determined, by
laying on the table by a record vote a privileged resolution asserting
that a vote of two-thirds of the Members present and voting was required
to pass a joint resolution extending the ratification period for a
constitutional amendment already submitted to the States, that only a
majority vote was required on such a measure (H.J. Res. 638; Speaker
O'Neill, Aug. 15, 1978, p. 26203).
The joint resolution extending the ratification period for the Equal
Rights Amendment was delivered to the President, who signed it although
expressing doubt as to the necessity for his doing so (Presidential
Documents, Oct. 19, 1978). When sent to the Archivist, the joint
resolution was not assigned a public law number, but the Archivist
notified the States of the action of the Congress in extending the
ratification period. For a judicial decision voiding this extension, see
Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C.D. Idaho, 1981), judgment stayed
sub nom. National Organization of Women v. Idaho, 455 U.S. 918 (1982),
vacated and remanded to dismiss, 459 U.S. 809 (1982).
In the 116th Congress, the House passed by a majority vote House Joint
Resolution 79, eliminating the deadline for ratification by the States
of the Equal Rights Amendment (Feb. 13, 2020, p. _), following adoption
of a resolution (by special order of business) affirming that the proper
threshold to adopt such joint resolution was a majority vote (H. Res.
842,
[[Page [87]]]
Feb. 11, 2020, p. _). In response to a point of order regarding the
proper vote threshold prior to the question on final passage of the
joint resolution, the Chair ruled that a majority vote threshold was
required pursuant to the terms of House Resolution 842 and declined to
entertain an appeal from such ruling because the terms of that
resolution were unambiguous (Feb. 13, 2020, p. _). The House adopted a
similar resolution (by special order of business) setting a majority
threshold for the vote on final passage of House Joint Resolution 17 in
the 117th Congress (H. Res. 232, Mar. 16, 2021, p. _)
The yeas and nays are not required to pass a joint resolution
proposing to amend the Constitution (V, 7038-7039; VIII, 3506).
Question has arisen as to the power of a State to recall, or rescind,
its assent to a constitutional amendment (V, 7042; footnotes to
Sec. Sec. 225, 234, infra) but has not been the subject of a final
judicial determination (see Idaho v. Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.
Idaho, 1981), judgment stayed sub nom. National Organization of Women v.
Idaho, 455 U.S. 918 (1982), vacated and remanded to dismiss, 459 U.S.
809 (1982)).
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350
(1920); Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920); Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S.
368 (1921); Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922); Coleman v. Miller,
307 U.S. 433 (1939); Chandler v. Wise, 307 U.S. 474 (1939).
ARTICLE VI.
\1\All <> Debts
contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this
Constitution, as under the Confederation.
\2\This <> Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding.
[[Page [88]]]
\3\The <> Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and
the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
Office or public Trust under the United States.
The <> form of the oath is prescribed
by statute (5 U.S.C. 3331; I, 128): ``I, AB, do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will
well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am
about to enter. So help me God.''
The <> Act of
June 1, 1789 (2 U.S.C. 25), provides that on the organization of the
House and previous to entering on any other business the oath shall be
administered by any Member (generally the Member with longest continuous
service) (I, 131; VI, 6) to the Speaker and by the Speaker to the other
Members and Clerk (I, 130). The Act has at times been considered in the
House as directory merely (I, 118, 242, 243, 245; VI, 6); but at other
times has been observed carefully (I, 118, 140). The Act was cited by
the Clerk in recognizing for nominations for Speaker as being of higher
constitutional privilege than a resolution to postpone the election of a
Speaker and instead provide for the election of a Speaker pro tempore
pending the disposition of certain ethics charges against the nominee of
the majority party (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 4.1).
Previously it was the custom to administer the oath by State
delegations, but beginning with the 71st Congress Members-elect have
been sworn in en masse (VI, 8). The Clerk supplies printed copies of the
oath to Members and Delegates who have taken the oath in accordance with
law, which shall be subscribed by the Members and Delegates and
delivered to the Clerk to be recorded in the Journal and Congressional
Record as conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took the
oath in accordance with law (2 U.S.C. 25). See Deschler, ch. 2. Where
two Members-elect participated in various House and committee business
before taking the oath of office, the House adopted a resolution (1)
correcting the results of record votes to remove mention of them, and
(2) ratifying the following activities involving one or both of them:
election to and participation in standing
[[Page [89]]]
committee; introduction and numbering of measures; submission of items
to the Congressional Record; co-sponsorship of measures; and non-voting
participation in floor proceedings (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
Sec. 18.21). During an ongoing public health emergency the Speaker
announced that the oath would be administered to Members-elect in small,
pre-arranged groups in order to adhere to restrictions on the number of
persons permitted in the House chamber consistent with guidance from the
Office of Attending Physician (Jan. 3, 2021, p. _).
The <> Speaker possesses no arbitrary power in the administration of
the oath (I, 134), and when objection is made the question must be
decided by the House and not by the Chair (I, 519, 520). An objection
prevents the Speaker from administering the oath of his own authority,
even though the credentials be regular in form (I, 135-138). The Speaker
has frequently declined to administer the oath in cases wherein the
House has, by its action, indicated that the Speaker should not do so
(I, 139, 140). And in case of doubt the Speaker has waited the
instruction of the House (I, 396; VI, 11). There has been discussion as
to the competency of a Speaker pro tempore to administer the oath (I,
170), and in the absence of the Speaker a Member-elect waited until the
Speaker could be present (I, 179), but in 1920 a Speaker pro tempore
whose designation by the Speaker had been approved by the House,
administered the oath (VI, 20). The House may authorize the Speaker to
administer the oath away from the House (I, 169), or may, in such a
case, authorize another than the Speaker to administer the oath (I, 170;
VI, 14). For forms used in this procedure, see VI, 14. On one occasion,
the Speaker requested that guests in the gallery rise with the Members
during the administration of the oath of office to a Member-elect
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 4.9).
Members-elect <> have been sworn at the beginning of a second session
before the ascertainment of a quorum (I, 176-178), but when the Clerk
called the second session of the 87th Congress to order, Members-elect
were not sworn before ascertainment of a quorum and election of Speaker
McCormack to succeed Speaker Rayburn, who had died during the
adjournment sine die (Jan. 10, 1962, p. 5). Members-elect have also been
sworn where a roll call or other ascertainment has shown the absence of
a quorum (I, 178, 181, 182; VI, 21) but in one instance, however, the
Speaker declined to administer the oath under such circumstances (II,
875).
A <> proposition to administer the oath is a matter of high privilege
(VI, 14). It has been administered during a call of the roll and during
an electronic vote on a motion to agree to rules at the time of
organization (I, 173; VI, 22; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 3.20)
and during an electronic vote taken during House deliberations
interlocutory to an ongoing joint session to count the electoral votes
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 3.21). It also has been administered
before the reading of the Journal (I, 172),
[[Page [90]]]
in the absence of a quorum (VI, 22), on Calendar Wednesday (VI, 22),
before a pending motion to amend the Journal (I, 171), and after the
previous question has been ordered on a bill reported back to the House
from the Committee of the Whole (Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28487) or pending
engrossment and third reading (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 3.19).
A division being demanded on a resolution seating several claimants, the
oath may be administered to each as soon as his case is decided (I,
623). If a Member-elect whose right to a seat has been determined by the
House is present to take the oath, the right to be sworn is complete and
cannot be deferred even by a motion to adjourn (I, 622), but the Speaker
has entertained the motion to adjourn after adoption of a seating
resolution but before the Member-elect was present in the Chamber to
take the oath (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 3.17).
The <> right
of a Member-elect to take the oath is sometimes challenged, usually at
the time of organization of the House. The challenge may be made by a
Member-elect who has not yet taken the oath (I, 141). The Member
challenging does so on his responsibility as a Member or on the strength
of documents (I, 448) or on both (I, 443, 474). And where an objection
was sustained neither by affidavit nor on the responsibility of the
Member objecting, the House declined to entertain it (I, 455).
It <> has been held, although not uniformly, that in cases in
which the right of a Member-elect to take the oath is challenged, the
Speaker may direct the Member to abstain temporarily (I, 143-146, 474;
VI, 9, 174; VIII, 3386). The Member so challenged is not thereby
deprived of any right (I, 155). Similarly, the seating of a Member-elect
does not prejudice a pending contest, brought under the Federal
Contested Elections Act (2 U.S.C. 381-396), over final right to the seat
(Jan. 7, 1997, p. 120; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 2.3). When
several are challenged and abstain, the question is first taken on the
Member-elect first required to abstain (I, 147, 148), but when a Member-
elect challenged the right of all Members-elect from six states to take
the oath, the House adopted a privileged resolution authorizing and
directing the Speaker to administer the oath to all Members-elect prior
to the administration of the oath to Members-elect en masse (Jan. 3,
2021, p. _). In 1861 it was held that the House might direct contested
names to be passed over until the other Members-elect had been sworn in
(I, 154). Motions and debate are in order on the questions involved in a
challenge, and in a few cases other business has intervened by unanimous
consent (I, 149, 150). By unanimous consent the consideration of a
challenge is sometimes deferred until after the completion of the
organization (I, 474), and by unanimous consent also the House has
sometimes proceeded to legislative business pending consideration of the
right of a Member to be sworn (I, 151, 152).
[[Page [91]]]
Although <> the House has emphasized the impropriety of swearing a
Member without credentials (I, 162-168), yet it has been done in cases
in which the credentials are delayed or lost and there is no doubt of
the election (I, 85, 176-178; VI, 12, 13), or in which the governor of a
State has declined to give credentials to a person whose election was
undoubted and uncontested (I, 553). A certificate of election in due
form having been filed, the Clerk placed the name of the Member-elect on
the roll, although he was subsequently advised that a State Supreme
Court had issued a writ restraining the Secretary of State from issuing
such certificate (Jan. 3, 1949, p. 8). If the prima facie right is
contested the Speaker declines to administer the oath (I, 550), but the
House admits on a prima facie showing, and without regard to final
right, a Member-elect from a recognized constituency whose credentials
are in due form and whose qualifications are unquestioned (I, 528-534).
If the status of the constituency is in doubt, the House usually defers
the oath (I, 361, 386, 448, 461). In the 99th Congress, the House
declined to give prima facie effect to a certificate of election, the
results of the election being in doubt, and referred the issue of
initial as well as final right to the Committee on House Administration
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 4.1). After a recount of the votes
was conducted by that committee, the House on its recommendation
declared the candidate without the certificate entitled to the seat
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 3.8). The House also may defer the
oath when a question of qualifications arises (I, 474), but it may
investigate qualifications after the oath is taken (I, 156-159, 420,
462, 481), and after investigation unseat the Member by majority vote
(I, 428). On one occasion when a Member-elect's credentials were in due
form but there was a question as to whether the Member-elect held an
incompatible office, the House resolved the matter by adopting a
privileged resolution authorizing and directing the Speaker to
administer the oath to the Member-elect (H. Res. 1161, Nov. 29, 2018, p.
_; see Sec. 98, supra). For an insertion by the Speaker, in concurrence
with the Minority Leader, on this matter and relevant precedents, see
Dec. 6, 2018, p. _.
Questions <> of sanity (I, 441) and loyalty (I, 448) seem to pertain
to competency to take the oath as a question of qualifications, although
there has been not a little debate on this subject (I, 479). In one case
a Member-elect who had not taken the oath was excluded from the House
because of disloyalty, in which the resolution of exclusion and the
committee report thereon concluded that he was ineligible to take a seat
as a Representative under the express provisions of section 3 of the
14th amendment (VI, 56-59). This action by the House was cited in the
Supreme Court decision of Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 545 fn. 83
(1969), which denied the power of the House to exclude Members-elect by
a majority vote for other than failure to meet the express
qualifications stated in the Constitution. In Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S.
116 (1966), the Supreme Court held that
[[Page [92]]]
the exclusion by a State legislature of a member-elect of that body was
unconstitutional, where the legislature had asserted the power to judge
the sincerity with which the Member-elect could take the oath to support
the Constitution of the United States. In the 97th Congress, the House
declared vacant by majority vote the seat of a Member-elect unable to
take the oath because of illness, in which the medical prognosis showed
no likelihood of improvement to permit the Member-elect to take the oath
or assume the duties of a Representative (H. Res. 80, Feb. 24, 1981, pp.
2916-18).
Decisions <> of the Supreme
Court of the United States: McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.)
316 (1819); Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1867); Davis v.
Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890); Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U.S. 1
(1890).
ARTICLE VII.
The <> Ratification
of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the
Same.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand
seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United
States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto
subscribed our Names,
Go WASHINGTON--Presidt.
and Deputy from Virginia.
[Signed also by the deputies of twelve States.]
New Hampshire.
John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman.
Massachusetts.
Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King.
[[Page [93]]]
Connecticut.
Wm. Saml. Johnson, Roger Sherman.
New York.
Alexander Hamilton.
New Jersey.
Wil: Livingston, Wm. Paterson,
David Brearley, Jona: Dayton.
Pennsylvania.
B Franklin, Thomas Mifflin,
RobT. Morris, Geo. Clymer,
Thos. FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll,
James Wilson, Gouv Morris.
Delaware.
Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jun,
John Dickinson, Richard Bassett.
Jaco Broom,
Maryland.
James McHenry, Dan of ST Thos. Jenifer.
Danl Carroll,
Virginia.
John Blair, James Madison Jr.
North Carolina.
Wm. Blount, Rich'D. Dobbs Spaight.
Hu Williamson,
South Carolina.
J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney,
Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler.
Georgia.
William Few, Abr Baldwin.
Attest: William Jackson, Secretary.
[[Page [94]]]
articles in addition to, and amendment of, the constitution of the
united states of america, proposed by congress, and ratified by the
several states pursuant to the fifth article of the original
constitution\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the
United States were proposed to the legislatures of the several States by
the First Congress on September 25, 1789 (this date and the date
succeeding amendments were proposed is the date of final congressional
action--signature by the presiding officer of the Senate--as is shown in
the Senate Journals). They were ratified by the following States, on the
dates shown, and the notifications by the governors thereof of
ratification were communicated by the President to Congress: New Jersey,
November 20, 1789; Maryland, December 19, 1789; North Carolina, December
22, 1789; South Carolina, January 19, 1790; New Hampshire, January 25,
1790; Delaware, January 28, 1790; New York, February 27, 1790;
Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790; Rhode Island, June 7, 1790; Vermont,
November 3, 1791; Virginia, December 15, 1791. Ratification was
completed on December 15, 1791. The amendments were subsequently
ratified by Massachusetts, March 2, 1939; Georgia, March 18, 1939;
Connecticut, April 19, 1939.
AMENDMENT I.
Congress <> shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
AMENDMENT II.
A <> well regulated Militia
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
[[Page [95]]]
AMENDMENT III.
No <> soldier
shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent
of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
law.
AMENDMENT IV.
The <> right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
AMENDMENT V.
No <> person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a
witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.
[[Page [96]]]
AMENDMENT VI.
In <> all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of
the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted
with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defence.
AMENDMENT VII.
In <> suits at
common law, where the value in Controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,
the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States,
than according to the rules of the common law.
AMENDMENT VIII.
<> Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
AMENDMENT IX.
<> The enumeration in
the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
[[Page [97]]]
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
AMENDMENT X.
The <> powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.
AMENDMENT XI.\2\
The <> Judicial power
of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law
or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by
Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign
State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The 11th amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
Third Congress on March 11, 1794; and was declared in a message from the
President to Congress dated the 8th of January, 1798, to have been
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. The dates
of ratification were: New York, March 27, 1794; Rhode Island, March 31,
1794; Connecticut, May 8, 1794; New Hampshire, June 16, 1794;
Massachusetts, June 26, 1794; Vermont, October 28, 1794; Virginia,
November 18, 1794; Georgia, November 29, 1794; Kentucky, December 7,
1794; Maryland, December 26, 1794; Delaware, January 23, 1795; North
Carolina, February 7, 1795. Ratification was completed on February 7,
1795. The amendment was subsequently ratified by South Carolina,
December 4, 1797. New Jersey and Pennsylvania did not take action on the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page [98]]]
AMENDMENT XII.\3\
The <> Electors shall meet in their respective states,
and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at
least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;
they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and
in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they
shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of
all persons voted for as Vice-President, and the number of votes for
each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to
the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the
President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in presence
of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates
and the votes shall then be counted;-- * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See article II, section 1 of the Constitution. The 12th
amendment to the Constitution was proposed to the legislatures of the
several States by the Eighth Congress on December 12, 1803, in lieu of
the original third paragraph of the first section of the second article,
and was declared in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the
25th of September, 1804, to have been ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the States. The dates of ratification were: North
Carolina, December 21, 1803; Maryland, December 24, 1803; Kentucky,
December 27, 1803; Ohio, December 30, 1803; Virginia, December 31, 1803;
Pennsylvania, January 5, 1804; Vermont, January 30, 1804; New York,
February 10, 1804; New Jersey, February 22, 1804; Rhode Island, March
12, 1804; South Carolina, May 15, 1804; Georgia, May 19, 1804; New
Hampshire, June 15, 1804. Ratification was completed on June 15, 1804.
The amendment was subsequently ratified by Tennessee, July 27, 1804. The
amendment was rejected by Delaware, January 18, 1804; Massachusetts,
February 3, 1804; and by Connecticut at its session begun May 10, 1804.
[[Page [99]]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The <> electoral count occurs in
a joint session of the two Houses in the Hall of the House (III, 1819)
at 1 p.m. on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of
electors (3 U.S.C. 15). The Vice President, as President of the Senate
(or the President pro tempore in the Vice President's absence), presides
over the joint session (3 U.S.C. 15). The date of the count has been
changed by law as follows: Monday, January 7, 1957 (P.L. 84-436);
Monday, January 7, 1985 (P.L. 98-456); Wednesday, January 4, 1989 (P.L.
100-646); Thursday, January 9, 1997 (P.L. 104-296); Thursday, January 8,
2009 (P.L. 110-430); Friday, January 4, 2013 (P.L. 112-228).
Sections 15-18 of title 3, United States Code, prescribe in detail the
procedure for the count. Nevertheless, the two Houses traditionally
adopt a concurrent resolution providing for the meeting in joint session
to count the vote, for the appointment of tellers, and for the
declaration of the state of the vote (III, 1961; Deschler, ch. 10,
Sec. 2.1). Under the law governing the proceedings, the two Houses
divide to consider an objection to the counting of any electoral vote or
``other question arising in the matter'' (3 U.S.C. 15-18; Jan. 6, 1969,
pp. 145-47; Jan. 6, 2001, p. 101; Jan. 6, 2005, pp. 198, 199; Jan. 6,
2017, p. _; Jan. 6, 2021, p. _), but only when in writing and signed by
both a Member and a Senator (Jan. 6, 2001, p. 101; Jan. 6, 2005, p. 198;
Jan. 6, 2017, p. _; Jan. 6, 2021, p. _). Examples of an ``other question
arising in the matter'' include: (1) an objection for lack of a quorum
(Jan. 6, 2001, p. 101); (2) a motion that either House withdraw from the
joint session (Jan. 6, 2001, p. 101); and (3) an appeal from a ruling by
the presiding officer (Jan. 6, 2001, p. 101). Such questions and
objections are not debatable in the joint session (3 U.S.C. 18; Jan. 6,
2001, p. 101; Jan. 6, 2017, p. _; Jan. 6, 2021, p. _). When the two
Houses have divided, a motion in the House to lay the objection on the
table is not in order (Jan. 6, 1969; pp. 169-72), but the Chair may
declare the House in an emergency recess pursuant to clause 12(b) of
rule I (Jan. 6, 2021, p. _). A Vice President-elect, as Speaker of the
House or as a sitting Vice President, has participated in the ceremonies
(e.g., VI, 446; Jan. 6, 2005, p. 197). See Deschler, ch. 10 for further
discussion. When addressing a controversy over the election of President
and Vice President in the State of Florida, the Supreme Court indicated
its view of a section of the statute (3 U.S.C. 5) addressing a
determination of controversy as to the appointment of electors. Bush v.
Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. (531 U.S. 70 (2000)). Ultimately, the
Supreme Court found that the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th amendment by ordering certain counties to
conduct manual recounts of the votes for President and Vice President
without establishing standards for those recounts. Bush v. Gore (531
U.S. 98 (2000)).
[[Page [100]]]
* * * The <> person having the greatest
number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be
a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person
have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not
exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House
of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the
representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this
purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the
states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President
whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth
day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as
President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional
disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of
votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be
a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person
have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the
Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall
consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of
the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person
constitutionally ineli
[[Page [101]]]
gible to the Office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-
President of the United States.
The <> 20th amendment to the Constitution has
clarified some of the provisions of the 12th amendment. In 1801 (III,
1983), the House of Representatives chose a President under article II,
section 1, clause 3 (see Sec. 152a, supra), the constitutional provision
superseded by the 12th amendment.
In <> 1825 the House elected a President under the 12th amendment
(III, 1985); and in 1837 the Senate elected a Vice President (III,
1941).
AMENDMENT XIII.\4\
Section 1. <> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall
[[Page [102]]]
exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\The 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
38th Congress, on February 1, 1865, and was declared, in a proclamation
of the Secretary of State, dated December 18, 1865, to have been
ratified by the legislatures of 27 of the 36 States. The dates of
ratification were: Illinois, February 1, 1865; Rhode Island, February 2,
1865; Michigan, February 2, 1865; Maryland, February 3, 1865; New York,
February 3, 1865; Pennsylvania, February 3, 1865; West Virginia,
February 3, 1865; Missouri, February 6, 1865; Maine, February 7, 1865;
Kansas, February 7, 1865; Massachusetts, February 7, 1865; Virginia,
February 9, 1865; Ohio, February 16, 1865; Indiana, February 13, 1865;
Nevada, February 16, 1865; Louisiana, February 17, 1865; Minnesota,
February 23, 1865; Wisconsin, February 24, 1865; Vermont, March 9, 1865;
Tennessee, April 7, 1865; Arkansas, April 14, 1865; Connecticut, May 4,
1865; New Hampshire, July 1, 1865; South Carolina, November 13, 1865;
Alabama, December 2, 1865; North Carolina, December 4, 1865; Georgia,
December 6, 1865. Ratification was completed on December 6, 1865. The
amendment was subsequently ratified by Oregon, December 8, 1865;
California, December 19, 1865; Florida, December 28, 1865 (Florida again
ratified on June 9, 1868, upon its adoption of a new constitution);
Iowa, January 15, 1866; New Jersey, January 23, 1866 (after having
rejected the amendment on March 16, 1865); Texas, February 18, 1870;
Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected the amendment on
February 8, 1865); Kentucky, March 30, 1976 (after having rejected the
amendment on February 24, 1865). The amendment was rejected by
Mississippi, December 4, 1865, but subsequently ratified on March 16,
1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XIV.\5\
Section 1. All < security and
equal protection of citizens.>> persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the
[[Page [103]]]
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\The 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
39th Congress, on June 15, 1866. On July 20, 1868, the Secretary of
State issued a proclamation that the 14th amendment was a part of the
Constitution if withdrawals of ratification were ineffective. On July
21, 1868, Congress adopted and transmitted to the Department of State a
concurrent resolution declaring that ``the legislatures of the States of
Connecticut, Tennessee, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, New York, Ohio,
Illinois, West Virginia, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas,
Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, and Louisiana, being
three-fourths and more of the several States of the Union, have ratified
the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, duly proposed by two-thirds of each House of the Thirty-ninth
Congress: Therefore Resolved, That said fourteenth article is hereby
declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it
shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State.'' The
Secretary of State accordingly issued a proclamation, dated July 28,
1868, declaring that the proposed 14th amendment had been ratified, in
the manner hereafter mentioned, by the legislatures of 28 States. The
dates of ratification were: Connecticut, June 30, 1866; New Hampshire,
July 6, 1866; Tennessee, July 18, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866
(subsequently, on February 20, 1868, the legislature rescinded its
ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of
rescission over the Governor's veto, and on April 23, 2003, revoked the
resolution of rescission); Oregon, September 19, 1866 (subsequently
rescinded its ratification on October 16, 1868, and ratified on April
25, 1973); New York, January 10, 1867; Ohio, January 11, 1867
(subsequently rescinded its ratification on January 13, 1868, and
ratified on March 12, 2003); Illinois, January 15, 1867; West Virginia,
January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Minnesota, January 16,
1867; Kansas, January 17, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Nevada, January
22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January 25, 1867;
Pennsylvania, February 6, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7, 1867;
Wisconsin, February 13, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Nebraska,
June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 16, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868; Florida,
June 9, 1868; North Carolina, July 4, 1868 (after having rejected the
amendment December 14, 1866); Louisiana, July 9, 1868 (after having
rejected the amendment February 6, 1867); South Carolina, July 9, 1868
(after having rejected the amendment December 20, 1866). Ratification
was completed on July 9, 1868. The amendment was subsequently ratified
by Alabama, July 13, 1868; Georgia, July 21, 1868 (after having rejected
it on November 9, 1866); Virginia, October 8, 1869 (after having
rejected it on January 9, 1867); Mississippi, January 17, 1870; Texas,
February 18, 1870 (after having rejected it on October 27, 1866);
Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on February 8,
1867); Maryland, April 4, 1959 (after having rejected it on March 23,
1867); California, May 6, 1959; Kentucky, March 30, 1976 (after having
rejected it on January 10, 1867).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2. <> Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number
of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the
right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President
and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress,
the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
Legislature thereof, is denied to
[[Page [104]]]
any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of
age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except
for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the
number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
There <> has been a readjustment of House representation each 10
years except during the period 1911 to 1929 (VI, 41, footnote). From
March 4, 1913, permanent House membership has remained fixed at 435 (VI,
40, 41; 37 Stat. 13). Upon admission of Alaska and Hawaii to statehood,
total membership was temporarily increased to 437 until the next
reapportionment (72 Stat. 339, 345; 73 Stat. 8). Congress has by law
provided for automatic apportionment of the 435 Representatives among
the States according to each census including and after that of 1950 (2
U.S.C. 2a). The Apportionment Act formerly provided that the districts
in a State were to be composed of contiguous and compact territory
containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants (I,
303; VI, 44); but subsequent apportionment Acts, those of 1929 (46 Stat.
26) and 1941 (55 Stat. 761), omitted such provisions. See Wood v. Broom,
287 U.S. 1 (1932).
Congress has by law provided that for the 91st and subsequent
Congresses each State entitled to more than one Representative shall
establish a number of districts equal to the number of such
Representatives, and that Representatives shall be elected only from the
single-Member districts so established. (Hawaii and New Mexico were
excepted from the operation of this statute for the elections to the
91st Congress by Public Law 90-196; see 2 U.S.C. 2c). After any
apportionment, until a State is redistricted in a manner provided by its
own law and in compliance with the congressional mandate, the question
of whether its Representatives shall be elected by districts, at large,
or by a combination of both, is determined by the Apportionment Act of
1941 (2 U.S.C. 2a).
Under the Apportionment Act, a statistical model known as the ``method
of equal proportions'' is used to determine the number of
Representatives to which each State is entitled. Although other methods
for apportioning House seats may be permitted, the equal proportions
method chosen by Congress has been upheld under the Constitution and was
plainly intended to reach as close as practicable the goal of ``one
person, one vote.'' Massachusetts v. Mosbacher, 785 F. Supp. 230 (D.
Mass. 1992), rev'd on other grounds Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S.
788 (1992). The courts also
[[Page [105]]]
have recently upheld under Federal law and the Constitution a counting
methodology used by the Census Bureau in a decennial census. This
method, known as ``imputation,'' was held to be different than
``sampling,'' a method prohibited under section 195 of title 13, United
States Code. Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002). The method of
apportioning the seats in the House is vested exclusively in Congress,
and neither States nor courts may direct greater or lesser
representation than that allocated by statute (Deschler, ch 8 Sec. 1).
See Deschler, ch. 8 for apportionment and districting.
The <> House has always
seated Members elected at large in the States, although the law required
election by districts (I, 310, 519). Questions have arisen from time to
time when a vacancy has occurred soon after a change in districts, with
the resulting question whether the vacancy should be filled by election
in the old or new district (I, 311, 312, 327). The House has declined to
interfere with the act of a State in changing the boundaries of a
district after the apportionment has been made (I, 313).
The Supreme <> Court has ruled that congressional districts must be as
equally populated as practicable. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1
(1964); Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 385 U.S. 450 (1967). The Court has made
clear that variances in population among congressional districts within
a State may be considered de minimis only if they cannot practicably be
avoided. If such variances, no matter how mathematically miniscule,
could have been reduced or eliminated by a good faith effort, then they
may be justified only on the basis of a consistent, rational State
policy. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983). The Court also has made
evident that it will take judicial review of a claim that apportionment
schemes lack consistent, rational bases. Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109
(1986) (holding political gerrymandering complaint justiciable under
equal protection clause).
Section 3. <> No person shall be a Senator or Representative in
Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any
office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an
officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature,
or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the same, or given aid
[[Page [106]]]
or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-
thirds of each House, remove such disability.
- Congress <> has by law removed generally the
disabilities arising from the Civil War (30 Stat. 432). Soon after the
war various questions arose under this section (I, 386, 393, 455, 456).
For disloyalty to the United States, for giving aid and comfort to a
public enemy, for publication of expressions hostile to the Government a
Member-elect was denied a seat in the House (VI, 56, 58). As to the
meaning of the words ``aid or comfort'' as used in the 14th amendment
(VI, 57).
Section 4. <> The
validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for
services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or
pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion
against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of
any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held
illegal and void.
<> Section 5. The
Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article.
Congress may legislate under this section to protect voting rights by
preempting discriminatory State qualifications for electors (Katzenbach
v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966)), and may lower the voting age in Federal
(but not State) elections (Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)).
[[Page [107]]]
AMENDMENT XV.\6\
Section 1. <> The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\The 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
40th Congress on February 26, 1869, and was declared, in a proclamation
of the Secretary of State, dated March 30, 1870, to have been ratified
by the legislatures of 29 of the 37 States. The dates of these
ratifications were: Nevada, March 1, 1869; West Virginia, March 3, 1869;
North Carolina, March 5, 1869; Illinois, March 5, 1869; Louisiana, March
5, 1869; Michigan, March 8, 1869; Wisconsin, March 9, 1869; Maine, March
11, 1869; Massachusetts, March 12, 1869; Arkansas, March 15, 1869; South
Carolina, March 15, 1869; Pennsylvania, March 25, 1869; New York, April
14, 1869 (subsequently withdrew its consent to the ratification on
January 5, 1870 but rescinded this action on March 30, 1970); Indiana,
May 14, 1869; Connecticut, May 19, 1869; Florida, June 14, 1869; New
Hampshire, July 1, 1869; Virginia, October 8, 1869; Vermont, October 20,
1869; Alabama, November 16, 1869; Missouri, January 7, 1870 (Missouri
had ratified the first section of the 15th amendment on March 1, 1869,
but had failed to include in its ratification the second section of the
amendment); Minnesota, January 13, 1870; Mississippi, January 17, 1870;
Rhode Island, January 18, 1870; Kansas, January 19, 1870; Ohio, January
27, 1870 (after having rejected the amendment April 30, 1869); Georgia,
February 2, 1870; Iowa, February 3, 1870. Ratification was completed on
February 3, 1870, unless the withdrawal of ratification by New York was
effective; in which event ratification was completed on February 17,
1870, when ratified by Nebraska. The amendment was subsequently ratified
by Texas, February 18, 1870; New Jersey, February 15, 1871 (after having
rejected it on February 7, 1870); Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after
having rejected it on March 18, 1869); Oregon, February 24, 1959;
California, April 3, 1962 (after having rejected it on January 28,
1870); Maryland, May 7, 1973 (after having rejected it on February 4 and
February 26, 1870); Kentucky, March 30, 1976 (after having rejected it
on March 11 and March 12, 1869); Tennessee, April 2, 1997, (after having
rejected it on November 16, 1869).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
[[Page [108]]]
AMENDMENT XVI.\7\
The <> Congress shall have power to
lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without
apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census
or enumeration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\The 16th amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
61st Congress on July 16, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of
the Secretary of State dated February 25, 1913, to have been ratified by
the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were:
Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina,
February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910;
Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3,
1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20,
1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana,
January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31,
1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911;
Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado,
February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18,
1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri,
March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911;
Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it at the session begun
January 9, 1911); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911;
Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28,
1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; Delaware, February 3, 1913;
Wyoming, February 3, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913. Ratification
was completed on February 3, 1913. The amendment was subsequently
ratified by New Jersey, February 4, 1913; Vermont, February 19, 1913
(after having rejected the amendment January 17, 1911); Massachusetts,
March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected the
amendment March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected by Rhode Island,
April 29, 1910; Utah, March 9, 1911; Connecticut, June 28, 1911; and
Florida, May 31, 1913. Pennsylvania and Virginia did not complete
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page [109]]]
AMENDMENT XVII.\8\
The <> Senate of
the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,
elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall
have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications
requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State
legislatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\See article I, section 3 of the Constitution. The 17th
amendment to the Constitution was proposed to the legislatures of the
several States by the 62d Congress on May 15, 1912, and was declared, in
a proclamation by the Secretary of State dated May 31, 1913, to have
been ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of
ratification were: Massachusetts, May 22, 1912; Arizona, June 3, 1912;
Minnesota, June 10, 1912; New York, January 15, 1913; Kansas, January
17, 1913; Oregon, January 23, 1913; North Carolina, January 25, 1913;
California, January 28, 1913; Michigan, January 28, 1913; Iowa, January
30, 1913; Montana, January 30, 1913; Idaho, January 31, 1913; West
Virginia, February 4, 1913; Colorado, February 5, 1913; Nevada, February
6, 1913; Texas, February 7, 1913; Washington, February 7, 1913; Wyoming,
February 8, 1913; Arkansas, February 11, 1913; Maine, February 11, 1913;
Illinois, February 13, 1913; North Dakota, February 14, 1913; Wisconsin,
February 18, 1913; Indiana, February 19, 1913; New Hampshire, February
19, 1913; Vermont, February 19, 1913; South Dakota, February 19, 1913;
Oklahoma, February 24, 1913; Ohio, February 25, 1913; Missouri, March 7,
1913; New Mexico, March 13, 1913; Nebraska, March 14, 1913; New Jersey,
March 17, 1913; Tennessee, April 1, 1913; Pennsylvania, April 2, 1913;
Connecticut, April 8, 1913. Ratification was completed on April 8, 1913.
The amendment was subsequently ratified by Louisiana, June 11, 1914;
Alabama, April 16, 2002. The amendment was rejected by Utah, February
26, 1913; Delaware, March 18, 1913. Florida, Georgia, Rhode Island, and
South Carolina did not complete action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the
Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of
election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any
State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments
until
[[Page [110]]]
the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or
term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the
Constitution.
Senator <> Rebecca
L. Felton, appointed during the recess of the Senate on October 3, 1922,
to fill a vacancy, was the first woman to sit in the Senate (VI, 156).
Senator Walter F. George was elected to fill the vacancy on Novem-
ber 7, 1922. Mrs. Felton took the oath of office on November 21, 1922,
and Senator George took the oath November 22, 1922 (VI, 156). Discussion
as to the term of service of a Senator appointed by a State executive to
fill a vacancy (VI, 156).
The <> right of an
elector to vote for a Senator is fundamentally derived from the United
States Constitution (United States v. Aczel 219 F.2d 917 (1915)) and may
not be denied in a discriminatory fashion (Chapman v. King, 154 F.2d 460
(1946), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 800 (1946); Forssenius v. Harman, 235 F.
Supp. 66 (1964), aff'd., 380 U.S. 529 (1965)).
AMENDMENT XVIII.\9\
Section 1. <> [After one year from the ratification of this article the
manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxi
[[Page [111]]]
cating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation
thereof from the United States and all territories subject to the
jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\See amendment XXI, repealing this amendment. The 18th
amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the
legislatures of the several States by the 65th Congress on December 18,
1917, and was declared in a proclamation by the Secretary of State dated
January 29, 1919, to have been ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the
48 States. The dates of these ratifications were: Mississippi, January
8, 1918; Virginia, January 11, 1918; Kentucky, January 14, 1918; North
Dakota, January 25, 1918; South Carolina, January 29, 1918; Maryland,
February 13, 1918; Montana, February 19, 1918; Texas, March 4, 1918;
Delaware, March 18, 1918; South Dakota, March 20, 1918; Massachusetts,
April 2, 1918; Arizona, May 24, 1918; Georgia, June 26, 1918; Louisiana,
August 3, 1918; Florida, December 3, 1918; Michigan, January 2, 1919;
Ohio, January 7, 1919; Oklahoma, January 7, 1919; Idaho, January 8,
1919; Maine, January 8, 1919; West Virginia, January 9, 1919;
California, January 13, 1919; Tennessee, January 13, 1919; Washington,
January 13, 1919; Arkansas, January 14, 1919; Kansas, January 14, 1919;
Alabama, January 15, 1919; Colorado, January 15, 1919; Iowa, January 15,
1919; New Hampshire, January 15, 1919; Oregon, January 15, 1919;
Nebraska, January 16, 1919; North Carolina, January 16, 1919; Utah,
January 16, 1919; Missouri, January 16, 1919; Wyoming, January 16, 1919.
Ratification was completed on January 16, 1919. The amendment was
subsequently ratified by Minnesota, January 17, 1919; Wisconsin, January
17, 1919; New Mexico, January 20, 1919; Nevada, January 21, 1919; New
York, January 29, 1919; Vermont, January 29, 1919; Pennsylvania,
February 25, 1919; Connecticut, May 6, 1919; New Jersey, March 9, 1922.
Connecticut and Rhode Island rejected the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent
power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the
several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from
the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.]
AMENDMENT XIX.\10\
The <s suffrage.>> right of citizens
of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of sex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\The 19th amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
66th Congress on June 5, 1919, and was declared in a proclamation by the
Secretary of State dated August 26, 1920, to have been ratified by the
legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of these ratifications
were: Illinois, June 10, 1919 (and that State readopted its resolution
of ratification June 17, 1919); Michigan, June 10, 1919; Wisconsin, June
10, 1919; Kansas, June 16, 1919; New York, June 16, 1919; Ohio, June 16,
1919; Pennsylvania, June 24, 1919; Massachusetts, June 25, 1919; Texas,
June 28, 1919; Iowa, July 2, 1919; Missouri, July 3, 1919; Arkansas,
July 28, 1919; Montana, August 2, 1919; Nebraska, August 2, 1919;
Minnesota, September 8, 1919; New Hampshire, September 10, 1919; Utah,
October 2, 1919; California, November 1, 1919; Maine, November 5, 1919;
North Dakota, December 1, 1919; South Dakota, December 4, 1919;
Colorado, December 15, 1919; Kentucky, January 6, 1920; Rhode Island,
January 6, 1920; Oregon, January 13, 1920; Indiana, January 16, 1920;
Wyoming, January 27, 1920; Nevada, February 7, 1920; New Jersey,
February 9, 1920; Idaho, February 11, 1920; Arizona, February 12, 1920;
New Mexico, February 21, 1920; Oklahoma, February 28, 1920; West
Virginia, March 10, 1920; Washington, March 22, 1920; Tennessee, August
28, 1920. Ratification was completed on August 28, 1920. The amendment
was subsequently ratified by Connecticut, September 14, 1920 (and that
State reaffirmed on September 21, 1920); Vermont, February 8, 1921;
Delaware, March 6, 1923 (after having rejected the amendment on June 2,
1920); Maryland, March 29, 1941 (after having rejected the amendment on
February 24, 1920; ratification certified February 25, 1958); Virginia,
February 21, 1952 (after having rejected the amendment February 12,
1920); Alabama, September 8, 1953 (after having rejected the amendment
September 22, 1919); Florida, May 13, 1969; South Carolina, July 1, 1969
(after having rejected the amendment on January 28, 1920); Georgia,
February 20, 1970 (after having rejected the amendment on July 24,
1919); Louisiana, June 11, 1970 (after having rejected it on July 1,
1920); North Carolina, May 6, 1971; Mississippi, March 22, 1984 (after
having rejected the amendment on March 29, 1920).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page [112]]]
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
AMENDMENT XX.\11\
Section 1. <> The terms of the President and
Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the
terms of Senators and Representa
[[Page [113]]]
tives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms
would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of
their successors shall then begin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\See article I, section 4 of the Constitution. The 20th
amendment to the Constitution was proposed to the legislatures of the
several States by the 72d Congress, on March 3, 1932, and was declared
in a proclamation by the Secretary of State dated February 6, 1933, to
have been ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates
of these ratifications were: Virginia, March 4, 1932; New York, March
11, 1932; Mississippi, March 16, 1932; Arkansas, March 17, 1932;
Kentucky, March 17, 1932; New Jersey, March 21, 1932; South Carolina,
March 25, 1932; Michigan, March 31, 1932; Maine, April 1, 1932; Rhode
Island, April 14, 1932; Illinois, April 21, 1932; Louisiana, June 22,
1932; West Virginia, July 30, 1932; Pennsylvania, August 11, 1932;
Indiana, August 15, 1932; Texas, September 7, 1932; Alabama, September
13, 1932; California, January 4, 1933; North Carolina, January 5, 1933;
North Dakota, January 9, 1933; Minnesota, January 12, 1933; Montana,
January 13, 1933; Nebraska, January 13, 1933; Oklahoma, January 13,
1933; Arizona, January 13, 1933; Kansas, January 16, 1933; Oregon,
January 16, 1933; Wyoming, January 19, 1933; Delaware, January 19, 1933;
Washington, January 19, 1933; South Dakota, January 20, 1933; Tennessee,
January 20, 1933; Iowa, January 20, 1933; Idaho, January 21, 1933; New
Mexico, January 21, 1933; Ohio, January 23, 1933; Utah, January 23,
1933; Missouri, January 23, 1933; Georgia, January 23, 1933.
Ratification was completed on January 23, 1933. The amendment was
subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, January 24, 1933; Wisconsin,
January 24, 1933; Colorado, January 24, 1933; Nevada, January 26, 1933;
Connecticut, January 27, 1933; New Hampshire, January 31, 1933; Vermont,
February 2, 1933; Maryland, March 24, 1933; Florida, April 26, 1933.
The ratification of this amendment to the Constitution shortened the
first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Vice President John N.
Garner, and the terms of all Senators and Representatives of the 73d
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2. <> The Congress shall
assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at
noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a
different day.
Before the ratification of the 20th amendment Congress met on the
first Monday in December as provided in article I, section 4, of the
Constitution. For discussion of the term of Congress before and pursuant
to the 20th amendment, see Sec. 6, supra (accompanying art. I, sec. 2,
cl. 1), and Deschler, ch. 1.
[[Page [114]]]
Pursuant to section 2 of the 20th amendment, a regular session of a
Congress must begin at noon on January 3 of every year unless Congress
sets a different date by law, and if the House is in session at that
time the Speaker declares the House adjourned sine die without a motion
from the floor, in order that the next regular session of that Congress,
or the first session of the next Congress (as the case may be) may
assemble at noon on that day (Jan. 3, 1980, pp. 37773, 37774; Jan. 3,
1996, pp. 35, 36; Jan. 3, 2012, p. 21498; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1,
Sec. 2.6; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 2.5; Jan. 3, 2017, p. _;
Jan. 3, 2018, p. _; Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; Jan. 3, 2020, p. _; Jan. 3,
2021, p. _). The House has adjourned the second session of a Congress
without motion at its expiration and convened the first session of the
new Congress on a different date as prescribed by law (Jan. 3, 2009, p.
24812).
Since <> ratification, the following days for assembling have been
established: Public Law 74-120, Jan. 5, 1937; Public Law 77-395, Jan. 5,
1942; Public Law 77-819, Jan. 6, 1943; Public Law 78-210, Jan. 10, 1944;
Public Law 79-289, Jan. 14, 1946; Public Law 80-358, Jan. 6, 1948;
Public Law 82-244, Jan. 8, 1952; Public Law 83-199, Jan. 6, 1954; Public
Law 83-700, Jan. 5, 1955; Public Law 85-290, Jan. 7, 1958; Public Law
85-819, Jan. 7, 1959; Public Law 86-305, Jan. 6, 1960; Public Law 87-
348, Jan. 10, 1962; Public Law 87-864, Jan. 9, 1963; Public Law 88-247,
Jan. 7, 1964; Public Law 88-649, Jan. 4, 1965; Public Law 89-340, Jan.
10, 1966; Public Law 89-704, Jan. 10, 1967; Public Law 90-230, Jan. 15,
1968; Public Law 91-182, Jan. 19, 1970; Public Law 91-643, Jan. 21,
1971; Public Law 92-217, Jan. 18, 1972; Public Law 93-196, Jan. 21,
1974; Public Law 93-553, Jan. 14, 1975; Public Law 94-186, Jan. 19,
1976; Public Law 94-494, Jan. 4, 1977; Public Law 95-594, Jan. 15, 1979;
Public Law 96-566, Jan. 5, 1981; Public Law 97-133, Jan. 25, 1982;
Public Law 98-179, Jan. 23, 1984; Public Law 99-379, Jan. 21, 1986;
Public Law 99-613, Jan. 6, 1987; Public Law 100-229, Jan. 25, 1988;
Public Law 101-228, Jan. 23, 1990; Public Law 102-475, Jan. 5, 1993;
Public Law 103-395, Jan. 4, 1995; Public Law 104-296, Jan. 7, 1997;
Public Law 105-140, Jan. 27, 1998; Public Law 105-350, Jan. 6, 1999;
Public Law 106-127, Jan. 24, 2000; Public Law 107-328, Jan. 7, 2003;
Public Law 108-181, Jan. 20, 2004; Public Law 108-433, Jan. 4, 2005;
Public Law 109-447, Jan. 4, 2007; Public Law 110-430, Jan. 6, 2009;
Public Law 111-121, Jan. 5, 2010; Public Law 111-289, Jan. 5, 2011;
Public Law 113-201, Jan. 6, 2015; Public Law 114-108, Jan. 4, 2016. Such
laws for the convening of a second session of a Congress may provide for
possible earlier assembly by joint-leadership recall (see, e.g., Public
Law 107-98, Jan. 23, 2002).
-
[[Page [115]]]
Section 3. <> If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of
the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President
elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen
before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President
elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall
act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the
Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President
elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who
shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act
shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a
President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Congress <> provided by law in 1947 for the performance of the duties
of the President in case of removal, death, resignation or inability,
both of the President and Vice President (3 U.S.C. 19). Earlier
succession statutes covering the periods 1792-1886 and 1887-1948 can be
found in 18 Stat. 21, and 24 Stat. 1, respectively. Also see the 25th
amendment to the Constitution, relating to vacancies in the Office of
Vice President and Presidential inability.
Before the 20th amendment there was no provision in the Constitution
for a case wherein the President-elect was disqualified or had died.
Section 4. <> The
Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the
persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President
whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the
case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose
a
[[Page [116]]]
Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon
them.
The above section changes the 12th amendment insofar as it gives
Congress the power to provide by law the manner in which the House
should proceed in the event no candidate had a majority and one of the
three highest on the list of those voted for as President had died.
Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of
October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of
its submission.
AMENDMENT XXI.\12\
Section 1. <> The eighteenth
article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby
repealed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\The 21st amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was proposed to conventions of the several States by the 72d
Congress on February 20, 1933, and was declared in a proclamation by the
Acting Secretary of State dated December 5, 1933, to have been ratified
by conventions in 36 of the 48 States. The dates of these ratifications
were: Michigan, April 10, 1933; Wisconsin, April 25, 1933; Rhode Island,
May 8, 1933; Wyoming, May 25, 1933; New Jersey, June 1, 1933; Delaware,
June 24, 1933; Massachusetts, June 26, 1933; Indiana, June 26, 1933; New
York, June 27, 1933; Illinois, July 10, 1933; Iowa, July 10, 1933;
Connecticut, July 11, 1933; New Hampshire, July 11, 1933; California,
July 24, 1933; West Virginia, July 25, 1933; Arkansas, August 1, 1933;
Oregon, August 7, 1933; Alabama, August 8, 1933; Tennessee, August 11,
1933; Missouri, August 29, 1933; Arizona, September 5, 1933; Nevada,
September 5, 1933; Vermont, September 23, 1933; Colorado, September 26,
1933; Washington, October 3, 1933; Minnesota, October 10, 1933; Idaho,
October 17, 1933; Maryland, October 18, 1933; Virginia, October 25,
1933; New Mexico, November 2, 1933; Florida, November 14, 1933; Texas,
November 24, 1933; Kentucky, November 27, 1933; Ohio, December 5, 1933;
Pennsylvania, December 5, 1933; Utah, December 5, 1933. The amendment
was subsequently ratified by Maine on December 6, 1933; Montana, August
6, 1934. The convention held in the State of South Carolina on December
4, 1933, rejected the 21st amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page [117]]]
Section 2. <> The transportation or importation into any State,
Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use
therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is
hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the
several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from
the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
AMENDMENT XXII.\13\
Section 1. <> No person shall be elected to the office of the President
more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or
acted as
[[Page [118]]]
President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person
was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President
more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding
the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress,
and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of
President, or acting as President, during the term within which this
Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting
as President during the remainder of such term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\The 22d amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
80th Congress on March 24, 1947, and was declared by the Administrator
of General Services, in a proclamation dated March 1, 1951, to have been
ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of these
ratifications were: Maine, March 31, 1947; Michigan, March 31, 1947;
Iowa, April 1, 1947; Kansas, April 1, 1947; New Hampshire, April 1,
1947; Delaware, April 2, 1947; Illinois, April 3, 1947; Oregon, April 3,
1947; Colorado, April 12, 1947; California, April 15, 1947; New Jersey,
April, 15, 1947; Vermont, April 15, 1947; Ohio, April 16, 1947;
Wisconsin, April 16, 1947; Pennsylvania, April 29, 1947; Connecticut,
May 21, 1947; Missouri, May 22, 1947; Nebraska, May 23, 1947; Virginia,
January 28, 1948; Mississippi, February 12, 1948; New York, March 9,
1948; South Dakota, January 21, 1949; North Dakota, February 25, 1949;
Louisiana, May 17, 1950; Montana, January 25, 1951; Indiana, January 29,
1951; Idaho, January 30, 1951; New Mexico, February 12, 1951; Wyoming,
February 12, 1951; Arkansas, February 15, 1951; Georgia, February 17,
1951; Tennessee, February 20, 1951; Texas, February 22, 1951; Nevada,
February 26, 1951; Utah, February 26, 1951; Minnesota, February 27,
1951. Ratification was completed February 27, 1951. The amendment was
subsequently ratified by North Carolina, February 28, 1951; South
Carolina, March 13, 1951; Maryland, March 14, 1951; Florida, April 16,
1951; Alabama, May 4, 1951. Massachusetts and Oklahoma rejected the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of
its submission to the States by the Congress.
AMENDMENT XXIII.\14\
Section 1. <> The District constituting the seat of
Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the
Congress may direct:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\The 23d amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
86th Congress on June 17, 1960, and was declared by the Administrator of
General Services, in a proclamation dated April 3, 1961, to have been
ratified by the legislatures of 39 of the 50 States. The dates of these
ratifications were: Hawaii, June 23, 1960; Massachusetts, August 22,
1960; New Jersey, December 19, 1960; New York, January 17, 1961;
California, January 19, 1961; Oregon, January 27, 1961; Maryland,
January 30, 1961; Idaho, January 31, 1961; Maine, January 31, 1961;
Minnesota, January 31, 1961; New Mexico, February 1, 1961; Nevada,
February 2, 1961; Montana, February 26, 1961; Colorado, February 8,
1961; Washington, February 9, 1961; West Virginia, February 9, 1961;
Alaska, February 10, 1961; Wyoming, February 13, 1961; South Dakota,
February 14, 1961; Delaware, February 20, 1961; Utah, February 21, 1961;
Wisconsin, February 21, 1961; Pennsylvania, February 28, 1961; Indiana,
March 3, 1961; North Dakota, March 3, 1961; Tennessee, March 6, 1961;
Michigan, March 8, 1961; Connecticut, March 9, 1961; Arizona, March 10,
1961; Illinois, March 14, 1961; Nebraska, March 15, 1961; Vermont, March
15, 1961; Iowa, March 16, 1961; Missouri, March 20, 1961; Oklahoma,
March 21, 1961; Rhode Island, March 22, 1961; Kansas, March 29, 1961;
and Ohio, March 29, 1961. Ratification was completed March 29, 1961. The
amendment was subsequently ratified by New Hampshire on March 30, 1961
(when that State annulled and then repeated its ratification of March
29, 1961). Arkansas rejected the amendment January 24, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page [119]]]
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the
whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the
District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than
the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed
by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the
election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a
State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as
provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
[[Page [120]]]
AMENDMENT XXIV.\15\
Section 1. <> The right of citizens of the United States to vote in
any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for
electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or
Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or
other tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\The 24th amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
87th Congress on August 28, 1962, and was declared by the Administrator
of General Services, in a proclamation dated February 4, 1964, to have
been ratified by the legislatures of 38 of the 50 States. The dates of
these ratifications were: Illinois, November 14, 1962; New Jersey,
December 3, 1962; Oregon, January 25, 1963; Montana, January 28, 1963;
West Virginia, February 1, 1963; New York, February 4, 1963; Maryland,
February 6, 1963; California, February 7, 1963; Alaska, February 11,
1963; Rhode Island, February 14, 1963; Indiana, February 19, 1963; Utah,
February 20, 1963; Michigan, February 20, 1963; Colorado, February 21,
1963; Ohio, February 27, 1963; Minnesota, February 27, 1963; New Mexico,
March 5, 1963; Hawaii, March 6, 1963; North Dakota, March 7, 1963;
Idaho, March 8, 1963; Washington, March 14, 1963; Vermont, March 15,
1963; Nevada, March 19, 1963; Connecticut, March 20, 1963; Tennessee,
March 21, 1963; Pennsylvania, March 25, 1963; Wisconsin, March 26, 1963;
Kansas, March 28, 1963; Massachusetts, March 28, 1963; Nebraska, April
4, 1963; Florida, April 18, 1963; Iowa, April 24, 1963; Delaware, May 1,
1963; Missouri, May 13, 1963; New Hampshire, June 12, 1963; Kentucky,
June 27, 1963; Maine, January 16, 1964; and South Dakota, January 23,
1964. Ratification was completed on January 23, 1964. Mississippi
rejected the amendment on December 20, 1962. The amendment was
subsequently ratified by Virginia, February 25, 1977; North Carolina,
May 3, 1989; Alabama, Sept. 26, 2002; Texas, May 22, 2009.
Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965); Harper v. Virginia State
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966).
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
[[Page [121]]]
AMENDMENT XXV.\16\
Section 1. <> In case of the removal of the President from office or of
his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\The 25th amendment to the Constitution of the United
States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
89th Congress on July 7, 1965, and was declared by the Administrator of
General Services, in a proclamation dated February 23, 1967, to have
been ratified by the legislatures of 39 of the 50 States. The dates of
these ratifications were: Nebraska, July 12, 1965; Wisconsin, July 13,
1965; Oklahoma, July 16, 1965; Massachusetts, August 9, 1965;
Pennsylvania, August 18, 1965; Kentucky, September 15, 1965; Arizona,
September 22, 1965; Michigan, October 5, 1965; Indiana, October 20,
1965; California, October 21, 1965; Arkansas, November 4, 1965; New
Jersey, November 29, 1965; Delaware, December 7, 1965; Utah, January 17,
1966; West Virginia, January 20, 1966; Maine, January 24, 1966; Rhode
Island, January 28, 1966; Colorado, February 3, 1966; New Mexico,
February 3, 1966; Kansas, February 8, 1966; Vermont, February 10, 1966;
Alaska, February 18, 1966; Idaho, March 2, 1966; Hawaii, March 3, 1966;
Virginia, March 8, 1966; Mississippi, March 10, 1966; New York, March
14, 1966; Maryland, March 23, 1966; Missouri, March 30, 1966; New
Hampshire, June 13, 1966; Louisiana, July 5, 1966; Tennessee, January
12, 1967; Wyoming, January 25, 1967; Iowa, January 26, 1967; Washington,
January 26, 1967; Oregon, February 2, 1967; Minnesota, February 10,
1967; Nevada, February 10, 1967. Ratification was completed February 10,
1967. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Connecticut, February
14, 1967; Montana, February 15, 1967; South Dakota, March 6, 1967; Ohio,
March 7, 1967; Alabama, March 14, 1967; North Carolina, March 22, 1967;
Illinois, March 22, 1967; Texas, April 25, 1967; Florida, May 25, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2. <> Whenever there is a vacancy
in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice
President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of
both Houses of Congress.
[[Page [122]]]
Section 3. <> Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written
declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged
by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. <> Whenever the Vice President
and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive
departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide,
transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives their written declaration that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,
the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers
and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of
either the principal officers of the executive department or of such
other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to
the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives their
[[Page [123]]]
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue,
assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session.
If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter
written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-
one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-
thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to
discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall
resume the powers and duties of his office.
Congress <> has twice performed its responsibility under section two of
the 25th amendment. On October 13, 1973, the Speaker laid before the
House a message from President Nixon transmitting his nomination of
Gerald R. Ford, Minority Leader in the House of Representatives, to be
Vice President of the United States, Vice President Agnew having
resigned on October 10, 1973. The Speaker referred the nomination to the
Committee on the Judiciary, which under rule X has jurisdiction over
matters relating to Presidential succession (Precedents (Wickham), ch.
3, Sec. 6.6). The nomination of Mr. Ford to be Vice President was
confirmed by the Senate on November 27, 1973 (p. 38225) and by the House
on December 6, 1973 (p. 39900), and Vice President Ford was sworn in in
the Chamber of the House of Representatives on December 6 (p. 39925).
Subsequently, President Nixon resigned from office by delivering his
written resignation to the Office of the Secretary of State, pursuant to
3 U.S.C. 20, on August 9, 1974. Pursuant to section one of the 25th
amendment, Vice President Ford became President, and was sworn in in the
East Room at the White House. He nominated Nelson A. Rockefeller to be
Vice President, which nomination was received in the House of
Representatives and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on August
20, 1974; the nomination was confirmed by the Senate on December 10,
1974 (p. 38936) and by the House on December 19, 1974 (p. 41516), and
Vice President Rockefeller was sworn in in the Senate Chamber on
December 19, 1974 (p. 41181). On both instances, the House received the
message from the Senate, announcing that body's
[[Page [124]]]
confirmation of the nominee for Vice President, following the vote on
confirmation by the House.
The Chair laid before the House communications from the President
pursuant to section three of this amendment as follows: First, before
undergoing sedation for a medical procedure, declaring his impending
inability to discharge the constitutional powers and duties of the
Office of President and advising that the Vice President would discharge
those responsibilities as Acting President until the President declared
his ability to resume that role; and second (after recovering from the
sedation and the medical procedure) declaring his ability to resume the
discharge of the constitutional powers and duties of the Office of
President, and advising that he was doing so immediately (July 15, 1985,
p. 18955; July 8, 2002, pp. 12089, 12090; July 23, 2007, p. 20036).
AMENDMENT XXVI.\17\
Section 1. <> The right of citizens of the United States, who
are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\The 26th amendment to the Constitution was proposed by
the Congress on March 23, 1971. It was declared, in a certificate of the
Administrator of General Services, dated July 5, 1971, to have been
ratified by the legislatures of 39 of the 50 States. The dates of
ratification were: Connecticut, March 23, 1971; Delaware, March 23,
1971; Minnesota, March 23, 1971; Tennessee, March 23, 1971; Washington,
March 23, 1971; Hawaii, March 24, 1971; Massachusetts, March 24, 1971;
Montana, March 29, 1971; Arkansas, March 30, 1971; Idaho, March 30,
1971; Iowa, March 30, 1971; Nebraska, April 2, 1971; New Jersey, April
3, 1971; Kansas, April 7, 1971; Michigan, April 7, 1971; Alaska, April
8, 1971; Maryland, April 8, 1971; Indiana, April 8, 1971; Maine, April
9, 1971; Vermont, April 16, 1971; Louisiana, April 17, 1971; California,
April 19, 1971; Colorado, April 27, 1971; Pennsylvania, April 27, 1971;
Texas, April 27, 1971; South Carolina, April 28, 1971; West Virginia,
April 28, 1971; New Hampshire, May 13, 1971; Arizona, May 14, 1971;
Rhode Island, May 27, 1971; New York, June 2, 1971; Oregon, June 4,
1971; Missouri, June 14, 1971; Wisconsin, June 22, 1971; Illinois, June
29, 1971; Alabama, June 30, 1971; Ohio, June 30, 1971; North Carolina,
July 1, 1971; Oklahoma, July 1, 1971.
Ratification was completed on July 1, 1971.
The amendment was subsequently ratified by Virginia, July 8, 1971;
Wyoming, July 8, 1971; Georgia, October 4, 1971.
[[Page [125]]]
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XXVII.\18\
No law, varying the <> compensation for the services of the
Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of
Representatives shall have intervened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\The 27th amendment to the Constitution was proposed on
September 25, 1789. It was declared to have been ratified by the
legislatures of 39 of the 50 States in a certificate of the Archivist
dated May 18, 1992. The dates of ratification were: Maryland, December
19, 1789; North Carolina, December 22, 1789; South Carolina, January 19,
1790; Delaware, January 28, 1790; Vermont, November 3, 1791; Virginia,
December 15, 1791; Ohio, May 6, 1873; Wyoming, March 6, 1978; Maine,
April 27, 1983; Colorado, April 22, 1984; South Dakota, February 21,
1985; New Hampshire, March 7, 1985; Arizona, April 3, 1985; Tennessee,
May 23, 1985; Oklahoma, July 10, 1985; New Mexico, February 14, 1986;
Indiana, February 24, 1986; Utah, February 25, 1986; Arkansas, March 6,
1987; Montana, March 17, 1987; Connecticut, May 13, 1987; Wisconsin,
July 15, 1987; Georgia, February 2, 1988; West Virginia, March 10, 1988;
Louisiana, July 7, 1988; Iowa, February 9, 1989; Idaho, March 23, 1989;
Nevada, April 26, 1989; Alaska, May 6, 1989; Oregon, May 19, 1989;
Minnesota, May 22, 1989; Texas, May 25, 1989; Kansas, April 5, 1990;
Florida, May 31, 1990; North Dakota, March 25, 1991; Alabama, May 5,
1992; Missouri, May 5, 1992; Michigan, May 7, 1992; New Jersey, May 7,
1992.
Ratification was completed on May 7, 1992. The amendment was
subsequently ratified by Illinois, May 12, 1992; California, June 26,
1992; Rhode Island, June 10, 1993; Hawaii, April 26, 1994; Washington,
August 12, 1995; Kentucky, March 21, 1996; Nebraska, April 1, 2016.
To quell speculation over the efficacy of a ratification process
spanning two centuries, the House adopted a concurrent resolution
declaring the ratification of the amendment (H. Con. Res. 320, May 19,
1992, p. 11779 (adopted May 20, 1992, p. 12051)). The Senate adopted
both a separate concurrent resolution and a simple resolution making
similar declarations (S. Con. Res. 120 and S. Res. 298, May 20, 1992, p.
11869). Neither House considered the concurrent resolution of the other.
For a concurrent resolution declaring the ratification of the 14th
amendment, see July 21, 1868. For opinions of the Supreme Court
concerning the duration of the ratifica
[[Page [126]]]
tion process and the contemporaneity of State ratifications, see Dillon
v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) and Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433
(1939). A law enacted in the 113th Congress directed the payroll
administrators of each House to withhold the pay of Members or Senators
until either (1) a concurrent resolution on the budget was adopted in
their respective body or (2) in order to ensure compliance with the 27th
amendment, the final day of the 113th Congress (P.L. 113-3).
For Federal court opinions upholding congressional cost-of-living
adjustments for Members under the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat.
1716), see Boehner v. Anderson, 809 F. Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1992), aff'd,
30 F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir 1994); Schaffer v. Clinton, 54 F. Supp.2d 1014
(D.Colo. 1999).
[[Page [127]]]
========================================================================
JEFFERSON'S MANUAL
========================================================================
[[Page [129]]]
JEFFERSON'S MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE\1\
__________
sec. i--importance of adhering to rules
Mr. <> Onslow, the ablest among the Speakers of the House of
Commons, used to say, ``It was a maxim he had often heard when he was a
young man, from old and experienced Members, that nothing tended more to
throw power into the hands of administration, and those who acted with
the majority of the House of Commons, than a neglect of, or departure
from, the rules of proceeding; that these forms, as instituted by our
ancestors, operated as a check and control on the actions of the
majority, and that they were, in many instances, a shelter and
protection to the minority, against
[[Page [130]]]
the attempts of power.'' So far the maxim is certainly true, and is
founded in good sense, that as it is always in the power of the
majority, by their numbers, to stop any improper measures proposed on
the part of their opponents, the only weapons by which the minority can
defend themselves against similar attempts from those in power are the
forms and rules of proceeding which have been adopted as they were found
necessary, from time to time, and are become the law of the House, by a
strict adherence to which the weaker party can only be protected from
those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to
check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest
to large and successful majorities, 2 Hats., 171, 172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Jefferson's Manual was prepared by Thomas Jefferson for
his own guidance as President of the Senate in the years of his Vice
Presidency, from 1797 to 1801. In 1837 the House, by rule that still
exists, provided that the provisions of the Manual should ``govern the
House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are
not inconsistent with the Rules and orders of the House.'' Rule XXIX,
Sec. 1105, infra. In 1880 the committee that revised the Rules of the
House declared in their report that the Manual, ``compiled as it was for
the use of the Senate exclusively and made up almost wholly of
collations of English parliamentary practice and decisions, it was never
especially valuable as an authority in the House of Representatives,
even in its early history, and for many years past has been rarely
quoted in the House'' (V, 6757). This statement, although sanctioned by
high authority, is extreme, for in certain parts of the Manual are to be
found the foundations of some of the most important portions of the
House's practice.
<> The Manual is regarded by English parliamentarians as the best
statement of what the law of Parliament was at the time Jefferson wrote
it. Jefferson himself says, in the preface of the work:
``I could not doubt the necessity of quoting the sources of my
information, among which Mr. Hatsel's most valuable book is preeminent;
but as he has only treated some general heads, I have been obliged to
recur
[[Page [131]]]
to other authorities in support of a number of common rules of practice,
to which his plan did not descend. Sometimes each authority cited
supports the whole passage. Sometimes it rests on all taken together.
Sometimes the authority goes only to a part of the text, the residue
being inferred from known rules and principles. For some of the most
familiar forms no written authority is or can be quoted, no writer
having supposed it necessary to repeat what all were presumed to know.
The statement of these must rest on their notoriety.
``I am aware that authorities can often be produced in opposition to
the rules which I lay down as parliamentary. An attention to dates will
generally remove their weight. The proceedings of Parliament in ancient
times, and for a long while, were crude, multiform, and embarrassing.
They have been, however, constantly advancing toward uniformity and
accuracy, and have now attained a degree of aptitude to their object
beyond which little is to be desired or expected.
``Yet I am far from the presumption of believing that I may not have
mistaken the parliamentary practice in some cases, and especially in
those minor forms, which, being practiced daily, are supposed known to
everybody, and therefore have not been committed to writing. Our
resources in this quarter of the globe for obtaining information on that
part of the subject are not perfect. But I have begun a sketch, which
those who come after me will successively correct and fill up, till a
code of rules shall be formed for the use of the Senate, the effects of
which may be accuracy in business, economy of time, order, uniformity,
and impartiality.''
Jefferson also says in his preface, as to the source most desirable at
that time from which to draw principles of procedure:
<> ``But to what system of rules is he to recur, as
supplementary to those of the Senate? To this there can be but one
answer: To the system of regulations adopted for the government of some
one of the parliamentary bodies within these States, or of that which
has served as a prototype to most of them. This last is the model which
we have all studied, while we are little acquainted with the
modifications of it in our several States. It is deposited, too, in
publications possessed by many, and open to all. Its rules are probably
as wisely constructed for governing the debates of a deliberative body,
and obtaining its true sense, as any which can become known to us; and
the acquiescence of the Senate, hitherto, under the references to them,
has given them the sanction of the approbation.''
Those portions of the Manual that refer exclusively to Senate
procedure or that refer to English practice wholly inapplicable to the
House have been omitted. Paragraphs from the Constitution of the United
States have also been omitted, because the Constitution is printed in
full in this volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And <> whether these
forms be in all cases the most rational or not is really not of so great
importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go
by than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding
in business not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of
the members. It is very material that order, decency, and regularity be
preserved in a dignified public body. 2 Hats., 149.
[[Page [132]]]
Whether the House is in order so that a Member may proceed in debate
is determined by the Chair (Speaker McCormack, Dec. 9, 1963, p. 23831;
Apr. 23, 2008, pp. 6748, 6749), who may refuse to proceed with business
in the face of a breach of decorum (Mar. 13, 2014, p. 4393), such as the
mass presence of Members in the well while not under recognition
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.1). Alleged partiality in making
such a determination has been renounced (July 31, 2008, p. 17495). The
comportment of a presiding officer has formed the basis of a question of
privilege (Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22783).
* * * * *
sec. iii--privilege
The <> privileges of members of Parliament, from small and
obscure beginnings, have been advancing for centuries with a firm and
never yielding pace. Claims seem to have been brought forward from time
to time, and repeated, till some example of their admission enabled them
to build law on that example. We can only, therefore, state the points
of progression at which they now are. It is now acknowledged, 1st. That
they are at all times exempted from question elsewhere, for anything
said in their own House; that during the time of privilege, 2d. Neither
a member himself, his, order H. of C. 1663, July 16, wife, nor his
servants (familiares sui), for any matter of their own, may be, Elsynge,
217; 1 Hats., 21; 1 Grey's Deb., 133, arrested on mesne process, in any
civil suit: 3d. Nor be detained under execution, though levied before
time of privilege: 4th. Nor impleaded, cited, or subpoenaed in any
court: 5th. Nor summoned as a witness or juror: 6th. Nor may their lands
or goods be distrained: 7th. Nor their persons assaulted, or characters
[[Page [133]]]
traduced. And the period of time covered by privilege, before and after
the session, with the practice of short prorogations under the
connivance of the Crown, amounts in fact to a perpetual protection
against the course of justice. In one instance, indeed, it has been
relaxed by the 10 G. 3, c. 50, which permits judiciary proceedings to go
on against them. That these privileges must be continually progressive,
seems to result from their rejecting all definition of them; the
doctrine being, that ``their dignity and independence are preserved by
keeping their privileges indefinite; and that `the maxims upon which
they proceed, together with the method of proceeding, rest entirely in
their own breast, and are not defined and ascertained by any particular
stated laws.''' 1 Blackst., 163, 164.
For a modern discussion of privileges of Members of Parliament, see
Report of Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of the House of
Commons (H.C. 214-1, Mar. 30, 1999).
It <> was probably from this view of the encroaching character
of privilege that the framers of our Constitution, in their care to
provide that the laws shall bind equally on all, and especially that
those who make them shall not exempt themselves from their operation,
have only privileged ``Senators and Representatives'' themselves from
the single act of ``arrest in all cases except treason, felony, and
breach of the peace, during their attendance at the session of their
respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same, and from
being questioned in any other
[[Page [134]]]
place for any speech or debate in either House.'' Const. U.S. Art I,
Sec. 6. Under the general authority ``to make all laws necessary and
proper for carrying into execution the powers given them,'' Const. U.S.,
Art. II, Sec. 8, they may provide by law the details which may be
necessary for giving full effect to the enjoyment of this privilege. No
such law being as yet made, it seems to stand at present on the
following ground: 1. The act of arrest is void, ab initio. 2 Stra., 989.
2. The member arrested may be discharged on motion, 1 Bl., 166; 2 Stra.,
990; or by habeas corpus under the Federal or State authority, as the
case may be; or by a writ of privilege out of the chancery, 2 Stra.,
989, in those States which have adopted that part of the laws of
England. Orders of the House of Commons, 1550, February 20. 3. The
arrest being unlawful, is a trespass for which the officer and others
concerned are liable to action or indictment in the ordinary courts of
justice, as in other cases of unauthorized arrest. 4. The court before
which the process is returnable is bound to act as in other cases of
unauthorized proceeding, and liable, also, as in other similar cases, to
have their proceedings stayed or corrected by the superior courts.
The <> time
necessary for going to, and returning from, Congress, not being defined,
it will, of course, be judged of in every particular case by those who
will have to decide the case. While privilege was understood in England
to extend, as it does here, only to ex
[[Page [135]]]
emption from arrest, eundo, morando, et redeundo, the House of Commons
themselves decided that ``a convenient time was to be understood.''
(1580) 1 Hats., 99, 100. Nor is the law so strict in point of time as to
require the party to set out immediately on his return, but allows him
time to settle his private affairs, and to prepare for his journey; and
does not even scan his road very nicely, nor forfeit his protection for
a little deviation from that which is most direct; some necessity
perhaps constraining him to it. 2 Stra., 986, 987.
This <> privilege from arrest,
privileges, of course, against all process the disobedience to which is
punishable by an attachment of the person; as a subpoena ad
respondendum, or testificandum, or a summons on a jury; and with reason,
because a Member has superior duties to perform in another place. When a
Representative is withdrawn from his seat by summons, the 40,000 people
whom he represents lose their voice in debate and vote, as they do on
his voluntary absence; when a Senator is withdrawn by summons, his State
loses half its voice in debate and vote, as it does on his voluntary
absence. The enormous disparity of evil admits no comparison.
The <> House has decided that the summons of a court to Members to
attend and testify constituted a breach of privilege, and directed them
to disregard the mandate (III, 2661); but in other cases wherein Members
informed the House that they had been summoned before the District Court
of the United States for the District of Columbia or other courts, the
House authorized them to respond (III, 2662; Feb. 23, 1948, p. 1557;
Mar. 5, 1948,
[[Page [135]]]
p. 2224; Apr. 8, 1948, p. 4264; Apr. 12, 1948, p. 4347; Apr. 14, 1948,
p. 4461; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4529; Apr. 28, 1948, p. 5009; May 6, 1948,
pp. 5433, 5451; Feb. 2, 1950, p. 1399; Apr. 4, 1951, p. 3320; Apr. 9,
1951, p. 3525; Apr. 12, 1951, pp. 3751, 3752; Apr. 13, 1951, p. 3915;
June 4, 1951, p. 6084; June 22, 1951, p. 7001; Sept. 18, 1951, p. 11571;
Sept. 27, 1951, p. 12292; Mar. 5, 1953, p. 1658; Mar. 18, 1953, p. 2085;
Mar. 11, 1954, p. 3102; July 19, 1954, p. 10904; Apr. 9, 1956, p. 5970;
Apr. 10, 1956, p. 5991). The House, however, has declined to make a
general rule permitting Members to waive their privilege, preferring
that the Member in each case should apply for permission (III, 2660).
Also in maintenance of its privilege the House has refused to permit the
Clerk or other officers to produce in court, in obedience to a summons,
an original paper from the files, but has given the court facilities for
making copies (III, 2664, 2666; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4552; Apr. 29, 1948,
pp. 5161, 5162; May 6, 1948, p. 5432; Jan. 18, 1950, p. 565; Feb. 8,
1950, p. 1695; Feb. 13, 1950, p. 1765; Sept. 22, 1950, p. 15636; Apr. 6,
1951, p. 3403; Apr. 12, 1951, p. 3800; Oct. 20, 1951, p. 13777; Jan. 22,
1953, p. 498; May 25, 1953, p. 5523; Jan. 28, 1954, p. 964; Feb. 25,
1954, p. 2281; July 1, 1955, p. 9818; Apr. 12, 1956, p. 6258; Apr. 24,
1958, p. 7262; Apr. 29, 1958, p. 7636; Sept. 16, 1974, p. 31123; Jan.
19, 1977, p. 1728), but on one occasion, in which the circumstances
warranted such action, the Clerk was permitted to respond and take with
him certified copies of certain documents described in the subpoena (H.
Res. 601, Oct. 29, 1969, p. 32005) and on two other occasions, in
response to a request from the Department of Justice, to provide a copy
of the audio backup file of a committee deposition made by the Official
Reporters of Debate to the prosecuting attorney for use in a criminal
proceeding (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.7; Sept. 12, 2019, p.
_); and on the rare occasions in which the House has permitted the
production of an original paper from its files, it has made explicit
provision for its return (H. Res. 1022, 1023, Jan. 16, 1968, p. 80; H.
Res. 1429, July 27, 1976, p. 24089). No officer or employee, except by
authority of the House, should produce before any court a paper from the
files of the House, nor furnish a copy of any paper except by authority
of the House or a statute (III, 2663; VI, 587; Apr. 15, 1948, p. 4552;
Apr. 30, 1948, pp. 5161, 5162; May 6, 1948, p. 5432; Jan. 18, 1950, p.
565; Feb. 8, 1950, p. 1695; Feb. 13, 1950, p. 1765; Sept. 22, 1950, p.
15636; Apr. 6, 1951, p. 3403; Apr. 12, 1951, p. 3800; Oct. 20, 1951, p.
13777; Mar. 10, 1954, p. 3046; Feb. 7, 1955, p. 1215; May 7, 1956, p.
7588; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 27.3). In the 98th Congress, the
House adopted a resolution denying compliance with a subpoena issued by
a Federal Court for the production of records in the possession of the
Clerk (documents of a select committee from the prior Congress), where
the Speaker and joint leadership had instructed the Clerk in the
previous Congress not to produce such records and where the Court
refused to stay the subpoena or to allow the select committee to
intervene to protect its interest; the resolution directed the Counsel
to the Clerk to assert the rights and privileges of the House and
[[Page [137]]]
to take all steps necessary to protect the rights of the House
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.4). On appeal from a subsequent
district court judgment finding the Clerk in contempt, the Court of
Appeals reversed on the ground that a subpoena to depose a nonparty
witness under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may only be served in
the district (of Maryland) where it was issued. In re Guthrie, 733 F.2d
634 (4th Cir. 1984). If an official of both Houses of Congress is
subpoenaed in his official capacity, the concurrence of both Houses by
concurrent resolution is required to permit compliance (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.8). The House has authorized a former
committee employee to provide testimony in a criminal proceeding, such
authorization having been provided by the committee in the previous two
Congresses (sec. 3(f)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 36).
A resolution routinely adopted up to the 95th Congress provided that
when the House had recessed or adjourned Members, officers, and
employees were authorized to appear in response to subpoenas duces
tecum, but were prohibited from producing official papers in response
thereto; the resolution also provided that when a court found that
official papers, other than executive session material, were relevant,
the court could obtain copies thereof through the Clerk of the House
(see, e.g., H. Res. 12, Jan. 3, 1973, p. 30). In the 95th Congress, the
House for the first time by resolution permitted this same type of
general response whether or not the House is in session or in
adjournment if a court has found that specific documents in possession
of the House are material and relevant to judicial proceedings. The
House reserved to itself the right to revoke this general permission in
any specific case in which the House desires to make a different
response (H. Res. 10, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 73; H. Res. 10, Jan. 15, 1979, p.
19). The permission did not apply to executive session material, such as
a deposition of a witness in executive session of a committee, which
could be released only by a separate resolution passed by the House (H.
Res. 296, June 4, 1979, p. 13180). H. Res. 10 of the 96th Congress was
clarified and revised later in that Congress by H. Res. 722 (Sept. 17,
1980, pp. 25777-90) and became the basis for rule VIII, added as rule L
in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98-113, see Sec. 697,
infra).
Although <> the statutes provide that the Department of Justice may
represent any officer of the House or Senate in the event of judicial
proceedings against such officer in relation to the performance of
official duties (see 2 U.S.C. 5503), and that the Department of Justice
shall generally represent the interests of the United States in court
(28 U.S.C. 517), the House has on occasion authorized special
appearances on its own behalf by special counsel when the prerogatives
or powers of the House have been questioned in the courts. The House has
adopted privileged resolutions authorizing the chair of a subcommittee
to intervene in any judicial proceeding concerning subpoenas duces tecum
issued by that committee, authorizing the appointment of a special
counsel to carry out the purposes of such a resolution, and providing
for the payment from the contingent fund (now referred
[[Page [138]]]
to as ``applicable accounts of the House described in clause 1(k)(1) of
rule X'') of expenses to employ such special counsel (H. Res. 1420, Aug.
26, 1976, p. 27858; H. Res. 334, May 9, 1977, pp. 13949-52), authorizing
the Sergeant-at-Arms to employ a special counsel to represent him in a
pending action in Federal court in which he was named as a defendant,
and providing for the payment from the contingent fund of expenses to
employ such counsel (H. Res. 1497, Sept. 2, 1976, p. 28937), and
authorizing the chair of the Committee on House Administration to
intervene as a party in a pending civil action in the U.S. Court of
Claims, to defend on behalf of the House the constitutional authority to
make laws necessary and proper for executing its constitutional powers,
authorizing the employment of special counsel for such purpose, and
providing for the payment from the contingent fund of expenses to employ
such counsel (H. Res. 884, Nov. 2, 1977, p. 36661). The House has
authorized the Speaker to take any steps considered necessary to protect
the interests of the House before the court (H. Res. 49, Jan. 29, 1981,
p. 1304) or to submit briefs amicus curiae (H. Res. 639, Mar. 17, 2016,
pp. 3369, 3370 (see Apr. 18, 2016, p. _ for notification to the House of
the filing of a brief pursuant to this authorization)). The House has
authorized the Speaker to initiate or intervene in civil actions
regarding the failure of the President or any other employee of the
executive branch to implement a given law and authorized the Office of
General Counsel to represent the House in such matters and to employ
outside counsel (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 19.3), which
authority was continued in the next Congress (sec. 3(f)(2), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 36). The House has also authorized the Speaker to
intervene in an existing case and appellate proceedings arising
therefrom, and to intervene or appear in any other similar case in order
to defend a particular law, and has authorized the Office of General
Counsel to represent the House in such matters and to employ outside
counsel (sec. 103(n), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; title III, H. Res.
6, Jan. 9, 2019, p. _). The House has on occasion adopted privileged
resolutions, reported from the Committee on Rules, authorizing standing
or select committees to make applications to courts in connection with
their investigations (H. Res. 252, Feb. 9, 1977, pp. 3966-75; H. Res.
760, Sept. 28, 1977, pp. 31329-36; H. Res. 67, Mar. 4, 1981, pp. 3529-
33), including regarding judicial enforcement of committee subpoenas (H.
Res. 706, June 28, 2012, p. 10512, continued in the next two Congresses
by sec. 4(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27 and sec. 3(f)(1), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 36). In the 116th Congress the House adopted a
resolution reported by the Committee on Rules authorizing a standing
committee to intervene in or initiate judicial proceedings with respect
to several specified investigations and reaffirming the authority of
committees to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings with respect
to any subpoena issued by such committee if authorized to do so by the
Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group pursuant to clause 8(b) of rule II (H.
Res. 430, June 11, 2019, p. _). The House has also adopted (by special
rule) an unreported resolution on the same topic (H. Res. 980, Feb.
[[Page [139]]]
14, 2008, pp. 2190, 2191, continued and expanded in the next Congress by
sec. 4(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 10), and in the 116th Congress
the House adopted (by special rule) an unreported resolution ratifying
and reaffirming current and future investigations and subpoenas issued
by committees with respect to certain individuals and subject matters
(H. Res. 507, July 24, 2019, p. _). In the 115th Congress, the House
enabled continuing litigation authority by adopting clause 8(c) of rule
II (sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _), and amended such clause
in the 117th Congress to clarify that the issuance of subpoenas is
included under such continuing litigation authority (sec. 2(c), H. Res.
8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). For a discussion of the Office of General
Counsel, which was established to provide legal assistance and
representation to the House without regard to political affiliation and
in consultation with the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, see clause 8
of rule II, Sec. Sec. 670, 670a, infra.
When <> either House desires the attendance of
a Member of the other to give evidence it is the practice to ask the
other House that the Member have leave to attend, and the use of a
subpoena is of doubtful propriety (III, 1794). However, in one case the
Senate did not consider that its privilege forbade the House to summon
one of its officers as a witness (III, 1798). But when the Secretary of
the Senate was subpoenaed to appear before a committee of the House with
certain papers from the files of the Senate, the Senate discussed the
question of privilege before empowering him to attend (III, 2665). For
discussion of the means by which one House may prefer a complaint
against a Member or officer of the other, see Sec. 373, infra.
So <> far
there will probably be no difference of opinion as to the privileges of
the two Houses of Congress; but in the following cases it is otherwise.
In December, 1795, the House of Representatives committed two persons of
the name of Randall and Whitney for attempting to corrupt the integrity
of certain Members, which they considered as a contempt and breach of
the privileges of the House; and the facts being proved, Whitney was
detained in confinement a fortnight and Randall three weeks, and was
reprimanded by the Speaker. In March, 1796, the House voted a challenge
given to a Member of their House to
[[Page [140]]]
be a breach of the privileges of the House; but satisfactory apologies
and acknowledgments being made, no further proceeding was had. * * *
The <> cases of Randall and Whitney (II, 1599-1603) were followed in
1818 by the case of John Anderson, a citizen, who for attempted bribery
of a Member was arrested, tried, and censured by the House (II, 1606).
Anderson appealed to the courts and this procedure finally resulted in a
discussion by the Supreme Court of the United States of the right of the
House to punish for contempts, and a decision that the House by
implication has the power to punish, because ``public functionaries must
be left at liberty to exercise the powers which the people have
intrusted to them,'' and ``the interests and dignity of those who
created them require the exertion of the powers indispensable to the
attainment of the ends of their creation. Nor is a casual conflict with
the rights of particular individuals any reason to be urged against the
exercise of such powers'' (II, 1607; Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6
Wheat.) 204, 226, 227 (1821)). In 1828 an assault on the President's
secretary in the Capitol gave rise to a question of privilege that
involved a discussion of the inherent power of the House to punish for
contempt (II, 1615). Again in 1832, when the House censured Samuel
Houston, a citizen, for assault on a Member for words spoken in debate
(II, 1616), there was a discussion by the House of the doctrine of
inherent and implied power as opposed to the other doctrine that the
House might exercise no authority not expressly conferred on it by the
Constitution or the laws of the land (II, 1619). In 1865 the House
arrested and censured a citizen for attempted intimidation and assault
on a member (II, 1625); in 1866, a citizen who had assaulted the clerk
of a committee of the House in the Capitol was arrested by order of the
House, but because there was not time to punish in the few remaining
days of the session, the Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to turn the
prisoner over to the civil authorities of the District of Columbia (II,
1629); and in 1870 Woods, who had assaulted a Member on his way to the
House, was arrested on warrant of the Speaker, arraigned at the bar, and
imprisoned for a term extending beyond the adjournment of the session,
although not beyond the term of the existing House (II, 1626-1628).
In <> 1876 the
arrest and imprisonment by the House of Hallet Kilbourn, a contumacious
witness, resulted in a decision by the Supreme Court of the United
States that the House had no general power to punish for contempt, as in
a case wherein it was proposing to coerce a witness in an inquiry not
within the constitutional authority of the House. The Court also
discussed the doctrine of inherent power to punish, saying in
conclusion, ``We are of opinion that the right of the Houses of
Representatives
[[Page [141]]]
to punish the citizen for a contempt of its authority or a breach of its
privileges can derive no support from the precedents and practices of
the two Houses of the English Parliament, nor from the adjudged cases in
which the English courts have upheld these practices. Nor, taking what
has fallen from the English judges, and especially the later cases on
which we have just commented, is much aid given to the doctrine, that
this power exists as one necessary to enable either House of Congress to
exercise successfully their function of legislation. This latter
proposition is one that we do not propose to decide in the present case,
because we are able to decide it without passing upon the existence or
nonexistence of such a power in aid of the legislative function''
(Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 189 (1880); II, 1611). In 1894, in
the case of Chapman, another contumacious witness, the Supreme Court
affirmed the undoubted right of either House of Congress to punish for
contempt in cases to which its power properly extends under the
expressed terms of the Constitution (II, 1614; In re Chapman, 1166 U.S.
661 (1897)). The nature of the punishment that the House may inflict was
discussed by the Court in Anderson's case (II, 1607; Anderson v. Dunn,
19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821)).
In the case of Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1917), the Court
addressed the following situation:
<> Appellant, while United States Attorney for the Southern
District of New York, conducted a grand jury investigation that led to
the indictment of a Member of the House. Acting on charges of
misfeasance and nonfeasance made by the Member against appellant in part
before the indictment and renewed with additions afterward, the House by
resolution directed its Judiciary Committee to make inquiry and report
concerning appellant's liability to impeachment. Such inquiry being in
progress through a subcommittee, appellant addressed to the
subcommittee's chair, and gave to the press, a letter, charging the
subcommittee with an endeavor to probe into and frustrate the action of
the grand jury, and couched in terms calculated to arouse the
indignation of the members of that committee and those of the House
generally. Thereafter, appellant was arrested in New York by the
Sergeant-at-Arms pursuant to a resolution of the House whereby the
letter was characterized as defamatory and insulting and as tending to
bring that body into public contempt and ridicule, and whereby appellant
in writing and publishing such letter was adjudged to be in contempt of
the House in violating its privileges, honor, and dignity. He applied
for habeas corpus.
The court held that the proceedings concerning which the alleged
contempt was committed were not impeachment proceedings; that, whether
they were impeachment proceedings or not, the House was without power by
its own action, as distinct from such action as might be taken under
criminal laws, to arrest or punish for such acts as were committed by
appellant.
[[Page [142]]]
No express power to punish for contempt was granted to the House save
the power to deal with contempts committed by its own Members (art. I,
sec. 5). The possession by Congress of the commingled legislative and
judicial authority to punish for contempts that was exerted by the House
of Commons is at variance with the view and tendency existing in this
country when the Constitution was adopted, as evidenced by the manner in
which the subject was treated in many State constitutions, beginning at
or about that time and continuing thereafter. Such commingling of powers
would be destructive of the basic constitutional distinction between
legislative, executive, and judicial power, and repugnant to limitations
that the Constitution fixes expressly; hence there is no warrant
whatever for implying such a dual power in aid of other powers expressly
granted to Congress. The House has implied power to deal directly with
contempt so far as is necessary to preserve and exercise the legislative
authority expressly granted. Being, however, a power of self-
preservation, a means and not an end, the power does not extend to
infliction of punishment, as such; it is a power to prevent acts that in
and of themselves inherently prevent or obstruct the discharge of
legislative duty and to compel the doing of those things that are
essential to the performance of the legislative functions. As pointed
out in Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821), this implied
power in its exercise is limited to imprisonment during the session of
the body affected by the contempt.
The authority does not cease when the act complained of has been
committed, but includes the right to determine in the use of legitimate
and fair discretion how far from the nature and character of the act
there is necessity for repression to prevent immediate recurrence, i.e.,
the continued existence of the interference or obstruction to the
exercise of legislative power. In such case, unless there be manifest an
absolute disregard of discretion, and a mere exertion of arbitrary power
coming within the reach of constitutional limitations, the exercise of
the authority is not subject to judicial interference. The power is the
same in quantity and quality whether exerted on behalf of the
impeachment powers or of the others to which it is ancillary. The
legislative power to provide by criminal laws for the prosecution and
punishment of wrongful acts is not here involved.
The Senate may invoke its civil contempt statute (2 U.S.C. 288d) to
direct the Senate legal counsel to bring an action in Federal court to
compel a witness to comply with the subpoena of a committee of the
Senate. The House, in contrast, may either certify such a witness to the
appropriate United States Attorney for possible indictment under the
criminal contempt statute (2 U.S.C. 192) or exercise its inherent power
to commit for contempt by detaining the recalcitrant witness in the
custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
(See also McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Sinclair v.
United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929); Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125
(1935); Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 (1955); Groppi v. Leslie,
404 U.S. 496 (1972).)
[[Page [143]]]
* * * <> The editor of the Aurora
having, in his paper of February 19, 1800, inserted some paragraphs
defamatory of the Senate, and failed in his appearance, he was ordered
to be committed. In debating the legality of this order, it was
insisted, in support of it, that every man, by the law of nature, and
every body of men, possesses the right of self-defense; that all public
functionaries are essentially invested with the powers of self-
preservation; that they have an inherent right to do all acts necessary
to keep themselves in a condition to discharge the trusts confided to
them; that whenever authorities are given, the means of carrying them
into execution are given by necessary implication; that thus we see the
British Parliament exercise the right of punishing contempts; all the
State Legislatures exercise the same power, and every court does the
same; that, if we have it not, we sit at the mercy of every intruder who
may enter our doors or gallery, and, by noise and tumult, render
proceeding in business impracticable; that if our tranquillity is to be
perpetually disturbed by newspaper defamation, it will not be possible
to exercise our functions with the requisite coolness and deliberation;
and that we must therefore have a power to punish these disturbers of
our peace and proceedings. * * *
* * * <> To this it was answered, that the
Parliament and courts of England have cognizance of contempts by the
express provisions of their law; that
[[Page [144]]]
the State Legislatures have equal authority because their powers are
plenary; they represent their constituents completely, and possess all
their powers, except such as their constitutions have expressly denied
them; that the courts of the several States have the same powers by the
laws of their States, and those of the Federal Government by the same
State laws adopted in each State, by a law of Congress; that none of
these bodies, therefore, derive those powers from natural or necessary
right, but from express law; that Congress have no such natural or
necessary power, nor any powers but such as are given them by the
Constitution; that that has given them, directly, exemption from
personal arrest, exemption from question elsewhere for what is said in
their House, and power over their own members and proceedings; for these
no further law is necessary, the Constitution being the law; that,
moreover, by that article of the Constitution which authorizes them ``to
make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
powers vested by the Constitution in them,'' they may provide by law for
an undisturbed exercise of their functions, e.g., for the punishment of
contempts, of affrays or tumult in their presence, &c.; but, till the
law be made, it does not exist; and does not exist, from their own
neglect; that, in the meantime, however, they are not unprotected, the
ordinary magistrates and courts of law being open and competent to
punish all unjustifiable disturbances or defamations, and even their own
sergeant, who may appoint depu
[[Page [145]]]
ties ad libitum to aid him 3 Grey, 59, 147, 255, is equal to small
disturbances; that in requiring a previous law, the Constitution had
regard to the inviolability of the citizen, as well as of the Member;
as, should one House, in the regular form of a bill, aim at too broad
privileges, it may be checked by the other, and both by the President;
and also as, the law being promulgated, the citizen will know how to
avoid offense. But if one branch may assume its own privileges without
control, if it may do it on the spur of the occasion, conceal the law in
its own breast, and, after the fact committed, make its sentence both
the law and the judgment on that fact; if the offense is to be kept
undefined and to be declared only ex re nata, and according to the
passions of the moment, and there be no limitation either in the manner
or measure of the punishment, the condition of the citizen will be
perilous indeed. * * *
* * * <> Which of these doctrines is to
prevail, time will decide. Where there is no fixed law, the judgment on
any particular case is the law of that single case only, and dies with
it. When a new and even a similar case arises, the judgment which is to
make and at the same time apply to the law, is open to question and
consideration, as are all new laws. Perhaps Congress in the mean time,
in their care for the safety of the citizen, as well as that for their
own protection, may declare by law what is necessary and proper to
enable them to carry into execution
[[Page [146]]]
the powers vested in them, and thereby hang up a rule for the inspection
of all, which may direct the conduct of the citizen, and at the same
time test the judgments they shall themselves pronounce in their own
case.
In 1837 the House declined to proceed with a bill ``defining the
offense of a contempt of this House, and to provide for the punishment
thereof'' (II, 1598). Congress has, however, prescribed that a witness
summoned to appear before a committee of either House who does not
respond or who refuses to answer a question pertinent to the subject of
the inquiry shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor (2 U.S.C. 192).
A resolution directing the Speaker to certify to the United States
Attorney the refusal of a witness to respond to a subpoena issued by a
House committee involves the privileges of the House and may be offered
from the floor as privileged if offered by direction of the committee
reporting the resolution (e.g., Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200). A committee
report to accompany such resolution may therefore be presented to the
House without regard to the availability requirement for other reports
(see clause 4 of rule XIII; July 13, 1971, p. 24720). A resolution with
two resolving clauses separately directing the certification of the
contemptuous conduct of two individuals is subject to a demand for a
division of the question as to each individual (contempt proceedings
against Ralph and Joseph Bernstein, Feb. 27, 1986, p. 3061); as is a
resolution with one resolving clause certifying contemptuous conduct of
several individuals (Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200; contrast, Deschler-Brown,
ch. 30, Sec. 49.1). A contempt resolution may be withdrawn as a matter
of right before action thereon (Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200). The Speaker
certifies a contempt case to the United States Attorney (2 U.S.C. 194)
and informs the House thereof (e.g., Deschler, ch. 15, Sec. 22.3; June
29, 2012, p. 10769; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 2.1).
In the 97th Congress, the House adopted a resolution directing the
Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the failure of an
official of the executive branch (Anne M. Gorsuch, Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency) to submit executive branch documents to
a House subcommittee pursuant to a subcommittee subpoena. This was the
first occasion on which the House cited an executive official for
contempt of Congress (Dec. 16, 1982, p. 31754). In the following
Congress, the House adopted (as a question of privilege) a resolution
reported from the same committee certifying to the United States
Attorney the fact that an agreement had been entered into between the
committee and the executive branch for access by the committee to the
documents that Anne Gorsuch had failed to submit and that were the
subject of the contempt citation (where the contempt had not yet been
prosecuted) (Aug. 3, 1983, p. 22692). In other cases in which compliance
had subsequently been attained in the same Congress, the House has
adopted privileged resolutions certifying the facts
[[Page [147]]]
to the United States Attorney to the end that contempt proceedings be
discontinued (see Deschler, ch. 15, Sec. 21). In the 98th Congress, the
House adopted a privileged resolution directing the Speaker to certify
to the United States Attorney the refusal of a former official of the
executive branch to obey a subpoena to testify before a subcommittee (H.
Res. 200, May 18, 1983, p. 12720). In the 106th Congress the House
considered a resolution directing the Speaker to certify to the United
States Attorney the refusal of three individuals to obey a subpoena
duces tecum and to answer certain questions while appearing under
subpoena before a subcommittee, which resolution was withdrawn before
action thereon (H. Res. 657, Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25217). In the 110th
Congress, the House adopted (by special rule) a resolution directing the
Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the refusal of White
House Chief of Staff to produce documents to a committee, and former
White House Counsel to appear, testify, and produce documents to a
subcommittee, each as directed by subpoena (H. Res. 979, Feb. 14, 2008,
pp. 2190, 2191). In the 112th Congress, the House adopted a resolution
directing the Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the
refusal of the Attorney General to produce documents to a committee as
directed by subpoena (H. Res. 711, June 28, 2012, p. 10514). In the
113th Congress, the House adopted a resolution directing the Speaker to
certify to the United States Attorney the refusal of the former Director
of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue Service to produce
documents to a committee as directed by subpoena (H. Res. 574, May 7,
2014, p. 7490). In the 116th Congress, the House adopted a resolution
directing the Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the
refusal of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Commerce to produce
documents to a committee as directed by subpoena and authorizing that
committee to take steps to seek civil enforcement of certain subpoenas
(H. Res. 497, July 17, 2019, p. _).
A resolution laying on the table a message from the President
containing certain averments inveighing disrespect toward Members of
Congress was considered as a question of the privileges of the House as
a breach of privilege in a formal communication to the House (VI, 330).-
Privilege <> from arrest takes place by force of the
election; and before a return be made a Member elected may be named of a
committee, and is to every extent a Member except that he cannot vote
until he is sworn, Memor., 107, 108. D'Ewes, 642, col. 2; 643, col. 1.
Pet. Miscel. Parl., 119. Lex. Parl., c. 23.2 Hats., 22, 62.
The Constitution of the United States limits the broad Parliamentary
privilege to the time of attendance on sessions of Congress, and of
going
[[Page [148]]]
to and returning therefrom. In a case wherein a Member was imprisoned
during a recess of Congress, he remained in confinement until the House,
on assembling, liberated him (III, 2676).
Although a Member may be named to a committee before being sworn, and
in some cases a Member has not taken the oath until long afterwards (IV,
4483), in the modern practice a Member-elect is elected to a standing
committee effective only when sworn (e.g., H. Res. 26, 27; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 1.2). Where a Member-elect participated in
various committee business before taking the oath of office, the House
adopted a resolution ratifying his election to and participation in
proceedings of the committee (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 3.3). In
one case, when a Member did not appear to take the oath, the Speaker
with the consent of the House appointed another Member to the committee
in his place (IV, 4484). The status of a Member-elect under the
Constitution undoubtedly differs greatly from the status of a Member-
elect under the law of Parliament. In various inquiries by committees of
the House this question has been examined, with the conclusions that a
Member-elect becomes a Member from the very beginning of the term to
which elected (I, 500), that he is as much an officer of the Government
before taking the oath as afterwards (I, 185), and that his status is
distinguished from that of a Member who has qualified (I, 183, 184).
Members-elect may resign or decline before taking the oath (II, 1230-
1233, 1235; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 42). They have been excluded (I, 449, 464,
474, 550, 551; VI, 56; Mar. 1, 1967, pp. 4997-5038) and in one case a
Member-elect was expelled (I, 476; II, 1262). The names of Members who
have not been sworn are not entered on the roll from which the yeas and
nays are called for entry on the Journal (V, 6048; VIII, 3122), nor are
such Members-elect permitted to vote or introduce bills (see Sec. 198,
supra). The House has granted a Member-elect a leave of absence (e.g.,
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 1.8; Jan. 6, 2015, p. 63).
Every <> man must, at his peril, take notice who are members of
either House returned of record. Lex. Parl., 23; 4 Inst., 24.
On Complaint of a breach of privilege, the party may either be
summoned, or sent for in custody of the sergeant. 1 Grey, 88, 95.
The privilege of a Member is the privilege of the House. If the Member
waive it without leave, it is a ground for punishing him, but can
[[Page [149]]]
not in effect waive the privilege of the House. 3 Grey, 140, 222.
Although the privilege of Members of the House is limited by the
Constitution, these provisions of the Parliamentary law are applicable,
and persons who have attempted to bribe Members (II, 1599, 1606),
assault them for words spoken in debate (II, 1617, 1625) or interfere
with them while on the way to attend the sessions of the House (II,
1626), have been arrested by order of the House by the Sergeant-at-Arms,
``Wherever to be found.'' The House has declined to make a general rule
to permit Members to waive their privilege in certain cases, preferring
to give or refuse permission in each individual case (III, 2660-2662).
In United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1979), the Supreme Court
discussed the ability of either an individual Member or the entire
Congress to waive the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause. The
Court found first, that the Member's conduct in testifying before a
grand jury and voluntarily producing documentary evidence of legislative
acts protected by the Clause did not waive its protection. Assuming,
without deciding, that a Member could waive the Clause's protection
against being prosecuted for a legislative act, the Court said that such
a waiver could only be found after an explicit and unequivocal
renunciation of its immunity, which was absent in this case. Second,
passage of the official bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, did not amount
to an institutional waiver of the Speech or Debate Clause for individual
Members. Again assuming without deciding whether Congress could
constitutionally waive the Clause for individual Members, such a waiver
could be shown only by an explicit and unequivocal expression of
legislative intent, and there was no evidence of that in the legislative
history of the statute. The Speech or Debate clause is not an impediment
to the enforcement within the House of the rule prohibiting
personalities in debate (clause 1 of rule XVII, May 25, 1995, p. 14436).
For <> any speech or debate in either
House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. Const. U.S., I,
6; S. P. protest of the Commons to James I, 1621; 2 Rapin, No. 54, pp.
211, 212. But this is restrained to things done in the House in a
parliamentary course. 1 Rush, 663. For he is not to have privilege
contra morem parliamentarium, to exceed the bounds and limits of his
place and duty. Com. p.
[[Page [150]]]
If <> an offense be committed by a member in the House, of which
the House has cognizance, it is an infringement of their right for any
person or court to take notice of it till the House has punished the
offender or referred him to a due course. Lex. Parl., 63.
Privilege is in the power of the House, and is a restraint to the
proceeding of inferior courts, but not of the House itself. 2 Nalson,
450; 2 Grey, 399. For whatever is spoken in the House is subject to the
censure of the House; and offenses of this kind have been severely
punished by calling the person to the bar to make submission, committing
him to the tower, expelling the House, &c. Scob., 72; L. Parl., c. 22.
<> It is a breach of order for the Speaker to refuse
to put a question which is in order. 1 Hats., 175-6; 5 Grey, 133.
Where the Clerk, presiding during organization of the House, declined
to put a question, a Member put the question from the floor (I, 67).
And <> even in cases of treason, felony, and breach of
the peace, to which privilege does not extend as to substance, yet in
Parliament a member is privileged as to the mode of proceeding. The case
is first to be laid before the House, that it may judge of the fact and
of the ground of the accusation, and how far forth the manner of the
trial may concern their privilege; otherwise it would be in the power of
other branches of the government, and even of every private man,
[[Page [151]]]
under pretenses of treason, &c., to take any man from his service in the
House, and so, as many, one after another, as would make the House what
he pleaseth. Dec'l of the Com. on the King's declaring Sir John Hotham a
traitor. 4 Rushw., 586. So, when a member stood indicted for felony, it
was adjudged that he ought to remain of the House till conviction; for
it may be any man's case, who is guiltless, to be accused and indicted
of felony, or the like crime. 23 El., 1580; D'Ewes, 283, col. 1; Lex.
Parl., 133.
Where Members of the House have been arrested by the State authorities
the cases have not been laid first before the House; but when the House
has learned of the proceedings, it has investigated to ascertain if the
crime charged was actually within the exceptions of the Constitution
(III, 2673), and in one case in which it found a Member imprisoned for
an offense not within the exceptions it released him by the hands of its
own officer (III, 2676).
The <> House has not usually taken action in the infrequent
instances in which Members have been indicted for felony, and in one or
two instances Members under indictment or pending appeal on conviction
have been appointed to committees (IV, 4479). The House has,
however, adopted a resolution expressing the sense of the House that
Members convicted of certain felonies should refrain from participation
in committee business and from voting in the House until the presumption
of innocence is reinstated or until re-elected to the House (see H. Res.
128, Nov. 14, 1973, p. 36944), and that principle has been incorporated
in the Code of Official Conduct, along with the principle that Members
indicted for certain felonies should resign from committees and party
caucus or conference leadership positions until the charges have been
dismissed or reduced to less than a felony (clause 10 of rule XXIII). A
Senator after indictment was omitted from committees at his own request
(IV, 4479), and a Member who had been convicted in one case did not
appear in the House during the Congress (IV, 4484, footnote). A Senator
in one case withdrew from the Senate pending his trial (II, 1278). After
conviction but before the Senator's resignation, and while an appeal for
rehearing was pending, the Senate continued its investigation (II,
1282).
[[Page [152]]]
When <> it is found necessary for the public service to put a Member
under arrest, or when, on any public inquiry, matter comes out which may
lead to affect the person of a member, it is the practice immediately to
acquaint the House, that they may know the reasons for such a
proceeding, and take such steps as they think proper. 2 Hats., 259. Of
which see many examples. Ib., 256, 257, 258. But the communication is
subsequent to the arrest. 1 Blackst., 167.
It <> is highly expedient, says Hatsel, for
the due preservation of the privileges of the separate branches of the
legislature, that neither should encroach on the other, or interfere in
any matter depending before them, so as to preclude, or even influence,
that freedom of debate which is essential to a free council. They are,
therefore, not to take notice of any bills or other matters depending,
or of votes that have been given, or of speeches which have been held,
by the members of either of the other branches of the legislature, until
the same have been communicated to them in the usual parliamentary
manner. 2 Hats., 252; 4 Inst., 15; Seld. Jud., 53.
Thus <> the King's taking notice of the bill for suppressing
soldiers, depending before the House; his proposing a provisional clause
for a bill before it was presented to him by the two Houses; his
expressing displeasure against some persons for matters moved in
Parliament during the debate
[[Page [153]]]
and preparation of a bill, were breaches of privilege, 2 Nalson, 743;
and in 1783, December 17, it was declared a breach of fundamental
privileges, &c., to report any opinion or pretended opinion of the King
on any bill or proceeding depending in either House of Parliament, with
a view to influence the votes of the members, 2 Hats., 251, 6.
* * * * *
sec. vi--quorum
* * * * *
In <> general the chair is not to be taken till a quorum for
business is present; unless, after due waiting, such a quorum be
despaired of, when the chair may be taken and the House adjourned. And
whenever, during business, it is observed that a quorum is not present,
any member may call for the House to be counted, and being found
deficient, business is suspended. 2 Hats., 125, 126.
In the House the Speaker takes the Chair at the hour to which the
House stood adjourned and there is no requirement that the House proceed
immediately to establish a quorum, although the Speaker has the
authority under clause 7 of rule XX to recognize for a call of the House
at any time. The question of a quorum is not considered unless properly
raised (IV, 2733; VI, 624), and it is not in order for the Speaker to
recognize for a point of no quorum unless the Speaker has put the
pending question or proposition to a vote. Although it was formerly the
rule that a quorum was necessary for debate as well as business (IV,
2935-2949), in the 94th Congress the House restricted the Chair's
ability to recognize the absence of a quorum (clause 7 of rule XX).
Clause 5(c) of rule XX permits the House to operate with a ``provisional
quorum'' where the House is without a quorum due to catastrophic
circumstances. In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted a
provision, effective during a designated public health emergency, to
count for purposes of establishing a quorum all Mem
[[Page [154]]]
bers voting or recording their presence by proxy (sec. 3(b), H. Res.
965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Title III of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2006, amended
Federal election law to require States to hold special elections for the
House within 49 days after a vacancy is announced by the Speaker in the
extraordinary circumstance that vacancies in representation from the
States exceed 100 (P.L. 109-55; 2 U.S.C. 8).
sec. vii--call of the house
On <> the
call of the House, each person rises up as he is called, and answereth;
the absentees are then only noted, but no excuse to be made till the
House be fully called over. Then the absentees are called a second time,
and if still absent, excuses are to be heard. Ord. House of Commons, 92.
They rise that their persons may be recognized; the voice, in such a
crowd, being an insufficient verification of their presence. But in so
small a body as the Senate of the United States, the trouble of rising
cannot be necessary.
Orders for calls on different days may subsist at the same time. 2
Hats., 72.
Rule XX, which provides for a call of the House, does not require
Members to rise on answering, and quorum calls are normally conducted by
electronic device (clause 2(a) of rule XX). Clause 5(c) of rule XX
permits the House to operate with a ``provisional quorum'' where the
House is without a quorum due to catastrophic circumstances.
* * * * *
sec. ix--speaker
* * * * *
When <> but one person is
proposed, and no objection made, it has not been usual in Parliament to
put any question to the House; but without a question the mem
[[Page [155]]]
bers proposing him conduct him to the chair. But if there be objection,
or another proposed, a question is put by the Clerk. 2 Hats., 158. As
are also questions of adjournment. 6 Gray, 406. Where the House debated
and exchanged messages and answers with the King for a week without a
Speaker, till they were prorogued. They have done it de die in diem for
fourteen days. 1 Chand., 331, 335.
On October 23, 2000, the House of Commons, pursuant to a Standing
Order, elected a new Speaker after rejection of twelve other nominees
offered one at a time as amendments to the question. The amendments were
offered after refusal of the ``Father of the House of Commons'' to
entertain a motion to change the Standing Order to require a preliminary
secret ballot. On March 22, 2001, and on October 29, 2002, the House of
Commons adopted Standing Order 1B, requiring that the election of a new
Speaker be by secret ballot (Standing Orders of the House of Commons--
Public Business 2003).
For a discussion of the election of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, see Sec. 27, supra.
In <> the Senate, a President pro tempore, in the absence of the
Vice-President, is proposed and chosen by ballot. His office is
understood to be determined on the Vice-President's appearing and taking
the chair, or at the meeting of the Senate after the first recess.
In the later practice the President pro tempore has usually been
chosen by resolution. In 1876 the Senate determined that the tenure of
the Office of a President pro tempore elected at one session does not
expire at the meeting of Congress after the first recess, the Vice
President not having appeared to take the chair; that the death of the
Vice President does not have the effect of vacating the Office of
President pro tempore; and that the President pro tempore holds office
at the pleasure of the Senate (II, 1417). In the 107th Congress the
Senate elected two Presidents of the Senate pro tempore for different
periods when the majority of the Senate shifted after inauguration of
the Vice President (S. Res. 3, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 7).
[[Page [156]]]
Where <> the Speaker has been ill, other Speakers pro tempore have
been appointed. Instances of this are 1 H., 4. Sir John Cheyney, and Sir
William Sturton, and in 15 H., 6. Sir John Tyrrel, in 1656, January 27;
1658, March 9; 1659, January 13.
Sir Job Charlton ill, Seymour chosen,
1673, February 18. Not merely pro tem. 1
Seymour being ill, Sir Robert Sawyer Chand., 169, 276, 277.
chosen, 1678, April 15.<3-ln }>
Sawyer being ill, Seymour chosen.
Thorpe in execution, a new Speaker chosen, 31 H. VI, 3 Grey, 11; and
March 14, 1694, Sir John Trevor chosen. There have been no later
instances. 2 Hats., 161; 4 Inst., 8; L. Parl., 263.
The House, by clause 8 of rule I, has provided for appointment and
election of Speakers pro tempore. Relying on the Act of June 1, 1789 (2
U.S.C. 25), the Clerk recognized for nominations for Speaker, at the
convening of a new Congress, as being of higher constitutional privilege
than a resolution to postpone the election of a Speaker and instead
provide for the election of a Speaker pro tempore pending the
disposition of certain ethics charges against the nominee of the
majority party (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 4.1).
A <> Speaker may be removed
at the will of the House, and a Speaker pro tempore appointed, 2 Grey,
186; 5 Grey, 134.
A resolution declaring the Office of Speaker vacant presents a
question of constitutional privilege (VI, 35), though the House has
never removed a Speaker. In the 116th Congress the House adopted clause
2(a)(3) of rule IX, providing that such a resolution only constitutes a
question of the privileges of the House if offered by direction of a
party caucus or conference (sec. 102(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
The House has removed or suspended other officers, such as Clerk and
Doorkeeper (I, 287-290, 292; II, 1417). A resolution for the removal of
an officer is presented as a matter
[[Page [157]]]
of privilege (I, 284-286; VI, 35). The Speaker may remove the Clerk,
Sergeant-at-Arms, and Chief Administrative Officer under clause 1 of
rule II (e.g., Dec. 16, 2016, p. _).
sec. x--address
* * * * *
A <> joint address of
both Houses of Parliament is read by the Speaker of the House of Lords.
It may be attended by both Houses in a body, or by a Committee from each
House, or by the two Speakers only. An address of the House of Commons
only may be presented by the Whole House, or by the Speaker, 9 Grey,
473; 1 Chandler, 298, 301; or by such particular members as are of the
privy council. 2 Hats., 278.
In the first years of Congress the President annually delivered an
address to the two Houses in joint session, and the House then prepared
an address, which the Speaker, attended by the House, carried to the
President. A joint rule of 1789 also provided for the presentation of
joint addresses of the two Houses to the President (V, 6630). In 1876
the joint rules of the House were abrogated, including the joint rule
providing for presentation of the joint addresses of the two Houses to
the President (V, 6782-6787). In 1801 President Jefferson transmitted a
message in writing and discontinued the practice of making addresses in
person. From 1801 to 1913 all messages were sent in writing (V, 6629),
but President Wilson resumed the custom of making addresses in person on
April 8, 1913, and, with the exception of President Hoover (VIII, 3333),
the custom has been followed generally by subsequent Presidents.
sec. xi--committees
Standing <> committees, as of Privileges
and Elections, &c., are usually appointed at the first meeting, to
continue through the session. The person first named is generally
permitted to act as chairman. But this is a matter
[[Page [158]]]
of courtesy; every committee having a right to elect their own chairman,
who presides over them, puts questions, and reports their proceedings to
the House. 4 inst., 11, 12; Scob., 9; 1 Grey, 122.
Before the 62d Congress, standing as well as select committees and
their chairs were appointed by the Speaker, but under the present form
of rule X, adopted in 1911, continued as a part of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, and revised under the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470),
standing committees and their respective chairs are elected by the House
(IV, 4448; VIII, 2178). Owing to their number and size, committees are
not usually elected immediately, but resolutions providing for such
elections are presented by the majority and minority parties pursuant to
clause 5 of rule X as soon as they are able to perfect the lists. A
committee may order its report to be made by the chair, or by some other
member (IV, 4669), even by a member of the minority party (IV, 4672,
4673), or by a Delegate (July 1, 1958, p. 12871 (Burns of Hawaii)); and
the chair sometimes submits a report in which the chair has not
concurred (IV, 4670). Clause 2 of rule XIII requires that a report that
has been approved by the committee must be filed with the House within
seven calendar days after a written request from a majority of the
committee is submitted to the committee clerk.
At <> these committees the members are to speak standing,
and not sitting; though there is reason to conjecture it was formerly
otherwise. D'Ewes, 630, col. 1; 4 Parl. Hist., 440; 2 Hats., 77.
Their <> proceedings
are not to be published, as they are of no force till confirmed by the
House. Rushw., part 3, vol. 2, 74; 3 Grey, 401; Scob., 39.* * *
In the House it is entirely within rule and usage for a committee to
conduct its proceedings in secret (III, 1694, 1732; IV, 4558-4564; see
also clause 2(g) of rule XI), and the House may not abrogate the secrecy
of a committee's proceedings except by suspending the rule (IV, 4565).
The House has no information concerning the proceedings of a committee
not officially reported by the committee (VII, 1015) and it is not in
order in debate to refer to executive session proceedings of a committee
that have not formally been reported to the House (V, 5080-5083; VIII,
2269, 2485, 2493; June 24, 1958, pp. 12120, 12122; Apr. 5, 1967, p.
8411). However,
[[Page [159]]]
a complaint that certain remarks that might be uttered in debate would
improperly disclose executive-session material of a committee is not
cognizable as a point of order in the House if the Chair is not aware of
the executive-session status of the information (Nov. 5, 1997, p.
24648). On one occasion a Member was permitted to refer to the
unreported executive session proceedings of a subcommittee to justify
his point of order that a resolution providing for a select committee to
inquire into action of the subcommittee was not privileged (June 30,
1958, p. 12690). In one case the House authorized the clerk of a
committee to disclose by deposition its proceedings (III, 2604).
Under clause 2(g) of rule XI, hearings and business meetings conducted
by a standing committee (other than the Committee on Ethics) must be
open to the public except when a committee determines to close the
meeting or hearing for that day for the reasons stated in that clause.
In addition, clause 2(k) of rule XI establishes a procedure for closing
a hearing because of defamatory, degrading, or incriminating testimony.
<> * * * Nor
can they receive a petition but through the House. 9 Grey, 412.
When <> a committee is charged with an inquiry, if
a Member prove to be involved, they can not proceed against him but must
make a special report to the House; whereupon the Member is heard in his
place, or at the bar, or a special authority is given to the committee
to inquire concerning him. 9 Grey, 523.
Although <> the authority of this principle has not been
questioned by the House, there have in special instances been deviations
from it. Thus, in 1832, when a Member had been slain in a duel, and the
fact was notorious that all the principals and seconds were Members of
the House, the committee, charged only with investigating the causes and
whether or not there had been a breach of privilege, reported with their
findings recommendations for expulsion and censure of the Members found
to be implicated. There was criticism of this method of procedure as
deviating from the rule of Jefferson's Manual, but the House did not
recommit the report (II, 1644). In 1857, when a committee charged with
inquiring into accusations against Members not named found certain
Members implicated, they gave them copies of the testimony and
opportunities to explain to the committee, under oath or otherwise, as
they individually
[[Page [160]]]
might prefer (III, 1845), but reported recommendations for expulsion
without first seeking the order of the House (II, 1275; III, 1844). In
1859 and 1892 a similar procedure occurred (III, 1831, 2637). But the
House, in a case wherein an inquiry had incidentally involved a Member,
evidently considered the parliamentary law as applicable, because it
admitted as of privilege and agreed to a resolution directing the
committee to report the charges (III, 1843). And in cases wherein
testimony taken before a joint committee incidentally impeached the
official characters of a Member and a Senator, the facts in each case
were reported to the House interested (III, 1854). A select committee,
appointed to report upon the right of a Member-elect to be sworn (H.
Res. 1, 90th Cong., pp. 14-27, Jan. 10, 1967), invited him to appear, to
testify, and permitted him to be accompanied by counsel (see H. Rept.
90-27).
And <> where one House, by a committee, has found a Member of the
other implicated, the testimony has been transmitted (II, 1276; III,
1850, 1852, 1853). Where such testimony was taken in open session of the
committee, it was not thought necessary that it be under seal when sent
to the other House (III, 1851).
So <> soon as the House sits, and a committee is notified of it, the
chairman is in duty bound to rise instantly, and the members to attend
the service of the House. 2 Nals., 319.
For the current practice, see clauses 2(i) and 2(m)(1) of rule XI.
It <> appears that on
joint committees of the Lords and Commons each committee acted
integrally in the following instances: 7 Grey, 261, 278, 285, 338; 1
Chandler, 357, 462. In the following instances it does not appear
whether they did or not: 6 Grey, 129; 7 Grey, 213, 229, 321.
It is the practice in Congress that joint committees shall vote per
capita, and not as representatives of the two Houses (IV, 4425),
although the membership from the House is usually, but not always (IV
4410), larger than that from the Senate (III, 1946; IV, 4426-4431). But
ordinary committees of conference appointed to settle differences
between the two Houses are not considered joint committees, and the
managers of the two Houses vote separately (V, 6336), each House having
one vote. A quorum of a joint committee seems to have been considered to
be a majority of the whole
[[Page [161]]]
number rather than a majority of the membership of each House (IV,
4424). The first named of the Senate members acted as chair in one
notable instance (IV, 4424), and in another the joint committee elected
its chair (IV, 4447).
sec. xii--committee of the whole
The <> speech, messages, and other matters of great concernment are
usually referred to a Committee of the Whole House (6 Grey, 311), where
general principles are digested in the form of resolutions, which are
debated and amended till they get into a shape which meets the
approbation of a majority. These being reported and confirmed by the
House are then referred to one or more select committees, according as
the subject divides itself into one or more bills. Scob., 36, 44.
Propositions for any charge on the people are especially to be first
made in a Committee of the Whole. 3 Hats., 127. The sense of the whole
is better taken in committee, because in all committees everyone speaks
as often as he pleases. Scob., 49. * * *
This provision is largely obsolete, the House having by its rules and
practice provided specifically for procedure in the Committee of the
Whole, and having also by its rules for the order of business left no
privileged status for motions to go into Committee on matters not
already referred there. The Committee no longer originates resolutions
or bills, but receives such as have been formulated by standing or
select committees and referred to it; and when it reports, the House
usually acts at once on the report without reference to select or other
committees (IV, 4705). The practice of referring annual messages of the
President to the Committee, to be there considered and reported with
recommendations for the reference of various portions to the proper
standing or select committees (V, 6621, 6622), was discontinued in the
64th Congress (VIII, 3350). The current practice is to refer the annual
message to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
and order it printed (Jan. 14, 1969, p. 651). Executive communications
submitted to implement the proposals con
[[Page [162]]]
tained in the State of the Union Message are referred by the Speaker to
the various committees having jurisdiction over the subject matter
therein.
* * * <> They generally acquiesce in the chairman named by the Speaker;
but, as well as all other committees, have a right to elect one, some
member, by consent, putting the question, Scob., 36; 3 Grey, 301. * * *
The House (by clause 1 of rule XVIII) gives the authority to appoint
the chair of the Committee of the Whole to the Speaker (IV, 4704).
* * * <> The form of going from the House into committee, is for the
Speaker, on motion, to put the question that the House do now resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to take into consideration such a
matter, naming it. If determined in the affirmative, he leaves the chair
and takes a seat elsewhere, as any other Member; and the person
appointed chairman seats himself at the Clerk's table. Scob., 36. * * *
This is the form in the House, except that the chair of the Committee
of the Whole sits in the Speaker's chair. Clause 1(b) of rule XVIII
(former rule XXIII) was adopted to authorize the Speaker, and it is the
modern practice, when no other business is pending, to declare the House
resolved into the Committee to consider a measure at any time after the
House has adopted a special order of business providing for
consideration of such measure (and not require a motion), unless the
resolution specifies otherwise (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34).
* * * <> Their
quorum is the same as that of the House; and if a defect happens, the
chairman, on a motion and question, rises, the Speaker resumes the chair
and the chairman can make no other re
[[Page [163]]]
port than to inform the House of the cause of their dissolution. * * *
Until 1890 a quorum of the Committee of the Whole was the same as the
quorum of the House; but in 1890 the rule (formerly clause 2 of rule
XXIII, current clause 6 of rule XVIII) fixed it at one hundred (IV,
2966). Clause 6 of rule XVIII provides the procedure that is followed in
the Committee in case of failure of a quorum.
* * * <> If a message is announced during a committee, the Speaker
takes the chair and receives it, because the committee can not. 2 Hats.,
125, 126.
In the House, the Committee rises informally to receive a message, or
to enable the Speaker to sign and lay before the House an enrolled bill,
at the direction of the Chair without a formal motion from the floor
(IV, 4786, footnote; Jan. 28, 1980, p. 888; Feb. 8, 1995, p. 4112); but
at this rising the House may not have the message read or transact other
business except by unanimous consent (IV, 4787-4791). However, it is the
general custom for the Speaker to decline to entertain a unanimous-
consent request during an informal rising of the Committee (IV, 4789,
Apr. 6, 2000, p. 4778).
In <> a Committee of the Whole, the tellers
on a division differing as to numbers, great heats and confusion arose,
and danger of a decision by the sword. The Speaker took the chair, the
mace was forcibly laid on the table; whereupon the Members retiring to
their places, the Speaker told the House ``he has taken the chair
without an order to bring the House into order.'' Some excepted against
it; but it was generally approved as the only expedient to suppress the
disorder. And every Member was required, standing up in his place, to
engage that he would proceed no further in consequence of what
[[Page [164]]]
had happened in the grand committee, which was done. 3 Grey, 128.
In the House the Speaker has on several occasions taken the chair
``without an order to bring the House into order'' (II, 1648-1653), but
that being accomplished the Speaker may yield to the chair that the
committee may rise in due form (II, 1349). In one instance, the Chair,
having been defied and insulted by a Member, left the chair; and, on the
chair being taken by the Speaker, he reported the facts to the House
(II, 1653). In several cases Members who have quarreled have made
explanation and reconciled their difficulties (II, 1651), or have been
compelled by the House to apologize ``for violating its privilege and
offending its dignity'' (II, 1648, 1650).
A <> Committee of the Whole being broken up in disorder, and the
chair resumed by the Speaker without an order, the House was adjourned.
The next day the committee was considered as thereby dissolved, and the
subject again before the House; and it was decided in the House, without
returning into committee. 3 Grey, 130.
This provision is obsolete, because in the practice of the House there
is but one Committee of the Whole, which is in its nature a standing
committee with calendars of business. It is never dissolved, and bills
remain on its calendar until reported in the regular manner after
consideration (IV, 4705). After restoring order, the Speaker usually
leaves the chair, thus permitting the committee later to rise in due
form (II, 1349).
No <> previous question can be put in a
committee; nor can this committee adjourn as others may; but if their
business is unfinished, they rise, on a question, the House is resumed,
and the chairman reports that the Committee of the Whole have, according
to order, had under their consideration such a matter, and have made
progress therein; but not having had time to go through the same, have
directed him to ask leave to sit again. Whereupon a question is
[[Page [165]]]
put on their having leave, and on the time the House will again resolve
itself into a committee. Scob., 38. But if they have gone through the
matter <> referred to them, a member moves that the committee may
rise, and the chairman report their proceedings to the House; which
being resolved, the chairman rises, the Speaker resumes the chair, the
chairman informs him that the committee have gone through the business
referred to them, and that he is ready to make report when the House
shall think proper to receive it. If the House have time to receive it,
there is usually a cry of ``now, now,'' whereupon he makes the report;
but if it be late, the cry is ``to-morrow, to-morrow,'' or ``Monday,''
etc., or a motion is made to that effect, and a question put that it be
received to-morrow, &c. Scob., 38.
In the practice of the House the previous question and motion to
adjourn are not admitted in the Committee of the Whole (e.g., June 12,
2019, p. _); but the rules (clause 8 of rule XVIII) provide for closing
five-minute debate by motion. When the Committee rises without
concluding a matter the Chair reports that it ``has come to no
resolution thereon''; but leave to sit again is not asked in the modern
practice. The permission of the House is not asked when the Chair
reports a matter concluded in Committee. The report is made and received
as a matter of course, and is thereupon before the House for action.
When the House has vested control of general debate in certain Members,
their control may not be abrogated during general debate by another
Member moving to rise, unless they yield for that purpose (May 25, 1967,
p. 14121; June 10, 1999, p. 12471). A Member yielded time in general
debate may not yield to another for such motion (Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2178;
May 17, 2000, p. 8200). The motion is privileged during debate under the
five-minute rule, and may be offered during debate on a pending
amendment, except where a Member has the floor (Aug. 13, 1986, p. 21215;
Mar. 22, 1995, p. 8770). The motion may not include restrictions on the
amendment process or limitations on future debate on amendments (June 6,
1990, p. 13234), is not debatable (May 17, 2000, p. 8203), may be
withdrawn only by unanimous consent (June 12, 2019, p. _), and a demand
for a recorded vote thereon is untimely
[[Page [166]]]
after the Committee rises (May 19, 2016, p. _). For a further discussion
of the motion to rise, see Sec. 983, infra.
The <> Speaker recognizes only reports
from the Committee of the Whole made by the chair thereof (V, 6987), and
a matter alleged to have arisen therein but not reported may not be
brought to the attention of the House (VIII, 2429, 2430) even on the
claim that a question of privilege is involved (IV, 4912; V, 6987), but
the Speaker has responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding events
occurring during an earlier vote in the Committee of the Whole by
advising on a general principle of the operation of the electronic
voting system (May 19, 2016, p. _). In one instance, however, the
Committee reported with a bill a resolution relating to an alleged
breach of privilege (V, 6986). When a bill is reported the Speaker must
assume that it has passed through all the stages necessary for the
report (IV, 4916). When the Committee reported not only what it had done
but by whom it had been prevented from doing other things, the Speaker
held that the House might not amend the report, which stood (IV, 4909).
When an amendment is reported by the Committee it may not be withdrawn,
and a question as to its validity is not considered by the Speaker (IV,
4900). When a Committee, directed by order of the House to consider
certain bills, reported also certain other bills, the Speaker held that
so much of the report as related to the latter bills could be received
only by unanimous consent (IV, 4911). When a report is ruled out as in
excess of the Committee's power, the accompanying bill stands
recommitted (IV, 4784, 4907). A former rule prohibited a Committee's
report from being received in the absence of a quorum (VI, 666; clause 7
of rule XX).
The Committee of the <> Whole, like any other committee, may amend a proposition either
by an ordinary amendment or by a substitute amendment (IV, 4899), but
these amendments must be reported to the House for action. Amendments
rejected by the Committee are not reported (IV, 4877). Ordinarily all
amendments must be disposed of before the Committee may report (IV,
4752-4758); but sometimes a special order of business requires a report
at a specified time, in which case pending amendments are reported (IV,
3225-3228) or not (IV, 4910) as the terms of the order may direct. In
the 98th Congress, clause 2 of rule XXI was amended to give precedence
to the motion that the Committee rise and report a general appropriation
bill at the conclusion of its reading for amendment and before or
between consideration of amendments proposing certain limitations or
retrenchments (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). The 104th Congress
further amended clause 2 to permit only the Majority Leader or a
designee to offer that motion (sec. 215(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p.
468). The 105th Congress elevated the Majority Leader's preferential
motion in clause 2 to take precedence of any motion to amend at that
stage (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). The practice of the House,
based originally
[[Page [167]]]
on a rule (IV, 4904), requires amendments to be reported from the
Committee in their perfected forms, and this holds good even in the case
of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which may have been
amended freely (IV, 4900-4903). If the Committee amends a paragraph and
subsequently strikes the paragraph as amended, the first amendment
fails, and is not reported to the House or voted on (IV, 4898; V, 6169;
VIII, 2421, 2426), and when the Committee adopts two amendments that are
subsequently deleted by an amendment striking and inserting new text,
only the latter amendment is reported to the House (June 20, 1967, p.
16497). Where two amendments proposing inconsistent motions to strike
and insert a pending section are considered as separate first degree
amendments (not one as a substitute for the other) before either is
finally disposed of under a special procedure permitting the Chair to
postpone requests for a recorded vote, the Chair's order of voting on
the matter as unfinished business determines which amendment (if both
were adopted) would be reported to the House (Aug. 6, 1998, pp. 19098-
107). Normally, if the Committee perfects a bill by adopting certain
amendments and then adopts an amendment striking all after section one
of the bill and inserting a new text, only the bill, as amended by the
motion to strike and insert, is reported to the House; but when the bill
is being considered under a special rule permitting a separate vote in
the House on any of the amendments adopted in the Committee to the bill
or to the committee substitute, all amendments adopted in the Committee
are reported to the House regardless of their consistency (May 26, 1960,
pp. 11302-04). Where a separate vote is demanded in this type of
situation in the House only on an amendment striking a section of a
committee substitute, but not on perfecting amendments that have been
previously adopted in the Committee of the Whole to that section,
rejection in the House of the motion to strike the section results in a
vote on the committee substitute in its original form and not as
perfected, because the perfecting amendments have been displaced in the
Committee of the Whole and have not been revived on a separate vote in
the House (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 13, 1977, pp. 33622-24). But if the
Committee of the Whole reports a bill to the House with an adopted
amendment in the nature of a substitute and the special order of
business in question does not provide for separate House votes on
amendments thereto, a separate vote may not be demanded on an amendment
to such amendment, because only one amendment in its perfected form has
been reported back to the House (Nov. 17, 1983, p. 33463).
All <> amendments to a bill reported from the Committee of the Whole
stand on an equal footing and must be voted on by the House (IV, 4871)
in the order in which they are reported, although they may be
inconsistent, one with another (IV, 4881, 4882), and are subject to
amendment in the House unless the previous question is ordered (VIII,
2419). Two amendments being reported as distinct were considered
independently, although apparently one was a proviso attaching to the
[[Page [168]]]
other (IV, 4905); and an entire and distinct amendment may not be
divided, but must be voted on by the House as a whole (IV, 4883-4892;
VIII, 2426). It is a frequent practice for the House by unanimous
consent to act at once on all the amendments to a bill reported from the
Committee, but it is the right of any Member to demand a separate vote
on any amendment (IV, 4893, 4894; VIII, 2419) unless a special rule
mandates that sundry amendments be put en gros (June 24, 2009, p.
16147). Where a special rule permits en bloc consideration of certain
amendments in the Committee, those amendments if reported back to the
House may also be considered en bloc for a separate vote in the House on
demand of any Member (Speaker O'Neill, Sept. 7, 1978, p. 28425). A
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on an amendment to a
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the
Committee of the Whole where the bill is being considered under a
special rule permitting separate votes in the House on any of the
amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or
committee amendment (Sept. 30, 1971, p. 34337), but where a special rule
``self-executes'' an amendment as a modification of an amendment in the
nature of a substitute to be considered as an original bill, that
modification is not separately voted on upon demand in the House
(Speaker Foley, Feb. 3, 1993, p. 2043). A Member may withdraw a demand
for a separate vote in the House on an amendment reported from the
Committee before the Speaker's putting the question thereon, and
unanimous consent is not required (May 28, 1987, p. 14030). When demand
is made for separate votes in the House on several amendments adopted in
the Committee, the amendments are voted on in the House in the order in
which they appear in the bill (July 24, 1968, pp. 23093-95; May 28,
1987, p. 14030; June 11, 1997, p. 10654), except when amendments have
been considered under a special rule prescribing the order for their
consideration where the bill is considered as read, in which case they
are voted on upon demand in the order in which considered in the
Committee (Mar. 11, 1993, p. 4733; Mar. 25, 1993, pp. 6358, 6359). For
automatic reconsideration in the House of amendments if the votes of
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are decisive, see Sec. 985,
infra.
Depending on the will of the House as expressed on the question of
ordering the previous question (IV, 4895; V, 5794; VIII, 2419), when a
bill is reported with amendments from the Committee of the Whole, it is
in order to submit additional amendments after disposition of the
Committee amendments (IV, 4872-4876). However, in modern practice the
opportunity to submit amendments is normally foreclosed by the ordering
of the previous question under a special rule. The fact that a
proposition has been rejected by the Committee does not prevent it from
being offered as an amendment when the subject comes up in the House
(IV, 4878-4880; VIII, 2700). A substitute amendment may be offered to a
bill reported from the Committee, and then the previous question may be
ordered on the substitute, on all other amendments, and on the bill to
final passage (V, 5472). An amendment in the nature of a substitute
reported from the
[[Page [169]]]
Committee is treated like any other amendment (V, 5341), and if the
House rejects the substitute the original bill without amendment is
before the House (VIII, 2426).
Where <> a series of bills are reported from Committee of the Whole, the
House considers them in the order in which they are reported (IV, 4869,
4870; VIII, 2417). A proposition reported for action has precedence over
an independent resolution on the same subject offered by a Member from
the floor (V, 6986), and where a bill and a resolution relating to an
alleged breach of privilege were reported together the question was put
first on the bill (V, 6986). A bill read in full and considered in the
Committee (IV, 3409, 3410), or presumed to have been so read (IV, 4916),
is not read in full again in the House when reported and acted on. The
chair of the Committee of the Whole who reports a bill does not become
entitled to prior recognition for debate in the House (II, 1453); but on
an adverse report an opponent is recognized to offer a motion for
disposition of the bill (IV, 4897; VIII, 2430), or for debate (VII,
2629). The recommendation of the Committee being before the House, the
motion to carry out the recommendation is usually considered as pending
without being offered from the floor (IV, 4896), but when a bill was
reported with a recommendation that it lie on the table, a question was
raised as to whether or not this motion, which prevents debate, should
be considered as pending (IV, 4897). The House considers an amendment
reported from the Committee to the preamble of a Senate joint resolution
following disposition of amendments to the text and pending third
reading (May 25, 1993, pp. 11036, 11037).
A <> motion
to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the consideration of a
matter committed to it is not privileged as against a demand for the
regular order (IV, 4917). When the Committee is discharged from
consideration of a bill the House, in lieu of the report of the chair,
accepts the minutes of the Clerk as evidence of amendments agreed to
(IV, 4922).
<> In other things the rules or proceedings are to be the same as
in the House. Scob., 39.
The House provides by rule (clause 11 of rule XVIII) that the rules of
proceeding in the House shall apply in the Committee of the Whole so far
as they may be applicable.
[[Page [170]]]
sec. xiii--examination of witnesses
Common <> fame is a good ground for the House to proceed by
inquiry, and even to accusation. Resolution House of Commons, 1 Car., 1,
1625; Rush, L. Parl., 115; Grey, 16-22, 92; 8 Grey, 21, 23, 27, 45.
In the House common fame has been held sufficient to justify procedure
for inquiry (III, 2701), as in a case wherein it was stated on the
authority of common rumor that a Member had been menaced (III, 2678).
The House also has voted to investigate with a view to impeachment on
the basis of common fame, as in the cases of Judges Chase (III, 2342),
Humphreys (III, 2385), and Durell (III, 2506).
<> Witnesses are not to be produced but where the House has
previously instituted an inquiry, 2 Hats., 102, nor then are orders for
their attendance given blank. 3 Grey, 51.
In the House witnesses are summoned in pursuance and by virtue of the
authority conferred on a committee by the House to send for persons and
papers (III, 1750). Even in cases wherein the rules give to certain
committees the authority to investigate without securing special
permission, authority must be obtained before the production of
testimony may be compelled (IV, 4316). Subpoenas issued by order of the
House are signed by the Speaker (clause 4 of rule I) and attested and
sealed by the Clerk (clause 2 of rule II). In clause 2(m) of rule XI the
House has authorized any committee or subcommittee to issue a subpoena
when authorized by a majority of the members of the committee or
subcommittee voting, a majority being present. A committee may also
delegate the authority to issue subpoenas to the chair of a full
committee. Authorized subpoenas are signed by the chair of the committee
or by any other member designated by the committee. Sometimes the House
authorizes issue of subpoenas during a recess of Congress and empowers
the Speaker to sign them (III, 1806), and in one case the two Houses, by
concurrent resolution, empowered the Vice President and Speaker to sign
during a recess (III, 1763). See McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135
(1927); Barry v. U.S. ex rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929); Sinclair
v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929). During the 116th and 117th
Congresses, the House authorized electronic signature of subpoenas and
electronic attestation and affixation of a seal by the Clerk during the
pendency of a designated public health
[[Page [171]]]
emergency (sec. 4(f), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H.
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Under section 2954 of title 5, United
States Code, an executive agency, if so requested by the Committee on
Government Operations (now Oversight and Reform), or any seven members
thereof, shall submit any information requested of it relating to any
matter within the jurisdiction of the committee.
When <> any person is examined before a committee or at the bar of
the House, any Member wishing to ask the person a question must address
it to the Speaker or chairman, who repeats the question to the person,
or says to him, ``You hear the question--answer it.'' But if the
propriety of the question be objected to, the Speaker directs the
witness, counsel, and parties to withdraw; for no question can be moved
or put or debated while they are there. 2 Hats., 108. Sometimes the
questions are previously settled in writing before the witness enters.
Ib., 106, 107; 8 Grey, 64. The questions asked must be entered in the
Journal. 3 Grey, 81. But the testimony given in answer before the House
is never written down; but before a committee, it must be, for the
information of the House, who are not present to hear it. 7 Grey, 52,
334.
The Committee of the Whole of the House was charged with an
investigation in 1792, but the procedure was wholly exceptional (III,
1804), although a statute still empowers the chair of the Committee of
the Whole, as well as the Speaker, chairs of select or standing
committees, and Members to administer oaths to witnesses (2 U.S.C. 191;
III, 1769). Most inquiries, in the modern practice, are conducted by
select or standing committees, and these in each case determine how they
will conduct examinations (III, 1773, 1775). Clause 2(k) of rule XI,
contains provisions governing certain procedures at hearings by
committees (Sec. 803, infra). In one case a committee permitted a Member
of the House not of the committee to examine a witness (III, 2403) and
the modern practice is to allow non-committee members to participate by
unanimous consent. Usually these investigations are reported
stenographically, thus making the questions and an
[[Page [172]]]
swers of record for report to the House. To sustain a conviction of
perjury, a quorum of a committee must be in attendance when the
testimony is given. Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84 (1949).
Certain criminal statutes make it a felony to give perjurious testimony
before a congressional committee (18 U.S.C. 1621), to intimidate
witnesses before committees (18 U.S.C. 1505), or to make false
statements in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States
(18 U.S.C. 1001).
Another provision of the Federal criminal code (18 U.S.C. 6005)
provides for ``use'' immunity for certain witnesses before either House
or committees thereof.
The <> House, in its earlier years, arraigned and tried
at its bar persons, not Members, charged with violation of its
privileges, as in the cases of Randall, Whitney (II, 1599-1603),
Anderson (II, 1606), and Houston (II, 1616); but in the case of Woods,
charged with breach of privilege in 1870 (II, 1626-1628), the respondent
was arraigned before the House, but was heard in his defense by counsel
and witnesses before a standing committee. At the conclusion of that
investigation the respondent was brought to the bar of the House while
the House voted his punishment (II, 1628). The House also has arraigned
at its bar contumacious witnesses before taking steps to punish by its
own action or through the courts (III, 1685). In examinations at its bar
the House has adopted forms of procedure as to questions (II, 1633; III,
1768), providing that they be asked through the Speaker (II, 1602, 1606)
or by a committee (II, 1617; III, 1668). And the questions to be asked
have been drawn up by a committee, even when put by the Speaker (II,
1633). In the earlier practice the answer of a witness at the bar was
not written down (IV, 2874); but in the later practice the answers
appear in the journal (III, 1668). The person at the bar withdraws while
the House passes on an incidental question (II, 1633; III, 1768). See
McGrain v. Dougherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); Barry v. U.S. ex rel.
Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929); Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125
(1935).
If <> either House have occasion for the presence of a
person in custody of the other, they ask the other their leave that he
may be brought up to them in custody. 3 Hats., 52.
A <> Member, in his place,
gives information to the House of what he knows of any matter under
hearing at the bar. Jour. H. of C., Jan. 22, 1744-5.
[[Page [173]]]
At an examination at the bar of the House in 1795 both the written
information given by Members and their verbal testimony were required to
be under oath (II, 1602). In a case not of actual examination at the
bar, but wherein the House was deliberating on a proposition to order
investigation, it demanded by resolution that certain Members produce
papers and information (III, 1726, 1811). Members often give testimony
before committees of investigation, and in at least one case the Speaker
has thus appeared (III, 1776). But in a case wherein a committee
summoned a Member to testify as to a statement made by him in debate he
protested that it was an invasion of his constitutional privilege (III,
1777, 1778; see also H. Rept. 67-1372, and Jan. 25, 1923, pp. 2415-23).
In one instance the chair of an investigating committee administered the
oath to himself and testified (III, 1821). The House, in an inquiry
preliminary to an impeachment trial, gave leave to its managers to
examine Members, and leave to its Members to attend for the purpose
(III, 2033).
Either <> House may request, but not command, the attendance of
a Member of the other. They are to make the request by message of the
other House, and to express clearly the purpose of attendance, that no
improper subject of examination may be tendered to him. The House then
gives leave to the Member to attend, if he choose it; waiting first to
know from the Member himself whether he chooses to attend, till which
they do not take the message into consideration. But when the peers are
sitting as a court of criminal judicature, they may order attendance,
unless where it be a case of impeachment by the Commons. There it is to
be a request. 3 Hats., 17; 9 Grey, 306, 406; 10 Grey, 133.
The House and the Senate have observed this rule; but it does not
appear that they have always made public ascertainment of the
willingness of the Member to attend (III, 1790, 1791). In one case the
Senate laid aside pending business in order to comply with the request
of the House (III, 1791). In several instances House committees, after
their invitations to Senators to appear and testify had been
disregarded, have issued subpoenas. In such cases the Senators have
either disregarded the subpoenas, refused to obey them, or have appeared
under protest (III, 1792, 1793).
[[Page [174]]]
In one case, after a Senator had neglected to respond either to an
invitation or a subpoena the House requested of the Senate his
attendance and the Senate disregarded the request (III, 1794). Where
Senators have responded to invitations of House committees, their
testimony has been taken without obtaining consent of the Senate (III,
1793, 1795, footnote).
Counsel <> are to be heard only
on private, not on public, bills and on such points of law only as the
House shall direct. 10 Grey, 61.
In 1804 the House admitted the counsel of certain corporations to
address the House on pending matters of legislation (V, 7298), and in
1806 voted that a claimant might be heard at the bar (V, 7299); but in
1808, after consideration, the House by a large majority declined to
follow again the precedent of 1804 (V, 7300). In early years counsel in
election cases were heard at the bar at the discretion of the House (I,
657, 709, 757, 765); but in 1836, after full discussion, the practice
was abandoned (I, 660), and, with one exception in 1841 (I, 659), has
not been revived, even for the case of a contestant who could not speak
the English language (I, 661). Counsel appear before committees in
election cases, however. Where witnesses and others have been arraigned
at the bar of the House for contempt, the House has usually permitted
counsel (II, 1601, 1616; III, 1667), sometimes under conditions (II,
1604, 1616); but in a few cases has declined the request (II, 1608; III,
1666, footnote). In investigations before committees counsel usually
have been admitted (III, 1741, 1846, 1847), sometimes even to assist a
witness (III, 1772), and clause 2(k)(3) of rule XI now provides that
witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by their own counsel for the
purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights
(Sec. 803, infra). In examinations preliminary to impeachment counsel
usually have been admitted (III, 1736, 2470, 2516) unless in cases
wherein such proceedings were ex parte. During impeachment
investigations against Presidents Nixon, Clinton, and Trump, the
Committee on the Judiciary admitted counsel to the President to be
present, to make presentations and to examine witnesses during
investigatory hearings (H. Rept. 93-1305, Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219; H.
Rept. 105-830, Dec. 16, 1998, p. 27819; H. Rept. 116-346, Dec. 15, 2019,
p. _). Counsel for President Trump did not formally participate during
the impeachment investigation (H. Rept. 116-346, Dec. 15, 2019, p. _).
At one time the House required all counsel or agents representing
persons or corporations before committees to be registered with the
Clerk (III, 1771). The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 requires all
lobbyists to register with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of
the Senate (2 U.S.C. 1603).
[[Page [175]]]
sec. xiv--arrangement of business
The <> Speaker is
not precisely bound to any rules as to what bills or other matter shall
be first taken up; but it is left to his own discretion, unless the
House on a question decide to take up a particular subject. Hakew., 136.
A settled order of business is, however, necessary for the government
of the presiding person, and to restrain individual Members from calling
up favorite measures, or matters under their special patronage, out of
their just turn. It is useful also for directing the discretion of the
House, when they are moved to take up a particular matter, to the
prejudice of others, having priority of right to their attention in the
general order of business.
* * * * *
In this way we do not waste our time in debating what shall be taken
up. We do one thing at a time; follow up a subject while it is fresh,
and till it is done with; clear the House of business gradatim as it is
brought on, and prevent, to a certain degree, its immense accumulation
toward the close of the session.
Jefferson gave as a part of his comment on the law of Parliament the
order of business in the Senate in his time. Both in the House and
Senate the order of business has been changed to meet the needs of the
times. The order of business now followed in the House is established by
rule XIV; and this rule, with the rules supplemental thereto, take away
to a very large extent the discretion exercised by the Speaker under the
parliamentary law.
In the House before committees are appointed it is in order to offer a
bill or resolution for consideration not previously considered by a
committee (VII, 2103). In the 73d Congress, the House passed before the
adoption
[[Page [176]]]
of rules and election of committees a bill of major importance
(providing relief in the existing national emergency in banking),
following a message from the President recommending its immediate
passage (Mar. 9, 1933, pp. 75-84).
Arrangement, <> however, can only take hold of matters in
possession of the House. New matter may be moved at any time when no
question is before the House. Such are original motions and reports on
bills. Such are bills from the other House, which are received at all
times, and receive their first reading as soon as the question then
before the House is disposed of; and bills brought in on leave, which
are read first whenever presented. So messages from the other House
respecting amendments to bills are taken up as soon as the House is
clear of a question, unless they require to be printed, for better
consideration. Orders of the day may be called for, even when another
question is before the House.
In Jefferson's time the principles of this comment would have applied
to both House and Senate; but in the House the order of business may be
interrupted at the will of the majority only by certain specified
matters (see annotations following rule XIV). For matters not thus
specified, interruption of the order takes place only by unanimous
consent. For a discussion of the Speaker's policy of conferring
recognition for such unanimous-consent requests, see Sec. 956, infra.
sec. xv--order
* * * * *
In <> Parliament, ``instances make order,'' per Speaker Onslow. 2
Hats., 141. But what is done only by one Parliament, cannot be called
custom of Parliament, by Prynne. 1 Grey, 52.
[[Page [177]]]
In the House the Clerk is required to note all questions of order and
the decisions thereon and print the record thereof as an appendix to the
Journal (clause 2 of rule II). The Parliamentarian has the
responsibility for compiling and updating the precedents (2 U.S.C. 28).
The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 gave the Speaker the
responsibility to prepare an updated compilation of such precedents
every two years (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The
Speaker feels constrained in rulings to give precedent its proper
influence (II, 1317), because the advantage of such a course is
undeniable (IV, 4045). But decisions of the Speakers on questions of
order are not like judgments of courts that conclude the rights of
parties, but may be reexamined and reversed (IV, 4637), except on
discretionary matters of recognition (II, 1425). It is rare, however,
that such a reversal occurs.
sec. xvi--order respecting papers
The <> Clerk is to let no journals, records, accounts, or papers be
taken from the table or out of his custody. 2 Hats., 193, 194.
Mr. Prynne, having at a Committee of the Whole amended a mistake in a
bill without order or knowledge of the committee, was reprimanded. 1
Chand., 77.
A bill being missing, the House resolved that a protestation should be
made and subscribed by the members ``before Almighty God, and this
honorable House, that neither myself, nor any other to my knowledge,
have taken away, or do at this present conceal a bill entitled,'' &c. 5
Grey, 202.
After a bill is engrossed, it is put into the Speaker's hands, and he
is not to let any one have it to look into. Town, col. 209.
In the House an alleged improper alteration of a bill was presented as
a question of privilege and examined by a select committee. It being
ascertained that the alteration was made to correct a clerical error,
the committee reported that it was ``highly censurable in any Member or
officer of the House to make any change, even the most unimportant, in
any
[[Page [178]]]
bill or resolution which has received the sanction of this body'' (III,
2598). Alleged abuse of power in the processing and enrollment of bills
has formed the basis of questions of privilege (Feb. 16, 2006, p. 1948;
May 22, 2008, p. 10522). Although engrossing papers must be at the desk,
additional copies of a pending measure are not required (June 26, 2009,
pp. 16698-700). The Clerk signs engrossments; the Speaker signs
enrollments (1 U.S.C. 106).
sec. xvii--order in debate
<> When the Speaker is seated in his chair, every member is to
sit in his place. Scob., 6; Grey, 403.
In the House the decorum of Members is regulated by rule XVII; and
this provision of the parliamentary law is practically obsolete.
When <> any Member means to speak, he is to stand up in his
place, uncovered, and to address himself, not to the House, or any
particular Member, but to the Speaker, who calls him by his name, that
the House may take notice who it is that speaks. Scob., 6; D'Ewes, 487,
col. 1; 2 Hats., 77; 4 Grey, 66; 8 Grey, 108. But Members who are
indisposed may be indulged to speak sitting. 2 Hats., 75, 77; 1 Grey,
143.
This provision has been superseded by clause 1 of rule XVII, which was
amended in the 115th Congress to remove a requirement that a Member rise
to seek recognition (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). As long
ago as 1832, at least, Members were not required to seek recognition
from their own particular seats (V, 4979, footnote), and seats are no
longer assigned. In addition, the Speaker calls the Member, not by name,
but as ``the gentleman or gentlewoman from __,'' (naming the State).
<> When a Member stands up
to speak, no question is to be put, but he is to be heard unless the
House overrule him. 4 Grey, 390; 5 Grey, 6, 143.
[[Page [179]]]
Except as provided in clause 4 of rule XVII, no question is put as to
the right of a Member to the floor.
If <> two or more rise to speak nearly together, the Speaker
determines who was first up, and calls him by name, whereupon he
proceeds, unless he voluntarily sits down and gives way to the other.
But sometimes the House does not acquiesce in the Speaker's decision, in
which case the question is put, ``which Member was first up?'' 2 Hats.,
76; Scob., 7; D'Ewes, 434, col. 1, 2.
In the Senate of the United States the President's decision is without
appeal.
In the House recognition by the Chair is governed by clause 2 of rule
XVII and the practice thereunder. There has been no appeal from a
decision by the Speaker on a question of recognition since 1881, on
which occasion Speaker Randall stated that the power of recognition is
``just as absolute in the Chair as the judgment of the Supreme Court of
the United States is absolute as to the interpretation of the law'' (II,
1425-1428), and in the later practice no appeal is permitted (VIII,
2429, 2646, 2762).
No <> man may speak more than once on the same bill on the same day;
or even on another day, if the debate be adjourned. But if it be read
more than once in the same day, he may speak once at every reading. Co.,
12, 115; Hakew., 148; Scob., 58; 2 Hats., 75. Even a change of opinion
does not give a right to be heard a second time. Smyth's Comw. L., 2, c.
3; Arcan, Parl., 17.
But he may be permitted to speak again to clear a matter of fact, 3
Grey, 357, 416; or merely to explain himself, 2 Hats., 73, in some
material part of his speech, Ib., 75; or to the manner or words of the
question, keeping himself to that only, and not traveling into the
merits of it, Me
[[Page [180]]]
morials in Hakew., 29; or to the orders of the House, if they be
transgressed, keeping within that line, and not falling into the matter
itself. Mem. Hakew., 30, 31.
The House has modified the parliamentary law as to a Member's right to
speak a second time by clause 3 of rule XVII and by permitting a Member
controlling time in debate to yield to another more than once (Apr. 5,
2000, p. 4497; Oct. 18, 2007, p. 27575). In ordinary practice rule XVII
is not rigidly enforced, and Members find little difficulty in making
such explanations as are contemplated by the parliamentary law. See
Sec. Sec. 959, 981, infra.
But <> if the
Speaker rise to speak, the Member standing up ought to sit down, that he
may be first heard. Town., col. 205; Hale Parl., 133; Mem. in Hakew.,
30, 31. Nevertheless, though the Speaker may of right speak to matters
of order, and be first heard, he is restrained from speaking on any
other subject, except where the House have occasion for facts within his
knowledge; then he may, with their leave, state the matter of fact. 3
Grey, 38.
This provision is usually observed in the practice of the House only
with regard to the conduct of the Speaker when in the chair. In several
instances the Speaker has been permitted by the House to make a
statement from the chair, as in a case wherein his past conduct had been
criticized (II, 1369), in a case wherein there had been unusual
occurrences in the joint session to count the electoral vote (II, 1372;
Jan. 6, 2021, p. _), and in a matter relating to a contest for the seat
of the Speaker as a Member (II, 1360). In rare instances the Speaker has
made brief explanations from the chair without asking the assent of the
House (II, 1373, 1374). Speakers have called others to the chair and
participated in debate, usually without asking consent of the House (II,
1360, 1367, footnote, 1368, 1371; III, 1950), and in one case a Speaker
on the floor debated a point of order that the Speaker pro tempore was
to decide (V, 6097). In rare instances Speakers have left the chair to
make motions on the floor (II, 1367, footnote). Speakers may participate
in debate in the Committee of the Whole, although the privilege was
rarely exercised in early practice (II, 1367, footnote).
[[Page [181]]]
No <> one is to speak impertinently or beside the question,
superfluous, or tediously. Scob., 31, 33; 2 Hats., 166, 168; Hale Parl.,
133.
The House, by clause 1 of rule XVII, provides that remarks must be
confined to the question under debate, but neither by rule nor practice
has the House suppressed superfluous or tedious speaking, its hour rule
(clause 2 of rule XVII) being a sufficient safeguard in this respect.
No <> person is to
use indecent language against the proceedings of the House; no prior
determination of which is to be reflected on by any Member, unless he
means to conclude with a motion to rescind it. 2 Hats., 169, 170;
Rushw., p. 3, v. 1, fol. 42. But while a proposition under consideration
is still in fieri, though it has even been reported by a committee,
reflections on it are no reflections on the House. 9 Grey, 508.
In the practice of the House it has been held out of order in debate
to cast reflections on either the House or its membership or its
decisions, whether present or past (V, 5132-5138). A Member who had used
offensive words against the character of the House, and who declined to
explain, was censured (II, 1247). Words impeaching the loyalty of a
portion of the membership have also been ruled out (V, 5139). Where a
Member reiterated on the floor certain published charges against the
House, action was taken, although other business had intervened, the
question being considered one of privilege (III, 2637). It has been held
inappropriate and not in order in debate to refer to the proceedings of
a committee except such as have been formally reported to the House (V,
5080-5083; VIII, 2269, 2485-2493; June 24, 1958, pp. 12120, 12122), but
this rule does not apply to the proceedings of a committee of a previous
Congress (Feb. 2, 1914, p. 2782), and the rationale for this limitation
on debate is in part obsolete under the modern practice of the House
insofar as the doctrine is applied to open committee meetings and
hearings.
No <> person, in
speaking, is to mention a Member then present by his name, but to
describe him by his seat in the
[[Page [182]]]
House, or who spoke last, or on the other side of the question, &c.,
Mem. in Hakew., 3; Smyth's Comw., L. 2, c. 3; nor to digress from the
matter to fall upon the person, Scob., 31; Hale Parl., 133; 2 Hats.,
166, by speaking reviling, nipping, or unmannerly words against a
particular Member. Smyth's Comw., L. 2, c. 3. * * *
In the practice of the House, a Member is not permitted to refer to
another Member by name (V, 5144; VIII, 2526, 2529, 2536), or to address
a Member in the second person (V, 5140-5143; VI, 600; VIII, 2529;
Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 26, 2013,
p. 1680; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p. 4783; Speaker Boehner, Feb.
25, 2015, p. 2554; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. _). The proper
reference to another Member is ``the gentleman or gentlewoman from __,''
(naming the Member's State) (June 14, 1978, p. 17615; July 21, 1982, p.
17314). A mere reference to a Member's voting record does not form a
basis for a point of order against those remarks (June 13, 2002, p.
10226, p. 10232).
By rule of the House (clause 1 of rule XVII), as well as by
parliamentary law, personalities are forbidden (V, 4979, 5145, 5163,
5169), whether against the Member in the Member's capacity as
Representative or otherwise (V, 5152, 5153), even if the references may
be relevant to the pending question (Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25778). The
House has censured a Member for gross personalities (II, 1251). The
Chair may intervene to prevent improper references if it is evident that
a particular Member is being described (Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077).
The Chair does not rule on the veracity of a statement made by a
Member in debate (Apr. 9, 1997, p. 4926; Sept. 26, 2008, p. 22085).
Although accusing another Member of deceit engages in personality,
merely accusing another Member of making a mistake does not (V, 5157;
Oct. 26, 2000, p. 24921).
Clause 1 of rule XVII has been held to proscribe: (1) referring to an
identifiable group of sitting Members as having committed a crime (e.g.,
stealing an election or obstructing justice) (Feb. 27, 1985, p. 3898;
Speaker Wright, Mar. 21, 1989, p. 5016; May 19, 1998, p. 9738; July 15,
2004, p. 15859); (2) referring in a personally critical manner to the
political tactics of the Speaker or other Members (June 25, 1981, p.
14056); (3) referring to a particular Member of the House in a
derogatory fashion (Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077); (4) characterizing a Member
as ``the most impolite Member'' (June 27, 1996, p. 15915) or ``mean-
spirited'' (May 13, 1992, p. 11235); (5) questioning the integrity of a
Member (July 25, 1996, p. 19170); (6) denouncing the spirit in which a
Member had spoken (V, 6981); (7) using a Member's surname as though an
adjective for a word of ridicule (June 13, 2002, p. 10232; May 13, 2008,
p. 8923); (8) questioning the decency
[[Page [183]]]
of another Member (Mar. 21, 2007, p. 7074); (9) labeling the remarks of
a Member ``hypocritical and dishonest'' (Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045).
A distinction has been drawn between general language, which
characterizes a measure or the political motivations behind a measure,
and personalities (V, 5153, 5163, 5169). Although remarks in debate may
not include personal attacks against a Member or an identifiable group
of Members, they may address political motivations for legislative
positions (Jan. 24, 1995, p. 2214; Mar. 8, 1995, pp. 7307, 7308; Nov.
17, 1995, p. 33832; June 13, 1996, p. 14043; July 16, 2008, p. 15273).
For example, references to ``down-in-the-dirt gutter politics'' and
``you people are going to pay'' were held not to be personal references
(Nov. 14, 1995, p. 32388). Similarly, characterizing a pending measure
as a ``patently petty political terrorist tactic'' was held in order as
a reference to the pending measure rather than to the motive or
character of the measure's proponent (Nov. 9, 1995, p. 31413). The Chair
also has held in order a general reference that ``big donors'' receive
``access to leadership power and decisions'' because the reference did
not identify a specific Member as engaging in an improper quid pro quo
(Apr. 9, 1997, p. 4926). A general statement seeming to invoke racial
stereotypes but not in a context so inflammatory as to constitute a
breach of decorum, was held not unparliamentary (Apr. 9, 2003, p. 9005
(sustained by tabling of appeal)). Likewise, a general statement linking
politics with armed conflict in an impersonal way was held not to breach
decorum (Oct. 18, 2007, p. 27578).
A Member may not read in debate extraneous material critical of
another Member that would be improper if spoken in the Member's own
words (May 25, 1995, pp. 14436, 14437; Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22898). Thus,
words in a telegram read in debate that repudiated the ``lies and half-
truths'' of a House committee report were ruled out of order as
reflecting on the integrity of committee members (June 16, 1947, p.
7065), and unparliamentary references in debate to newspaper accounts
used in support of a Member's personal criticism of another Member were
similarly ruled out of order (Feb. 25, 1985, p. 3346).
A Member should refrain from references in debate to the official
conduct of a Member if such conduct is not the subject then pending
before the House by way of either a report of the Committee on Ethics or
another question of the privileges of the House (see, e.g., July 24,
1990, p. 18917; Mar. 19, 1992, p. 6078; May 25, 1995, pp. 14434-37;
Sept. 19, 1995, pp. 25454, 25455; Apr. 27, 2005, p. 8049); and, although
such references are ordinarily enforced by the Chair in response to a
point of order, the Chair may take the initiative in order to maintain
proper decorum (Apr. 1, 1992, p. 7899; June 17, 2004, p. 12748). This
stricture also precludes a Member from reciting news articles discussing
a Member's conduct (Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24318), reciting the content of a
previously tabled resolution raising a question of the privileges of the
House (Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33853; Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23855), or even
referring to a Member's conduct by mere insinuation (Sept. 12, 1996, p.
22899). Notice of an intention to offer a resolution
[[Page [184]]]
as a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX does not
render a resolution ``pending'' and thereby permit references to conduct
of a Member proposed to be addressed therein (Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23811).
The stricture against references to a Member's conduct not then
pending before the House applies to the conduct of all sitting Members
(Apr. 1, 1992, p. 7899), including conduct that has previously been
resolved by the Committee on Ethics or the House (Sept. 24, 1996, pp.
24483, 24485; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.7). This stricture
does not apply to the conduct of a former Member, provided the reference
is not made in an attempt to compare the conduct of a former Member with
the conduct of a sitting Member (Sept. 20, 1995, pp. 25825, 25826; Sept.
12, 1996, pp. 22900, 22901).
Debate on a pending privileged resolution recommending disciplinary
action against a Member may necessarily involve personalities. However,
clause 1 of rule XVII still prohibits the use of language that is
personally abusive (see, e.g., July 31, 1979, p. 21584; Jan. 21, 1997,
p. 393) and the Chair may take the initiative to prevent violations of
the rule (July 24, 2002, p. 14300). Furthermore, during the actual
pendency of such a resolution, a Member may discuss a prior case
reported to the House by the Committee on Ethics for the purpose of
comparing the severity of the sanction recommended in that case with the
severity of the sanction recommended in the pending case, provided that
the Member does not identify, or discuss the details of the past conduct
of, a sitting Member (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271).
In addition to the prohibition against addressing a Member's conduct
when it is not actually pending before the House, the Speaker has
advised that Members should refrain from references in debate (1) to the
motivations of a Member who filed a complaint before the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) (June 15, 1988, p. 14623;
July 6, 1988, p. 16630; Mar. 22, 1989, p. 5130; May 2, 1989, p. 7735;
Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27077); (2) to personal criticism of a member of the
committee (Apr. 1, 1992, p. 7899; Mar. 3, 1995, p. 6715; Sept. 19, 1996,
p. 23812; Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24317); (3) to an investigation undertaken
by the committee, including suggestion of a course of action (Mar. 3,
1995, p. 6715; Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24317; Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25778) or
advocacy of an interim status report by the committee (Sept. 12, 1996,
p. 22900; Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25778).
For precedents applicable to references in debate to the President,
see Sec. 370, infra, or Members of the Senate, see Sec. 371, infra.
Complaint <> of the conduct
of the Speaker should be presented directly for the action of the House
and not by way of debate on other matters (V, 5188). In a case wherein a
Member used words insulting to the Speaker the House on a subsequent
day, and after other business had intervened, censured the offender (II,
1248). In such a case the Speaker would ordinarily leave the chair while
action should be taken by the House (II, 1366; V, 5188; VI,
[[Page [185]]]
565). In the 104th Congress the Chair reaffirmed that it is not in order
to speak disrespectfully of the Speaker, and that under the precedents
the sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary requirements
for timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 552; Jan. 19,
1995, p. 1599). It is not in order to arraign the personal conduct of
the Speaker (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.6; Jan. 19, 1995, p.
1601). For example, it is not in order to charge dishonesty or disregard
of the rules (July 11, 1985, p. 18550), to reflect on his patriotism by
accusing him of ``kowtowing'' to persons who would desecrate the flag
(June 20, 1990, p. 14877), to refer to him as a ``crybaby'' (Nov. 16,
1995, p. 33394), or to refer to official conduct of the Speaker that has
previously been resolved by the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct (now Ethics) or the House (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6,
Sec. 6.7). The Chair may take the initiative to admonish Members for
references in debate that disparage the Speaker (June 25, 1981, p.
14056; Mar. 22, 1996, p. 6077; May 13, 2008, p. 8923). Debate on a
resolution authorizing the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the
rules may not engage in personality by discussing the official conduct
of the Speaker, even if possibly relevant to the question of empowerment
of the Speaker (Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24485).
* * * <> The
consequences of a measure may be reprobated in strong terms; but to
arraign the motives of those who propose to advocate it is a
personality, and against order. Qui digreditur a materia ad personam,
Mr. Speaker ought to suppress. Ord. Com., 1604, Apr. 19.
The arraignment of the motives of Members is not permitted (V, 5147-
51; Dec. 13, 1973, p. 41270), and Speakers have intervened to prevent
it, in the earlier practice preventing even mildest imputations (V,
5161, 5162). However, remarks in debate may address political, but not
personal, motivations for legislative positions (Jan. 24, 1995, p. 2214;
Mar. 8, 1995, pp. 7307, 7308; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33832; June 13, 1996, p.
14043) or for committee membership (July 10, 1995, pp. 18257-59).
Accusing another Member of hypocrisy has been held not in order (July
24, 1979, p. 20380; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9675; Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045), and
characterizing the motivation of a Member in offering an amendment as
deceptive and hypocritical was ruled out of order (June 12, 1979, p.
14461). A statement in debate that an amendment could only be demagogic
or racist because only demagoguery or racism impelled such an amendment
was ruled out of order as impugning the motives of the Member offering
the amendment (Dec. 13, 1973, pp. 41270, 41271). However, debate
characterizing a pending measure as a ``patently petty political
terrorist tactic'' was held in order as directed at the pending measure
rather than the motive or the character
[[Page [186]]]
of its proponent (Nov. 9, 1995, p. 31913). Although in debate the
assertion of one Member may be declared untrue by another, in so doing
an intentional misrepresentation must not be implied (V, 5157-5160), and
if stated or implied is censurable (II, 1305). A Member in debate having
declared the words of another ``a base lie,'' censure was inflicted by
the House on the offender (II, 1249).
No <> one
is to disturb another in his speech by hissing, coughing, spitting, 6
Grey, 322; Scob., 8; D'Ewes, 332, col. 1, 640, col. 2, speaking or
whispering to another, Scob., 6; D'Ewes, 487, col. 1; nor stand up to
interrupt him, Town, col. 205; Mem. in Hakew., 31; nor to pass between
the Speaker and the speaking Member, nor to go across the House, Scob.,
6, or to walk up and down it, or to take books or papers from the table,
or write there, 2 Hats., 171, p. 170.
The House has, by clause 5 of rule XVII, prescribed certain rules of
decorum differing somewhat from this provision of the parliamentary law,
but supplemental to it rather than antagonistic. In one respect,
however, the practice of the House differs from the apparent intent of
the parliamentary law. In the House a Member may interrupt by addressing
the Chair for permission of the Member speaking (V, 5006; VIII, 2465);
but it is entirely within the discretion of the Member occupying the
floor to determine when and by whom to be interrupted (V, 5007, 5008;
VIII, 2463, 2465). There is no rule of the House requiring a Member
having the floor to yield to another Member referred to during debate
(Aug. 2, 1984, p. 22241). A Member may ask another to yield from any
microphone in the Chamber, including those in the well, so long as not
crossing between the Member having the floor and the Chair (June 5,
1998, p. 11170). The Chair may take the initiative in preserving order
when a Member declining to yield in debate continues to be interrupted
by another Member, may order that the interrupting Member's remarks not
appear in the Record (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.24), and may
admonish Members not to converse with a Member attempting to address the
House (Feb. 21, 1984, p. 2758), because it is not in order to engage in
disruption while another is delivering remarks in debate (June 27, 1996,
p. 15915). On the opening day of the 103d Congress, during the customary
announcement of policies with respect to particular aspects of the
legislative process, the Chair elaborated on the rules of order in
debate with a general statement concerning decorum in the House (Jan. 5,
1993, p. 105). Under this provision, the
[[Page [187]]]
Chair may require a line of Members waiting to sign a discharge petition
to proceed to the rostrum from the far right-hand aisle and require the
line not to form between the Chair and Members engaging in debate (Oct.
24, 1997, p. 23293). Hissing and jeering is not proper decorum in the
House (May 21, 1998, p. 10282). In the event of disorder in the well,
the Chair may ask Members to uphold the dignity and decorum of the House
so that business can be conducted in an orderly fashion (Speaker Ryan,
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.1) or may order that the well be
cleared (Speaker McCormack, Dec. 9, 1963, p. 23831). For further
discussion of interruptions in debate, see Sec. 946, infra.
Nevertheless, <> if a Member finds that it is not the inclination of
the House to hear him, and that by conversation or any other noise they
endeavor to drown his voice, it is his most prudent way to submit to the
pleasure of the House, and sit down; for it scarcely ever happens that
they are guilty of this piece of ill manners without sufficient reason,
or inattention to a Member who says anything worth their hearing. 2
Hats., 77, 78.
In the House, where the previous question and hour rule of debate have
been used for many years, the parliamentary method of suppressing a
tedious Member has never been imported into the practice (V, 5445).
If <> repeated calls do not produce order, the Speaker may call by
his name any Member obstinately persisting in irregularity; whereupon
the House may require the Member to withdraw. He is then to be heard in
exculpation, and to withdraw. Then the Speaker states the offense
committed; and the House considers the degree of punishment they will
inflict. 2 Hats., 167, 7, 8, 172.
This provision of parliamentary law should be read in conjunction with
clause 4 of rule XVII, Sec. Sec. 960-961, infra, particularly as this
provision re
[[Page [188]]]
lates to the ultimate authority of the House to determine whether a
Member ignoring repeated calls to order should be permitted to proceed
in order.
For <> instances of assaults and affrays in the House of Commons,
and the proceedings thereon, see 1 Pet. Misc., 82; 3 Grey, 128; 4 Grey,
328; 5 Grey, 382; 6 Grey, 254; 10 Grey, 8. Whenever warm words or an
assault have passed between Members, the House, for the protection of
their Members, requires them to declare in their places not to prosecute
any quarrel, 3 Grey, 128, 293; 5 Grey, 280; or orders them to attend the
Speaker, who is to accommodate their differences, and report to the
House, 3 Grey, 419; and they are put under restraint if they refuse, or
until they do. 9 Grey, 234, 312.
In several instances assaults and affrays have occurred on the floor
of the House. Sometimes the House has allowed these affairs to pass
without notice, the Members concerned making apologies either personally
or through other Members (II, 1658-1662). In other cases the House has
exacted apologies (II, 1646-1651, 1657), or required the offending
Members to pledge themselves before the House to keep the peace (II,
1643). In case of an aggravated assault by one Member on another on the
portico of the Capitol for words spoken in debate, the House censured
the assailant and three other Members who had been present, armed, to
prevent interference (II, 1655, 1656). Assaults or affrays in the
Committee of the Whole are dealt with by the House (II, 1648-1651).
Disorderly <> words are not to be noticed till the Member has
finished his speech. 5 Grey, 356; 6 Grey, 60. Then the person objecting
to them, and desiring them to be taken down by the Clerk at the table,
must repeat them. The Speaker then may direct the Clerk to take them
down in his minutes; but if he thinks them not disorderly, he delays the
direction. If the call becomes pretty general, he
[[Page [189]]]
orders the Clerk to take them down, as stated by the objecting Member.
They are then a part of his minutes, and when read to the offending
Member, he may deny they were his words, and the House must then decide
by a question whether they are his words or not. Then the Member may
justify them, or explain the sense in which he used them, or apologize.
If the House is satisfied, no further proceeding is necessary. But if
two Members still insist to take the sense of the House, the Member must
withdraw before that question is stated, and then the sense of the House
is to be taken. 2 Hats., 199; 4 Grey, 170; 6 Grey, 59. When any Member
has spoken, or other business intervened, after offensive words spoken,
they can not be taken notice of for censure. And this is for the common
security of all, and to prevent mistakes which must happen if words are
not taken down immediately. Formerly they might be taken down at any
time the same day. 2 Hats., 196; Mem. in Hakew., 71; 3 Grey, 48; 9 Grey,
514.
The House has, by clause 4 of rule XVII, provided a method of
procedure in cases of disorderly words. The House permits and requires
them to be noticed as soon as uttered, and has not insisted that the
offending Member withdraw while the House is deciding as to its course
of action.
Disorderly <> words spoken in a committee must be
written down as in the House; but the committee can only report them to
the House for animadversion. 6 Grey, 46.
This provision of the parliamentary law has been applied to the
Committee of the Whole, rather than to select or standing committees,
which are separately empowered to enforce rules of decorum (clause 1(a)
of rule
[[Page [190]]]
XI, which incorporates the provisions of rule XVII where applicable).
The House has censured a Member for disorderly words spoken in the
Committee of the Whole and reported therefrom (II, 1259).
In <> Parliament, to speak irreverently or seditiously against
the King is against order. Smyth's Comw., L. 2, c. 3; 2 Hats., 170.
This provision of the parliamentary law is manifestly inapplicable to
the House (V, 5086); and it has been held in order in debate to refer to
the President of the United States or his opinions, either with approval
or criticism, provided that such reference be relevant to the subject
under discussion and otherwise conformable to the Rules of the House (V,
5087-5091; VIII, 2500). Under this standard the following references are
in order: (1) a reference to the probable action of the President (V,
5092); (2) an adjuration to the President to keep his word (although an
improper form of address) (Dec. 19, 1995, p. 37601); (3) an accusation
that the President ``frivolously vetoed'' a bill (Nov. 8, 1995, p.
31785).
Personal abuse, innuendo, or ridicule of the President is not
permitted (VIII, 2497; Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21078; Oct. 21, 1987, pp.
28857, 28858; Sept. 21, 1994, p. 25147; Sept. 7, 2006, pp. 17381, 17382;
Oct. 24, 2017, p. _). The standards applicable to references regarding
the President applies also to the President-elect (e.g., Nov. 14, 2016,
p. _). In the 102d Congress, the Speaker enunciated a minimal standard
of propriety for all debate concerning nominated candidates for the
Presidency, based on the traditional proscription against personally
offensive references to the President even in the capacity as a
candidate (Speaker Foley, Sept. 24, 1992, p. 27344). This policy has
been extended to a presumptive major-party nominee for President (e.g.,
Apr. 22, 2004, pp. 7401, 7402) (although references to the past
statements or views of such nominee are not necessarily unparliamentary
(May 6, 2004, p. 8554)). The House has adopted a special order of
business permitting Members to engage in personalities toward the
President during debate on certain specified measures (sec. 2, H. Res.
38, Jan. 12, 2021, p. _).
Under this standard, the following remarks regarding personal conduct,
demeanor, or attributes have been held out of order as unparliamentary
references: (1) discussing personal conduct even as a point of reference
or comparison (July 16, 1998, p. 15784; Sept. 9, 1998, p. 19735); (2)
``cowardly,'' ``cowardice'' (e.g., Oct. 25, 1989, p. 25817), lacking
personal courage (Mar. 26, 2014, p. 4875), ``dastardly'' (July 25, 2017,
p. _), or lacking a backbone (July 16, 2018, p. _); (3) ``a little
bugger'' (Nov. 18, 1995, p. 33974); (4) ``disgusting'' and
``despicable'' (Mar. 11, 2004, p. 4033; Jan. 15, 2019, p. _),
``disgraceful'' (e.g., June 20, 2012, pp. 9462, 9463) or a disgrace
(e.g., Sept. 25, 2017, p. _), ``disgusting and indecent rhetoric'' (Mar.
27, 2017, p. _), ``vile'' (June 15, 2018, p. _), incapable of ``basic
human de
[[Page [191]]]
cency'' (Sept. 13, 2018, p. _) or a ``loathsome human'' (Dec. 14, 2017,
p. _); (5) a personal ``dark side'' (Mar. 1, 2017, p. _), ruthless (May
8, 2019, p. _) or ``sinister'' (Dec. 20, 2018, p. _); (6) that such
person is deserving of shame (May 24, 2016, p. _) or is ``shameful''
(e.g., Dec. 8, 2016, p. _) (although an accusation of ``shameful
opposition'' to a legislative proposal is not necessarily out of order
(Deschler, ch. 29, Sec. 58.7)); (7) not ``a large enough person'' to
apologize (Mar. 11, 2004, p. 4086); (8) ``arrogant'' (e.g., Jan. 11,
2007, p. 998); (9) ``mean-spirited'' (e.g., July 15, 2008, p. 15061),
``mean'' (July 28, 2017, p. _), or vicious (Sept. 25, 2017, p. _);
vengeful (June 3, 2013, p. 7783), ``cruel'' (e.g., Nov. 15, 2013, p.
17166), heartless (e.g., July 25, 2017, p. _), callous (e.g., Sept. 27,
2017, p. _), a ``jerk'' (Nov. 15, 2018, p. _), or accusations of
demeaning and denigrating others (Oct. 26, 2017, p. _); (10) ill-
tempered or lacking temperament (e.g., Sept. 7, 2016, p. _),
``infantile'' (June 15, 2016, p. _) or ``petulant'' (e.g., Jan. 18,
2018, p. _); (11) a ``hissy fit'' (e.g., Oct. 27, 2011, pp. 16239,
16245) or ``temper tantrum'' (e.g., Mar. 19, 2018, p. _); (12) was
``rooting against,'' or was turning one's back on, the American people
(e.g., Mar. 16, 2016, p. 3317), intentionally hurting the public (Oct.
3, 2013, p. 15069), or ``bilking'' the taxpayer (Apr. 22, 2015, p.
5374); (13) that such person had engaged in insults (e.g., May 13, 2015,
p. 6583), ``attacks women'' (July 16, 2018, p. _) or protected classes
(Oct. 26, 2017, p. _), or ``says ugly things about women'' (Nov. 21,
2019, p. _); (14) accusing such person of being ``delusional'' (e.g.,
Dec. 9, 2015, pp. 19794, 19795), ``paranoid'' (Dec. 14, 2017, p. _), or
``erratic and impetuous'' (Jan. 24, 2019, p. _); (15) commenting
derogatorily on physical attributes (May 24, 2016, p. _); (16) accusing
such person of engaging in ``character assassination'' or a ``smear
campaign'' against others (Jan. 10, 2018, p. _); (17) alleging that such
person mocked disabled individuals (Feb. 14, 2018, p. _); (18) referring
to such person as a ``moron'' (Mar. 22, 2018, p. _) or an ``idiot''
(Dec. 20, 2017), or of doing or saying stupid things (Oct. 26, 2017, p.
_); (19) referring to such person as ``greedy'' (Apr. 17, 2018, p. _);
(20) accusing such person of threats against public officials (Apr. 25,
2018, p. _); (21) questioning such person's ``reckless'' and
``negligent'' personal conduct (May 24, 2018, p. _), doubting such
person's faithfulness to a spouse (e.g., June 13, 2018, p. _), accusing
such person of ``using women'' (June 28, 2018, p. _), or alleging that
such person has a ``sex tape'' (July 18, 2018, p. _); (22) ``soulless''
(June 21, 2018, p. _) or ``immoral'' (e.g., Sept. 25, 2017, p. _); (23)
a ``drama queen'' (Dec. 20, 2018, p. _); (24) insinuating that such
person acts according to his ego (Oct. 10, 2017, p. _), has a fragile
ego (Nov. 29, 2017, p. _), or is ``making the American people suffer for
the sake of his ego'' (Jan. 9, 2019, p. _); (25) accusing such person of
``spreading evil'' (Dec. 1, 2017, p. _); (26) accusing such person of
vanity (July 11, 2019, p. _).
It is not in order to call the President a ``liar'' or accuse such
person of ``lying'' (e.g., June 26, 1985, p. 17394). Indeed, any
suggestion of mendacity is out of order, such as: (1) suggesting that
such person misrepre
[[Page [192]]]
sented the truth, attempted to obstruct justice, and encouraged others
to perjure themselves (Feb. 25, 1998, p. 2621); (2) dishonesty (e.g.,
July 13, 2004, p. 15275), failing to be honest (Apr. 14, 2011, p. 6198),
making a ``dishonest argument'' (Sept. 12, 2006, p. 17851), or intent to
be intellectually dishonest (May 9, 1990, p. 9828) or issue a false
statement (Dec. 20, 2017, p. _), or stating that many were convinced
such person had ``not been honest'' (Mar. 5, 1998, p. 2620), or stating
that such person had ``fallen quite short when it comes to fairness or
honesty'' (June 12, 2017, p. _); (3) ``raping'' the truth (Apr. 24,
1996, p. 8807), ``contempt for the truth'' (June 24, 2019, p. _), not
telling the truth (e.g., Oct. 29, 2003, p. 26363), distorting the truth
(Sept. 9, 2003, pp. 21570-73), having only a ``nodding acquaintance''
with the truth (Mar. 1, 2017, p. _), or asserting that such person's
``relationship with the truth is complicated at best'' (June 22, 2017,
p. _); (4) not being ``straight with us'' (e.g., Nov. 19, 2003, p.
29811) or ``spoke out of the other side of his mouth'' (Jan. 31, 2012,
p. 525); (5) attributing ``hypocrisy'' (e.g., Sept. 25, 1992, p. 27674);
(6) ``deceit'' (Nov. 17, 2014, p. 15809), ``deception'' (e.g., Sept. 28,
2016, p. _), being deceptive (e.g., Mar. 29, 2004, pp. 5523, 5524),
using ``deceptive rhetoric'' (Oct. 17, 2007, pp. 27534, 27538), or
engaging in a ``massive campaign of deception'' (July 11, 2018, p. _);
(7) making promises while having ``no intention of living up to his
promises'' (Mar. 27, 2017, p. _) or stating that such person went back
on (Dec. 20, 2018, p. _) or ``personally reneged on'' (Jan. 18, 2018, p.
_) his word; (8) acting in a ``duplicitous'' manner (June 11, 2015, p.
9358); (9) acting in a ``disingenuous'' manner (Mar. 1, 2017, p. _);
(10) fabricating an issue (e.g., July 6, 2004, pp. 14313, 14314),
engaging in ``scams'' (May 22, 2019, p. _), or intending to mislead
(e.g., Oct. 6, 2004, p. 21053), such as stating ``blatant falsehoods''
(Jan. 30, 2017, p. _); (11) engaging in ``elaborate attempts to conceal
information'' (Dec. 14, 2017, p. _); (12) engaging in ``defamation''
(Dec. 14, 2017, p. _); (13) intentional mischaracterization, although
mischaracterization without intent to deceive is not necessarily out of
order (July 19, 2005, p. 16525); (14) cheating in an election (Aug. 22,
2020, p. _).
It is not in order to cast aspersions on the ethical behavior of the
President, including: (1) alluding to unethical behavior or corruption
(e.g., June 20, 1996, p. 14829), such as implying a cause-and-effect
relationship between political contributions and his actions as
President (e.g., May 22, 2001, p. 9028), including an accusation that
the President had ``lined the pockets'' of his ``political cronies'' and
filled ``campaign coffers'' (Sept. 14, 2005, pp. 20238, 20239); (2)
using the Presidency for personal benefit (e.g., Jan. 11, 2017, p. _) or
``self-enrichment'' (e.g., Apr. 17, 2018, p. _), or accusing the
President of the ``appearance of wrongdoing'' and of ``profiting
illegally'' from the office (Mar. 15, 2018, p. _); (3) questioning
whether the President can ``live up to the ethical requirements'' of the
office (Jan. 24, 2017, p. _); (4) calling such person ``amoral'' or
lacking in morality (June 3, 2013, p. 7783; Nov. 16, 2016, p. _), or
accusing such person of
[[Page [193]]]
having ``no conscience'' (May 21, 2018, p. _); (5) referring to such
person as having financial conflicts of interest (Dec. 11, 2018, p. _).
Accusations that the President has committed a crime, or even that the
President has done something illegal, are unparliamentary. The following
allegations are not in order: (1) ``draft-dodger'' (e.g., Apr. 24, 1996,
pp. 8807, 8808), unexcused absences from military service (May 5, 2004,
pp. 8417, 8418), such as being ``A.W.O.L.'' (Sept. 22, 2004, p. 18953),
dereliction of duty as Commander-in-Chief (e.g., Oct. 22, 2015, pp.
16385, 16389), or of ``abdication of duty'' (Oct. 12, 2017, p. _); (2)
discussing ``charges'' leveled at the President or under investigation
(e.g., Mar. 19, 1998, p. 4094), including alluding to ``fund-raising
abuses'' (Mar. 14, 2000, p. 2716), speculating that the Vice President
might someday pardon the President for certain charges (Apr. 12, 2000,
p. 5419), or invoking a finding of personal liability by a court (May
24, 2016, p. _); (3) ``crook'' (e.g., Mar. 1, 2017, p. _), ``come
clean'' (Sept. 21, 2016, p. _), ``fess up'' (Feb. 6, 2017, p. _), or an
allegation that the President has engaged in a ``coverup'' (May 22,
2019, p. _); (4) suggesting censure or impeachment (e.g., Feb. 2, 2017,
p. _); (5) discussing alleged criminal conduct (e.g., Sept. 10, 1998, p.
19976), including an assertion that the President led a vast criminal
enterprise for decades (Sept. 5, 2018, p. _); (6) obstruction of justice
(e.g., May 17, 2017, p. _) or speculation that a hypothetical action by
the President would constitute obstruction of justice (Jan. 29, 2018, p.
_); (7) accusations of ``illegal'' activity or actions taken with the
knowledge that they were not in accordance with the law (e.g., June 20,
2006, p. 11935); (8) ``above the law'' (e.g., June 18, 2012, p. 9191),
``lawless'' (e.g., Aug. 1, 2014, p. 14017), violating the law (e.g.,
July 29, 2014, p. 13385), breaking the law (Sept. 9, 2014, p. 14290),
abusing the law (Feb. 27, 2015, p. 2907), assaulting the rule of law
(May 16, 2017, p. _), disrespecting the rule of law (Sept. 27, 2018, p.
_), or ``beyond justice'' (Apr. 11, 2018, p. _); (9) suggesting
collusion with a foreign country to violate the integrity of a U.S.
election (Mar. 29, 2017, p. _); (10) ``shredding'' (Apr. 19, 2016, p.
_), having contempt for (e.g., July 17, 2013, pp. 11608, 11609), having
disrespect for (Feb. 3, 2014, p. 2389), decimating (Apr. 11, 2018, p.
_), trampling upon (e.g., Apr. 26, 2018, p. _), or raping (Feb. 26,
2019, p. _) the Constitution; (11) ``con man'' or ``con artist'' (e.g.,
June 9, 2016, p. _); (12) alluding to alleged sexual misconduct (e.g.,
May 10, 1994, p. 9697), labeling such person a sexual predator (Nov. 16,
2016, p. _), or accusing such person of bragging about sexual assault
(May 16, 2018, p. _); (13) referring to such person as a ``grifter''
(Apr. 11, 2018, p. _); (14) alleging that such person is holding
``innocent babies'' hostage and referencing their placement in cages
(June 19, 2018, p. _) or generally referring to such person's
``disregard for the well-being of children'' (May 9, 2019, p. _); (15)
accusing such person of child abuse (July 18, 2018, p. _) or encouraging
others to commit assault (June 27, 2018, p. _); (16) accusing such
person of treason (Dec. 14, 2017, p. _) or of potentially ``treasonous''
behavior (e.g., July 16, 2018, p. _); (17) referring to such person as a
``mobster, con man,
[[Page [194]]]
gangster'' (June 11, 2019, p. _) or a ``mob boss'' (June 11, 2019, p.
_); (18) accusing such person of blackmailing a foreign leader (Sept.
24, 2019, p. _).
References to racial or other discrimination on the part of the
President are not in order. As such, remarks may not refer to the
President as: (1) a racist (e.g., June 9, 2016, p. _); (2) having made
``racial slurs'' or ``racial epithets'' (e.g., Jan. 9, 2017, p. _); (3)
telling a ``racist lie'' (e.g., Jan. 9, 2017, p. _); (4) a bigot (e.g.,
June 9, 2016, p. _), including by referring to bigotry emanating from
the Presidency (e.g., Jan. 16, 2019, p. _); (5) having made a bigoted or
racist statement (e.g., June 7, 2016, p. _); (6) having taken a bigoted
action (Jan. 30, 2017, p. _) or ``putting his bigotry into policy''
(June 27, 2018, p. _); (7) not caring about black people (Sept. 8, 2005,
p. 19797); (8) a misogynist (June 9, 2016, p. _) or a homophobe (Sept.
5, 2018, p. _); (9) having run a prejudiced campaign (Jan. 12, 2017, p.
_); (10) having engaged in ``racist rhetoric'' (Jan. 17, 2018, p. _),
racist stereotyping (Oct. 23, 2017, p. _), or a ``racist rant'' (Feb. 6,
2018, p. _); (11) having ``racist intentions'' (Jan. 17, 2018, p. _) or
``inciting racism'' (Nov. 8, 2017, p. _); (12) normalizing bigotry (Jan.
30, 2018, p. _); (13) exhibiting ``hatred for immigrants'' (Feb. 27,
2018, p. _), demonizing immigrants (e.g., Feb. 8, 2018, p. _), ``hate
peddling'' (June 21, 2018, p. _) or having engaged in ``hateful
rhetoric'' (Sept. 6, 2018, p. _), ``hateful policies'' (Feb. 26, 2019,
p. _), condoning hate groups (June 11, 2019, p. _), ``stoking the
flames'' of hate (July 24, 2019, p. _), ``inhuman'' behavior (Mar. 7,
2019, p. _) or fearmongering (Jan. 9, 2019, p. _; Jan. 10, 2019, p. _)
with respect to immigrants; (14) holding the view that ``crime and the
skin color of a person are synonymous'' (May 16, 2018, p. _); (15)
``uniting hatred'' (Sept. 25, 2017, p. _); (16) engaging in ``xenophobic
threats'' (June 4, 2019, p. _); (17) having a ``white nationalist
agenda'' (July 22, 2020, p. _).
Language impugning the patriotism or loyalty of the President is not
in order, such as: (1) directly questioning patriotism (Sept. 9, 2016,
p. _); (2) labeling the President as un-American or having an ``un-
American ideology'' (e.g., June 7, 2016, p. _) or ``subverting
democracy'' (Apr. 17, 2018, p. _); (3) accusing the President of giving
``aid and comfort to the enemy'' (e.g., Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352),
``aiding and abetting the enemy'' (Apr. 22, 2004, pp. 7401, 7402),
``aiding and abetting a terroristic regime'' (Sept. 10, 2015, p. 13976),
or ``sucking up to dictators'' (June 7, 2018, p. _); (4) accusing the
President of ``spying'' on Congress (e.g., Jan. 7, 2016, p. 128); (5)
equating the President's decisions with regard to armed conflict to his
having ``slaughtered'' thousands (Mar. 8, 2007, p. 5815) or that a
soldier's death was for his ``amusement'' (Oct. 18, 2007, pp. 27569,
27570); (6) accusing the President of having ``hurt'' Americans ``out of
spite'' (July 28, 2017, p. _), of torturing the American people (Jan.
23, 2019, p. _), or of inflicting harm upon Americans (July 9, 2019, p.
_); (7) alleging that the President ``puts himself above his country''
(July 17, 2018, p. _); (8) referring to the President's ``voter fraud
playbook'' (Dec. 11, 2018, p. _).
[[Page [195]]]
Personally disparaging the manner in which the President carries out
the duties of the office can constitute a personality, such as when the
remarks suggest that the President is an undemocratic leader akin to a
dictator. Remarks that have been held to be unparliamentary include: (1)
an accusation of ``abuse of power'' or ``abuse of the office'' (e.g.,
Sept. 9, 2014, p. 14314) or ``abuse of executive privilege'' (Apr. 27,
2016, p. _); (2) an accusation that the President ``disrespected the
office'' (Mar. 27, 2017, p. _) or took an action ``beneath the dignity
of the office'' (May 3, 2017, p. _); (3) an accusation of violating the
oath of office (e.g., Dec. 3, 2013, p. 18074); (4) likening the
President to a ``ruler'' (e.g., July 8, 2013, p. 10964), ``king'' (e.g.,
July 17, 2013, p. 11622), ``monarch'' (Jan. 15, 2013, p. 218),
``emperor'' (Dec. 2, 2014, p. 16380), ``modern-day pharoah'' (Jan. 23,
2019, p. _), a dictator (e.g., Feb. 6, 2018, p. _), or accusing the
President of ``quasi-monarchical'' behavior or of ``royal pageantry''
(July 11, 2019, p. _); (5) an accusation of ``tyranny'' (Mar. 16, 2016,
p. 3317) or of admiring tyrants (Feb. 26, 2019, p. _); (6) an accusation
of ``demagoguery'' or of being a demagogue (e.g., Jan. 23, 1996, p.
1144); (7) referring to the President as a ``Manchurian President''
(July 24, 2017, p. _); (8) an accusation that the President has brought
shame upon the office (Dec. 1, 2017, p. _) or the nation (Dec. 12, 2017,
p. _), ``diminished'' the office by turning it into a ``Theatre of the
Absurd'' (Jan. 19, 2018, p. _), or is a ``reality-show President'' (Jan.
17, 2019, p. _); (9) an accusation of ``authoritarian'' behavior (Feb.
14, 2018, p. _); (10) accusing the President of ``boot-licking'' foreign
leaders (July 18, 2018, p. _); referring to the President as a bully
(Jan. 15, 2019, p. _) or a ``billionaire bully'' (Jan. 9, 2019, p. _).
The Chair may admonish Members transgressing this stricture even after
other debate has intervened (Jan. 23, 1996, p. 1144; Apr. 27, 2016, p.
_).
A Member may not read in debate extraneous material personally abusive
of the President that would be improper if spoken in the Member's own
words (Mar. 3, 1993, p. 3958; Nov. 15, 1995, p. 32587; May 2, 1996, p.
10010; Mar. 17, 1998, p. 3799; July 15, 2003, p. 18170; Sept. 16, 2003,
pp. 22151, 22152; Oct. 17, 2007, p. 27538; Oct. 5, 2013, p. 15297; Sept.
28, 2015, p. 14945; Apr. 19, 2016, p. _; June 29, 2017, p. _; Jan. 17,
2018, p. _; July 12, 2018, p. _), such as material labeling the
President's statement a lie (Sept. 10, 2014, p. 14416). This prohibition
includes the recitation of another Member's criticism of the President
made off the floor (even if recited as a rebuttal to such criticism)
(Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27775; Apr. 18, 2016, p. _; Oct. 24, 2017, p. _).
Although wide latitude is permitted in debate on a proposition to
impeach the President (V, 5093), Members must abstain from language
personally offensive (V, 5094; Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829); and Members
must abstain from comparisons to the personal conduct of sitting Members
of the House or Senate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829). Furthermore, when
impeachment is not the pending business on the floor, Members may not
refer
[[Page [196]]]
to evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by the President contained
in a communication from an independent counsel pending before a House
committee (Sept. 14, 1998, p. 20171; Sept. 17, 1998, p. 20758), although
they may refer to the communication, itself, within the confines of
proper decorum in debate (Oct. 6, 1998, p. 23841), and may not otherwise
suggest that the President has done something worthy of censure or
impeachment (e.g., Feb. 2, 2017, p. _), including by reciting the vote
totals on an impeachment resolution that had been previously laid on the
table by the House (Dec. 7, 2017, p. _) or by urging the Senate to
convict the President during a trial following his impeachment by the
House (Jan. 29, 2020, p. _).
References in debate to former Presidents are not governed by these
standards (Nov. 15, 1945, p. 10735; June 27, 2002, pp. 11844, 11845),
nor are references to members of the President's Cabinet (Mar. 14, 2019,
p. _).
The Chair has advised that the protections afforded by Jefferson's
Manual and the precedents against unparliamentary references to the
President, personally, do not necessarily extend to members of his
family (Speaker Foley, July 12, 1990, p. 17206).
For discussion of the stricture against addressing remarks in debate
to the President, as in the second person, see Sec. 945, infra.
On January 27, 1909 (VIII, 2497), the House adopted a report of a
committee appointed to investigate the question, which report in part
stated:
``The freedom of speech in debate in the House should never be denied
or abridged, but freedom of speech in debate does not mean license to
indulge in personal abuses or ridicule. The right of Members of the two
Houses of Congress to criticize the official acts of the President and
other executive officers is beyond question, but this right is subject
to proper rules requiring decorum in debate. Such right of criticism is
inherent upon legislative authority. The right to legislate involves the
right to consider conditions as they are and to contrast present
conditions with those of the past or those desired in the future. The
right to correct abuses by legislation carries the right to consider and
discuss abuses which exist or which are feared.
``It is, however, the duty of the House to require its Members in
speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the
House to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without
unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among its Members or
antagonism from those other branches of the Government with which the
House is correlated.''
It <> is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said
on the same subject in the other House, or the particular votes or
majorities on it
[[Page [197]]]
there; because the opinion of each House should be left to its own
independency, not to be influenced by the proceedings of the other; and
the quoting them might beget reflections leading to a misunderstanding
between the two Houses. 8 Grey, 22.
Until former clause 1 of rule XIV (currently clause 1 of rule XVII)
was amended in the 100th and 101st Congresses (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987,
p. 6; H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72), this principle of comity and
parliamentary law as described by Jefferson governed debate in the House
to the full extent of its provisions (see generally, V, 5095-5130; VIII,
2501-21; July 31, 1984, p. 21670; Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 44). From
the 101st Congress through the 108th Congress, clause 1 of rule XVII
permitted some factual references that were a matter of public record,
references to the pendency or sponsorship in the Senate of certain
measures, factual descriptions concerning a measure under debate in the
House, and quotations from Senate proceedings relevant to the making of
legislative history on a pending measure. In the 109th Congress clause 1
was amended to permit debate to include references to the Senate or its
Members but within the general stricture that requires Members to avoid
personality (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Under the new
standard, remarks may urge the Senate to take a particular action (Mar.
21, 2010, p. 4105). For a recitation of precedents under the former
rule, see Sec. 371 of the House Rules and Manual for the 108th Congress
(H. Doc. 107-284).
Since the adoption of the new rule, the following references to the
Senate or its Members have been held unparliamentary: (1) insinuating
that a Senator or the Majority Leader lied (Dec. 20, 2011, pp. 21444,
21446; Sept. 28, 2018, p. _); (2) accusing Senate Republicans of
hypocrisy (May 16, 2005, p. 9757); (3) accusing a Senator of making
slanderous statements (June 17, 2005, p. 13009; June 21, 2005, p.
13408); (4) attributing to a Senator a list of offenses under
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (Oct. 18, 2005,
p. 22987); (5) accusing a Senator of corruption (Oct. 13, 2009, p.
24720), taking bribes (Jan. 19, 2010, p. 209), or being unethical (Aug.
2, 2012, p. 13256); (6) accusing the Republican leadership of
``hijacking justice'' (Feb. 1, 2017, p. _); (7) accusing a Senator of
giving ``aid and comfort'' to the enemy (Dec. 13, 2005, p. 28162); (8)
referring to a Senator as ``disgraceful'' (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14985) or a
Senate action as a ``disgrace'' (Apr. 18, 2013, p. 5539), or
sarcastically as ``courageous'' (July 22, 2011, p. 11831-33); (9)
referring to Senate Democrats (May 18, 2005, p. 10136) or liberals in
the Senate (July 30, 2011, p. 12531) as ``cowardly''; (10) stating a
``low opinion'' of the Senate (Apr. 1, 2011, p. 4966); (11) stating that
the Majority Leader ``has a high opinion of himself'' (Dec. 20, 2011, p.
21392); (12) accusing a Senator of ``taunting'' (May 22, 2014, p. 8972)
or of childish behavior (Jan. 24, 2019, p. _); (13) accusing
[[Page [198]]]
a Senator of being prejudiced, racist, or of making a racist comment
(Jan. 12, 2017, p. _); (14) accusing several Senators of an abuse of
power (Nov. 2, 2017, p. _); (15) accusing a Senator of criminal conduct
or harassment (Nov. 16, 2017, p. _); (15) referring to a Senator as a
``lightweight'' (Dec. 12, 2017, p. _) or an ``idiot'' (Dec. 20, 2017, p.
_).
It remains the duty of the Chair to call to order a Member who engages
in personality with respect to a Senator (see Sec. 374, infra), and the
Chair may admonish a Member for unparliamentary references even after
intervening recognition (Oct. 12, 1999, p. 24954; Nov. 15, 2001, p.
22596). Although the Chair is under a duty to caution Members against
unparliamentary references, the Chair will not advise Members on how to
construct their remarks to avoid improper references (Feb. 25, 2004, pp.
2409-15). A Member may not read in debate extraneous material regarding
a Senator that would be improper if spoken in the Member's own words
(Nov. 16, 2017, p. _; Dec. 12, 2017, p. _; Sept. 28, 2018, p. _).
The prohibition against improper references to Senators includes (1) a
reference not explicitly naming the Senator (VIII, 2512; Feb. 23, 1994,
p. 2658; June 30, 1995, p. 18153; Feb. 27, 1997, pp. 2768, 2769); (2)
the reading of a paper making criticisms of a Senator (V, 5127); (3) a
reference to another person's criticism of a Senator (Aug. 4, 1983, p.
23145). Similarly, the Chair has consistently held that if references to
the Senate are appropriate, the Member delivering them is not required
to use the term ``the other body,'' (Oct. 4, 1984, p. 30047) and, by the
same token, references to ``the other body'' will not cure
unparliamentary references directed to the Senate (e.g., Oct. 2, 2002,
p. 18913; Apr. 2, 2004, pp. 6394, 6395).
Under the earlier form of the rule, the Chair held that remarks in
debate during the pendency of an impeachment resolution may not include
comparisons to the personal conduct of sitting Members of the House or
Senate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829) and remarks in debate may not criticize
words spoken in the Senate by one not a Member of that body in the
course of an impeachment trial (V, 5106). After examination by a
committee under the earlier form of the rule, a speech reflecting on the
character of the Senate was ordered to be stricken from the Record on
the ground that it tended to create ``unfriendly conditions between the
two bodies * * * obstructive of wise legislation and little short of a
public calamity'' (V, 5129). Under the earlier form of the rule, where a
Member had been assailed in the Senate, he was permitted to explain his
own conduct and motives without bringing the whole controversy into
discussion or assailing the Senator (V, 5123-5126). Propositions
relating to breaches of these principles were entertained as a matter of
privilege (V, 5129, 6980).
The precise standard in former clause 1 of rule XIV for references to
``individual Members of the Senate'' did not apply to references to
former Senators (Dec. 14, 1995, p. 36968).
The official policies, actions, and opinions of a Senator who is a
candidate for President or Vice President (as, in modern practice, with
one who is not) may be criticized in terms not personally offensive
(Speaker Wright,
[[Page [199]]]
Sept. 29, 1988, p. 26683), but references attacking the character or
integrity of a Senator in that context are not in order (Oct. 30, 1979,
p. 30150).
References in debate to the Vice President (as President of the
Senate) are governed by the standards of reference permitted toward the
President, as under the earlier form of the rule. As such, a Member may
criticize in debate the policies, or candidacy, of the Vice President
but may not engage in personality (Dec. 14, 1995, p. 36968; July 14,
1998, p. 15314; Sept. 20, 2000, p. 18639). For example, it is not in
order to allude to ``wrongdoings [including] fund-raising telephone
calls by the Vice President'' (Mar. 14, 2000, p. 2716); to attribute to
him a list of offenses under investigation by a special prosecutor (Oct.
18, 2005, p. 22987); to suggest that the House should investigate him in
connection with government contracts awarded to his former employer
(June 15, 2006, p. 11480); to speculate that he might someday pardon the
President (Apr. 12, 2000, p. 5419); to accuse him of lying (Sept. 20,
2000, p. 18639; Sept. 21, 2000, p. 18789; Feb. 16, 2006, p. 1960; Mar.
6, 2007, p. 5412); to suggest ``he has a problem with the truth'' (Oct.
5, 2000, p. 21014); to allege ``unethical behavior'' or ``corruption''
(see, e.g., Oct. 29, 2003, pp. 26400-402; Nov. 4, 2003, pp. 27070,
27071), including innuendo suggesting policy choices were made on the
basis of personal pecuniary gain (July 7, 2004, p. 14582; Sept. 13,
2005, pp. 20238, 20239) or accusations of abuse of power (July 14, 2004,
p. 15501); to describe him as ``arrogant'' (June 28, 2007, p. 17926;
Sept. 25, 2008, p. 21781); to question the patriotism of a major-party
nominee for the office (Sept. 9, 2016, p. _). The rule also precludes
the insertion in the Record of a paper making improper references to the
Vice President (Sept. 19, 2000, p. 18580).
A Member may not read in debate extraneous material regarding the
Vice President that would be improper if spoken in the Member's own
words (Feb. 16, 2006, p. 1960).
Neither <> House can exercise any authority over a Member or
officer of the other, but should complain to the House of which he is,
and leave the punishment to them.
In a notable instance, wherein a Member of the House had assaulted a
Senator in the Senate Chamber for words spoken in debate, the Senate
examined the breach of privilege and transmitted its report to the
House, which punished the Member (II, 1622). A Senator having assailed a
House Member in debate, the House messaged to the Senate a resolution
declaring the language a breach of privilege and requested the Senate to
take appropriate action (Sept. 27, 1951, p. 12270). The Senator
subsequently asked unanimous consent to correct his remarks in the
permanent Congressional Record, but objection was raised (Sept. 28,
1951, p. 12383). But where certain Members of the House, in a published
letter, sought to influence
[[Page [200]]]
the vote of a Senator in an impeachment trial, the House declined to
consider the matter as a breach of privilege (III, 2657). Although on
one occasion it was held that a resolution offered in the House
requesting the Senate to expunge from the Record statements in criticism
of a Member of the House did not constitute a question of privilege,
being in violation of the rule prohibiting references to the Senate in
debate (VIII, 2519), a properly drafted resolution referring to language
published in the Record of Senate proceedings as constituting a breach
of privilege and requesting the Senate to take appropriate action
concerning the subject has been held to present a question of the
privileges of the House (VIII, 2516).
* * * <> Where the complaint is of words
disrespectfully spoken by a Member of another House, it is difficult to
obtain punishment, because of the rules supposed necessary to be
observed (as to the immediate noting down of words) for the security of
Members. Therefore it is the duty of the House, and more particularly of
the Speaker, to interfere immediately, and not to permit expressions to
go unnoticed which may give a ground of complaint to the other House,
and introduce proceedings and mutual accusations between the two Houses,
which can hardly be terminated without difficulty and disorder. 3 Hats.,
51.
A rule of comity prohibiting most references in debate to the Senate
was first enunciated in Jefferson's Manual and was strictly enforced in
the House through the 108th Congress (albeit with certain exceptions
adopted in the 100th and 101st Congresses in the former clause 1(b) of
rule XVII) (Sec. 371, supra and Sec. 945, infra). In the 109th Congress
clause 1 was amended to permit references to the Senate or its Members,
even critical references, so long as avoiding personality (sec. 2(g), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Nevertheless, it remains the duty of the
Chair to call to order a Member who violates the rule in debate or
through an insertion in the Record.
The Chair has distinguished between engaging in personality toward
another Member of the House, as to which the Chair normally awaits a
point of order from the floor, and improper references to Members of the
Senate, which violate comity between the Houses, as to which the Chair
[[Page [201]]]
normally takes initiative (Feb. 27, 1997, pp. 2778, 2779). The Chair may
admonish Members to avoid unparliamentary references to the Senate even
after intervening recognition (Oct. 12, 1999, p. 24954). Pending
consideration of a measure relating to the Senate, the Speaker announced
his intention to strictly enforce this provision of Jefferson's Manual
prohibiting improper references to the Senate, and to deny recognition
to Members violating the prohibition, subject to permission of the House
to proceed in order (Speaker O'Neill, June 16, 1982, p. 13843). Under
the earlier form of clause 1 of rule XVII, the Chair refused to respond
to hypothetical questions as to the propriety of possible
characterizations of Senate actions before their use in debate (Oct. 24,
1985, p. 28819). For a further discussion of the Speaker's duties
regarding unparliamentary debate, see Sec. Sec. 960-961, infra.
No <> Member may be present when a bill or any
business concerning himself is debating; nor is any Member to speak to
the merits of it till he withdraws. 2 Hats., 219. The rule is that if a
charge against a Member arise out of a report of a committee, or
examination of witnesses in the House, as the Member knows from that to
what points he is to direct his exculpation, he may be heard to those
points before any question is moved or stated against him. He is then to
be heard, and withdraw before any question is moved. But if the question
itself is the charge, as for breach of order or matter arising in the
debate, then the charge must be stated (that is, the question must be
moved), himself heard, and then to withdraw. 2 Hats., 121, 122.
In 1832, during proceedings for the censure of a Member, the Speaker
informed the Member that he should withdraw (II, 1366); but this seems
to be an exceptional instance of the enforcement of the law of
Parliament. In other cases, after the proposition for censure or
expulsion has been proposed, Members have been heard in debate, either
as a matter of right (II, 1286), as a matter of course (II, 1246, 1253),
by express provision (II, 1273), and in writing (II, 1273), or by
unanimous consent (II, 1275). A Member against whom a resolution of
censure was pending was asked by the Speaker if he desired to be heard
(VI, 236). But a Member was
[[Page [202]]]
not permitted to depute another Member to speak in his behalf (II,
1273). In modern practice the Member has been permitted to speak in his
own behalf, both in censure (June 10, 1980, pp. 13802-11) and expulsion
proceedings (Oct. 2, 1980, pp. 28953-78; July 24, 2002, pp. 14299,
14309). A Member-elect has been permitted to participate in debate on a
resolution relating to his right to take the oath (Jan. 10, 1967, p.
23).
Where <> the private interests of a Member are concerned in a bill or
question he is to withdraw. And where such an interest has appeared, his
voice has been disallowed, even after a division. In a case so contrary,
not only to the laws of decency, but to the fundamental principle of the
social compact, which denies to any man to be a judge in his own cause,
it is for the honor of the House that this rule of immemorial observance
should be strictly adhered to. 2 Hats., 119, 121; 6 Grey, 368.
In the House it has not been usual for the Member to withdraw from
debate when the Member's private interests are concerned in a pending
measure, although clause 1 of rule III addresses voting in such a
contingency. In one instance the Senate disallowed a vote given by a
Senator on a question relating to his own right to a seat; but the House
has never had occasion to proceed so far (V, 5959).
No <> Member is to come
into the House with his head covered, nor to remove from one place to
another with his hat on, nor is to put on his hat in coming in or
removing, until he be set down in his place. Scob., 6.
In 1837 the parliamentary practice of wearing hats during the session
was abolished by adoption of current clause 5 of rule XVII. In its
current form, the rule specifies that religious headdress is not
prohibited. See Sec. 962, infra. In the 116th Congress, the Speaker
announced that discretion would be applied in enforcing the prohibition
with respect to hats or other head coverings worn out of medical
necessity (Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
[[Page [203]]]
<> A question of
order may be adjourned to give time to look into precedents. 2 Hats.,
118.
As described in Sec. Sec. 628 and 628a, infra, the Speaker has
declined, on a difficult question of order, to rule until taking time
for examination (III, 2725; VI, 432; VII, 2106; VIII, 2174, 2396, 3475),
and may take a parliamentary inquiry under advisement, especially if not
related to the pending proceedings (VIII, 2174; Apr. 7, 1992, p. 8274).
However, it is conceivable that a case might arise wherein this
privilege of the Chair would require approval of the majority of the
House to prevent arbitrary obstruction of the pending business by the
Chair. The law of Parliament evidently contemplates that the adjournment
of a question of order shall be controlled by the House. On occasion,
the Chair has reversed as erroneous a decision previously made (VI, 639;
VII, 849; VIII, 2794, 3435).
<> In
Parliament, all decisions of the Speaker may be controlled by the House.
3 Grey, 319.
The Speaker's decision on a question of order is subject to appeal by
any Member (clause 5 of rule I).
sec. xviii--orders of the house
Of <> right, the
door of the House ought not to be shut, but to be kept by porters, or
Sergeants-at-Arms, assigned for that purpose. Mod ten. Parl., 23.
The <> only case where a Member has a right to insist on
anything, is where he calls for the execution of a subsisting order of
the House. Here there having been already a resolution, any person has a
right to insist that the Speaker, or any other whose duty it is, shall
carry it into execution; and no debate or delay can be had on it.
As a request for unanimous consent to consider a bill is in effect a
request to suspend the order of business temporarily, a Member has the
right at any time to demand the ``regular order'' (IV, 3058). If the
regular order is demanded pending a request for unanimous consent,
further reservation
[[Page [204]]]
of the right to object thereto is precluded (Speaker Foley, Nov. 14,
1991, p. 32129; Nov. 7, 2009, pp. 27189, 27190). Occasionally a Member
may incorrectly demand the ``regular order'' to assert that remarks are
not confined to the question under debate. On such an occasion the Chair
may treat the demand as a point of order requiring a ruling by the Chair
(May 1, 1996, pp. 9888, 9889).
<> Thus
any Member has a right to have the House or gallery cleared of
strangers, an order existing for that purpose; or to have the House told
when there is not a quorum present. 2 Hats., 87, 129. How far an order
of the House is binding, see Hakew., 392.
Absent an existing order for that purpose, a Member may not demand
that the galleries be cleared, because this power resides in the House
(II, 1353), which has by rule extended the power to the Speaker (clause
2 of rule I) and the chair of the Committee of the Whole (clause 1 of
rule XVIII), but not to the individual Member.
But <> where an order is made that any particular matter be taken
up on a particular day, there a question is to be put, when it is called
for, whether the House will now proceed to that matter? Where orders of
the day are on important or interesting matter, they ought not to be
proceeded on till an hour at which the House is usually full [which in
Senate is at noon].
The rule of the House providing for raising the question of
consideration (clause 3 of rule XVI) has, in connection with the
practice as to special orders of business, superseded this provision of
the parliamentary law.
Orders <> of the day
may be discharged at any time, and a new one made for a different day, 3
Grey, 48, 313.
The House found the use of ``Orders of the day'' as a method of
disposing business impracticable as long ago as 1818, and not long after
abandoned their use (IV, 3057), although an interesting reference to
them survives
[[Page [205]]]
in clause 1 of rule XIV. The House proceeds under rule XIV unless that
order is displaced by the use of special orders of business or the
intervention of privileged business.
When <> a session
is drawing to a close and the important bills are all brought in, the
House, in order to prevent interruption by further unimportant bills,
sometimes comes to a resolution that no new bill be brought in, except
it be sent from the other House. 3 Grey, 156.
This provision is obsolete so far as the practice of the House is
concerned, because business goes on uninterruptedly until the Congress
expires (clause 6 of rule XI).
All <> orders of the House determine with the
session; and one taken under such an order may, after the session is
ended, be discharged on a habeas corpus. Raym., 120; Jacob's L. D. by
Ruffhead; Parliament, 1 Lev., 165, Pitchara's case.
The House, by clause 6 of rule XI and the practice thereunder, has
modified the rule of Parliament as to business pending at the end of a
session that is not at the same time the end of a Congress. Some
standing orders, however, like those providing for the hour of daily
meeting of the House (I, 104-109), expire with a session. In 1866 the
House discussed its power to imprison for a period longer than the
duration of the existing session (II, 1629), and in 1870, for assaulting
a Member returning to the House from absence on leave, Patrick Woods was
committed for a term extending beyond the adjournment of the session,
but not beyond the term of the existing House (II, 1628).
Where <> the Constitution authorizes each House to
determine the rules of its proceedings it must mean in those cases
(legislative, executive, or judiciary) submitted to them by the
Constitution, or in something relating to these, and necessary toward
their execution. But orders and resolutions
[[Page [206]]]
are sometimes entered in the journals having no relation to these, such
as acceptances of invitations to attend orations, to take part in
procession, etc. These must be understood to be merely conventional
among those who are willing to participate in the ceremony, and are
therefore, perhaps, improperly placed among the records of the House.
The <> House has frequently examined its constitutional power to make
rules, and this power also has been discussed by the Supreme Court (V,
6755). It has been settled that Congress may not by law interfere with
the constitutional right of a future House to make its own rules (I, 82;
V, 6765, 6766), or to determine for itself the order of proceedings in
effecting its organization (I, 242-245; V, 6765, 6766). It also has been
determined, after long discussion and trial by practice, that one House
may not continue its rules in force to and over its successor (I, 187,
210; V, 6002, 6743-6747; Jan. 22, 1971, p. 132). Congress may bind
itself in matters of procedure (II, 1341; V, 6767, 6768), but its
ability to so bind a succeeding Congress has been called into doubt (V,
6766). In one case the Chair denied the authority of such a law that
conflicted with a rule of the House (IV, 3579). The theories involved in
this question have been most carefully examined and decisively
determined in reference to the law of 1851, which directs the method of
procedure for the House in its constitutional function of judging the
elections of its Members; and it has been determined that this law is
not of absolute binding force on the House, but rather a wholesome rule
not to be departed from except for cause (I, 597, 713, 726, 833; II,
1122). In modern practice, existing statutory procedures, including
provisions of concurrent resolutions, are readopted as Rules of the
House at the beginning of each Congress (see, e.g., H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 462). This practice was codified in clause 1 of rule XXVIII
(current rule XXIX) when the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 75, see Sec. 1105, infra). Where
the House amended a standing rule of general applicability during a
session and the amended rule did not require prospective application,
the rule was interpreted to apply retroactively (Sept. 28, 1993, p.
22719).
As to the participation on occasions of ceremony, the House has
entered its orders on its journal; but it rarely attends outside the
Capitol building as a body (July 25, 2002, p. 14645), usually preferring
that its Members go individually (V, 7061-7064) or that it be
represented by a committee (V, 7053-7056) or other delegation (May 28,
1987, p. 14031). It has discussed, but not settled, its power to compel
a Member to accompany it outside the Hall on an occasion of combined
business and ceremony (II,
[[Page [207]]]
1139). The House typically remains in session for the inauguration of
the President on the portico of the Capitol (Jan. 20, 1969, pp. 1288-92)
and the mace is carried to the ceremony, but in one instance the House
adjourned until the day after the inauguration of the President in
response to increased security concerns related to a recent breach of
the Capitol building, and the mace was not carried to the ceremony in
that instance (Jan. 19, 2021, p. _).
sec. xix--petition
<> A
petition prays something. A remonstrance has no prayer. 1 Grey, 58.
The Rules of the House make no mention of remonstrances, but do
mention petitions and memorials (clause 3 of rule XII). Resolutions of
State legislatures and of primary assemblies of the people are received
as memorials (IV, 3326, 3327), but papers general or descriptive in form
may not be presented as memorials (IV, 3325).
Petitions <> must be subscribed by the petitioners Scob., 87; L. Parl.,
c. 22; 9 Grey, 362, unless they are attending, 1 Grey, 401 or unable to
sign, and averred by a member, 3 Grey, 418. But a petition not
subscribed, but which the member presenting it affirmed to be all in the
handwriting of the petitioner, and his name written in the beginning,
was on the question (March 14, 1800) received by the Senate. The
averment of a member, or of somebody without doors, that they know the
handwriting of the petitioners, is necessary, if it be questioned. 6
Grey, 36. It must be presented by a member, not by the petitioners, and
must be opened by him holding it in his hand. 10 Grey, 57.
In the House petitions have been presented for many years by filing
with the Clerk (clause 3 of rule XII). Members file them, and
petitioners do not attend on the House in the sense implied in the
parliamentary
[[Page [208]]]
law. In cases in which a petition set forth serious changes, the
petitioner was required to have his signature attested by a notary (III,
2030, footnote).
Regularly <> a motion for receiving it must be made and seconded, and a
question put, whether it shall be received, but a cry from the House of
``received,'' or even silence, dispenses with the formality of this
question. It is then to be read at the table and disposed of.
Before the adoption of the provisions of clause 3 of rule XII,
petitions were presented from the floor by Members, and questions
frequently arose as to the reception thereof (IV, 3350-3356). But under
the present practice such procedure does not occur.
sec. xx--motion
<> When a motion has been made, it is not to be put
to the question or debated until it is seconded. Scob., 21.
It is then, and not till then, in possession of the House, and can not
be withdrawn but by leave of the House. It is to be put into writing, if
the House or Speaker require it, and must be read to the House by the
Speaker as often as any Member desires it for his information. 2 Hats.,
82.
The House has long since dispensed with the requirement of a second
for ordinary motions (clause 1 of rule XVI; V, 5304); and the
requirement of a second for a motion to suspend the rules was eliminated
in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). Clause 2 of rule
XVI provides further that a motion may be withdrawn before decision or
amendment (see Sec. 904, infra); and clause 1 of the same rule provides
that the motion shall be reduced to writing on the demand of any Member
(see Sec. 902, infra). In the practice of the House, when a paper on
which the House is to vote has been read once, the reading may not be
required again unless the House shall order it read (V, 5260).
[[Page [209]]]
It <> might be asked whether a motion for adjournment or for the
orders of the day can be made by one Member while another is speaking?
It can not. When two Members offer to speak, he who rose first is to be
heard, and it is a breach of order in another to interrupt him, unless
by calling him to order if he departs from it. And the question of order
being decided, he is still to be heard through. A call for adjournment,
or for the order of the day, or for the question, by gentlemen from
their seats, is <> not a motion. No motion
can be made without rising and addressing the Chair. Such calls are
themselves breaches of order, which, though the Member who has risen may
respect, as an expression of impatience of the House against further
debate, yet, if he chooses, he has a right to go on.
The House has modified the principle that the Member who seeks
recognition first is to be recognized (clause 2 of rule XVII), and, in
the 115th Congress, removed requirements that a Member rise to seek
recognition (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _); but in other
respects the principles of this paragraph are in force.
sec. xxi--resolutions
When <> the
House commands, it is by an ``order.'' But fact, principles, and their
own opinions and purposes, are expressed in the form of resolutions.
A resolution for an allowance of money to the clerks being moved, it
was objected to as not in order, and so ruled by the Chair; but on
appeal
[[Page [210]]]
to the Senate (i.e., a call for their sense by the President, on account
of doubt in his mind, according to clause 5 of rule XXII) the decision
was overruled. Jour., Senate, June 1, 1796. I presume the doubt was,
whether an allowance of money could be made otherwise than by bill.
In <> the
modern practice concurrent resolutions have been developed as a means of
expressing fact, principles, opinions, and purposes of the two Houses
(II, 1566, 1567). Joint committees are authorized by resolutions of this
form (III, 1998, 1999), and they are used in authorizing correction of
bills agreed to by both Houses (VII, 1042), amendment of enrolled bills
(VII, 1041), amendment of conference reports (VIII, 3308), requests for
return of bills sent to the President (VII, 1090, 1091), authorizing the
printing of certain enrolled bills by hand in the remaining days of a
session (Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32875), providing for joint session to
receive a message from the President (VIII, 3335, 3336), authorizing the
printing of congressional documents (July 1, 1969, p. 17948); and fixing
time for final adjournment (VIII, 3365). The Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (P.L. 93-344) provides for the adoption by both Houses of
concurrent resolutions on the budget that become binding on both Houses
with respect to congressional budget procedures (see Sec. 1127, infra).
A concurrent resolution is binding on neither House until agreed to by
both (IV, 3379), and, because not legislative in nature, is not sent to
the President for approval (IV, 3483). A concurrent resolution is not a
bill or joint resolution within the meaning of former clause 5(b) of
rule XXI (requiring a three-fifths vote for approval of such a measure
if carrying an increase in a rate of tax on income) (Speaker Gingrich,
May 18, 1995, p. 13499). In the 106th Congress the Senate neglected to
adopt a House concurrent resolution vacating signatures of the Presiding
Officers on an enrolled bill and laying that bill on the table as
overtaken by another enactment (H. Con. Res. 234, adopted by the House
on Nov. 18, 1999, p. 30719). The Congress subsequently enacted section
1401 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act of 2001, which adopted that
concurrent resolution (as enacted by P.L. 106-554). For a concurrent
resolution requesting that the Secretary of the Senate return an
enrolled bill to the House, providing that the Speaker's signature be
rescinded upon its return, and providing for the subsequent reenrollment
of the bill with a specified correction, see S. Con. Res. 63, 112th
Congress, adopted by the House on Dec. 19, 2012, p. 17752.
Another <> development of the
modern practice is the joint resolution, which is a bill so far as the
processes of the Congress in relation to it are concerned (IV, 3375;
VII, 1036). With the exception of joint resolutions proposing amendments
to the Constitution (V, 7029), all these resolutions are sent to the
President
[[Page [211]]]
for approval and have the full force of law. They are used for what may
be called the incidental, unusual, or inferior purposes of legislating
(IV, 3372), as extending the national thanks to individuals (IV, 3370),
the invitation to Lafayette to visit America (V, 7082, footnote), notice
to a foreign government of the abrogation of a treaty (V, 6270),
declaration of intervention in Cuba (V, 6321), correction of an error in
an existing act of legislation (IV, 3519; VII, 1092), enlargement of
scope of inquiries provided by law (VII, 1040), election of managers for
National Soldiers' Homes (V, 7336), special appropriations for minor and
incidental purposes (V, 7319), continuing appropriations (H.J. Res. 790,
P.L. 91-33), establishing the date for convening of Congress (H.J. Res.
1041, P.L. 91-182), extending the submission date under law for
transmittal of a report to Congress by the President (H.J. Res. 635,
P.L. 97-469), and extending the termination date for a law (H.J. Res.
864, P.L. 91-59). At one time they were used for purposes of general
legislation; but the two Houses finally concluded that a bill was the
proper instrumentality for this purpose (IV, 3370-3373). A joint
resolution has been changed to a bill by amendment (IV, 3374), but in
the later practice it has become impracticable to do so.
Where a choice between a concurrent resolution and a joint resolution
is not dictated by law, the House by its vote on consideration of a
measure decides which is the appropriate vehicle (and a point of order
does not lie that a concurrent rather than a joint resolution would be
more appropriate to express the sense of the Congress on an issue)
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 4.1).
* * * * *
sec. xxiii--bills, leave to bring in
When <> a Member desires to bring in a bill on any subject, he states
to the House in general terms the causes for doing it, and concludes by
moving for leave to bring in a bill, entitled, &c. Leave being given, on
the question, a committee is appointed to prepare and bring in the bill.
The mover and seconder are always appointed of this committee, and one
or more in addition. Hakew., 132; Scob., 40. It is to be presented
fairly written, without any erasure or interlineation, or the Speaker
may refuse it. Scob., 41; 1 Grey, 82, 84.
[[Page [212]]]
This provision is obsolete because rule XII provides an entirely
different method of introducing bills through the hopper. The
introduction of bills by leave was gradually dropped by the practice of
the House, and after 1850 the present system of permitting Members to
introduce at will bills for printing and reference began to develop (IV,
3365).
sec. xxiv--bills, first reading
When <> a bill is first presented, the Clerk reads it at the table, and
hands it to the Speaker, who, rising, states to the House the title of
the bill; that this is the first time of reading it; and the question
will be, whether it shall be read a second time? then sitting down to
give an opening for objections. If none be made, he rises again, and
puts the question, whether it shall be read a second time? Hakew., 137,
141. A bill cannot be amended on the first reading, 6 Grey, 286; nor is
it usual for it to be opposed then, but it may be done, and rejected.
D'Ewes, 335, col. 1; 3 Hats., 198.
This provision is obsolete, the practice under clause 8 of rule XVI
now governing the procedure of the House.
sec. xxv--bills, second reading
The <> second reading must regularly be on another day. Hakew., 143.
It is done by the Clerk at the table, who then hands it to the Speaker.
The Speaker, rising, states to the House the title of the bill; that
this is the second time of reading it; and that the question will be,
whether it shall be committed, or engrossed and read a third time? But
if the bill came from the other House, as it always comes engrossed, he
states that the
[[Page [213]]]
question will be, whether it shall be read a third time? and before he
has so reported the state of the bill, no one is to speak to it. Hakew.,
143, 146.
In the Senate of the United States, the President reports the title of
the bill; that this is the second time of reading it; that it is now to
be considered as in a Committee of the Whole; and the question will be,
whether it shall be read a third time? or that it may be referred to a
special committee?
The provisions of this paragraph are to a large extent obsolete, the
practice under clause 8 of rule XVI now governing.
sec. xxvi--bills, commitment
If <> on motion and question it be decided
that the bill shall be committed, it may then be moved to be referred to
Committee of the Whole House, or to a special committee. If the latter,
the Speaker proceeds to name the committee. Any member also may name a
single person, and Clerk is to write him down as of the committee. But
the House have a controlling power over the names and number, if a
question be moved against any one; and may in any case put in and put
out whom they please.
This paragraph is to a large extent obsolete. Bills are referred in
the first instance by the Speaker to committees as prescribed by the
rules (rule XII), and references of reported bills to the proper
calendar of the House are also made under direction of the Speaker
(clause 2 of rule XIII). Reference of a matter under consideration is
made by a motion to refer that specifies the committee and may provide
for a select committee of a specified number of persons (IV, 4402). But
such committee is appointed only by the Speaker (clause 11 of rule I).
[[Page [214]]]
Clause 2 of rule XIX provides that the Speaker may entertain a motion
to commit to a standing or select committee with or without instructions
pending or following the ordering of the previous question.
Those <> who take exceptions to some particulars in the bill are to
be of the committee, but none who speak directly against the body of the
bill; for he that would totally destroy will not amend it, Hakew., 146;
Town., col., 208; D'Ewes, 634, col. 2; Scob., 47; or as is said, 5 Grey,
145, the child is not to be put to a nurse that cares not for it, 6
Grey, 373. It is therefore a constant rule ``that no man is to be
employed in any matter who has declared himself against it.'' And when
any member who is against the bill hears himself named of its committee
he ought to ask to be excused. Thus, March 7, 1806, Mr. Hadley was, on
the question being put, excused from being of a committee, declaring
himself to be against the matter itself. Scob., 46.
This provision is inapplicable in the House because committees have
majority and minority representation (IV, 4467, 4477, footnote).
The <> Clerk may
deliver the bill to any member of the committee, Town, col. 138; but it
is usual to deliver it to him who is first named.
Following introduction, reference, and numbering, bills are sent to
the Government Publishing Office for printing. Printed copies of all
bills are distributed in accordance with law (44 U.S.C. 706) and copies
are made available to the committee to which referred.
[[Page [215]]]
In <> some cases the House has ordered a
committee to withdraw immediately into the committee chamber and act on
and bring back the bill, sitting the House. Scob., 48. * * *
This procedure is rarely followed in the House, because the order of
business does not provide for such a motion.
When <> a bill is under consideration, however, the House may on
motion commit it with instructions to report forthwith with certain
specified amendment (V, 5548, 5549), in which case the chair of the
committee reports at once without awaiting action of the committee (V,
5545-5547; VIII, 2730, 2732) and the bill is in order for immediate
consideration (V, 5550; VIII, 2735).
The <> motion to discharge
a committee from the consideration of an ordinary legislative
proposition is not privileged under the rules (IV, 3533, 4693; VIII,
2316), but if a matter involves a question of privilege (III, 2585,
2709; VIII, 2316), or is privileged under the rule relating to
resolutions of inquiry (clause 7 of rule XIII; III, 1871; IV, 4695) or
is provided privilege under statutes enacted under the rulemaking power
of the House (see Sec. 1130, infra), the motion to discharge is
admitted. The motion is not debatable (III, 1868; IV, 4695), except as
follows: (1) under statutory procedures; (2) under clause 2 of rule XV;
and (3) under modern practice of the House, a motion to discharge a
vetoed bill (Mar. 7, 1990, p. 3620; Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23815). The
motion may be laid on the table (V, 5407; VI, 415), but the question of
consideration may not be demanded against it (V, 4977).
* * * <> A
committee meet when and where they please, if the House has not ordered
time and place for them, 6 Grey, 370; but they can only act when
together, and not by separate consultation and consent--nothing being
the report of the committee but what has been agreed to in committee
actually assembled.
For discussion of committee procedure generally, see Sec. 792, infra.
In the House the standing committees usually meet in their committee
rooms, but there is no rule requiring them to meet there, and in the
absence of direction by the House, committees designate the time and
place of their meetings (VIII, 2214).
[[Page [216]]]
Standing committees fix regular meeting days for the transaction of
business (not less frequently than monthly, under clause 2(b) of rule
XI), and additional meetings may be called by the chair as noticed
(clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI) or by a majority of the committee in certain
circumstances (clause 2(c) of rule XI). On a fixed date of meeting, a
quorum of the committee may convene and transact business regardless of
the absence of the chair (VIII, 2214), though as of the 113th Congress
such regular meeting is held only if properly noticed by the chair (sec.
2(f)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). A committee meeting being
adjourned for lack of a quorum, a majority of the members of the
committee may not, without the consent of the chair and notice pursuant
to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI, call a meeting of the committee on the
same day (VIII, 2213). For restrictions on committee action during a
joint meeting or joint session, see clause 2(i) of rule XI.
The <> House
has adhered to the principle that a report must be authorized by a
committee acting together, and a paper signed by a majority of the
committee acting separately has been ruled out (IV, 4584; VIII, 2210-
2212, 2220; see also clause 2(h) of rule XI).
No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any committee
unless a majority of the committee were actually present (clause 2(h) of
rule XI). A report is sometimes authorized by less than a majority of
the whole committee, some members being silent or absent (II, 985, 986).
In a rare instance a majority of a committee agreed to a report, but
disagreed on the facts necessary to sustain the report (I, 819). In the
situation in which a committee finds itself unable to agree to a
positive recommendation, being equally divided, it may report the fact
to the House (I, 347; IV, 4665, 4666) and may include evidence, majority
and minority views (III, 2403), minority views alone (II, 945), or
propositions representing the opposing contentions (III, 2497; IV,
4664).
For each record vote in committee on amending or reporting a public
measure or matter, the report to the House must disclose the total
number of votes cast for and against and the names of those voting for
and against (clause 3 of rule XIII). A resolution alleging that a
committee report on a bill contained descriptions of recorded votes on
certain amendments as prescribed by clause 3(b) of rule XIII that
deliberately mischaracterized the amendments, and directing the chair of
the committee to file a supplemental report to change those
descriptions, qualified as a question of the privileges of the House
(May 3, 2005, p. 8417).
It is the duty of the chair of each committee to report or cause to be
reported promptly any measure approved by the committee and to take or
cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote (clause
2 of rule XIII); and a report must be filed within seven days following
the submission of a written request, signed by a majority of the
committee members, directing such filing (clause 2 of rule XIII).
[[Page [217]]]
It is not essential that the report of a committee be signed (II,
1274; VIII, 2229), but the minority or other separate views are signed
by those concurring in them (IV, 4671; VIII, 2229).
Objection being made that a report had not been authorized by a
committee and there being doubt as to the validity of the authorization,
the question as to the reception of the report is submitted to the House
(IV, 4588-4591). But the Speaker may decide the question if satisfied of
the validity or of the invalidity of the authorization (IV, 4584, 4592,
4593; VIII, 2211, 2212, 2222-2224). And in a case wherein it was shown
that a majority of a committee had met and authorized a report the
Speaker did not heed the fact that the meeting was not regularly called
(IV, 4594). A bill improperly reported is not entitled to its place on
the calendar (IV, 3117); but the validity of a report may not be
questioned after the House has voted to consider it (IV, 4598), or after
actual consideration has begun (IV, 4599; VIII, 2223, 2225).
Where a question was raised regarding a chair's alteration of a
committee amendment, the Speaker indicated that the proper time to raise
a point of order was when the unprivileged report was called up for
consideration (or when before the Committee on Rules for a special order
of business) and not when filed in the hopper (May 16, 1989, p. 9356). A
resolution including an allegation that the chair deliberately and
improperly refused to recognize a legitimate and timely objection by a
member of the committee to dispense with the reading of an amendment and
resolving that the House disapproves of the manner in which the chair
conducted the markup and finding that the bill considered at that markup
was not validly ordered reported was held to constitute a question of
the privileges of the House (July 18, 2003, pp. 18698; July 23, 2003, p.
19171, 19172).
<> A
majority of the committee constitutes a quorum for business. Elsynge's
Method of Passing Bills, 11.
A majority quorum is required in certain circumstances, such as
reporting a measure or recommendation (clause 2(h) of rule XI);
authorizing a subpoena (clause 2(m) of rule XI); closing a meeting or
hearing under clauses 2(a) and 2(g) of rule XI (except as provided under
clause 2(g)(2)(A) with respect to certain hearing procedures);
requesting immunity for a witness (18 U.S.C. 6005); releasing executive-
session material (clause 2(k)(7) of rule XI); and proceeding in open
session after an assertion under clause 2(k)(5) of rule XI. Each
committee may fix the number of its members, but not less than two, to
constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving evidence; and
except for the Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and Ways and
Means, a committee may fix the number of members to constitute a quorum,
which shall be not less than one-third of its members, for taking
certain other actions (clause 2(h) of rule XI). In the 116th and 117th
Congresses the House adopted a provision, effective
[[Page [218]]]
during a designated public health emergency, to count for purposes of
establishing a quorum in committee proceedings all Members participating
remotely (sec. 4(a)(4), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H.
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
A quorum of a committee may transact business and a majority of the
quorum, even though it be a minority of the whole committee, may
authorize a report (IV, 4586), but an actual quorum of a committee must
be present to make action taken valid (VIII, 2212, 2222), unless the
House authorizes less than a quorum to act (IV, 4553, 4554). A quorum of
a committee must be present when alleged perjurious testimony is given
in order to support a charge of perjury. Christoffel v. United States,
338 U.S. 84 (1949). The absence of a quorum of a committee at the time a
witness willfully fails to produce subpoenaed documents is not a valid
defense in a prosecution for contempt if the witness failed to raise
that objection before the committee. United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S.
323 (1950); United States v. Fleischman, 339 U.S. 349 (1950).
Any <> Member of the House may be present at any select committee,
but cannot vote, and must give place to all of the committee, and sit
below them. Elsynge, 12; Scob., 49.
In the 95th Congress, clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI was amended to
prohibit the exclusion of noncommittee members from nonparticipatory
attendance in any closed hearing, except in the Committee on Ethics,
unless the House by majority vote authorizes a committee or subcommittee
to close its hearings to noncommittee members (H. Res. 5, 95th Cong.,
Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70). Formerly, a committee could close its doors in
executive session meetings to persons not invited or required, including
Members of the House who were not members of the committee (III, 1694;
IV, 4558-4565; see discussion at IV, 4540).
The <> committee have full power over the bill or other paper committed
to them, except that they cannot change the title or subject. 8 Grey,
228.
In the House committees may recommend amendments to the body of a bill
or to the title but may not otherwise change the text.
[[Page [219]]]
The <> paper before a committee, whether select
or of the whole, may be a bill, resolutions, draught of an address, &c.,
and it may either originate with them or be referred to them. In every
case the whole paper is read first by the Clerk, and then by the
chairman, by paragraphs, Scob., 49, pausing at the end of each
paragraph, and putting questions for amending, if proposed. In the case
of resolutions or distinct subjects, originating with themselves, a
question is put on each separately, as amended or unamended, and no
final question on the whole, 3 Hats., 276; but if they relate to the
same subject, a question is put on the whole. If it be a bill, draught
of an address, or other paper originating with them, they proceed by
paragraphs, putting questions for amending, either by insertion or
striking out, if proposed; but no question on agreeing to the paragraphs
separately; this is reserved to the close, when a question is put on the
whole, for agreeing to it as amended or unamended. But if it be a paper
referred to them, they proceed to put questions of amendment, if
proposed, but no final question on the whole; because all parts of the
paper, having been adopted by the House, stand, of course, unless
altered or struck out by a vote. Even if they are opposed to the whole
paper, and think it cannot be made good by amendments, they cannot
reject it, but must report it back to the House without amendments, and
there make their opposition.
[[Page [220]]]
In the House it has generally been held that a select or standing
committee may not report a bill unless the subject matter has been
referred to it (IV, 4355-4360), except that under the modern practice
reports filed as privileged pursuant to clause 5 of rule XIII have been
permitted on bills and resolutions originating in certain committees and
not formally referred thereto. Pursuant to this paragraph some
committees have originated drafts of bills for consideration and
amendment before the introduction and referral of a numbered bill to
committee(s). In the older practice the Committee of the Whole
originated resolutions and bills (IV, 4705); but the later development
of the rules governing the order of business would prevent the offering
of a motion to go into Committee of the Whole for such a purpose, except
by unanimous consent.
The <> natural
order in considering and amending any paper is, to begin at the
beginning, and proceed through it by paragraphs; and this order is so
strictly adhered to in Parliament, that when a latter part has been
amended, you cannot recur back and make an alteration in a former part.
2 Hats., 90. In numerous assemblies this restraint is doubtless
important. But in the Senate of the United States, though in the main we
consider and amend the paragraphs in their natural order, yet
recurrences are indulged; and they seem, on the whole, in that small
body, to produce advantages overweighing their inconveniences.
In the House, amendments to House bills are made before the previous
question is ordered, pending the engrossment and third reading (IV,
3392; V, 5781; VII, 1051), and to Senate bills before the third reading
(IV, 3393). Amendments may be offered to any part of the bill without
proceeding consecutively section by section or paragraph by paragraph
(IV, 3392). In the Committee of the Whole, bills are read section by
section or paragraph by paragraph and after a section or paragraph has
been passed it is no longer subject to amendment (clause 5 of rule
XVIII; Sec. 980, infra; July 12, 1961, p. 12405).
[[Page [221]]]
To <> this natural order of beginning at the
beginning there is a single exception found in parliamentary usage. When
a bill is taken up in committee, or on its second reading, they postpone
the preamble till the other parts of the bill are gone through. The
reason is, that on consideration of the body of the bill such
alterations may therein be made as may also occasion the alteration of
the preamble. Scob., 50; 7 Grey, 431.
On this head the following case occurred in the Senate, March 6, 1800:
A resolution which had no preamble having been already amended by the
House so that a few words only of the original remained in it, a motion
was made to prefix a preamble, which having an aspect very different
from the resolution, the mover intimated that he should afterwards
propose a correspondent amendment in the body of the resolution. It was
objected that a preamble could not be taken up till the body of the
resolution is done with; but the preamble was received, because we are
in fact through the body of the resolution; we have amended that as far
as amendments have been offered, and, indeed, till little of the
original is left. It is the proper time, therefore, to consider a
preamble; and whether the one offered be consistent with the resolution
is for the House to determine. The mover, indeed, has intimated that he
shall offer a subsequent proposition for the body of the resolution; but
the House is not in possession of it; it re
[[Page [222]]]
mains in his breast, and may be withheld. The Rules of the House can
only operate on what is before them. The practice of the Senate, too,
allows recurrences backward and forward for the purpose of amendment,
not permitting amendments in a subsequent to preclude those in a prior
part, or e converso.
In the practice of the House the preamble of a joint resolution is
amended after the engrossment and before the third reading (IV, 3414; V,
5469, 5470; VII, 1064), but the preamble of the joint resolution is not
voted on separately in the later practice even if amended, because the
question on passage covers the preamble as well as the resolving clause
(V, 6147, 6148; Oct. 29, 1975, p. 34283). After an amendment to the
preamble has been considered it is too late to propose amendments to the
text of the joint resolution (VII, 1065). In the Committee of the Whole,
amendments to the preamble of a joint resolution are considered
following disposition of any amendments to the resolving clause (Mar. 9,
1967, pp. 6032-34; Mar. 22, 1967, pp. 7679-83; May 25, 1993, p. 11036).
Where a simple resolution of the House has a preamble, the preamble may
be laid on the table without affecting the status of the accompanying
resolution (V, 5430). Amendments to the preamble of a concurrent or
simple resolution are considered in the House following the adoption of
the resolution (Dec. 4, 1973, p. 39337; June 8, 1970, pp. 18668-71). The
House considers an amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole to
the preamble of a Senate joint resolution following disposition of
amendment to the text and pending third reading (May 25, 1993, p.
11036).
When <> the committee is through the whole, a Member moves that the
committee may rise, and the chairman report the paper to the House, with
or without amendments, as the case may be. 2 Hats., 289, 292; Scob., 53;
2 Hats., 290; 8 Scob., 50.
Clause 2 of rule XIII provides that it shall be the duty of the chair
of each committee to report or cause to be reported promptly any measure
approved by the committee and to take or cause to be taken necessary
steps to bring the matter to a vote; and in any event, the report of a
committee must be filed within seven calendar days (exclusive of days
when the House is not in session) after a majority of the committee has
invoked
[[Page [223]]]
the procedures of clause 2 of rule XIII. In the House a committee may
order its report to be made by the chair (IV, 4669), or by any other
member of the committee (IV, 4526), even one from the minority party
(IV, 4672, 4673; VIII, 2314). A committee report may be filed by a
Delegate (July 1, 1958, p. 12870). Only the chair makes a report for the
Committee of the Whole (V, 6987).
When <> a vote is once passed in a committee it cannot be altered
but by the House, their votes being binding on themselves. 1607, June 4.
This provision of the parliamentary law has been held to prevent the
use of the motion to reconsider in the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4716-
4718; VIII, 2324, 2325) but it is in order in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole (VIII, 2793). The early practice seems to have
inclined against the use of the motion in a standing or select committee
(IV, 4570, 4596), but there is a precedent that authorized the use of
the motion (IV, 4570, 4596), and on June 1, 1922, the Committee on Rules
rescinded previous action taken by the committee authorizing a report.
In the later practice the motion to reconsider is in order in committee
so long as the measure remains in possession of the committee and the
motion is not prevented by subsequent actions of the committee on the
measure, and may be entered on the same day as action to be reconsidered
or on the next day on which the committee convenes with a quorum present
to consider the same class of business (VIII, 2213), but a session
adjourned without having secured a quorum is a dies non and not to be
counted in determining the admissibility of a motion to reconsider
(VIII, 2213). This provision does not prevent a committee from reporting
a bill similar to one previously reported by such committee (VIII,
2311).
The <> committee may not erase, interline, or blot the bill
itself; but must, in a paper by itself set down the amendments, stating
the words which are to be inserted or omitted, Scob., 50, and where, by
references to page, line, and word of the bill. Scob., 50.
This practice is still in force as to Senate bills of which the
engrossed copies cannot be in any way interlined or altered by House
committees. Original copies of House bills are not referred to
committees but are maintained indefinitely by the Clerk. Both House and
Senate bills are now printed as referred, and committees may thus report
either with proposed
[[Page [224]]]
amendments. In the official papers (signed engrossed copies), the
engrossed House amendments to a Senate bill would still be shown as a
separate message attached to the Senate engrossed bill when returned to
the Senate.
sec. xxvii--report of committee
The <> chairman of the committee, standing in his place, informs the
House that the committee to whom was referred such a bill, have,
according to order, had the same under consideration, and have directed
him to report the same without any amendment, or with sundry amendments
(as the case may be), which he is ready to do when the House pleases to
receive it. And he or any other may move that it be now received; but
the cry of ``now, now,'' from the House, generally dispenses with the
formality of a motion and question. He then reads the amendments, with
the coherence in the bill, and opens the alterations and the reasons of
the committee for such amendments, until he has gone through the whole.
He then delivers it at the Clerk's table, where the amendments reported
are read by the Clerk without the coherence; whereupon the papers lie
upon the table till the House, at its convenience, shall take up the
report. Scob., 52; Hakew., 148.
This provision is to a large extent obsolete so far as the practice of
the House is concerned. Most of the reports of committees are made by
filing them with the Clerk without reading (clause 2 of rule XIII), and
only the reports of committees having leave to report at any time are
made by the chair or other member of the committee from the floor
(clause 5 of rule XIII). Except as provided in clause 2(c) of rule XIII,
committee reports must be submitted while the House is in session; and
this requirement may be waived by only by order of the House (by rule,
suspension, or unanimous consent but not by motion) (Dec. 17, 1982, p.
31951). Subject to avail
[[Page [225]]]
ability requirements under clause 4 and timing considerations under
clause 6 of rule XIII, all reports privileged under clause 5 of rule
XIII may be called up for consideration immediately after being filed
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34406). For a discussion of
the layover rule, see Sec. 850, infra.
The <> report being made, the committee is dissolved and can act
no more without a new power. Scob. 51. But it may be revived by a vote,
and the same matter recommitted to them. 4 Grey, 361.
This provision does not apply now to the Committees of the Whole or to
the standing committees. It does apply to select committees, which
expire when they report finally, but may be revived by the action of the
House in referring in open House a new matter (IV, 4404, 4405). The
provision does not preclude a standing committee from reporting a bill
similar to one previously reported by such committee (VIII, 2311).
sec. xxviii--bill, recommitment
After <> a bill
has been committed and reported, it ought not, in any ordinary course,
to be recommitted; but in cases of importance, and for special reasons,
it is sometimes recommitted, and usually to the same committee. Hakew,
151. If a report be recommitted before agreed to in the House, what has
passed in committee is of no validity; the whole question is again
before the committee, and a new resolution must be again moved, as if
nothing had passed. 3 Hats., 131--note.
In Senate, January, 1800, the salvage bill was recommitted three times
after the commitment.
Before the motion to recommit with instructions was eliminated, where
a matter was recommitted with instructions, the committee had to confine
itself within the instructions (IV, 4404), and if the instructions
related to a certain portion only of a bill, other portions could not be
reviewed (V, 5526). When a report has been disposed of adversely a
motion to recommit it is not in order (V, 5559). Bills are sometimes
recommitted to the
[[Page [226]]]
Committee of the Whole as the indirect result of the action of the House
(clause 9 of rule XVIII; IV, 4784) or directly on motion either with or
without instructions (V, 5552, 5553).
A <> particular clause of a bill may be committed without the
whole bill, 3 Hats., 131; or so much of a paper to one and so much to
another committee.
In the usage of the House before the rules provided that petitions
should be filed with the Clerk instead of being referred from the floor,
it was the practice to refer a portion of a petition to one committee
and the remainder to another when the subject matter called for such
division (IV, 3359). Clause 2 of rule XII now permits the Speaker to
refer bills, and resolutions, with or without time limitations, either
(1) simultaneously to two or more committees for concurrent
consideration, while indicating one committee of primary jurisdiction
(except under extraordinary circumstances), (2) sequentially to
appropriate committees after the report of the committee or committees
initially considering the matter, (3) to divide the matter for referral,
(4) to appoint an ad hoc committee with the approval of the House, or
(5) to make other appropriate provisions, in order to assure that to the
maximum extent feasible each committee with subject matter jurisdiction
over provisions in that measure may consider and report to the House
with respect thereto. Under former precedents a bill, resolution, or
communication could not be divided for reference (IV, 4372, 4376).
sec. xxix--bill, reports taken up
When <> the
report of a paper originating with a committee is taken up by the House,
they proceed exactly as in committee. Here, as in committee, when the
paragraphs have, on distinct questions, been agreed to seriatim, 5 Grey,
366; 6 Grey, 368; 8 Grey, 47, 104, 360; 1 Torbuck's Deb., 125; 3 Hats.,
348, no question needs be put on the whole report. 5 Grey, 381.
In the House, bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, and
simple resolutions come before the House for action although the written
reports accompanying them, which are always printed, do not (IV, 4674),
and even the reading of the reports is in order only in the time of
debate (V, 5292). The Chair will not recognize a Member during debate on
a bill in the
[[Page [227]]]
House or in the Committee of the Whole for unanimous consent to amend
the accompanying committee report in a specified manner, because the
House should not change the substance of a committee report upon which
it is not called to vote (Apr. 2, 1985, p. 7209; Nov. 7, 1989, p.
27762). In rare instances, however, committees submit merely written
reports without propositions for action. Such reports being before the
House may be debated before any specific motion has been made (V, 4987,
4988), and are in such case read to the House (IV, 4663) and after being
considered the question is taken on agreeing. In such cases the report
appears in full on the Journal (II, 1364; IV, 4675; V, 7177). When
reports are acted on in this way it has not been the practice of the
House to consider them by paragraphs, but the question has been put on
the whole report (II, 1364).
On <> taking up a bill reported with amendments the amendments
only are read by the Clerk. The Speaker then reads the first, and puts
it to the question, and so on till the whole are adopted or rejected,
before any other amendment be admitted, except it be an amendment to an
amendment. Elsynge's Mem., 53. When through the amendments of the
committee, the Speaker pauses, and gives time for amendments to be
proposed in the House to the body of the bill; as he does also if it has
been reported without amendments; putting no questions but on amendments
proposed; and when through the whole, he puts the question whether the
bill shall be read a third time?
The procedure outlined by this provision of the parliamentary law
applies to bills when reported from the Committee of the Whole; but in
practice it is usual to vote on the amendments en gros unless a Member
demands a separate vote (see Sec. 337, supra). The principle that the
committee amendments should be voted on before amendments proposed by
individual Members is recognized (IV, 4872-4876; V, 5773; VIII, 2862,
2863), except when it is proposed to amend a committee amendment. The
Clerk reads the amendments and the Speaker does not again read them.
Frequently the House orders the previous question on the committee
amendments and the bill to final passage, thus preventing further
amendment. When a bill
[[Page [228]]]
is of such nature that it does not go to Committee of the Whole, it
comes before the House from the House Calendar, on which it has been
placed on being reported from the standing or select committee or
pursuant to a special order of business. On being taken from the House
Calendar the bill is read through and then the amendments proposed by
the committee are read. In modern practice the House may adopt a special
order ``self-executing'' the adoption of the reported committee
amendments in the House, and may permit further amendment to the amended
text (e.g., H. Res. 245, 106th Cong., July 15, 1999, p. 16216).
sec. xxx--quasi-committee
If <> on motion and question the bill be not committed, or if no
proposition for commitment be made, then the proceedings in the Senate
of the United States and in Parliament are totally different. The former
shall be first stated.
The proceeding of the Senate as in a Committee of the Whole, or in
quasi-committee, is precisely as in a real Committee of the Whole,
taking no question but on amendments. When through the whole, they
consider the quasi-committee as risen, the House resumed without any
motion, question, or resolution to that effect, and the President
reports that ``the House, acting as in a Committee of the Whole, have
had under their consideration the bill entitled, &c., and have made
sundry amendments, which he will now report to the House.'' The bill is
then before them, as it would have been if reported from a committee,
and the questions are regularly to be put again on every amendment;
which being gone through, the President pauses to give time to the House
to propose amendments to the body of the bill, and, when through, puts
the question whether it shall be read a third time?
[[Page [229]]]
The House may proceed ``in the House as in Committee of the Whole''
only by unanimous consent (IV, 4923) or special rule (Dec. 18, 1974, p.
40858). If the House grants unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of a bill on the Union Calendar, or which would belong on
the Union Calendar if reported, the bill is considered in the House as
in the Committee of the Whole (Apr. 6, 1966, p. 7749; Aug. 3, 1970, p.
26918; Deschler, ch. 22, Sec. 2.2). In the modern practice of the House
an order for this procedure means merely that the bill will be
considered as having been read for amendment and will be open for
amendment and debate under the five-minute rule (Aug. 10, 1970, p.
28050; clause 5 of rule XVIII), without general debate (IV, 4924, 4925;
VI, 639; VIII, 2431, 2432). The Speaker remains in the chair and, when
the previous question is moved, makes no report but puts the question on
ordering the previous question and then on engrossment and third reading
and on passage.
For further description of the procedures applicable to the House as
in the Committee of the Whole, and the application of those procedures
to committees of the House, see Sec. 427, infra.
After <> progress in amending the bill in quasi-
committee, a motion may be made to refer it to a special committee. If
the motion prevails, it is equivalent in effect to the several votes,
that the committee rise, the House resume itself, discharge the
Committee of the Whole, and refer the bill to a special committee. In
that case, the amendments already made fall. But if the motion fails,
the quasi-committee stands in status quo.-
How <> far does this XXVIIIth rule [of the Senate] subject
the House, when in quasi-committee, to the laws which regulate the
proceedings of Committees of the Whole? The particulars in which these
differ from proceedings in the House are the following: 1. In a
committee every member may speak as often as he pleases. 2. The votes of
a committee may be rejected or altered when
[[Page [230]]]
reported to the House. 3. A committee, even of the whole, cannot refer
any matter to another committee. 4. In a committee no previous question
can be taken; the only means to avoid an improper discussion is to move
that the committee rise; and if it be apprehended that the same
discussion will be attempted on returning into committee, the House can
discharge them, and proceed itself on the business, keeping down the
improper discussion by the previous question. 5. A committee cannot
punish a breach of order in the House or in the gallery. 9 Grey, 113. It
can only rise and report it to the House, who may proceed to punish. The
first and second of these peculiarities attach to the quasi-committee of
the Senate, as every day's practice proves, and it seems to be the only
ones to which the XXVIIIth rule meant to subject them; for it continues
to be a House, and, therefore, though it acts in some respects as a
committee, in others it preserves its character as a House. Thus (3) it
is in the daily habit of referring its business to a special committee.
4. It admits of the previous question. If it did not, it would have no
means of preventing an improper discussion; not being able, as a
committee is, to avoid it by returning into the House, for the moment it
would resume the same subject there, the XXVIIIth rule declares it again
a quasi-committee. 5. It would doubtless exercise its powers as a House
on any breach of order. 6. It takes a question by yea and nay, as the
House does. 7. It receives messages from the President and the other
House. 8.
[[Page [231]]]
In the midst of a debate it receives a motion to adjourn, and adjourns
as a House, not as a committee.
In <> the modern practice of the House, the rule
of Jefferson's Manual is followed to the extent that the House, while
acting ``in the House as in Committee of the Whole,'' may deal with
disorder, take the yeas and nays, adjourn, refer to a committee even
though the reading by sections may not have begun (IV, 4931, 4932),
admit the motion to reconsider (VIII, 2793), receive messages (IV,
4923), and use the previous question (VI, 369; Procedure, ch. 23,
Sec. 6.3) (which differs from the previous question of Jefferson's
time). The previous question may not be moved on a single section of a
bill (IV, 4930), but it may be demanded on the bill while Members yet
desire to offer amendments (IV, 4926-4929; VI, 639). Formerly a motion
to close debate on the pending section of a bill being read by section
for amendment in the House as in the Committee of the Whole was in order
(IV, 4935), but under current practice a bill considered ``in the House
as in Committee of the Whole'' is considered as read and open for
amendment at any point (Aug. 10, 1970, p. 28050), and a motion is in
order ``in the House as in Committee of the Whole'' to close debate on
the bill or on an amendment (June 26, 1973, p. 21314). An amendment may
be withdrawn at any time before action has been had on it (IV, 4935;
June 26, 1973, p. 21305). An amendment in the nature of a substitute is
in order after perfecting amendments have been considered (IV, 4933,
4934; V, 5788). The title also is amended after the bill has been
considered (IV, 3416). A quorum of the House (and not of the Committee
of the Whole) is required in the House as in the Committee of the Whole
(VI, 639).
The procedures applicable in the House as in the Committee of the
Whole generally apply to proceedings in committees of the House, except
that a measure considered in committee must be read (by section) for
amendment (see Sec. 413, supra). Therefore, in committee a motion to
limit debate under the five-minute rule must be confined to the portion
of the measure then pending.
sec. xxxi--bill, second reading in the house
In <> Parliament, after the bill has been read a second time, if on
the motion and question it be not committed, or if no proposition for
commitment be made, the speaker reads it by paragraphs, pausing between
each, but putting no question but
[[Page [232]]]
on amendments proposed; but when through the whole, he puts the question
whether it shall be read a third time, if it came from the other house,
or, if originating with themselves, whether it shall be engrossed and
read a third time. The speaker reads sitting, but rises to put
questions. The clerk stands while he reads.
But the Senate of the United States is so much in the habit of making
many and material amendments at the third reading that it has become the
practice not to engross a bill till it has passed--an irregular and
dangerous practice, because in this way the paper which passes the
Senate is not that which goes to the other House, and that which goes to
the other House as the act of the Senate has never been seen in the
Senate. In reducing numerous, difficult, and illegible amendments into
the text the Secretary may, with the most innocent intentions, commit
errors which can never again be corrected.
In the House the Clerk and not the Speaker or chair of the Committee
of the Whole reads bills on second reading. After the second reading,
which is by paragraph or section in the Committee of the Whole, the bill
is open to amendment (see Sec. 980, infra). Clause 8 of rule XVI, as
explained in Sec. 942, infra, governs first and second readings of bills
in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The requirement for the
Speaker to rise when putting a question was removed from clause 6 of
rule I in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _).
The <> bill being now as perfect as its friends can make it, this
is the proper stage for those fundamentally opposed to make their first
attack. All attempts at earlier periods are with disjointed efforts,
because many who do not expect to be in favor of the bill ultimately,
are willing to let it
[[Page [233]]]
go on to its perfect state, to take time to examine it themselves and to
hear what can be said for it, knowing that after all they will have
sufficient opportunities of giving it their veto. Its two last stages,
therefore, are reserved for this--that is to say, on the question
whether it shall be engrossed and read a third time, and, lastly,
whether it shall pass. The first of these is usually the most
interesting contest, because then the whole subject is new and engaging,
and the minds of the Members having not yet been declared by any trying
vote the issue is the more doubtful. In this stage, therefore, is the
main trial of strength between its friends and opponents, and it
behooves everyone to make up his mind decisively for this question, or
he loses the main battle; and accident and management may, and often do,
prevent a successful rallying on the next and last question, whether it
shall pass.
In <> the
House there are two other means of testing strength: raising the
question of consideration when the bill first comes up (clause 3 of rule
XVI), and moving to strike the enacting words when it is first open to
amendment (clause 9 of rule XVIII). By these methods an adverse opinion
may be expressed without permitting the bill to consume the time of the
House.
<> When the bill is engrossed the title is to be indorsed on the
back, and not within the bill. Hakew, 250.
In the practice of the House and the Senate the title appears in its
proper place in the engrossed bill, and also is endorsed, with the
number, on the back.
[[Page [234]]]
sec. xxxii--reading papers
Where <> papers are laid before the House or referred to a committee
every Member has a right to have them once read at the table before he
can be compelled to vote on them; but it is a great though common error
to suppose that he has a right, toties quoties, to have acts, journals,
accounts, or papers on the table read independently of the will of the
House. The delay and interruption which this might be made to produce
evince the impossibility of the existence of such a right. There is,
indeed, so manifest a propriety of permitting every Member to have as
much information as possible on every question on which he is to vote,
that when he desires the reading, if it be seen that it is really for
information and not for delay, the Speaker directs it to be read without
putting a question, if no one objects; but if objected to, a question
must be put. 2 Hats., 117, 118.
Until the 103d Congress the House, by former rule XXX, had a provision
regarding the reading a paper other than that on which the House is
called to give a final vote (see Sec. Sec. 964, 965, infra).
It <> is equally an error to suppose that any Member has a right,
without a question put, to lay a book or paper on the table, and have it
read, on suggesting that it contains matter infringing on the privileges
of the House. Ib.
[[Page [235]]]
For <> the same reason a Member has not a right to read a paper in
his place, if it be objected to, without leave of the House. But this
rigor is never exercised but where there is an intentional or gross
abuse of the time and patience of the House.
A Member has not a right even to read his own speech, committed to
writing, without leave. This also is to prevent an abuse of time, and
therefore is not refused but where that is intended. 2 Grey, 227.
A <> report of a committee of the Senate on a bill from the
House of Representatives being under consideration: on motion that the
report of the committee of the House of Representatives on the same bill
be read in the Senate, it passed in the negative. Feb. 28, 1793.
In the House ordinary reports are read only in time of debate (V,
5292). But in a few cases, in which a report does not accompany a bill
or other proposition of action, but presents facts and conclusions, it
is read to the House if acted on (II, 1364; IV, 4663).
Formerly, <> when
papers were referred to a committee, they used to be first read; but of
late only the titles, unless a Member insists they shall be read, and
then nobody can oppose it. 2 Hats., 117.
Under the rules, petitions, memorials, and communications are referred
through the Clerk's desk, so that there is no opportunity for reading
before reference, though messages from the President are read (clauses 1
and 3 of rule XII; clause 2 of rule XIV).
[[Page [236]]]
sec. xxxiii--privileged questions
It is no <> possession of a bill unless it be delivered to the Clerk to
read, or the Speaker reads the title. Lex. Parl., 274; Elysynge Mem.,
85; Ord. House of Commons, 64.
It is a <> general
rule that the question first moved and seconded shall be first put.
Scob., 28, 22; 2 Hats., 81. But this rule gives way to what may be
called privileged questions; and the privileged questions are of
different grades among themselves.
In the House, by rule and practice, the system of privileged motions
and privileged questions has been highly developed (rule IX, clause 5 of
rule XIII, clause 1 of rule XIV, and clause 4 of rule XVI).
A motion <> to
adjourn simply takes place of all others; for otherwise the House might
be kept sitting against its will, and indefinitely. Yet this motion can
not be received after another question is actually put and while the
House is engaged in voting.
The rules and practice of the House have prescribed comprehensively
the privilege and status of the motion to adjourn (clause 4 of rule
XVI). The motion intervenes between the putting of the question and the
voting, and also between the different methods of voting, as between a
vote by division and a vote by yeas and nays, as after the yeas and nays
are ordered and before the roll call begins (V, 5366). But after the
roll call begins it may not be interrupted (V, 6053). Clause 4 of rule
XVI was amended in the 93d Congress to provide that a motion that when
the House adjourns on that day it stand adjourned to meet at a day and
time certain is of equal privilege with the motion to adjourn, if the
Speaker recognizes for that purpose (H. Res. 6, p. 26). In the 102d
Congress the motion to authorize the Speaker to declare a recess was
given an equal privilege (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39).
[[Page [237]]]
Orders of <> the day take place of all other questions, except
for adjournment--that is to say, the question which is the subject of an
order is made a privileged one, pro hac vice. The order is a repeal of
the general rule as to this special case. When any Member moves,
therefore, for the order of the day to be read, no further debate is
permitted on the question which was before the House; for if the debate
might proceed it might continue through the day and defeat the order.
This motion, to entitle it to precedence, must be for the orders
generally, and not for any particular one; and if it be carried on the
question, ``Whether the House will now proceed to the orders of the
day?'' they must be read and proceeded on in the course in which they
stand, 2 Hats., 83; for priority of order gives priority of right, which
cannot be taken away but by another special order of business.
``Orders of the day'' were part of the regular and daily order of
business (IV, 3056). Although a mention of them has survived in clause 1
of rule XIV, they have disappeared from the practice of the House (IV,
3057).
After <> these there are other privileged questions, which will
require considerable explanation.
It is proper that every parliamentary assembly should have certain
forms of questions, so adapted as to enable them fitly to dispose of
every proposition which can be made to them. Such are: 1. The previous
question. 2. To postpone indefinitely. 3. To adjourn a question to a
definite day. 4. To lie on the table. 5. To commit.
[[Page [238]]]
6. To amend. The proper occasion for each of these questions should be
understood.
The House by clause 4 of rule XVI has established the priority and
other conditions of motions of this kind.
1. When a <> proposition is moved which it is useless or inexpedient now
to express or discuss, the previous question has been introduced for
suppressing for that time the motion and its discussion. 3 Hats., 188,
189.
The previous question of the parliamentary law has been changed by the
House into an instrument of entirely different use (V, 5445; clause 1 of
rule XIX).
2. But as <> the
previous question gets rid of it only for that day, and the same
proposition may recur the next day, if they wish to suppress it for the
whole of that session, they postpone it indefinitely. 3 Hats., 183. This
quashes the proposition for that session, as an indefinite adjournment
is a dissolution, or the continuance of a suit sine die is a
discontinuance of it.
As already explained, in the House the previous question is no longer
used as a method of postponement (V, 5445) but a means to bring the
pending matter to an immediate vote. The House does use the motion to
postpone indefinitely, and in clause 4 of rule XVI and the practice
thereunder, has defined the nature and use of the motion.
3. When a <> motion is
made which it will be proper to act on, but information is wanted, or
something more pressing claims the present time, the question or debate
is adjourned to such a day within the session as will answer the views
of the House. 2 Hats., 81. And those who have spoken before
[[Page [239]]]
may not speak again when the adjourned debate is resumed. 2 Hats., 73.
Sometimes, however, this has been abusively used by adjourning it to a
day beyond the session, to get rid of it altogether as would be done by
an indefinite postponement.
The House does not use the motion to adjourn a debate. But it
accomplishes the purpose of such a procedure by the motion to postpone
to a day certain, which applies, not to a debate, but to the bill or
other proposition before the House. Of course, if a bill that is under
debate is postponed, the effect is to postpone the debate. The
conditions and use of the motion are treated under clause 4 of rule XVI.
4. When the <> House has
something else which claims its present attention, but would be willing
to reserve in their power to take up a proposition whenever it shall
suit them, they order it to lie on their table. It may then be called
for at any time.
This is the use of the motion to lay on the table that is established
in the general parliamentary law, and was followed in the early practice
of the House. But by an interesting evolution in the House the motion
has now come to serve an entirely new purpose, being used for the final,
adverse disposition of a matter (clause 4 of rule XVI; V, 5389). And a
matter once laid on the table may be taken therefrom only by suspension
of the rules (V, 6288) or similar process, unless it be a matter of
privilege (V, 5438, 5439) such as bills vetoed by the President (IV,
3549; V, 5439). A proposition to impeach having been laid on the table,
a similar or identical proposition may be again brought up (III, 2049;
VI, 541).
5. If the <> proposition will want more amendment and digestion than the
formalities of the House will conveniently admit, they refer it to a
committee.
6. But if the proposition be well digested, and may need but few and
simple amendments, and especially if these be of leading consequence,
[[Page [240]]]
they then proceed to consider and amend it themselves.
In the House it is the general rule that business goes to committees
before receiving consideration in the House itself. Occasionally a
question of privilege or other matter is presented and considered at
once by the House.
The Senate, <> in their practice, vary from this regular graduation of
forms. Their practice comparatively with that of Parliament stands thus:
for the parliamentary: the senate uses:
Postponement to a day beyond
Postponement indefinite, E the session.
Postponement to a day within
Adjournment, E the session.
Postponement indefinite.
Lying on table, E Lying on the table.
In their eighth rule, therefore, which declares that while a question
is before the Senate no motion shall be received, unless it be for the
previous question, or to postpone, commit, or amend the main question,
the term postponement must be understood according to their broad use of
it, and not in its parliamentary sense. Their rule, then, establishes as
privileged questions the previous question, postponement, commitment,
and amendment.
The House governs these motions by clause 4 of rule XVI.
[[Page [241]]]
But it may <> be asked: Have these questions any privilege among
themselves? or are they so equal that the common principle of the
``first moved first put'' takes place among them? This will need
explanation. Their competitions may be as follows:
1. Previous question and postpone
commit <3-l }>
amend In the first, second, and
2. Postpone and previous question third classes, and the first
commit member of the fourth class,
amend the rule ``first moved first
3. Commit and previous question <3-lput'' takes place.
postpone
amend
4. Amend and previous question
postpone
commit <3-ln }>
<3-ln }>
In the first class, where the previous question is first moved, the
effect is peculiar; for it not only prevents the after motion to
postpone or commit from being put to question before it, but also from
being put after it; for if the previous question be decided
affirmatively, to wit, that the main question shall now be put, it would
of course be against the decision to postpone or commit; and if it be
decided negatively, to wit, that the main question shall not now be put,
this puts the House out of possession of the
[[Page [242]]]
main question, and consequently there is nothing before them to postpone
or commit. So that neither voting for nor against the previous question
will enable the advocates for postponing or committing to get at their
object. Whether it may be amended shall be examined hereafter.
Although clause 4 of rule XVI now governs the priority of motions,
these provisions of the Manual remain of interest because of the
parliamentary theory they present.
Second class. <> If postponement be decided affirmatively, the proposition is
removed from before the House, and consequently there is no ground for
the previous question, commitment or amendment; but if decided
negatively (that it shall not be postponed), the main question may then
be suppressed by the previous question, or may be committed, or amended.
The previous question is used now for bringing a vote on the main
question and not for suppressing it.
The third class is subject to the same observations as the second.
The fourth class. Amendment of the main question first moved, and
afterwards the previous question, the question of amendment shall be
first put.
In present practice of the House the question on the previous question
would be put first, and being decided affirmatively would force a vote
on the amendment and then on the main question.
Amendment and postponement competing, postponement is first put, as
the equivalent proposition to adjourn the main question would be in
Parliament. The reason is that the ques
[[Page [243]]]
tion for amendment is not suppressed by postponing or adjourning the
main question, but remains before the House whenever the main question
is resumed; and it might be that the occasion for other urgent business
might go by, and be lost by length of debate on the amendment, if the
House had it not in their power to postpone the whole subject.
Amendment and commitment. The question for committing, though last
moved shall be first put; because, in truth, it facilitates and
befriends the motion to amend. Scobell is express: ``On motion to amend
a bill, anyone may notwithstanding move to commit it, and the question
for commitment shall be first put.'' Scob., 46.
These principles of priority of privileged motions are recognized in
the House, and are provided for by clause 4 of rule XVI.
We have <> hitherto considered the
case of two or more of the privileged questions contending for privilege
between themselves, when both are moved on the original or main
question; but now let us suppose one of them to be moved, not on the
original primary question, but on the secondary one, e.g.:
Suppose a motion to postpone, commit, or amend the main question, and
that it be moved to suppress that motion by putting a previous question
on it. This is not allowed, because it would embarrass questions too
much to allow them to be piled on one another several stories high; and
the same result may be had in a more
[[Page [244]]]
simple way--by deciding against the postponement, commitment, or
amendment. 2. Hats., 81, 2, 3, 4.
Although the general principle that one secondary or privileged motion
should not be applied to another is generally recognized in the House,
the entire change in the nature of the previous question (V, 5445) from
a means of postponing a matter to a means of compelling an immediate
vote, makes obsolete the parliamentary rule. Because the motions to
postpone, commit, and amend are all debatable, the modern previous
question of course applies to them (clause 1 of rule XIX).
Suppose a <> motion for the previous question, or commitment or
amendment of the main question, and that it be then moved to postpone
the motion for the previous question, or for commitment or amendment of
the main question. 1. It would be absurd to postpone the previous
question, commitment, or amendment, alone, and thus separate the
appendage from its principal; yet it must be postponed separately from
its original, if at all; because the eighth rule of the Senate says that
when a main question is before the House no motion shall be received but
to commit, amend, or pre-question the original question, which is the
parliamentary doctrine also. Therefore the motion to postpone the
secondary motion for the previous question, or for committing or
amending, can not be received. 2. This is a piling of questions one on
another; which, to avoid embarrassment, is not allowed. 3. The same
result may be had more simply by voting against the previous question,
commitment, or amendment.
[[Page [245]]]
Suppose a commitment moved of a motion for the previous question, or
to postpone or amend. The first, second, and third reasons, before
stated, all hold against this.
The principles of this paragraph are in harmony with the practice of
the House, which provides further that a motion to suspend the rules may
not be postponed (V, 5322).
Suppose an <> amendment moved to a motion for the previous
question. Answer: The previous question can not be amended.
Parliamentary usage, as well as the ninth rule of the Senate, has fixed
its form to be, ``Shall the main question be now put?''--i.e., at this
instant; and as the present instant is but one, it can admit of no
modification. To change it to to-morrow, or any other moment, is without
example and without utility. * * *
Although the nature of the previous question has entirely changed, the
principle of the parliamentary law applies to the new form.
* * * But suppose a <> motion to amend a motion for
postponement, as to one day instead of another, or to a special instead
of an indefinite time. The useful character of amendment gives it a
privilege of attaching itself to a secondary and privileged motion; that
is, we may amend a postponement of a main question. So, we may amend a
commitment of a main question, as by adding, for example, ``with
instructions to inquire,'' &c. * * *
This principle is recognized in the practice of the House (V, 5521).
[[Page [246]]]
* * * In like <> manner, if an amendment be moved to an amendment, it is
admitted; but it would not be admitted in another degree, to wit, to
amend an amendment to an amendment of a main question. This would lead
to too much embarrassment. The line must be drawn somewhere, and usage
has drawn it after the amendment to the amendment. The same result must
be sought by deciding against the amendment to the amendment, and then
moving it again as it was wished to be amended. In this form it becomes
only an amendment to an amendment.
This rule of the parliamentary law is considered fundamental in the
House (clause 6 of rule XVI).
[In filling <> a blank with a sum, the largest sum shall be first put to the
question, by the thirteenth rule of the Senate, contrary to the rule of
Parliament, which privileges the smallest sum and longest time. 5 Grey,
179; 2 Hats., 8, 83; 3 Hats., 132, 133.] And this is considered to be
not in the form of an amendment to the question, but as alternative or
successive originals. In all cases of time or number, we must consider
whether the larger comprehends the lesser, as in a question to what day
a postponement shall be, the number of a committee, amount of a fine,
term of an imprisonment, term of irredeemability of a loan, or the
terminus in quem in any other case; then the question must begin a
maximo. Or whether the lesser includes the greater, as in questions on
the limitation of the rate of interest, on what
[[Page [247]]]
day the session shall be closed by adjournment, on what day the next
shall commence, when an act shall commence or the terminus a quo in any
other case where the question must begin a minimo; the object being not
to begin at that extreme which, and more, being within every man's wish,
no one could negative it, and yet, if he should vote in the affirmative,
every question for more would be precluded; but at that extreme which
would unite few, and then to advance or recede till you get to a number
which will unite a bare majority. 3 Grey, 376, 384, 385. ``The fair
question in this case is not that to which, and more, all will agree,
but whether there shall be addition to the question.'' 1 Grey, 365.
The thirteenth rule of the Senate has been dropped. The House has no
rule on the subject other than this provision of the parliamentary law.
It is very rare for the House to fill blanks for numbers. When a number
in pending text is to be changed by amendment, the practice of the House
permits to be pending: the alternative number proposed in the amendment
to the text; a second alternative number as an amendment to the
amendment; a third as a substitute; and a fourth as an amendment to the
substitute. Thus, if the pending text itself states a number, then five
alternative numbers may be pending simultaneously. With respect to a
concurrent resolution on the budget (which is considered as read and
open to amendment at any point and to which amendments must be
mathematically consistent under clause 10 of rule XVIII), adoption of a
perfecting amendment changing several figures precludes further
amendment merely changing those figures, but does not preclude more
comprehensive amendments changing other portions of the resolution that
have not been amended as well (Apr. 27, 1977, p. 12485). In recent
practice an amount in an appropriation bill has been changed by
inserting a parenthetical ``increased by'' or ``decreased by'' after the
amount rather than by directly changing the number.
[[Page [248]]]
Another <> exception to the rule of priority is when a motion
has been made to strike out, or agree to, a paragraph. Motions to amend
it are to be put to the question before a vote is taken on striking out
or agreeing to the whole paragraph.
In the House the principle that a text should be perfected before a
question is taken on striking it, and that an amendment should be
perfected before agreeing to it, is well established. But in considering
bills, even by paragraphs, the House does not agree to the paragraphs
severally; but after amending one passes to the next, and the question
on agreeing is taken only on the whole bill by the several votes on
engrossment and passage.
But there <> are
several questions which, being incidental to every one, will take place
of every one, privileged or not; to wit, a question of order arising out
of any other question must be decided before that question. 2 Hats., 88.
This principle governs the procedure of the House, but a question of
order arising after a motion for the previous question must be decided
without debate (clause 1 of rule XIX).
A matter of <> privilege arising out of any question, or from a quarrel
between two Members, or any other cause, supersedes the consideration of
the original question, and must be first disposed of. 2 Hats., 88.
Rule IX and the practice thereunder confirm and amplify the principles
of this provision of the parliamentary law.
<> Reading papers relative to the question before the House. This
question must be put before the principal one. 2 Hats., 88.
[[Page [249]]]
This provision formerly applied in the House to the reading of papers
other than those on which the House was to vote. That was under an
earlier form of clause 6 of rule XVII, which now applies only to the use
of exhibits in debate. For a history of the former rule on reading
papers and an explanation of the earlier practice, see Sec. Sec. 963-
965, infra.
Leave asked <> to withdraw a
motion. The rule of Parliament being that a motion made and seconded is
in the possession of the House, and can not be withdrawn without leave,
the very terms of the rule imply that leave may be given, and,
consequently, may be asked and put to the question.
The House does not vote on the withdrawal of motions, but provides by
clause 2 of rule XVI and clause 5 of rule XVIII the conditions under
which a Member may of right withdraw a motion.
sec. xxxiv--the previous question
When any <> question is before the House, any Member may move a
previous question, ``Whether that question (called the main question)
shall now be put?'' If it pass in the affirmative, then the main
question is to be put immediately, and no man may speak anything further
to it, either to add or alter. Memor. in Hakew., 28; 4 Grey, 27.
The previous <> question being moved and seconded, the question from the
Chair shall be, ``Shall the main question be now put?'' and if the nays
prevail, the main question shall not then be put.
This kind of <> question is understood by Mr. Hatsell to have
been introduced in 1604. 2 Hats., 80. Sir Henry Vane introduced it. 2
Grey, 113, 114; 3
[[Page [250]]]
Grey, 384. When the question was put in this form, ``Shall the main
question be put?'' a determination in the negative suppressed the main
question during the session; but since the words ``now put'' are used,
they exclude it for the present only; formerly, indeed, only till the
present debate was over, 4 Grey, 43, but now for that day and no longer.
2 Grey, 113, 114.
Before the question ``Whether the main question shall now be put?''
any person might formerly have spoken to the main question, because
otherwise he would be precluded from speaking to it at all. Mem. in
Hakew., 28.
The proper occasion for the previous question is when a subject is
brought forward of a delicate nature as to high personages, &c., or the
discussion of which may call forth observations which might be of
injurious consequences. Then the previous question is proposed, and in
the modern usage the discussion of the main question is suspended and
the debate confined to the previous question. The use of it has been
extended abusively to other cases, but in these it has been an
embarrassing procedure. Its uses would be as well answered by other more
simple parliamentary forms, and therefore it should not be favored, but
restricted within as narrow limits as possible.
As explained in connection with clause 1 of rule XIX, the House has
changed entirely the old use of the previous question (V, 5445).
[[Page [251]]]
sec. xxxv--amendments
<> On an amendment being moved, a
Member who had spoken to the main question may speak again to the
amendment. Scob., 23.
This parliamentary rule applies in the House, where the hour rule of
debate (clause 2 of rule XVII) has been in force since 1841. A Member
who has spoken an hour to the main question may speak another hour to an
amendment (V, 4994; VIII, 2449).
If an <> amendment be proposed
inconsistent with one already agreed to, it is a fit ground for its
rejection by the House, but not within the competence of the Speaker to
suppress as if it were against order. For were he permitted to draw
questions of consistence within the vortex or order, he might usurp a
negative on important modifications, and suppress, instead of
subserving, the legislative will.
The practice of the House follows and extends the principle set forth
by Jefferson. Thus it has been held that the fact that a proposed
amendment is inconsistent with the text or embodies a proposition
already voted (II, 1328-1336; VIII, 2834), or would in effect change a
provision of text to which both Houses have agreed (II, 1335; V, 6183-
6185), or is contained in substance in a later portion of the bill (II,
1327), is a matter to be passed on by the House rather than by the
Speaker. It is for the House rather than the Speaker to decide on the
legislative or legal effect of a proposition (II, 1323, 1324; VI, 254;
VII, 2112; VIII, 2280, 2841), and the change of a single word in the
text of a proposition may be sufficient to prevent the Speaker from
ruling it out of order as one already disposed of by the House (II,
1274). The principle has been the subject of conflicting decisions, from
which may be deduced the rule that the Chair may not rule out the
proposition unless it presents a substantially identical proposition
(VI, 256; VIII, 2834, 2835, 2838, 2840, 2842, 2850, 2856).
A perfecting amendment offered to an amendment in the nature of a
substitute may be offered again as an amendment to the original bill if
the amendment is first rejected or if the amendment in the nature of a
substitute as perfected is rejected (Sept. 28, 1976, p. 33075).
Rejection of
[[Page [252]]]
an amendment consisting of two sections does not preclude one of those
sections being subsequently offered as a separate amendment (July 15,
1981, p. 15898), and the rejection of several amendments considered en
bloc does not preclude their being offered separately at a subsequent
time (Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 35.15; Nov. 4, 1991, p. 29932). A point of
order against an amendment to a substitute does not lie merely because
its adoption would have the same effect as the adoption of a pending
amendment to the original amendment and would render the substitute as
amended identical to the original amendment as amended (May 4, 1983, p.
11059).
Amendments may <> be made so as totally to alter
the nature of the proposition; and it is a way of getting rid of a
proposition by making it bear a sense different from what it was
intended by the movers, so that they vote against it themselves. 2
Hats., 79; 4, 82, 84. A new bill may be ingrafted, by way of amendment,
on the words, ``Be it enacted,'' etc. 1 Grey, 190, 192.
This was the rule of Parliament, which did not require an amendment to
be germane (V, 5802, 5825). But the House from its first organization,
has by rule required that an amendment should be germane to the pending
proposition (clause 7 of rule XVI).
If it be <> proposed to amend by leaving out certain words, it may be moved,
as an amendment to this amendment, to leave out a part of the words of
the amendment, which is equivalent to leaving them in the bill. 2 Hats.,
80, 9. The parliamentary question is, always, whether the words shall
stand part of the bill.
In the House the question herein described is never put, but is always
whether the words shall be stricken; and if there is a desire that
certain of the words included in the amendment remain part of the bill,
it is expressed, not by amending the amendment, but by a preferential
perfecting amendment to strike from the specified words in the text of
the bill a portion of them. If this is carried that portion of the
specified words is stricken from the bill and the vote then recurs on
the original amendment (V, 5770). Where a motion to strike an entire
title of a bill is pending,
[[Page [253]]]
it is in order to offer, as a perfecting amendment to that title, a
motion to strike a lesser portion thereof, and the perfecting amendment
is voted on first (June 11, 1975, p. 18435). And when a motion to strike
certain words is disagreed to, it is in order to move to strike a
portion of those words (V, 5769); but when it is proposed to strike
certain words in a paragraph, it is not in order to amend those words by
including with them other words of the paragraph (V, 5768; VIII, 2848;
June 2, 1976, pp. 16208-10). It is in order to insert by way of
amendment a paragraph similar (but not actually identical) to one
already stricken by amendment (V, 5760; VIII, 2839; Sept. 2, 1976, pp.
28939-58).
When it is <> proposed to amend by inserting a paragraph, or
part of one, the friends of the paragraph may make it as perfect as they
can by amendments before the question is put for inserting it. If it be
received, it cannot be amended afterward in the same stage, because the
House has, on a vote, agreed to it in that form. In like manner, if it
is proposed to amend by striking out a paragraph, the friends of the
paragraph are first to make it as perfect as they can by amendments,
before the question is put for striking it out. If on the question it be
retained, it cannot be amended afterward, because a vote against
striking out is equivalent to a vote agreeing to it in that form.
These principles are recognized as in force in the House, with the
exception that clause 5(c) of rule XVI specifically provides that the
rejection of a motion to strike shall preclude neither amendment nor
motion to strike and insert. However, after an amendment to insert has
been agreed to, the matter inserted ordinarily may not then be amended
(V, 5761-5763; VIII, 2852) in any way that would change its text. Where
a special order of business provides that an amendment inserting a
provision in the bill be considered as adopted, an amendment to strike
that provision is not in order (May 23, 2002, pp. 8920-24). However, an
amendment may be added at the end (V, 5759, 5764, 5765; Dec. 14, 1973,
p. 41740; Oct. 1, 1974, p. 33364), even if the perfecting amendment that
was adopted struck out all after the short title of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute and inserted a new text (May 16, 1979, p. 11420).
Although an amendment
[[Page [254]]]
that has been adopted to an amendment (in the nature of a substitute)
may not be further amended, another amendment adding language at the end
of the amendment may still be offered (June 10, 1976, pp. 17368-75,
17381; May 16, 1984, pp. 12566, 12567), and the Chair will not rule on
the consistency of that language with the adopted amendment (June 10,
1976, p. 17381).
Although it may be in order to offer an amendment to the pending
portion of the bill that not only changes a provision already amended
but also changes an unamended pending portion of the bill, it is not in
order merely to amend portions of the bill that have been changed by
amendment (Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4335), or to amend unamended portions that
have been passed in the reading and are no longer open to amendment
(July 12, 1983, p. 18771), or to amend a figure already amended
(Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 33.2; July 17, 1995, p. 19186), even if also
changing other matter not already amended, where drafted as though the
earlier amendment had not been adopted (Mar. 15, 1995, p. 8025; Mar. 16,
1995, p. 8110; Mar. 16, 1995, p. 8112; July 17, 1995, p. 19196). A point
of order that a pending amendment proposes to change portions of the
bill that have been changed by earlier amendment may be made after a
unanimous-consent request to modify the amendment has been disposed of
but before debate has begun (Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4335). Where the vote on
an amendment to strike a section and insert new language is postponed by
the chair of the Committee of the Whole, an amendment to strike the same
section and insert different language is in order; and if both
amendments are adopted, the second amendment adopted supersedes the
first and is the only one reported to the House (Aug. 6, 1998, p.
19125).
When it is proposed to perfect a paragraph, a motion to strike it, if
already pending, must remain in abeyance until the amendments to perfect
have been moved and voted on (V, 5758; VIII, 2860; May 5, 1992, p.
10110; Oct. 12, 1995, p. 27816; July 27, 1999, p. 18074). If further
proceedings are postponed on the perfecting amendment, debate may
continue on the underlying motion to strike (July 27, 1999). While
amendments are pending to a section, a motion to strike it may not be
offered (V, 5771; VIII, 2861; Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963; July 25, 1995,
p. 20299). The motion to strike may be voted on (if already pending) or
subsequently offered after disposition of the perfecting amendment, so
long as the provision sought to be stricken has not been rewritten
entirely (Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963; July 25, 1995, p. 20299). While a
motion to strike is pending, it is in order to offer an amendment to
perfect the language proposed to be stricken (Apr. 24, 1996, p. 8777);
such an amendment, which is in the first degree, may be amended by a
substitute, and amendments to the substitute are also in order (Oct. 19,
1983, p. 28283), and such perfecting amendment, if agreed to when voted
on first, remains part of the bill if the motion to strike is then
rejected (Sept. 18, 1986, p. 28123). When a motion to strike a paragraph
is pending and the paragraph is perfected by an amendment striking and
inserting an entire new text, the pending motion to
[[Page [255]]]
strike must fall, because it would not be in order to strike exactly
what has been just inserted (V, 5792; VIII, 2854; July 12, 1951, p.
8090; Sept. 23, 1975, p. 29835; Aug. 5, 1986, p. 19059; May 18, 1988, p.
11404; Apr. 24, 1996, p. 8781). A motion to strike and insert a portion
of a pending section is not in order as a substitute for a motion to
strike the section, but may be offered as a perfecting amendment to the
section and is voted on first, subject to being eliminated by subsequent
adoption of the motion to strike (July 16, 1981, p. 16057).
When it is <> moved to amend by striking
out certain words and inserting others, the manner of stating the
question is first to read the whole passage to be amended as it stands
at present, then the words proposed to be struck out, next those to be
inserted, and lastly the whole passage as it will be when amended. And
the question, if desired, is then to be divided, and put first on
striking out. If carried, it is next on inserting the words proposed. If
that be lost, it may be moved to insert others. 2 Hats., 80, 7.
Clause 5(c) of rule XVI provides that the motion to strike and insert
is not divisible. As to the manner of stating the question, the Clerk
reads only the words to be stricken and the words to be inserted.
A motion <> is made to amend by striking out certain words and
inserting others in their place, which is negatived. Then it is moved to
strike out the same words, and to insert others of a tenor entirely
different from those first proposed. It is negatived. Then it is moved
to strike out the same words and insert nothing, which is agreed to. All
this is admissible, because to strike out and insert A is one
proposition. To strike out and insert B is a different proposition. And
to strike out and insert nothing is still different.
[[Page [256]]]
And the rejection of one proposition does not preclude the offering a
different one. Nor would it change the case were the first motion
divided by putting the question first on striking out, and that
negatived; for, as putting the whole motion to the question at once
would not have precluded, the putting the half of it cannot do it.
As to Jefferson's supposition that the principle would hold good in
case of division of the motion to strike and insert it is not necessary
to inquire, because clause 5(c) of rule XVI forbids division of that
motion. In a footnote Jefferson expressed himself as follows: ``In the
case of a division of the question, and a decision against striking out,
I advanced doubtingly the opinion here expressed. I find no authority
either way, and I know it may be viewed under a different aspect. It may
be thought that, having decided separately not to strike the passage,
the same question for striking out cannot be put over again, though with
a view to a different insertion. Still I think it more reasonable and
convenient to consider the striking out and insertion as forming one
proposition, but should readily yield to any evidence that the contrary
is the practice in Parliament.'' Where two amendments proposing
inconsistent motions to strike and insert a pending section are
considered as separate first degree amendments (not one as a substitute
for the other) before either is finally disposed of under a special
procedure permitting the Chair to postpone requests for a recorded vote,
the Chair's order of voting on the matter as unfinished business
determines which amendment (if both were adopted) would be reported to
the House (Aug. 6, 1998, pp. 19098-107).
The principle <> set forth by Jefferson as to repetition of the motion to
strike prevails in the House, where it has been held in order, after the
failure of a motion to strike certain words, to move to strike a portion
of those words (V, 5769; VIII, 2858). When a bill is under consideration
by paragraphs, a motion to strike can apply only to the paragraph under
consideration (V, 5774).
But if <> it had been carried affirmatively to strike out the
words and to insert A, it could not afterward be permitted to strike out
A and insert B. The mover of B should have notified, while the insertion
of A was under debate, that he would
[[Page [257]]]
move to insert B; in which case those who preferred it would join in
rejecting A.
This principle controls the practice of the House (July 17, 1985, p.
19444; July 18, 1985, p. 19649; Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 31.14).
After A <> is inserted, however, it may be moved to strike out a
portion of the original paragraph, comprehending A, provided the
coherence to be struck out be so substantial as to make this effectively
a different proposition; for then it is resolved into the common case of
striking out a paragraph after amending it. Nor does anything forbid a
new insertion, instead of A and its coherence.
Although it is not in order to move to strike a provision inserted by
amendment (Oct. 9, 1985, p. 26957), a motion to strike more than that
provision inserted would be in order (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11536). But an
amendment to strike the pending title of a bill and re-insert all
sections of that title except one is not in order if that section has
previously been amended in its entirety (Aug. 1, 1975, p. 26946).
In Senate, <> January 25, 1798, a motion to postpone until the second Tuesday
in February some amendments proposed to the Constitution; the words
``until the second Tuesday in February'' were struck out by way of
amendment. Then it was moved to add, ``until the first day of June.''
Objected that it was not in order, as the question should be first put
on the longest time; therefore, after a shorter time decided against, a
longer cannot be put to question. It was answered that this rule takes
place only in filling blanks for time. But when a specific time stands
part of a motion, that may be struck out as well
[[Page [258]]]
as any other part of the motion; and when struck out, a motion may be
received to insert any other. In fact, it is not until they are struck
out, and a blank for the time thereby produced, that the rule can begin
to operate, by receiving all the propositions for different times, and
putting the questions successively on the longest. Otherwise it would be
in the power of the mover by inserting originally a short time, to
preclude the possibility of a longer; for till the short time is struck
out, you cannot insert a longer; and if, after it is struck out, you
cannot do it, then it cannot be done at all. Suppose the first motion
had been made to amend by striking out ``the second Tuesday in
February,'' and inserting instead thereof ``the first of June,'' it
would have been regular, then, to divide the question, by proposing
first the question to strike out, and then that to insert. Now, this is
precisely the effect of the present proceeding; only, instead of one
motion and two questions, there are two motions and two questions to
effect it--the motion being divided as well as the question.
The principles of this paragraph have been followed in the House (V,
5763; Aug. 16, 1961, p. 16059), but in one case wherein words embodying
a distinct substantive proposition had been agreed to as an amendment to
a paragraph, it was held not in order to strike a part of the words of
this amendment with other words of the paragraph (V, 5766).
The motion to strike and insert may not be divided in the House
(clause 5(c) of rule XVI).
When the <> matter
contained in two bills might be better put into one, the manner is to
reject the one and incorporate its matter into another bill by way of
amend
[[Page [259]]]
ment. So if the matter of one bill would be better distributed into two,
any part may be struck out by way of amendment, and put into a new bill.
* * *
In the modern practice each bill comes before the House by itself; and
if it were proposed to join one bill to another it would be done by
offering the text of the one as an amendment to the other, without
disturbing the first bill in its place on the calendar. The Committee on
Rules may report a special order providing for separate consideration of
two or more bills and, after passage of each, ``linking'' them by adding
the text of the subsequent bills to the engrossment of the first,
sometimes tabling the separate versions of the subsequent bills (e.g.,
June 16, 1999, p. 13080).
* * * If a <> section is to be transposed, a question must be put on striking
it out where it stands and another for inserting it in the place
desired.
This principle is followed in the practice of the House (V, 5775,
5776).
A bill <> passed by the one House with blanks. These may be filled up by
the other by way of amendments, returned to the first as such, and
passed 3 Hats., 83.
The number <> prefixed to the section of a bill, be merely a marginal
indication, and no part of the text of the bill, the Clerk regulates
that--the House or committee is only to amend the text.
In the modern practice of the House, section numbers and other
internal references are considered as part of the text that may be
altered by amendment. The House sometimes authorizes the Clerk to make
appropriate changes in section numbers, paragraphs and punctuation, and
cross references when preparing the engrossment of the bill. Such a
request is properly made in the House, following passage of the bill
(Apr. 29, 1969, p. 10753).
[[Page [260]]]
sec. xxxvi--division of the question
If a question <> contain more parts than one, it may be divided into two or
more questions. Mem. in Hakew., 29. But not as the right of an
individual member, but with the consent of the House. For who is to
decide whether a question is complicated or not--where it is
complicated--into how many propositions it may be divided? The fact is,
that the only mode of separating a complicated question is by moving
amendments to it; and these must be decided by the House, on a question,
unless the House orders it to be divided; as, on the question, December
2, 1640, making void the election of the knights for Worcester, on a
motion it was resolved to make two questions of it, to wit, one on each
knight. 2 Hats., 85, 86. So, wherever there are several names in a
question, they may be divided and put one by one. 9 Grey, 444. So, 1729,
April 17, on an objection that a question was complicated, it was
separated by amendment. 2 Hats., 79.
The House, by clause 5 of rule XVI and the practice thereunder, has
entitled a procedure differing materially from that above set forth.
Although a resolution electing Members to committees is not divisible
(clause 5 of rule XVI), other types of resolutions containing several
names may be divided for voting (Mar. 19, 1975, p. 7344).
The soundness <> of these observations will be evident from the
embarrassments produced by the XVIIIth rule of the Senate, which says,
``if the question in debate contains several points, any member may have
the same divided.''
[[Page [261]]]
1798, May 30, the alien bill in quasi-committee. To a section and
proviso in the original, had been added two new provisos by way of
amendment. On a motion to strike out the section as amended, the
question was desired to be divided. To do this it must be put first on
striking out either the former proviso, or some distinct member of the
section. But when nothing remains but the last member of the section and
the provisos, they cannot be divided so as to put the last member to
question by itself, for the provisos might thus be left standing alone
as exceptions to a rule when the rule is taken away; or the new provisos
might be left to a second question, after having been decided on once
before at the same reading, which is contrary to rule. But the question
must be on striking out the last member of the section as amended. This
sweeps away the exceptions with the rule, and relieves from
inconsistence. A question to be divisible must comprehend points so
distinct and entire that one of them being taken away, the other may
stand entire. But a proviso or exception, without an enacting clause,
does not contain an entire point or proposition.
May 31.--The same bill being before the Senate. There was a proviso
that the bill should not extend--1. To any foreign minister; nor, 2. To
any person to whom the President should give a passport; nor, 3. To any
alien merchant conforming himself to such regulations as the President
shall prescribe; and a division of the question into its simplest
elements was called for. It
[[Page [262]]]
was divided into four parts, the 4th taking in the words ``conforming
himself,'' &c. It was objected that the words ``any alien merchant,''
could not be separated from their modifying words, ``conforming,'' &c.,
because these words, if left by themselves, contain no substantive idea,
will make no sense. But admitting that the divisions of a paragraph into
separate questions must be so made as that each part may stand by
itself, yet the House having, on the question, retained the two first
divisions, the words ``any alien merchant'' may be struck out, and their
modifying words will then attach themselves to the preceding description
of persons, and become a modification of that description.
When a <> question is divided, after the question on the 1st member,
the 2d is open to debate and amendment; because it is a known rule that
a person may rise and speak at any time before the question has been
completely decided, by putting the negative as well as the affirmative
side. But the question is not completely put when the vote has been
taken on the first member only. One-half the question, both affirmative
and negative, remains still to be put. See Execut. Jour., June 25, 1795.
The same decision by President Adams.
Where a division of the question is demanded on a portion of an
amendment, the Chair puts the question first on the remaining portions
of the amendment, and that portion on which the division is demanded
remains open for further debate and amendment (Oct. 21, 1981, p. 24785).
However, where neither portion of a divided question remains open to
further debate or amendment, the question may be put first on the
portion identified by the demand for division and then on the remainder
(June 8, 1995, p. 15302).
[[Page [263]]]
sec. xxxvii--coexisting questions
It may be <> asked whether the House can be in possession of two motions
or propositions at the same time? so that, one of them being decided,
the other goes to question without being moved anew? The answer must be
special. When a question is interrupted by a vote of adjournment, it is
thereby removed from before the House, and does not stand ipso facto
before them at their next meeting, but must come forward in the usual
way. So, when it is interrupted by the order of the day. Such other
privileged questions also as dispose of the main question (e.g., the
previous question, postponement, or commitment), remove it from before
the House. But it is only suspended by a motion to amend, to withdraw,
to read papers, or by a question of order or privilege, and stands again
before the House when these are decided. None but the class of
privileged questions can be brought forward while there is another
question before the House, the rule being that when a motion has been
made and seconded, no other can be received except it be a privileged
one.
The principles of this provision must, of course, be viewed in the
light of a more highly perfected order of business than existed in
Jefferson's time (rule XIV). The motion to withdraw is not known in the
practice of the House, not being among the motions enumerated in clause
4 of rule XVI, but a motion before the House may be withdrawn by the
mover thereof before a decision is reached (clause 2 of rule XVI).
[[Page [264]]]
sec. xxxviii--equivalent questions
If, on a <> question for rejection, a bill be retained, it
passes, of course, to its next reading. Hakew., 141; Scob., 42. And a
question for a second reading, determined negatively, is a rejection
without further question. 4 Grey, 149. And see Elsynge's Memor., 42, in
what case questions are to be taken for rejection.
The House has abandoned the question ``Shall the bill be rejected?''
(IV, 3391), and the question is now taken in accordance with clause 8 of
rule XVI. A vote is not taken on the second reading, the first test
coming in the modern practice of the House on the engrossment and third
reading.
Where questions <> are perfectly equivalent, so that the negative of the one
amounts to the affirmative of the other, and leaves no other
alternative, the decision of the one concludes necessarily the other. 4
Grey, 157. Thus the negative of striking out amounts to the affirmative
of agreeing; and therefore to put a question on agreeing after that on
striking out, would be to put the same question in effect twice over.
Not so in questions of amendments between the two Houses. A motion to
recede being negatived, does not amount to a positive vote to insist,
because there is another alternative, to wit, to adhere.
The principles set forth in this paragraph are recognized by the
practice of the House; but Jefferson's use of the motion to strike as an
illustration is no longer justified, because the practice of the House
under clause 5(c) of rule XVI does not permit the negative of the motion
to strike to be equivalent to the affirmative of agreeing.
[[Page [265]]]
A bill <> originating in one House is passed by the other with an
amendment. A motion in the originating House to agree to the amendment
is negatived. Does there result from this a vote of disagreement, or
must the question on disagreement be expressly voted? The question
respecting amendments from another House are--1st, to agree; 2d,
disagree; 3d, recede; 4th, insist; 5th, adhere.
In the House and the Senate the order of precedence of motions is as
given in the parliamentary law, and the motions take precedence in that
order without regard to the order in which they are moved (V, 6270,
6324). But a motion to amend an amendment of the other House has
precedence of the motion to agree or disagree either before the stage of
disagreement has been reached or after the House has receded from its
disagreement (V, 6164, 6169-6171; VIII, 3203) even after the previous
question has been ordered on both motions before the question is divided
(Feb. 12, 1923, p. 3512). See also the discussion in Sec. 525, infra.
But it has been held that when the previous question has been demanded
or ordered on a motion to concur, a motion to amend is not in order (V,
5488). The motion to refer also takes precedence of the motions to agree
or disagree (V, 6172-6174), but the demanding or ordering of the
previous question does not prevent a motion to refer (V, 5575). The
motion to refer takes precedence of the motions to agree or disagree
and, under clause 2 of rule XIX is in order pending a demand for or
after the ordering of the previous question, before the stage of
disagreement has been reached (V, 5575, 6172-6174), but not after the
stage of disagreement when the most preferential motion tending to bring
the two Houses together is already pending (Speaker Albert, Sept. 16,
1976, p. 30887).
1st. To <> agree; 2d. To disagree.--Either of these
concludes the other necessarily, for the positive of either is exactly
the equivalent to the negative of the other, and no other alternative
remains. On either motion amendments to the amendment may be proposed;
e.g., if it be moved to disagree, those who are for the amendment have a
right
[[Page [266]]]
to propose amendments, and to make it as perfect as they can, before the
question of disagreeing is put.
3d. To recede.--You <> may then either insist or
adhere. 4th. To insist.--You may then either
recede or adhere.
5th. To adhere.--You may then either recede or insist.
Consequently the negative of these is not equivalent to a positive
vote the other way. It does not raise so necessary an implication as may
authorize the Secretary by inference to enter another vote; for two
alternatives still remain, either of which may be adopted by the House.
Under the earlier practice in the House it was held that voting down
the motion to recede and concur was tantamount to insistence but not the
equivalent of adherence (Speaker Clark, July 2, 1918, p. 8648). But the
more recent practice is that when the House disagrees to a motion to
recede and concur in a Senate amendment some further action must be
taken to dispose of the amendment (Speaker Bankhead, July 9, 1937, p.
7007; Speaker McCormack, Sept. 19, 1962, p. 19945) and the question may
recur on a pending motion to insist or such a motion is then entertained
from the floor (Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7.21; Speaker Albert, June
25, 1973, p. 21172).
sec. xxxix--the question
<> The question is to be put
first on the affirmative, and then on the negative side.
Clause 6 of rule I provides more fully for putting the question.
After the <> Speaker has put the affirmative part of the question, any
Member who has not spoken before to the question may rise and speak
before the
[[Page [267]]]
negative be put; because it is no full question till the negative part
be put. Scob., 23; 2 Hats., 73.
After the Chair has put the affirmative part of the question, any
Member who seeks to debate the matter or offer a motion may be
recognized (V, 5925; June 22, 2006, pp. 12298, 12299), and such
recognition is not subject to appeal (June 22, 2006, p. 12299). On one
occasion, the Chair refused to entertain a motion to lay on the table
after putting the affirmative part of the pending question where the
Chair had affirmed the admissibility of that motion before putting the
main question, and that motion nevertheless was not then offered (Sept.
20, 1979, p. 25512). Where not pertinent to the pending parliamentary
situation, a parliamentary inquiry regarding whether the Chair heard the
ayes on a prematurely-commenced vote by voice was not entertained (June
22, 2006, p. 12299).
But in <> small
matters, and which are of course, such as receiving petitions, reports,
withdrawing motions, reading papers, &c., the Speaker most commonly
supposes the consent of the House where no objection is expressed, and
does not give them the trouble of putting the question formally. Scob.,
22; 2 Hats., 79, 2, 87; 5 Grey, 129; 9 Grey, 301.
sec. xl--bills, third reading
To prevent <> bills from being passed by surprise, the House, by a
standing order, directs that they shall not be put on their passage
before a fixed hour, naming one at which the house is commonly full.
Hakew., 153.
The usage of the Senate is not to put bills on their passage till
noon.
A bill reported and passed to the third reading, cannot on that day be
read the third time and passed; because this would be to pass on two
readings in the same day.
[[Page [268]]]
At the <> third reading the Clerk reads the bill and delivers it to the
Speaker, who states the title, that it is the third time of reading the
bill, and that the question will be whether it shall pass. Formerly the
Speaker, or those who prepared a bill, prepared also a breviate or
summary statement of its contents, which the Speaker read when he
declared the state of the bill, at the several readings. Sometimes,
however, he read the bill itself, especially on its passage. Hakew.,
136, 137, 153; Coke, 22, 115. Latterly, instead of this, he, at the
third reading, states the whole contents of the bill verbatim, only,
instead of reading the formal parts, ``Be it enacted,'' &c., he states
that ``preamble recites so and so--the 1st section enacts that, &c.; the
2d section enacts,'' &c.
But in the Senate of the United States, both of these formalities are
dispensed with; the breviate presenting but an imperfect view of the
bill, and being capable of being made to present a false one; and the
full statement being a useless waste of time, immediately after a full
reading by the Clerk, and especially as every member has a printed copy
in his hand.
These restrictions are not in effect in the modern practice of the
House and therefore a bill may be read a third time and passed on the
same day. Clause 8 of rule XVI provides for the third reading by title
and not by the presentation of an abbreviated summary.
A bill on <> the third reading is not to be committed for the matter or
body thereof, but to receive some particular clause or proviso, it hath
been sometimes suf
[[Page [269]]]
fered, but as a thing very unusual. Hakew., 156. Thus, 27 El., 1584, a
bill was committed on the third reading, having been formerly committed
on the second, but is declared not usual. D'Ewes, 337, col. 2; 414, col.
2.
In the House it is in order to commit a bill after the engrossment and
third reading if the previous question is not ordered (V, 5562); and by
clause 2 of rule XIX the House has preserved this opportunity to commit
even after the previous question has been ordered.
When an <> essential provision has been omitted, rather than erase the
bill and render it suspicious, they add a clause on a separate paper,
engrossed and called a rider, which is read and put to the question
three times. Elsynge's Memo., 59; 6 Grey, 335; 1 Blackst., 183. For
examples of riders, see 3 Hats., 121, 122, 124, 156. Every one is at
liberty to bring in a rider without asking leave. 10 Grey, 52.
This practice is never followed in the House.
It is <> laid down, as a general rule, that amendments proposed at
the second reading shall be twice read, and those proposed at the third
reading thrice read; as also all amendments from the other House. Town.,
col. 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.
In the practice of the House, amendments, whether offered in the House
or coming from the other House, do not come under the rule requiring
different readings.
It is <> with
great and almost invincible reluctance that amendments are admitted at
this reading, which occasion erasures or interlineations. Some
[[Page [270]]]
times a proviso has been cut off from a bill; sometimes erased. 9 Grey,
513.
This is the proper stage for filling up blanks; for if filled up
before, and now altered by erasure, it would be peculiarly unsafe.
In the House bills are amended after the second reading (IV, 3392),
and before the engrossment and third reading (V, 5781; VII, 1051, 1052)
but not afterwards. Under modern practice of the House, readings are
governed by clause 8 of rule XVI and clause 5 of rule XVIII.
At this <> reading the bill is debated afresh, and for the most part is
more spoken to at this time than on any of the former readings. Hakew.,
153.
The debate on the question whether it should be read a third time, has
discovered to its friends and opponents the arguments on which each side
relies, and which of these appear to have influence with the House; they
have had time to meet them with new arguments, and to put their old ones
into new shapes. The former vote has tried the strength of the first
opinion, and furnished grounds to estimate the issue; and the question
now offered for its passage is the last occasion which is ever to be
offered for carrying or rejecting it.
In the House it is usual to debate a bill before and not after the
engrossment and third reading, probably because of the frequent use of
the previous question, which prevents all debate after it is ordered.
When the previous question is not ordered, debate may occur pending the
vote on passage.
When the <> debate is ended, the Speaker, holding the bill in his hand, puts
the question for its passage, by saying, ``Gentlemen, all you who are of
[[Page [271]]]
opinion that this bill shall pass, say aye;'' and after the answer of
the ayes, ``All those of the contrary opinion, say no.'' Hakew., 154.
In the House the bill is usually in the custody of the Clerk. The
Speaker states that ``The question is on the passage of the bill,'' and
puts the question in the form prescribed by clause 6 of rule I.
<> After the
bill is passed, there can be no further alteration of it in any point.
Hakew., 159.
This principle controls the practice of the House. However, a bill may
be changed if the votes on passage, engrossment, and ordering the
previous question have been reconsidered. In addition, the Clerk may be
authorized to make changes in the engrossed copy by unanimous consent or
by special order of business. Title amendments are transacted following
passage (Sec. 512, infra).
sec. xli--division of the house
The affirmative and <> negative of the question having been both put
and answered, the Speaker declares whether the yeas or nays have it by
the sound, if he be himself satisfied, and it stands as the judgment of
the House. But if he be not himself satisfied which voice is the
greater, or if before any other Member comes into the House, or before
any new motion made (for it is too late after that), any Member shall
arise and declare himself dissatisfied with the Speaker's decision, then
the Speaker is to divide the House. Scob., 24; 2 Hats., 140.
This practice is provided for in different language by clause 6 of
rule I.
[[Page [272]]]
When the <> House of Commons is divided, the one
party goes forth, and the other remains in the House. This has made it
important which go forth and which remain; because the latter gain all
the indolent, the indifferent, and inattentive. Their general rule,
therefore, is that those who give their vote for the preservation of the
orders of the House shall stay in, and those who are for introducing any
new matter or alteration, or proceeding contrary to the established
course, are to go out. But this rule is subject to many exceptions and
modifications. 2 Hats., 134; 1 Rush., p. 3, fol. 92; Scob., 43, 52; Co.,
12, 116; D'Ewes, 505, col. 1; Mem. in Hakew., 25, 29.
The one party being gone forth, the Speaker names two tellers from the
affirmative and two from the negative side, who first count those
sitting in the House and report the number to the Speaker. Then they
place themselves within the door, two on each side, and count those who
went forth as they come in and report the number to the Speaker. Mem. in
Hakew., 26.
In modern practice in the House of Commons, once the Chair determines
a sufficient request for a ``division,'' all Members leave the Chamber
and are recorded in the yes and no division lobbies. In the House of
Representatives, the provision in former clause 5 of rule I that
provided for teller votes was repealed by the 103d Congress. Under the
former procedure tellers took their place at the rear of the center
aisle when named by the Chair, and Members passed between them to be
counted but not recorded by name. Clause 1(b) of rule XX provides for
taking a recorded vote by means of the electronic voting system when
supported by one-fifth of a quorum.
[[Page [273]]]
<> A mistake in the report of the tellers may be rectified after
the report made. 2 Hats., 145, note.
* * * * *
When it <> is proposed to
take the vote by yeas and nays, the President or Speaker states that
``the question is whether, e.g., the bill shall pass--that it is
proposed that the yeas and nays shall be entered on the journal. Those,
therefore, who desire it will rise.'' If he finds and declares that one-
fifth have risen, he then states that ``those who are of opinion that
the bill shall pass are to answer in the affirmative; those of the
contrary opinion in the negative.'' The Clerk then calls over the names
alphabetically, notes the yea or nay of each, and gives the list to the
President or Speaker, who declares the result. In the Senate if there be
an equal division the Secretary calls on the Vice-President and notes
his affirmative or negative, which becomes the decision of the House.
In the House tellers were sometimes, though rarely, ordered to
determine whether one-fifth joined in the demand for the yeas and nays
(V, 6045) but in the later practice the Speaker's count is not subject
to verification (VIII, 3114-3118), and it is not in order to demand a
count of those opposed to ordering the yeas and nays (VIII, 3112, 3113).
Clause 1 of rule XX provides the method for taking the yeas and nays in
the modern practice; but under clause 2 of that rule both the yeas and
nays and calls of the House are taken by means of the electronic voting
system unless the Speaker discretionarily orders the utilization of
other prescribed procedures.
In the <> House of Commons every member must give his vote the one way or
the other, Scob., 24, as it is not permitted to anyone to withdraw who
[[Page [274]]]
is in the House when the question is put, nor is anyone to be told in
the division who was not in when the question was put. 2 Hats., 140.
This last position is always true when the vote is by yeas and nays;
where the negative as well as affirmative of the question is stated by
the President at the same time, and the vote of both sides begins and
proceeds pari passu. It is true also when the question is put in the
usual way, if the negative also has been put; but if it has not, the
member entering, or any other member may speak, and even propose
amendments, by which the debate may be opened again, and the question be
greatly deferred. And as some who have answered aye may have been
changed by the new arguments, the affirmative must be put over gain. If,
then, the member entering may, by speaking a few words, occasion a
repetition of a question, it would be useless to deny it on his simple
call for it.
Clause 1 of rule III requires Members to vote; but no rule excludes
from voting those not present at the putting of the question, and this
requirement of the parliamentary law is not observed in the House. No
attempt is made to prevent Members from withdrawing after a question is
put, unless there be a question as to a quorum, when the House proceeds
under clauses 5 and 6 of rule XX.
While the <> House is telling, no member may speak or move out of his
place, for if any mistake be suspected it must be told again. Mem. in
Hakew., 26; 2 Hats., 143.
This rule applies in the House on a vote by division, where the
Speaker counts; but did not apply to the former vote by tellers, where
Members passed between tellers at the rear of the center aisle to be
counted.
[[Page [275]]]
If any <> difficulty arises in point of order during the division, the
Speaker is to decide peremptorily, subject to the future censure of the
House if irregular. He sometimes permits old experienced members to
assist him with their advice, which they do sitting in their seats,
covered, to avoid the appearance of debate; but this can only be with
the Speaker's leave, else the division might last several hours. 2
Hats., 143.
The voice <> of the majority decides; for the lex majoris partis is the law
of all councils, elections, &c., where not otherwise expressly provided.
Hakew., 93. But if the House be equally divided, semper presuamtur pro
negante; that is, the former law is not to be changed but by a majority.
Towns., col. 134.
The House provides also by rule (clause 1 of rule XX) that in the case
of a tie vote the question shall be lost.-
The House, <> however, requires a
two-thirds vote on a motion to suspend the rules (clause 1 of rule XV),
on a motion to dispense with the call of the Private Calendar (clause 5
of rule XV), and to consider a special rule immediately (clause 6 of
rule XIII), and the Constitution of the United States requires two-
thirds votes for the expulsion of a Member, passing vetoed bills,
removing political disabilities, and passing joint resolutions proposing
amendments to the Constitution.-
The standing <> rules
formerly required a three-fifths vote for passage or adoption of a bill,
a joint resolution, an amendment thereto, or a conference report
thereon, if carrying a Federal income tax rate increase (see Sec. 1067,
infra).
When from <> counting the House on a division it appears that there is not
a quorum, the matter continues exactly in the state in which it was
[[Page [276]]]
before the division, and must be resumed at that point on any future
day. 2 Hats., 126.
Although under the rules first adopted in the 95th Congress it is not
in order to make or entertain a point of no quorum unless the question
has been put on the pending motion or proposition, if a quorum in fact
does not respond on a call of the House or on a vote, even the most
highly privileged business must terminate (IV, 2934; VI, 662) and even
debate must stop until a quorum is established (see IV, 2935-2949). No
motion is entertained in the absence of a quorum other than a motion
relating to the call of the House or to adjourn (IV, 2950; VI, 680).
Even in the closing hours of a Congress business has been stopped by the
failure of a quorum (V, 6309; Oct. 18, 1972, p. 37199).
1606, May 1, <> on a question
whether a Member having said yea may afterwards sit and change his
opinion, a precedent was remembered by the Speaker, of Mr. Morris,
attorney of the wards, in 39 Eliz., who in like case changed his
opinion. Mem. in Hakew., 27.
The House is governed in this respect by the practice under clause 2
of rule XX.
sec. xlii--titles
After the <> bill
has passed, and not before, the title may be amended, and is to be fixed
by a question; and the bill is then sent to the other House.
The House by clause 6 of rule XVI embodies this principle with an
additional provision as to debate.
sec. xliii--reconsideration
1798, Jan. <> A bill on its second reading being amended, and on
the question whether it shall be read a third time negatived, was
restored by a decision to reconsider that question. Here the votes of
negative and reconsideration, like posi
[[Page [277]]]
tive and negative quantities in equation, destroy one another, and are
as if they were expunged from the journals. Consequently the bill is
open for amendment, just so far as it was the moment preceding the
question for the third reading; that is to say, all parts of the bill
are open for amendment except those on which votes have been already
taken in its present stage. So, also, it may be recommitted.
The rule permitting a reconsideration of a question affixing it to no
limitation of time or circumstance, it may be asked whether there is no
limitation? If, after the vote, the paper on which it is passed has been
parted with, there can be no reconsideration, as if a vote has been for
the passage of a bill and the bill has been sent to the other House. But
where the paper remains, as on a bill rejected, when or under what
circumstances does it cease to be susceptible of reconsideration? This
remains to be settled, unless a sense that the right of reconsideration
is a right to waste the time of the House in repeated agitations of the
same question, so that it shall never know when a question is done with,
should induce them to reform this anomalous proceeding.
The House provides for reconsideration by clause 3 of rule XIX.
In Parliament <> a question once carried can not be questioned again
at the same session, but must stand as the judgment of the House.
Towns., col. 67; Mem. in Hakew., 33. * * *
[[Page [278]]]
* * * And a <> bill once rejected, another of the same
substance can not be brought in again the same session. Hakew., 158; 6
Grey, 392. But this does not extend to prevent putting the same question
in different stages of a bill, because every stage of a bill submits the
whole and every part of it to the opinion of the House as open for
amendment, either by insertion or omission, though the same amendment
has been accepted or rejected in a former stage. So in reports of
committees, e.g., report of an address, the same question is before the
House, and open for free discussion. Towns., col. 26; 2 Hats., 98, 100,
101. So orders of the House or instructions to committees may be
discharged. So a bill, begun in one House and sent to the other and
there rejected, may be renewed again in that other, passed, and sent
back. Ib., 92; 3 Hats., 161. Or if, instead of being rejected, they read
it once and lay it aside or amend it and put it off a month, they may
order in another to the same effect, with the same or a different title.
Hakew., 97, 98.
In the House, with its rule for reconsideration, there is rarely an
attempt to bring forward a bill once rejected at the same session. One
instance is recorded (IV, 3384), but the House has declined to consider
a bill brought forward after a rejection (IV, 3384; Mar. 9, 1910, p.
2966). The Committee on Rules may report as privileged a resolution
making in order the consideration of a measure of the same substance as
one previously rejected and to rescind or vacate the action whereby the
House had rejected a measure (VIII, 3391; Mar. 17, 1976, p. 6776); and a
special order of business nearly identical to one previously rejected by
the House, but providing a different scheme for general debate, was held
not to violate this section (July 27, 1993, p. 17115).
[[Page [279]]]
Divers expedients <> are used to correct the effects of this rule,
as, by passing an explanatory act, if anything has been omitted or ill
expressed, 3 Hats., 278, or an act to enforce and make more effectual an
act, &c., or to rectify mistakes in an act, &c., or a committee on one
bill may be instructed to receive a clause to rectify the mistakes of
another. Thus, June 24, 1685, a clause was inserted in a bill for
rectifying a mistake committed by a clerk in engrossing a bill of
supply. 2 Hats., 194, 6. Or the session may be closed for one, two,
three, or more days and a new one commenced. But then all matters
depending must be finished, or they fall, and are to begin de novo. 2
Hats., 94, 98. Or a part of the subject may be taken up by another bill
or taken up in a different way. 6 Grey, 304, 316.
And in <> cases of the last magnitude this rule has not
been so strictly and verbally observed as to stop indispensable
proceedings altogether. 2 Hats., 92, 98. Thus when the address on the
preliminaries of peace in 1782 had been lost by a majority of one, on
account of the importance of the question and smallness of the majority,
the same question in substance, though with some words not in the first,
and which might change the opinion of some Members, was brought on again
and carried, as the motives for it were thought to outweigh the
objection of form. 2 Hats, 99, 100.
[[Page [280]]]
A second <> bill may
be passed to continue an act of the same session or to enlarge the time
limited for its execution. 2 Hats., 95, 98. This is not in contradiction
to the first act.
The House has by a joint resolution corrected an error in a bill that
had gone to the President (IV, 3519).
sec. xliv--bills sent to the other house
<> A
bill from the other House is sometimes ordered to lie on the table. 2
Hats., 97.
This principle is recognized in the practice of the House, both as to
Senate bills (IV, 3418, 3419; V, 5437), and as to House bills returned
with Senate amendments (V, 5424, 6201-6203). The motion to lay on the
table Senate amendments to a House bill does not take precedence over
the motion to recede and concur, because the motion would table the
entire bill (Speaker Longworth, Jan. 24, 1927, p. 2165), but the motion
to lay on the table a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment
does not carry the amendment and bill to the table, and other motions
are in order to dispose of the Senate amendment (Feb. 22, 1978, p.
4072).
When bills <> passed in one House and sent to the other are ground on special
facts requiring proof, it is usual, either by message or at a
conference, to ask the grounds and evidence, and this evidence, whether
arising out of papers or from the examination of witnesses, is
immediately communicated. 3 Hats., 48.
The Houses of Congress transmit with bills accompanying papers, which
are returned when the bills pass or at final adjournment (V, 7259,
footnote). Sometimes one House has asked, by resolution, for papers from
the files of the other (V, 7263, 7264). Testimony is also requested
(III, 1855).
[[Page [281]]]
sec. xlv--amendments between the houses
When either <> House, e.g., the House of
Commons, send a bill to the other, the other may pass it with
amendments. The regular progression in this case is, that the Commons
disagree to the amendment; the Lords insist on it; the Commons insist on
their disagreement; the Lords adhere to their amendment; the Commons
adhere to their disagreement. The term of insisting may be repeated as
often as they choose to keep the question open. But the first adherence
by either renders it necessary for the other to recede or adhere also;
when the matter is usually suffered to fall. 10 Grey, 148. Latterly,
however, there are instances of their having gone to a second adherence.
There must be an absolute conclusion of the subject somewhere, or
otherwise transactions between the Houses would become endless. 3 Hats.,
268, 270. The term of insisting, we are told by Sir John Trevor, was
then (1679) newly introduced into parliamentary usage by the Lords. 7
Grey, 94. It was certainly a happy innovation, as it multiplies the
opportunities of trying modifications which may bring the Houses to a
concurrence. Either House, however, is free to pass over the term of
insisting, and to adhere in the first instance; 10 Grey, 146; but it is
not respectful to the other. In the ordinary parliamentary course there
are two free conferences, at least, before an adherence. 10 Grey, 147.
[[Page [282]]]
The House and the Senate follow the principles set forth in this
paragraph of the parliamentary law, and sometimes dispose of differences
without resorting to conferences (V, 6165).
If both <> Houses insist and neither ask a conference nor recede, the
bill fails (V, 6228). If both Houses adhere, the bill fails (V, 6163,
6313, 6324, 6325) even though the difference may be over a very slight
amendment (V, 6233-6240). In rare instances in Congress there have been
immediate adherences on the first disagreement (V, 6303); but this does
not preclude the granting of the request of the other House for a
conference (V, 6241-6244). Sometimes the House recedes from its
disagreement as to certain amendments and adheres as to others (V,
6229). A House having adhered may at the next stage vote to further
adhere (V, 6251). Sometimes the House has receded from adherence (V,
6252, 6401) or reconsidered its action of adherence (V, 6253), after
which it has agreed to the amendment with or without amendment (V, 6253,
6401).
Either House <> may
recede from its amendment and agree to the bill; or recede from their
disagreement to the amendment, and agree to the same absolutely, or with
an amendment; for here the disagreement and receding destroy one
another, and the subject stands as before the disagreement. Elysnge, 23,
27; 9 Grey, 476.
In the <> practice of the two Houses
of Congress the motion is to recede from the amendment without at the
same time agreeing to the bill, for the bill has already been passed
with the amendment, and receding from the amendment leaves the bill
passed (V, 6312). But where the House has previously concurred in a
Senate amendment with an amendment, the House does not by receding from
its amendment agree to the Senate amendment, because the House may then
(1) concur in the Senate amendment or (2) concur in the Senate amendment
with another amendment (VIII, 3199; Oct. 12, 1977, pp. 33448-54). The
House may not through one motion, however, recede from its amendment
with an amendment (V, 6212; see Sec. 526, infra). A motion in the House
to recede from a House amendment to a Senate amendment, and concur in
the Senate amendment, is divisible (VIII, 3199). One House has receded
from its own amendment after the other House had returned it concurred
in with an amendment (V, 6226). However, this has been held insufficient
to pass the bill without further action by the House that concurred with
an amendment (VIII, 3177; June 26, 1984, p. 18733).
[[Page [283]]]
Where one House has receded from an amendment, it may not at a
subsequent stage recall its action in order to form a new basis for a
conference (V, 6251). Sometimes one House has receded from its amendment
although it previously had insisted and asked a conference, which had
been agreed to (V, 6319). After the Senate has amended a House amendment
it is not proper for the House to recede from its amendment directly,
but the Senate may recede from its amendment and then the House recede
from its amendment (Speaker Reed, June 12, 1890, p. 5981). The motion to
recede takes precedence over the motion to insist and ask a conference
(V, 6270).
By receding <> from its
disagreement to an amendment of the Senate the House does not thereby
agree to it (V, 6215); but the Senate amendment is then open to
amendment precisely as before the original disagreement (V, 6212-6214).
The stage of disagreement having been reached, the motion to recede and
concur takes precedence of the motion to recede and concur with an
amendment (V, 6219-6223; VIII, 3198, 3200, 3202); but a motion to recede
and concur is divisible (VIII, 3199) and being divided and the House
having receded, a motion to amend has precedence of the motion to concur
(V, 6209-6211; VIII, 3198), even after the previous question is ordered
on both motions before being divided (Feb. 12, 1923, p. 3512).
The motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an
amendment takes precedence of a motion to insist further on the House's
disagreement to the Senate amendment (V, 6224; VIII, 3204), and a motion
to lay certain amendments on the table (Speaker Longworth, Jan. 24,
1927, p. 2165). It has been held that after the previous question has
been moved on a motion to adhere, a motion to recede may not be made (V,
6310); and after the previous question is demanded or ordered on a
motion to concur, a motion to amend is not in order (V, 5488); but where
the previous question has been demanded on a motion to insist, a motion
to recede and concur has been admitted (V, 6208, 6321a).
But the <> House can not recede from or insist on its own amendment,
with an amendment; for the same reason that it can not send to the other
House an amendment to its own act after it has passed the act. They may
modify an amendment from the other House by ingrafting an amendment on
it, because they have never assented to it; but they can not amend their
own amendment, because they have, on the question, passed it in that
[[Page [284]]]
form. 9 Grey, 363; 10 Grey, 240. In Senate, March 29, 1798. Nor where
one House has adhered to their amendment, and the other agrees with an
amendment, can the first House depart from the form which they have
fixed by an adherence.
In the case of a money bill, the Lord's proposed amendments become, by
delay, confessedly necessary. The Commons, however, refused them as
infringing on their privilege as to money bills; but they offered
themselves to add to the bill a proviso to the same effect, which had no
coherence with the Lords' amendments; and urged that it was an expedient
warranted by precedent, and not unparliamentary in a case become
impracticable, and irremediable in any other way. 3 Hats., 256, 266,
270, 271. But the Lords refused, and the bill was lost. 1 Chand., 288. A
like case, 1 Chand., 311. * * *
In the House it is a recognized principle that the House may not
recede from its own amendments with an amendment (V, 6216-6218). The
House may not amend its own amendment to a Senate amendment to a House
bill (Mar. 16, 1934, p. 4685). However, the stage of disagreement having
been reached on a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House
proposition, the House may first recede from its amendment and, having
receded, may then concur in the Senate amendment with a different
amendment without violating this paragraph (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 12,
1977, pp. 33448-54). The House has by special order of business before
the stage of disagreement receded from its amendment and concurred in a
Senate amendment with an amendment (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3,
Sec. 6.14; Dec. 12, 2013, p. 19064).
* * * So the <> Commons resolved that it is unparliamentary to
strike out, at a conference, anything in a bill which hath been agreed
and passed by both Houses, 6 Grey, 274; 1 Chand., 312.
[[Page [285]]]
The practice of the two Houses has confirmed this principle of the
parliamentary law and established the rule that managers of a conference
may not change the text to which both Houses have agreed (V, 6417, 6418,
6420; VIII, 3257; see clause 9 of rule XXII), and neither House, alone,
may empower the managers by instruction to make such a change (V, 6388).
In the earlier practice, when it was necessary to change text already
agreed to, the managers appended a supplementary paragraph to their
report, and this was agreed to by unanimous consent in the two Houses
(V, 6433-6436); or the two Houses agreed to a concurrent resolution
giving the managers the necessary powers (V, 6437-6439; Dec. 17, 1974,
p. 40472). Under the current practice the House considers a conference
report that changes text already agreed to by unanimous consent, under
suspension of the rules, or by report from the Committee on Rules
waiving clause 9 of rule XXII.
To change text finally agreed to by both Houses, each House may adopt
a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk of the House or the
Secretary of the Senate to correct the enrollment.
The further principle has been established in practice of the House
that it may not, even by unanimous consent (V, 6179), change in the
slightest particular (V, 6181) the text to which both Houses have agreed
(V, 6180; VIII, 3257). And this prohibition extends, also, to a case
wherein it is proposed to add a new section at the end of a bill that
has passed both Houses (V, 6182).
<> A motion to amend an amendment from the other
House takes precedence of a motion to agree or disagree.
This is the rule of the House if the stage of disagreement has not
been reached (V, 6164, 6169-71; VIII, 3202), or if the House has receded
from its disagreement to the amendment in question (VIII, 3196, 3197,
3203). The following discussion summarizes the precedence and
consideration of motions to dispose of Senate or House amendments in
contemporary practice.
When Senate <> amendments are before the House for the first time, or
when the Senate has returned a bill with House amendments to which it
has disagreed (and on which the House has not insisted), no privileged
motion is in order in the House except a motion pursuant to clause 1 of
rule XXII, made by direction of the committee with subject-matter
jurisdiction, to disagree to the Senate amendments or insist on the
House amendment and request or agree to a conference with the Senate
(see Oct. 11, 1984, p. 32308). Other motions to dispose of amendments
between the Houses are not privileged until the stage of disagreement
has been reached on a bill with amendments of the other House (clause 4
of rule XXII; IV,
[[Page [286]]]
3149, 3150; VI, 756; VIII, 3185, 3194). The stage of disagreement is not
reached until the House has either disagreed to Senate amendments or has
insisted on its own amendments to a Senate bill, and has notified the
Senate. Further House action can only occur when the House has received
the papers back from the Senate (Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868).
Before the stage of disagreement, an amendment to a Senate amendment
to a House-passed measure on the Speaker's table is not in order until
an order is entered for consideration of the Senate amendment in the
House (Speaker O'Neill, June 19, 1986, pp. 14638-40).
If the House does agree to consider a bill with Senate amendment
before the stage of disagreement has been reached, by unanimous consent
or special order of business, a motion to amend takes precedence over
the motion to agree. However, the usual practice in such a situation is
to consider a request, either by unanimous consent, suspension of the
rules, or special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules,
simultaneously providing for consideration and disposition of the Senate
amendment (thus precluding the consideration of other requests to
dispose of the amendment (see Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 5)).
It should be noted that a small category of Senate amendments, those
not requiring consideration in the Committee of the Whole, may be taken
from the Speaker's table and disposed of by motion pursuant to clause 2
of rule XXII before the stage of disagreement has been reached, but the
vast majority of legislation does affect the Treasury (as described in
clause 1 of rule XIII) and requires consideration in the Committee of
the Whole.
Should the <> House consider Senate amendments before the stage of
disagreement, the precedence of nonprivileged motions is as follows
(disregarding the privileged motion to disagree and send to conference
by direction of the committee): (1) to concur with amendment; (2) to
concur; (3) to disagree and request or agree to a conference; and (4) to
disagree. With respect to consideration of House amendments before the
stage of disagreement, the precedence of motions is (1) to recede; (2)
to insist and request or agree to a conference; and (3) to insist.
Although the House may adhere, adherence is seldom utilized (because it
precludes a conference unless receded from) and is extremely rare on
first disagreement (see Sec. 522, supra; see also the discussion of
adherence in Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 12). A motion to adhere is the
least privileged motion.
It was formerly held that a motion to send to conference yielded to
the simple motion to disagree, or to insist (see Cannon's Procedure in
the House of Representatives, p. 120). In current practice, however, the
compound motion to disagree to Senate amendments and request or agree to
a conference, or to insist on House amendments and request or agree to a
conference, has replaced the two-step procedure for getting to
conference and, because it brings the two Houses together, takes
precedence over simple motions to insist or disagree (or to adhere).
[[Page [287]]]
Notwithstanding the foregoing precedence of motions, the ordinary
motions applicable to any question that is under debate--to table, to
postpone to a day certain, and to refer--remain available under clause 4
of rule XVI. A motion to table Senate amendments brings the bill to the
table (V, 5424, 6201-6203; Sept. 28, 1978, p. 32334). It has been held
that before the stage of disagreement, the motion to table a Senate
amendment (V, 6201-6203) or the motion to refer a Senate amendment (V,
5301, 6172, 6174) take precedence (in that order) over motions to amend,
agree, or disagree. And if the previous question has been ordered on
another motion to dispose of the Senate amendment, a motion to refer is
in order (V, 5575). In the Senate, the adoption of a motion to table a
House amendment is messaged to the House as disagreement to said
amendment (Sept. 30, 2013, p. 14705, p. 14736) and the adoption of a
motion to table a House request for a conference is messaged to the
House as disagreement to said request (Oct. 1, 2013, p. 14862; Mar. 3,
2015, pp. 3114, 3115).
A Senate amendment is read in full when taken from the Speaker's desk
(VIII, 2400). Before consideration of any motions to dispose of Senate
amendments, the Speaker has the discretionary authority, under clause 2
of rule XIV, to refer such amendments to the appropriate committee, with
or without a time limitation.
The House <> has
reached the stage of disagreement on a bill when it is again in
possession of the papers thereon, having previously disagreed to Senate
amendments or insisted on House amendments (with or without requesting
or agreeing to a conference) (Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868), and not merely
where the other House has returned a bill with an amendment (Dec. 7,
1977, p. 38728). Only previous insistence or disagreement by the House
itself places the House in disagreement (and not merely disagreement,
insistence, or amendment by the Senate). For example, if the House has
concurred in a Senate amendment to a House bill with an amendment,
insisted on the House amendment and requested a conference, and the
Senate has then concurred in the House amendment with a further
amendment, the matter is privileged for further disposition in the House
because the House has communicated to the Senate its insistence and
request for a conference (Speaker Albert, Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30868). Of
course, if the Senate has agreed to a House request for a conference,
the bill is committed to conference and motions are not in order for its
disposition until after the conferees have reported (the House may
unilaterally discharge its conferees and consider the bill, if in
possession of the papers, only by unanimous consent, special order, or
suspension of the rules, and not by motion).
Once the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill with
amendments, the House remains in the stage of disagreement until the
matter is finally disposed of and motions for its disposition are
privileged whenever the House is in possession of the papers. This
principle applies both where the stage of disagreement is reached
without a conference, and where matters remain in disagreement after
conferees have reported. It is possible,
[[Page [288]]]
therefore, for motions to be privileged because the House is in
disagreement on the bill, but for the House to have receded from its
disagreement or insistence on a particular amendment or to have received
a new Senate amendment for the first time. In those cases motions remain
privileged, but the precedence of motions on the amendment in question
reverts to the precedence of motions before the stage of disagreement,
as set forth in Sec. 528b, supra (see discussion below of the effect of
the House's receding). The two Houses having permitted the amendment
process to go beyond the second degree, a motion to concur in a Senate
amendment (in the 4th degree), the stage of disagreement having been
reached, is privileged but is subject to the motion to lay on the table
(Mar. 18, 1986, p. 5217).
Where the House by special order of business limited the availability
of privileged motions under clause 4 of rule XXII to the Majority Leader
or a designee (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 6.14; July 31, 2014, p.
13727), the Chair declined to recognize another Member for such a motion
(Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14981; Oct. 12, 2013, p. 15782, p. 15791).
Generally, after <> the stage of disagreement has been reached on a
Senate amendment, the precedence of motions is as follows: (1) to recede
and concur; (2) to recede and concur with an amendment or amendments;
(3) to insist on disagreement and request a (further) conference; (4) to
insist on disagreement; and (5) to adhere. The Chair may examine the
substance of a pending motion to determine the precedence thereof in
relation to another motion, even though in form it may appear
preferential. Thus, a proper motion to concur with an amendment to a
Senate amendment reported from conference in disagreement (the House
having receded) has been offered and voted on before a pending motion
drafted as one to concur with an amendment but in actual effect a motion
to insist on disagreement to the Senate amendment, because simply
reinserting the original House text without change (Deschler-Brown, ch.
31, Sec. 8.12).
A Senate amendment is read in full when taken from the Speaker's desk
(VIII, 3232; Mar. 3, 2015, p. 3103). The ordinary motion to table under
clause 4 of rule XVI may be applied to a Senate amendment, is
preferential to a motion to dispose of the Senate amendment (Deschler-
Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7.22; Mar. 3, 2015, p. 3099), but carries the bill
to the table (Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7.22). When applied to a
motion to dispose of a Senate amendment, the motion to table carries to
the table only the motion to dispose and not the amendment or bill (see
Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7.27). With respect to the motion to refer
(or recommit), a simple motion to refer or recommit only takes
precedence over a motion to adhere, after the stage of disagreement has
been reached on the bill. After the previous question is ordered on a
pending motion to dispose of a Senate amendment, a motion to recommit
(pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIX) may only be offered if it
constitutes, in effect, a motion that takes precedence over the pending
motion to dispose of a Senate amendment. Thus, after the stage of
disagreement has been reached on a Senate amendment, a motion to
recommit
[[Page [289]]]
with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment (if such
instructions are permitted under the standing rules) may not be offered
after the previous question has been ordered on a motion to recede and
concur, a motion of higher privilege (see Deschler-Brown, ch. 32,
Sec. 7.5). However, after the House has receded from disagreement to a
Senate amendment, a motion to amend is preferential over a motion to
agree, and thus after the previous question is ordered on a motion to
concur, the House having already receded, a motion to recommit with
instructions to amend would be in order (VIII, 2744). Motions to
postpone, either to a day certain or indefinitely, have the lowest
privilege with respect to a Senate amendment after the stage of
disagreement has been reached. For old examples in which the House
postponed indefinitely consideration of Senate amendments, see V, 6199,
6200 (in the latter case the Senate had adhered). Clause 8(b)(3) of rule
XXII makes preferential and separately debatable a motion to insist on
disagreement to a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill, if:
(1) the Senate amendment has been reported from conference in
disagreement; (2) the original motion to dispose of the Senate amendment
proposes to change existing law; and (3) the motion to insist is timely
offered by the chair of a committee of jurisdiction or a designee.
Where the matter in question is a House amendment or amendments after
the stage of disagreement has been reached, the precedence of motions is
(1) to recede; (2) to further insist on the amendment and request a
(further) conference; and (3) to adhere. For discussion of possible
options of the House, having receded from its amendment or amendments,
see Sec. 524, supra, and Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 7. If the House
recedes from its amendment to a Senate bill, the bill is passed unless
otherwise specified. If the House recedes from its amendment to a Senate
amendment, the bill is not passed unless the House takes another step,
either to concur in the Senate amendment or amend it. The House having
receded from its amendment to a Senate amendment, it is no longer in
disagreement on the amendment (although it is on the bill if the stage
of disagreement has previously been reached), and the motion to amend
the Senate amendment takes precedence over the motion to concur therein.
Until the House recedes, however, a motion to recede from the House
amendment and concur in the Senate amendment is preferential. A
conference report held to violate clause 9 of rule XXII was vitiated,
after which a privileged motion to recede and concur in a Senate
amendment with an amendment incorporating by reference the text of an
introduced House bill was offered (Nov. 14, 2002, p. 22409).
The same principle as to the precedence of motions after a division of
the question applies to a motion to recede and concur in a Senate
amendment, the stage of disagreement having been reached. Although the
motion to recede and concur takes precedence over the motion to recede
and concur with an amendment, the former motion may be divided on the
demand of any Member and each portion may be separately debatable (Oct.
5, 1978,
[[Page [290]]]
33698-701). If the House agrees to recede, a motion to concur with an
amendment then takes precedence over the motion to concur, is considered
as pending if part of the original motion, and is voted on first (Sept.
30, 1988, pp. 27265-74; Oct. 11, 1989, p. 24097). As indicated in
Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 8.2, a Member offering a preferential
motion does not thereby gain control of the debate, which remains in the
control of the floor manager recognized to offer the original motion to
dispose of amendments between the Houses. In the modern practice, clause
8(d) of rule XXII has been interpreted to apply to any motion to dispose
of an amendment between the Houses after the stage of disagreement and
the Chair will divide the time equally between the majority and minority
floor managers (see Sec. 1086, infra). Where both floor managers support
such a motion, however, a Member opposed may claim one-third of the
time, and the Chair will recognize for closing debate in the reverse
order of opening (Mar. 3, 2015, pp. 3114, 3115).
Recognition to offer a preferential motion goes to the senior
committee member seeking the floor who is not the offeror of a displaced
motion of lesser privilege (Nov. 16, 1989, p. 29565). Although the
manager of a conference report is entitled to prior recognition to offer
motions to dispose of amendments in disagreement, the manager should not
be entitled to offer two motions, one preferential to the other, to be
pending at the same time. However, where the manager's first motion to
insist on disagreement has been superseded by the House's voting to
recede from disagreement, then the initial motion is no longer pending;
and the manager may be recognized to offer another motion to concur with
an amendment, which would be preferential to the remaining portion of
another Member's divided motion to concur (Deschler-Brown, ch 32,
Sec. 8.2). This is to be contrasted with the situation in which the bill
manager offers a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment that is
rejected by the House, in which case recognition to offer a subsequent
motion to dispose of the pending Senate amendment shifts to another
Member who led the opposition to the rejected motion (see Sec. 954,
infra).
A bill <> originating in one House is passed by the other with an
amendment. The originating House agrees to their amendment with an
amendment. The other may agree to their amendment with an amendment,
that being only in the 2d and not the 3d degree; for, as to the amending
House, the first amendment with which they passed the bill is a part of
its text. It is the only text they have agreed to. The
[[Page [291]]]
amendment to that text by the originating House therefore is only in the
1st degree, and the amendment to that again by the amending House is
only in the 2d, to wit, an amendment to an amendment, and so admissible.
Just so, when, on a bill from the originating House, the other, at its
second reading, makes an amendment; on the third reading this amendment
is become the text of the bill, and if an amendment to it be moved an
amendment to that amendment may also be moved, as being only in the 2d
degree.
This principle is followed in the practice of the House (V, 6176-
6178). For a discussion of the attitude of the Senate on this topic, see
October 31, 1991, p. 29494.
sec. xlvi--conferences
It is on the <> occasion of amendments between the Houses that
conferences are usually asked; but they may be asked in all cases of
difference of opinion between the two Houses on matters depending
between them. The request of a conference, however, must always be by
the House which is possessed of the papers. 3 Hats., 31; 1 Grey, 425.
The House follows the principles set forth in this paragraph of the
parliamentary law. A conference may be asked on only a portion of the
amendments in disagreement, leaving the differences as to the remainder
to be settled by the action of the two Houses themselves (V, 6401). In
very rare instances conferences have been asked by one House after the
other has absolutely rejected a main proposition (IV, 3442; V, 6258). A
difference over an amendment to a proposed constitutional amendment may
be committed to a conference (V, 7037).
[[Page [292]]]
Although conferences <> between the two Houses of Congress
are usually held over differences as to amendments to bills,
occasionally differences arise as to the respective prerogatives of the
Houses (II, 1485-1495) or as to matters of procedures (V, 6401), as in
impeachment proceedings (III, 2304), which are referred to conference.
In early and exceptional instances conferences have been asked as to
legislative matters when no propositions relating thereto were pending
(V, 6255-6257).
In very <> rare cases, also, the Houses interchange views and come to
conclusions by means of select committees appointed on the part of each
House (I, 3). Thus, in 1821, a joint committee was chosen to consider
and report to the two Houses whether or not it was expedient to provide
for the admission of Missouri into the Union (IV, 4471), and in 1877
similar committees were appointed to devise a method for counting the
electoral vote (III, 1953).
The <> parliamentary law
provides that the request for a conference must always be by the House
that is in possession of the papers (V, 8254). It was formerly the more
regular practice for the House disagreeing to amendments of the other to
leave the asking of a conference to that other House if it should decide
to insist (V, 6278-6285, 6324); but it is so usual in the later practice
for the House disagreeing to an amendment of the other to ask a
conference that an omission to do so has even raised a question (V,
6273). Yet it cannot be said that the practice requires a request for a
conference to be made by the House disagreeing to the amendments of the
other (V, 6274-6277). One House having asked a conference at one
session, the other House may agree to the conference at the next session
of the same Congress (V, 6286).
In rare <> instances one House has declined the request of the other
for a conference (V, 6313-6315; Mar. 20, 1951, p. 2683; Oct. 1, 2013, p.
14862; Mar. 3, 2015, p. 3103), sometimes accompanying it by adherence
(V, 6313, 6315). In one instance, in which the Senate declined a
conference, it transmitted, by message, its reasons for so doing (V,
6313). Sometimes, also, one House disregards the request of the other
for a conference and recedes from its disagreement, thereby rendering a
conference unnecessary (V, 6316-6318). And in one case, in which one
House has asked a conference to which the other has assented, the asking
House receded before the conference took place (V, 6319). Also, a bill
returned to the House with a request for a conference has been postponed
indefinitely (V, 6199).
After the <> stage of
disagreement has been reached, a motion to ask a conference is
considered as distinct from motions to agree or disagree to amendments
of the other House (V, 6268) and the motions to agree, recede, or insist
[[Page [293]]]
are considered as preferential (V, 6269, 6270). Where a motion to
request a conference at this stage has been rejected, its repetition at
the same stage of the proceedings, no other motion to dispose of the
matter in disagreement having been considered, has not been permitted
(V, 6325). Where a conference results in disagreement, a motion to
request a new conference is privileged (V, 6586). Sometimes
disagreements are voted on by the House and conferences asked through
the medium of special orders of business (IV, 3242-3249).
Before the stage of disagreement, any motion with respect to
amendments between the two Houses is without privilege, except for
motions with respect to the limited number of amendments that qualify
under clause 2 of rule XXII or motions under clause 1 of rule XXII, to
disagree to Senate amendments (or insist on House amendments) and to
request or agree to an initial conference if the motion is authorized by
the primary committee and all reporting committees of initial referral
and if the Speaker chooses to recognize for that purpose. Under clause
2(a)(3) of rule XI, a committee may adopt a rule providing that the
chair be directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII. A
motion under the latter clause may be repeated, if again authorized by
the relevant committees, and if the Speaker again agrees to recognize
for that purpose, even though the House has once rejected a motion to
send the same matter to conference (Speaker Albert, Oct. 3, 1972, p.
33502).
Although usual, <> it is not
essential that one House, in asking a conference, transmit the names of
its managers at the same time, and the Senate has moved to agree to a
conference asked by the House before the appointment of House managers
(V, 6405; Feb. 27, 2015, p. 2892). The managers, properly so called (V,
6335), constitute practically two distinct committees, each of which
acts by a majority (V, 6334). The Speaker appoints the managers on the
part of the House (clause 11 of rule I) and has discretion as to the
number to serve on a given bill (V, 6336; VIII, 2193) but must appoint
(1) a majority of Members who generally support the House position, as
determined by the Speaker; (2) Members who are primarily responsible for
the legislation; and (3) to the fullest extent feasible the principal
proponents of the major provisions of the bill as it passed the House
(clause 11 of rule I). Although the practice used to be to appoint three
managers from each house (V, 6336), in the absence of joint rules each
House may appoint whatever number it sees fit (V, 6328-6330). The two
Houses have frequently appointed a disparate number of managers (V,
6331-6333; VIII, 3221); and where the Senate appointed nine and the
House but three, a motion to instruct the Speaker to appoint a greater
number of managers on the part of the House was held out of order (VII,
2193). In appointing managers the Speaker usually consults the Member in
charge of the bill (V, 6336); and where an amendment in disagreement
falls within the jurisdiction of two committees of the House, the
Speaker has named Members from both committees and specified the
respective areas on which they
[[Page [294]]]
were to confer (Speaker Albert, Nov. 30, 1971, p. 43422). In appointing
conferees on the general appropriation bill for fiscal year 1951,
Speaker Rayburn appointed a set of managers for each chapter of the bill
and four Members to sit on all chapters (Aug. 7, 1950, p. 11894).
Although the appointment of conferees, both as to their number and
composition, is within the discretion of the Chair (Speaker Garner, June
24, 1932, p. 13876; Speaker Martin, July 8, 1947, p. 8469), and although
a point of order will not lie against the exercise of this discretion
(VIII, 2193, 3221), the Speaker normally takes into consideration the
attitude of the majority and minority of the House on the disagreements
in issue (V, 6336-6338; VIII, 3223), the varying views of the Members of
the House (V, 6339, 6340), and does not necessarily confine the
appointments to members of the committee in charge of the bill (V,
6370). In one case, in which the prerogatives of the House were
involved, all of the managers were appointed to represent the majority
opinion (V, 6338). See also Sec. 637, infra.
Where there <> were several conferences on a bill, it was the
early practice to change the managers at each conference (V, 6288-6291,
6324), and so fixed was this practice that their reappointment had a
special significance, indicating an unyielding temper (V, 6352-6368);
but in the later practice it is the rule to reappoint managers (V, 6341-
6344) unless a change be necessary to enable the sentiment of the House
to be represented (V, 6369).
Managers of <> a conference are excused from service either by authority
of the House (V, 6373-6376; VIII, 3224, 3227) or, since the 103d
Congress, by removal by the Speaker (clause 11 of rule I). The absence
of a manager may cause a vacancy, which the Speaker fills by appointment
(V, 6372; VIII, 3228). If one House makes a change in its managers, it
informs the other House, by message (V, 6377, 6378). According to the
later practice the powers of managers who have not reported do not
expire at the termination of a session, unless it be the last session
(V, 6260-6262).
Conferences <> may be either simple or free. At a conference simply,
written reasons are prepared by the House asking it, and they are read
and delivered, without debate, to the managers of the other House at the
conference, but are not then to be answered. 4 Grey, 144. The other
House then, if satisfied, vote the reasons satisfactory, or say nothing;
if not satisfied they resolve then not satisfactory and ask a conference
on the sub
[[Page [295]]]
ject of the last conference, where they read and deliver, in like
manner, written answer to those reasons. 3 Grey, 183. They are meant
chiefly to record the justification of each House to the nation at large
and to posterity and in proof that the miscarriage of a necessary
measure is not imputable to them. 3 Grey, 255. At free conferences the
managers discuss, viva voce and freely, and interchange propositions for
such modifications as may be made in a parliamentary way, and may bring
the sense of the two Houses together. * * *
This provision <> of the parliamentary law bears little relation to the modern
practice of the two Houses of Congress, and that practice has evolved a
new definition: ``A free conference is that which leaves the committee
of conference entirely free to pass upon any subject where the two
branches have disagreed in their votes, not, however, including any
action upon any subject where there has been a concurrent vote of both
branches. A simple conference--perhaps it should more properly be termed
a strict or a specific conference, though the parliamentary term is
`simple'--is that which confines the committee of conference to the
specific instructions of the body appointing it'' (V, 6403). And where
the House had asked a free conference it was held not in order to
instruct the managers (V, 6384). But it is very rare for the House in
asking a conference to specify whether it shall be free or simple.
In their practices <> as to the instruction of managers of a conference, the
House and the Senate do not agree. Only in rare instances has the Senate
instructed (V, 6398), and these instances are at variance with its
declaration, made after full consideration, that managers may not be
instructed (V, 6397). And where the House has instructed its managers,
the Senate sometimes has declined to participate and asked a free
conference (V, 6402-6404). In the later practice the House does not
inform the Senate when it instructs its managers (V, 6399), the Senate
having objected to the transmittal of instructions by message (V, 6400,
6401). In one instance in which the Senate learned indirectly that the
House had instructed its managers, it declared that the conference
should be full and free, and instructed its own managers to withdraw if
they should find the freedom of the conference impaired (V, 6406). But
the House holds to the opinion that the House may instruct its managers
(V, 6379-6382), although the
[[Page [296]]]
propriety of doing so at a first conference has been questioned (V,
6388, footnote). And in rare instances in which a free conference is
asked instruction is not in order (V, 6384). At a new conference the
instructions of a former conference are not in force (V, 6383; VIII,
3240). And instructions may not direct the managers to do that which
they might not otherwise do (V, 6386, 6387; VIII, 3235, 3244), as to
effect a change in part of a bill not in disagreement (V, 6391-6394) or
change the text to which both Houses have agreed (V, 6388). Although
managers may disregard instructions, their report may not for that
reason be ruled out of order (V, 6395; VIII, 3246; June 8, 1972, p.
20282), and when a conference report was recommitted with instructions
the managers were not confined to the instructions alone (VIII, 3247).
The motion to instruct managers should be offered after the vote to
ask for or agree to a conference and before the managers are appointed
(V, 6379-6382; VIII, 3233, 3240, 3256). The motion to instruct may be
amended unless the previous question is ordered (V, 6525; VIII, 3231,
3240); thus a motion to instruct House conferees to agree to a numbered
Senate amendment with an amendment may be amended, upon rejection of the
previous question, to instruct the conferees to agree to the Senate
amendment (June 9, 1982, pp. 13027, 13028, 13039, 13049). A Member may
not be recognized for a unanimous-consent request to modify a pending
motion to instruct unless yielded to for that purpose by the proponent
(Mar. 29, 2006, p. 4377). The motion to instruct may be laid on the
table without carrying the bill to the table (VIII, 2658). The motion is
debatable (see clause 7(b) of rule XXII) unless the previous question is
ordered (VIII, 2675, 3240), which the proponent may not move until those
allotted time under clause 7(b) have yielded back (Oct. 3, 1989, p.
22842). After a motion to ask or agree to a conference is agreed to,
only one valid motion to instruct is in order (VIII, 3236; Speaker
Wright, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 11.1); and the ruling out of
such a motion does not preclude the offering of a proper motion (VIII,
3235; Dec. 7, 2005, p. 27706); but one motion having been considered and
disposed of, further motions are not in order (VIII, 3236). The
restriction on further motions does not apply to a motion to instruct
under clause 7(c) of rule XXII (Aug. 22, 1935, pp. 14162-64).
A member of the minority is first entitled to recognition for a motion
to instruct conferees (Speaker Bankhead, Oct. 31, 1939, pp. 1103-05;
Speaker Albert, Oct. 19, 1971, pp. 36832-35), and if two minority
members of the reporting committee seek recognition to offer a motion to
instruct conferees before their appointment, the Chair will recognize
the senior minority member of the committee (Oct. 10, 1986, p. 30181;
Speaker Wright, Feb. 17, 1988, p. 1583).
[[Page [297]]]
* * * And each <> party report in writing to their respective
Houses the substance of what is said on both sides, and it is entered in
their journals. 9 Grey, 220; 3 Hats; 280. This report can not be amended
or altered, as that of a committee may be. Journal Senate, May 24, 1796.
In the two <> Houses of
Congress conference reports were originally merely suggestions for
action and were neither identical in the two Houses nor acted on as a
whole (V, 6468-6471). In the House clause 7(a) of rule XXII provides
that conference reports may be received at any time, except when the
Journal is being read, while the roll is being called, or the House is
dividing. They are privileged on or after the third calendar day
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays) after they have been
filed and printed in the Record, together with the accompanying
statement (clause 8 of rule XXII). The early reports were not signed by
the managers (IV, 3905); but in the later practice the signatures of the
majority of the managers of each House is required (V, 6497-6502; VIII,
3295). Sometimes a manager indorses the report with a conditional
approval or dissent (V, 6489-6496, 6538; Nov. 18, 1991, p. 32575).
Traditionally, however, signatures with conditions are not counted
toward a majority (cf. VIII, 3302) and in the modern practice are not
printed in the report. Supplemental reports or minority views may not be
filed in connection with conference reports (VIII, 3302). The name of an
absent manager may not be affixed, but the two Houses by concurrent
action may authorize the manager to sign the report after it has been
acted on (V, 6488). The minority portion of the managers of a conference
have no authority to make either a written or verbal report concerning
the conference (V, 6406). In the later practice reports of managers are
identical, and made in duplicate for the two Houses, the House managers
signing first the report for their House and the Senate managers signing
the other report first (V, 6323, 6426, 6499, 6500, 6504). Under certain
circumstances managers may report an entirely new bill on a subject in
disagreement, but this bill is acted on as part of the report (V, 6465-
6467; see also clause 9 of rule XXII). A quorum among the managers on
the part of the House at a committee of conference is established by
their signatures on the conference report and joint explanatory
statement (Oct. 4, 1994, p. 27662).
Managers may <> report an
agreement as to a portion of the numbered amendments in disagreement,
leaving the remainder to be disposed of by subsequent action (V, 6460-
6464). Where a Senate amendment to the title of a House bill was in
conference, but inadvertently omitted from the conference report,
[[Page [298]]]
the House adopted the report, and, by unanimous consent, insisted on its
disagreement to the putatively reported amendment and agreed to a
concurrent resolution that deemed the conference report to have
``resolved all disagreements'' (Oct. 10, 2002, p. 20333).
Where managers <> of a
conference are unable to agree, or where a report is disagreed to in
either House, another conference is usually asked (V, 6288-6291). When
managers report that they have been unable to agree, the report is not
acted on by the House (V, 6562; VIII, 3329; Aug. 23, 1957, p. 15816).
Although under the earlier practice, when conferees reported in complete
disagreement, the amendments in disagreement were considered available
for immediate disposition (VIII, 3299, 3332), the current practice (as a
result of the amendments to clause 8(a) of rule XXII in the 93d and
116th Congresses) is to require the matter to lay over for 72 hours
after the report in disagreement is filed and printed in the Record. In
the earlier practice reports of inability to agree were made verbally or
by unsigned written reports (V, 6563-6567); but in later practice they
are written, in identical form, and signed by the managers of the two
Houses (V, 6568, 6569).
The managers <> of a conference must confine
themselves to the differences committed to them (V, 6417, 6418; VIII,
3252, 3255, 3282), and may not include subjects not within the
disagreements (V, 6407, 6408; VIII, 3253-3255, 3260, 3282, 3284), even
though germane to a question in issue (V, 6419; VIII, 3256; Speaker
Albert, Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41849). But they may perfect amendments
committed to them if they do not in so doing go beyond the differences
(V, 6409, 6413). Thus, where an amendment providing an appropriation to
construct a road had been disagreed to, it was held in order to report a
provision to provide for a survey for the road (V, 6425). Managers may
not change the text to which both Houses have agreed (V, 6417, 6418,
6420, 6433-6436). But if the amendment in issue strikes all of the bill
after the enacting clause and substitutes a new text, the managers have
the whole subject before them and may exercise a broad discretion as to
details (V, 6424; VIII, 3266), and may even report an entirely new bill
on the subject (V, 6421, 6423; VIII, 3248, 3263, 3265, 3276; Sec. 1088,
infra). If the amendment in disagreement proposes a substitute differing
greatly from the House provision they may eliminate the entire subject
matter (Speaker Gillett, Sept. 14, 1922, p. 12598).
In the <> House the Speaker may rule out a conference report if it be
shown that the managers have exceeded their authority (V, 6409-6416;
VIII, 3256; Oct. 4, 1962, p. 22332; Nov. 14, 2002, pp. 22408, 22409). In
the House points of order against reports are made or reserved after the
report is read and before the reading of the statement (V, 6424, 6441;
VIII, 3282, 3284, 3285, 3287), or consideration begins (V, 6903-6905;
VIII, 3286), and
[[Page [299]]]
comes too late after the report has been agreed to (V, 6442); and in
case the statement is read in lieu of the report the point of order must
be made or reserved before the statement is read (VIII, 3256, 3265,
3285, 3288, 3289). Where clause 8(c) of rule XXII applies, points of
order must be made before debate begins on the report (Nov. 14, 2002, p.
22408).
A conference report held to violate clause 9 of rule XXII was
vitiated, after which a privileged motion to recede and concur in a
Senate amendment with an amendment incorporating by reference the text
of an introduced House bill was offered (Nov. 14, 2002, p. 22409).
Under the former practice of the Senate, the Chair did not rule out
conference reports, but the Senate itself expressed its opinion on the
vote to agree to the report (V, 6426-6432). However, on March 8, 1918,
the Senate adopted a ``scope'' rule providing for a point of order
against conferees inserting matter not committed to them or changing the
text agreed to by both Houses. This rule of the Senate was strictly
construed (VIII, 3273, 3275) until the 104th Congress when the Senate
overturned on appeal a ruling of its presiding officer that the
inclusion of a special labor-law provision in a conference report
exceeded the scope of conference (Oct. 3, 1996, pp. 27147-51). The Chair
interpreted that action as tantamount to a change in the Senate rules
until the 107th Congress. Public Law 106-553 provided that at the
beginning of the 107th Congress the Presiding Officer of the Senate
would apply precedents under Senate rule XXVIII as in effect at the end
of the 103d Congress. Public Law 110-81 amended it to provide a new
procedure (see, e.g., Nov. 7, 2007, pp. 30270, 30271, 30282).
The <> managers of a
conference may not report before the other House is notified of their
appointment and a meeting is held (V, 6458). Conferences are generally
held in the Capitol, and formerly with closed doors, although in rare
instances Members and others were admitted to make arguments (V, 6254,
footnote, 6263). Clause 12 of rule XXII now provides for at least one
open conference meeting except if the House determines by the yeas and
nays that all or part of the meeting may be closed to the public. The
same rule now provides for a point of order in the House against the
report and for an automatic request for a new conference if the House
managers fail to meet in open session following appointment of the
Senate conferees (Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32896). For a discussion of open
conference meetings, see Sec. 1093, infra. Rarely, also, papers in the
nature of petitions have been referred to managers (V, 6263). The
managers of the two Houses vote separately (V, 6336). Clause 12(a)(3) of
rule XXII provides additional statements on the meetings, discussions,
and signatures of House managers. Clause 13 of rule XXII provides a
point of order against consideration of a conference report that differs
in a non-clerical manner from the version placed before the House
managers for signature.
[[Page [300]]]
The report of <> the managers of a conference goes first to one House and
then to the other, neither House acting until it is in possession of the
papers, which means the original bill and amendments, as well as the
report (V, 6322, 6518-6522, 6586; VIII, 3301). The report must be acted
on as a whole, being agreed to or disagreed to as an entirety (V, 6472-
6480, 6530-6533; VIII, 3304, 3305; Speaker Bankhead, Aug. 22, 1940, p.
10763; Speaker Albert, Nov. 10, 1971, p. 40481); and until the report
has been acted on no motion to deal with the individual amendments is in
order (V, 6323, 6389, 6390; Speaker Rayburn, Mar. 16, 1942, pp. 2502-
04). Under a special order of business recommended by the Committee on
Rules, the House has considered a single, indivisible motion to adopt
not only a conference report but also sundry motions to dispose of
amendments reported from conference in disagreement (June 18, 1992, p.
15453). Although ordinarily reports are agreed to by majority vote, a
two-thirds vote is required on a report relating to a constitutional
amendment (V, 7036). Conference reports must be acted on in both Houses
and, in a case in which the Senate had adopted a report recommending
that it recede from its amendments to a House bill, the House rejected
the report and then agreed to the Senate amendments (Mar. 21, 1956, p.
5278). A conference report being made up but not acted on at the
expiration of a Congress, the bill is lost (V, 6309). One House has, by
message, reminded the other of its neglect to act on a conference
report; but this was an occasion of criticism (V, 6309).
When a <> conference report is presented, the question on
agreeing is regarded as pending (V, 6517; VIII, 3300), and as the
negative of it is equivalent to disagreement, the motion to disagree is
not admitted (II, 1473; V, 6517; VIII, 3300). The reading of the
amendments to which the report relates is not in order during its
consideration (V, 5298). The report may not be amended on motion made in
either House alone (V, 6534, 6535; VIII, 3306), but amendment is
sometimes made by concurrent action of the two Houses (V, 6536, 6537;
VIII, 3308). A motion to refer to a standing committee (V, 6558) or to
lay on the table is not entertained in the House (V, 6538-6544); and a
conference report may not be sent to Committee of the Whole on
suggestion that it contains matter ordinarily requiring consideration in
that committee (V, 6559-6561). It is in order on motion to recommit a
conference report if the other body, by action on the report, have not
discharged their managers (V, 6545-6553, 6609; VIII, 3310), and by
concurrent resolution a report may be recommitted to conference after
each House has acted thereon (VIII, 3316), but such a proposition would
not be privileged in the House (V, 6554-6557; VIII, 3309).
A bill being recommitted to the committee of conference, no further
action is taken by the House until it is again reported by the managers
(VIII, 3326, 3327), and when reported is subject to another motion to
recommit (VIII, 3325). Adoption of a motion to recommit opens to further
negotiation all issues committed to conference (Apr. 21, 1988, p. 8198).
A motion to
[[Page [301]]]
recommit a conference report under the former version of the rule could
not instruct House managers to exceed the scope of conference
(Sec. 1088, infra); and, under clause 7(d) of rule XXII, a motion to
instruct may not contain argument (Sec. 1079, infra).
When either <> House disagrees to a conference report the matter is left in
the position it was in before the conference was asked (V, 6525), and
the amendments in disagreement come up for further action (II, 1473),
but do not return to the state they were in before disagreement, so that
they need not be considered in the Committee of the Whole (V, 6589).
Motions for disposition of Senate amendments, sending to conference and
instruction of conferees, are again in order (VIII, 3303). However, if a
conference report is considered as rejected pursuant to the provisions
of clause 10 of rule XXII because of the inclusion of nongermane matter,
the pending question is as specified in that clause and, depending on
the nature of the text in disagreement, may be to recede and concur with
an amendment, to insist on the House position, or to insist on
disagreement (see Sec. Sec. 1089, 1090, infra).
A <> conference may be asked, before the House asking
it has come to a resolution of disagreement, insisting or adhering. 3
Hats., 269, 341. In which case the papers are not left with the other
conferees, but are brought back to the foundation of the vote to be
given. And this is the most reasonable and respectful proceeding; for,
as was urged by the Lords on a particular occasion, ``it is held vain,
and below the wisdom of Parliament, to reason or argue against fixed
resolutions, and upon terms of impossibility to persuade.'' 3 Hats.,
226. * * *
In the Houses of Congress conferences are sometimes asked before a
disagreement, and while the rule as to retention of the papers
undoubtedly holds good, neglect to observe it has not been questioned
(V, 6585).
* * * So the <> Commons say, ``an adherence is never
delivered at a free conference, which implies debate.'' 10 Grey, 137.
And on another occasion the
[[Page [302]]]
Lords made it an objection that the Commons had asked a free conference
after they had made resolutions of adhering. It was then affirmed,
however, on the part of the Commons that nothing was more parliamentary
than to proceed with free conferences after adhering, 3 Hats., 269, and
we do in fact see instances of conference, or of free conference, asked
after the resolution of disagreeing, 3 Hats., 251, 253, 260, 286, 291,
316, 349; of insisting, ib., 280, 290, 299, 319, 322, 355; of adhering,
269, 270, 283, 300; and even of a second or final adherence. 3 Hats.,
270. * * *
The two Houses <> not observing the
parliamentary distinctions as to free and other conferences, their
practice in case of adherence is also different. Conferences are not
asked after an adherence by both Houses, but have often been asked and
granted where only one House has adhered (V, 6241-6244). A vote to
adhere may not be accompanied by a request for a conference (V, 6303;
VIII, 3208), because the House that votes to adhere does not ask a
conference (V, 6304-6308). The request for a conference in such a case
is properly accompanied by a motion to insist (V, 6308). And the House
that has adhered may insist on its adherence when it agrees to the
conference (V, 6251). But it is not considered necessary either to
recede or insist before agreeing to the conference (V, 6242, 6244, 6310,
6311).
* * * And in <> all cases of conference asked after a vote of
disagreement, &c., the conferees of the House asking it are to leave the
papers with the conferees of the other; and in one case where they
refused to receive them they were left on the table in the conference
chamber. Ib., 271, 317, 323, 354; 10 Grey, 146.
This principle of the parliamentary law is recognized in both Houses,
and is customarily followed in cases wherein the managers of the
conference come to an agreement on which a report may be based (July 31,
[[Page [303]]]
1981, p. 18884). If conferees of House agreeing to conference surrender
papers to House asking conference, the report can be received first by
House asking the conference (VIII, 3330). In the 101st Congress, where a
report following a successful conference was filed in both Houses, an
objection to a unanimous-consent request in the Senate prevented the
release of papers held at the Senate desk to the House, where the Senate
in the normal course of events was scheduled to act first on the report
(June 28, 1990, p. 16249).
Where a <> conference breaks up without reaching any
agreement the managers for the House that requested the conference, who
have the papers by right, are justified in retaining them and carrying
them back to the House (IV, 3905, footnote; V, 6246, 6254, 6571-6584;
VIII, 3332). And in one case wherein under such circumstances the papers
were taken back to the Senate, which was the body agreeing to the
conference, the Senate after consideration sent them to the House,
because it seemed proper for the asking House to take the first action
(V, 6573). But sometimes managers have brought the papers to the
agreeing House without question (V, 6239, footnote; July 14, 1988, p.
18411).
After a <> free
conference the usage is to proceed with free conferences and not to
return again to a conference. 3 Hats., 270; 9 Grey, 229.
After a conference denied a free conference may be asked. 1 Grey, 45.
The House instructs its managers whenever it sees fit, without regard
to whether or not the preceding conference has been free or instructed.
When a <> conference is asked, the subject of it must
be expressed or the conference not agreed to. Ord. H. Com., 89; 1 Grey,
425; 7 Grey, 31. They are sometimes asked to inquire concerning an
offense or default of a member of the other House. 6 Grey, 181; 1
Chand., 304. Or the failure of the other House to present to the King a
bill passed by both Houses. 8 Grey, 302. Or on information received and
relating to the safety of the nation. 10 Grey, 171. Or when the methods
of Par
[[Page [304]]]
liament are thought by the one House to have been departed from by the
other a conference is asked to come to a right understanding thereon. 10
Grey, 148. So when an unparliamentary message has been sent, instead of
answering it they ask a conference. 3 Grey, 155. Formerly an address or
articles of impeachment or a bill, with amendments, or a vote of the
House, or concurrence in a vote, or a message from the King were
sometimes communicated by way of conference. 6 Grey, 128, 300, 387; 7
Grey, 80; 8 Grey, 210, 255; 1 Torbuck's Deb., 278; 10 Grey, 293; 1
Chandler, 49, 287. But this is not the modern practice. 8 Grey, 255.
<> A conference has been asked after the first reading of a
bill. 1 Grey, 194. This is a singular instance.
The House has no procedure conforming to this provision.
sec. xlvii--messages
<> Messages between the Houses are to be sent only while both
Houses are sitting. 3 Hats., 15. * * *
Formerly this rule was observed (V, 6603, 6604), but since the 62d
Congress messages have been received by the House when the Senate was
not in session (VIII, 3338). Clause 2 of rule II was added in the 97th
Congress, and amended in the 111th Congress, to authorize the Clerk to
receive messages at any time that the House is not in session (H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98) or in recess (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 9).
<> * * * They are
received during a debate without adjourning the debate. 3 Hats., 22.
[[Page [305]]]
In the House messages are received during debate, the Member having
the floor yielding on request of the Speaker.
In Senate <> the messengers are introduced in any state
of business, except: 1. While a question is being put. 2. While the yeas
and nays are being called. 3. While the ballots are being counted. The
first case is short; the second and third are cases where any
interruption might occasion errors difficult to be corrected. So
arranged June 15, 1798.
In the House messages are not received while a question is being put
or during a vote by division. However, they are received during the call
of the yeas and nays, during consideration of a question of privilege
(V, 6640-6642), during a call of the House (V, 6600), during debate on a
motion to approve the Journal (Sept. 13, 1965, p. 23607), and before the
organization of the House (V, 6647-6649). But the Speaker exercises
discretion about interrupting the pending business (V, 6602).
In the <> House, as in Parliament, if the House be in
committee when a messenger attends, the Speaker takes the chair to
receive the message, and then quits it to return into committee without
any question or interruption. 4 Grey, 226.
<> Messengers are not saluted by the Members, but by the Speaker
for the House. 2 Grey, 253, 274.
The practice of the House as to reception of messages is founded on
this paragraph of the parliamentary law and on the former joint rules
(V, 6591-6595). The Speaker, with a slight inclination, addresses the
messenger, by title, after the messenger, with an inclination, has
addressed the Speaker (V, 6591).
If <> messengers
commit an error in delivering their message, they may be admitted or
called in to correct their mes
[[Page [306]]]
sage. 4 Grey, 41. Accordingly, March 13, 1800, the Senate having made
two amendments to a bill from the House, their Secretary, by mistake,
delivered one only, which being inadmissible by itself, that House
disagreed, and notified the Senate of their disagreement. This produced
a discovery of the mistake. The Secretary was sent to the other House to
correct his mistake, the correction was received, and the two amendments
acted on de novo.
A request of one House for the return of a bill messaged to the other,
or the request of one House to correct an error in its message to the
other, may qualify as privileged in the House or may be disposed of by
unanimous consent (III, 2613; V, 6605; Deschler-Brown, ch. 32, Sec. 2;
Oct. 1, 1982, p. 27172; May 20, 1996, p. 11809). For example: (1) the
House by unanimous consent agreed to a request from the Senate for the
return of a Senate bill to the end that the Senate effect a specified
(substantive) change in its text (May 7, 1998, p. 8386) or to the end
that the bill be recommitted to committee (July 15, 2004, p. 15890); (2)
the House by unanimous consent directed its Clerk to correct an error in
a message to the Senate (V, 6607); (3) the House, upon receipt of a
request by the Senate to return a bill during consideration of the
conference report accompanying that bill, laid the conference report
aside and agreed to the Senate request (V, 6609); (4) the House
requested the return of a message indicating passage of a Senate joint
resolution after learning that both Houses had previously passed an
identical House Joint Resolution, so that it could indefinitely postpone
action thereon (Nov. 16, 1989, p. 29587); (5) the Speaker laid before
the House as privileged a message from the Senate requesting the return
of a message where it had erroneously appointed conferees to a bill
after the papers had been messaged to the House, so that the message
could be changed to reflect the appointment of Senate conferees (May 20,
1996, p. 11809); (6) the Speaker laid before the House as privileged a
message from the Senate requesting the return of a Senate bill that
included provisions intruding on the constitutional prerogative of the
House to originate revenue measures (Oct. 19, 1999, p. 25901; Sept. 28,
2004, p. 19724; Sept. 30, 2004, p. 20045); (7) where the engrossment
failed to depict certain action of the House, the House considered and
agreed to a privileged resolution requesting the Senate to return the
engrossment of a House bill (July 15, 2004, p. 15890) and a House-passed
Senate bill (Oct. 8, 2004, p. 22630); (8) the Speaker laid before the
House as privileged a message from the Senate requesting the return of
Senate amendments to a House bill where
[[Page [307]]]
the engrossment failed to properly depict the action of the Senate (July
14, 2005, p. 15932; Mar. 13, 2018, p. _).
The House by unanimous consent authorized the Clerk to produce a
duplicate copy of a specified engrossment after the Senate was unable to
locate the official papers (Sept. 17, 2020, p. _).
As soon <> as
the messenger who has brought bills from the other House has retired,
the Speaker holds the bills in his hand; and acquaints the House ``that
the other House have by their messenger sent certain bills,'' and then
reads their titles, and delivers them to the Clerk to be safely kept
till they shall be called for to be read. Hakew., 178.
In the House the message goes to the Speaker's table for disposition
under clause 2 of rule XIV. The Speaker does not acquaint the House,
because it has already heard the message.
It is not <> the usage for one House to inform the other by what numbers a
bill is passed. 10 Grey, 150. Yet they have sometimes recommended a
bill, as of great importance, to the consideration of the House to which
it is sent. 3 Hats., 25. * * *
The Houses of Congress do not communicate by what numbers a bill is
passed, or otherwise recommend their bills.
* * * Nor when <> they have rejected a bill from the other House, do
they give notice of it; but it passes sub silentio, to prevent
unbecoming altercations. 1 Blackst., 183.
But in Congress the rejection is notified by message to the House in
which the bill originated.
In the two Houses of Congress the fact of the rejection of a bill is
messaged to the House in which the bill originated, as in the days of
Jefferson,
[[Page [308]]]
although the joint rule requiring it has disappeared (IV, 3422; V,
6601). And in a case wherein the House had stricken the enacting words
of a Senate bill, the Senate was notified that the bill had been
rejected (IV, 3423; VII, 2638; Oct. 4, 1972, pp. 33785-87).
A question <> is never asked by the one House of the other by way of
message, but only at a conference; for this is an interrogatory, not a
message. 3 Grey, 151, 181.
In 1798 the House asked of the Senate a question by way of conference,
but this appears to be the only instance (V, 6256).
When a <> bill is
sent by one House to the other, and is neglected, they may send a
message to remind them of it. 3 Hats., 25; 5 Grey, 154. But if it be
mere inattention, it is better to have it done informally by
communication between the Speakers or Members of the two Houses.
It does not appear that either House of Congress has by message
reminded the other of a neglected bill.
Where the <> subject of a message is of a nature that it can properly be
communicated to both Houses of Parliament, it is expected that this
communication should be made to both on the same day. But where a
message was accompanied with an original declaration, signed by the
party to which the message referred, its being sent to one House was not
noticed by the other, because the declaration being original, could not
possibly be sent to both Houses at the same time. 2 Hats., 260, 261,
262.
The King having sent original letters to the Commons afterward desires
they may be re
[[Page [309]]]
turned, that he may communicate them to the Lords. 1 Chandler, 303.
A message of the President of the United States is usually
communicated to both Houses on the same day when its nature permits (V,
6590); but an original document accompanying can, of course, be sent to
but one House (V, 6616, 6617). The President having by inadvertence
included certain papers in a message, was allowed to withdraw them (V,
6651). In the House the Speaker has the discretion, which is rarely
exercised, to suspend a roll call in order to receive a message from the
President.
sec. xlviii--assent
The <> House which has received a bill and passed it may
present it for the King's assent, and ought to do it, though they have
not by message notified to the other their passage of it. Yet the
notifying by message is a form which ought to be observed between the
two Houses from motives of respect and good understanding. 2 Hats., 242.
Were the bill to be withheld from being presented to the King, it would
be an infringement of the rules of Parliament. Ib.
In the House it was held that where there had been no unreasonable
delay in transmitting an enrolled bill to the President, a resolution
relating thereto did not present a question of privilege (III, 2601),
but a resolution seeking such a determination may be privileged (Oct. 8,
1991, p. 25761).
When a <> bill has passed both Houses of Congress, the House last acting
on it notifies its passage to the other, and delivers the bill to the
Joint Committee on Enrollment, who sees that it is truly enrolled in
parchment. When the bill is enrolled it is not to be written in
paragraphs, but solidly, and all of a piece, that the blanks be
[[Page [310]]]
tween the paragraphs may not give room for forgery. 9 Grey, 143. * * *
Formerly the <> enrollment in the House and the Senate was
in writing (IV, 3436, 3437); but in 1893 the two Houses, by concurrent
resolution, provided that bills should be enrolled on parchment by
printing instead of by writing, and also that the engrossment of bills
before sending them to the other House for action should be in printing
(IV, 3433), and in 1895 this concurrent resolution was approved by
statute (IV, 3435; 1 U.S.C. 106). In the last six days of a session of
Congress the two Houses, by concurrent resolution, may permit the
enrolling and engrossing to be done by hand (IV, 3435, 3438; Dec. 20,
1982, p. 32875; Oct. 11, 1984, p. 32149), and such a concurrent
resolution is privileged for consideration in the House during the last
six days of the session (Jan. 1, 2013, p. 18571; see 1 U.S.C. 106 for
authority to waive ordinary printing requirements at the end of a
session), but before the last six days, a joint resolution waiving the
law to permit hand enrollments is required and may be considered in the
House by unanimous consent (Dec. 10, 1985, p. 35741) or by special order
of business (Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24735). The two Houses have by joint
resolution authorized not only a ``hand enrollment'' of a time-sensitive
bill but also a parchment enrollment of the same measure, to be prepared
at a later time for deposit in the National Archives with the original
(P.L. 100-199, Dec. 21, 1987; P.L. 100-454, Sept. 29, 1988). Where an
enrolled bill enacts another numbered bill by reference, that same law
may require the Archivist to include as an appendix to that law the text
of the referenced bill (see, e.g., P.L. 106-554). Only in a very
exceptional case have the two Houses waived the requirement that bills
shall be enrolled (IV, 3442). The enrolling clerk should make no change,
however unimportant, in the text of a bill to which the House has agreed
(III, 2598); but the two Houses may by concurrent resolution authorize
the correction of an error when enrollment is made (IV, 3446-3450), and
this seems a better practice than earlier methods by authority of the
Committee on Enrolled Bills (IV, 3444, 3445).
* * * It is <> then put into the hands of the Clerk of
the House to have it signed by the Speaker. The Clerk then brings it by
way of message to the Senate to be signed by their President. The
Secretary of the Senate returns it to the Committee of Enrollment, who
present it to the President of the United States. * * *
[[Page [311]]]
The practice of the two Houses of Congress for the signing of enrolled
bills was formerly governed by joint rules, and has continued since
those rules were abrogated in 1876 (IV, 3430). The bills are signed
first by the Speaker, then by the President of the Senate (IV, 3429).
The two Houses by concurrent action may authorize the cancellation of
signatures and reenrollment in case of error (see Sec. 625, infra) or a
bill prematurely enrolled (IV, 3454).
A Speaker pro <> tempore elected by the House (II,
1401), or whose designation has received the approval of the House (II,
1404; VI, 277; clause 8 of rule I), signs enrolled bills (see clause 4
of rule I); but a Member merely called to the chair during the day (II,
1399, 1400; VI, 276), or designated in writing by the Speaker, does not
exercise this function (II, 1401).
The Senate, by rule, has empowered a presiding officer by written
designation to sign enrolled bills (II, 1403).
In early <> days a joint committee took enrolled bills to the President
(IV, 3432); but in the later practice the chair of the committee in each
House that had responsibility for the enrollment of bills also had the
responsibility of presenting the bills from that House, and submitted
from his committee daily a report of the bills presented for entry in
the Journal (IV, 3431). In the 107th Congress the responsibility in the
House for enrolled bills was transferred from the Committee on House
Administration to the Clerk (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
Enrolled bills pending at the close of a session have, at the next
session of the same Congress, been ordered to be treated as if no
adjournment had taken place (IV, 3487-3488). Enrolled bills signed by
the presiding officers at one session have been sent to the President
and approved at the next session of the same Congress (IV, 3486).
Enrollments presented at the close of one Congress have been signed by
the President after the convening of the next Congress (see Sec. 111,
supra).
sec. xlix--journals
* * * * *
If a <> question is interrupted by a vote to adjourn, or to
proceed to the orders of the day, the original question is never printed
in the journal, it never having been a vote, nor introductory to any
vote; but when suppressed by the previous question, the first question
must be stated, in
[[Page [312]]]
order to introduce and make intelligible the second. 2 Hats., 83.
This provision of the parliamentary law is superseded by clause 1 of
rule XVI, which requires every motion entertained by the Speaker to be
entered on the Journal.
So also <> when a question is postponed, adjourned, or laid on
the table, the original question, though not yet a vote, must be
expressed in the journals, because it makes part of the vote of
postponement, adjourning, or laying it on the table.
In the House a question is not adjourned, except in the sense that it
may be left to go over as unfinished business by reason of a vote to
adjourn.
Where <> amendments are made to a question, those amendments are not
printed in the journals, separated from the question; but only the
question as finally agreed to by the House. The rule of entering in the
journals only what the House has agreed to, is founded in great prudence
and good sense, as there may be many questions proposed which it may be
improper to publish to the world in the form in which they are made. 2
Hats., 85.
In the practice of the House a motion to amend is entered on the
Journal as any other motion, under clause 1 of rule XVI.
* * * * *
<> The first order for printing the votes of the House of
Commons was October 30, 1685. 1 Chandler, 387.
Some <> judges
have been of opinion that the journals of the House of Commons are no
records, but only remem
[[Page [313]]]
brances. But this is not law. Hob., 110, 111; Lex. Parl., 114, 115;
Jour. H. C., Mar. 17, 1592; Hale, Parl., 105. For the Lords in their
House have power of judicature, the Commons in their House have power of
judicature, and both Houses together have power of judicature; and the
book of the Clerk of the House of Commons is a record, as is affirmed by
act of Parl., 6 H. 8, c. 16; 4 Inst., 23, 24; and every member of the
House of Commons hath a judicial place. 4 Inst., 15. As records they are
open to every person, and a printed vote of either House is sufficient
ground for the other to notice it. Either may appoint a committee to
inspect the journals of the other, and report what has been done by the
other in any particular case. 2 Hats., 261; 3 Hats., 27-30. Every member
has a right to see the journals and to take and publish votes from them.
Being a record, every one may see and publish them. 6 Grey, 118, 119.
The Journal of the House is the official record of the proceedings of
the House (IV, 2727), and certified copies are admitted as evidence in
the courts of the United States (IV, 2810; 28 U.S.C. 1736). A Senate
committee concluded that the Journal entries of a legislative body were
conclusive as to all the proceedings had, and might not be contradicted
by ex parte evidence (I, 563).
On <> information of a misentry or omission of an entry in the
journal, a committee may be appointed to examine and rectify it, and
report it to the House. 2 Hats., 194, 195.
[[Page [314]]]
sec. l--adjournment
The two <> Houses of Parliament have the sole, separate, and
independent power of adjourning each their respective Houses. The King
has no authority to adjourn them; he can only signify his desire, and it
is in the wisdom and prudence of either House to comply with his
requisition, or not, as they see fitting. 2 Hats., 232; 1 Blackst., 186;
5 Grey, 122.
* * * * *
A motion <> to
adjourn, simply cannot be amended, as by adding ``to a particular day;''
but must be put simply ``that this House do now adjourn;'' and if
carried in the affirmative, it is adjourned to the next sitting day,
unless it has come to a previous resolution, ``that at its rising it
will adjourn to a particular day,'' and then the House is adjourned to
that day. 2 Hats., 82.
The modern practice of the House adheres to this principle
(Sec. Sec. 912, 913, infra). Clause 4 of rule XVI admits at the
discretion of the Speaker a separate motion of equal privilege that when
the House adjourns on that day it stand adjourned to a day and time
certain (consistent with article I, section 5, clause 4 of the
Constitution, not in excess of three days).
Where it is <> convenient that
the business of the House be suspended for a short time, as for a
conference presently to be held, &c., it adjourns during pleasure; 2
Hats., 305; or for a quarter of an hour. 4 Grey, 331.
An adjournment during pleasure is effected in the House by a motion
for a recess. A recess may not be taken by less than a quorum (IV, 2958-
2960), and consequently the motion for it is not in order in the absence
[[Page [315]]]
of a quorum (IV, 2955-2957). When the hour previously fixed for a recess
arrives, the Chair declares the House in recess even in the midst of a
division or when a quorum is not present (V, 6665, 6666; VI, 664); but a
roll call is not in this way interrupted (V, 6054, 6055). Where a
special order requires a recess at a certain hour of a certain day, the
recess is not taken if the encroachment of a prior legislative day
prevents the existence of said certain day as a legislative day (IV,
3192). And an adjournment at a time before the hour fixed for a recess
vacates the recess (IV, 3283). A motion for a recess must, when
entertained, be voted on, even though the taking of the vote may have
been prevented until after the hour specified for the conclusion of the
proposed recess (V, 6667). A Committee of the Whole takes a recess only
by permission of the House (V, 6669-6671; VIII, 3362). The motion for a
recess is not privileged (V, 4302, 5301, 6740), in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole (June 26, 1981, p. 14356) against a demand that
business proceed in the regular order (V, 6663; VIII, 3354-3356).
However, beginning in the 102d Congress a motion to authorize the
Speaker to declare a recess was given a privilege equal to that of the
motion to adjourn (clause 4 of rule XVI); and beginning in the 103d
Congress the Speaker was authorized to declare a recess ``for a short
time when no question is pending'' (clause 12 of rule I). For the
Speaker's authority to declare an emergency recess when notified of an
imminent threat to the safety of the House, see Sec. 639, infra.
If a <> question be put for adjournment, it is no adjournment till
the Speaker pronounces it. 5 Grey, 137. And from courtesy and respect,
no member leaves his place till the Speaker has passed on.
sec. li--a session
Parliament have <> three
modes of separation, to wit: by adjournment, by prorogation or
dissolution by the King, or by the efflux of the term for which they
were elected. Prorogation or dissolution constitutes there what is
called a session; provided some act was passed. In this case all matters
depending before them are discontinued, and at their next meeting are to
be taken up de novo, if taken up at all. 1 Blackst., 186. Adjournment,
which is by
[[Page [316]]]
themselves, is no more than a continuance of the session from one day to
another, of for a fortnight, a month, &c., ad libitum. All matters
depending remain in statu quo, and when they meet again, be the term
ever so distant, are resumed, without any fresh commencement, at the
point at which they were left. 1 Lev., 165; Lex. Parl., c. 2; 1 Ro.
Rep., 29; 4 Inst., 7, 27, 28; Hutt., 61; 1 Mod., 252; Ruffh. Jac., L.
Dict. Parliament; 1 Blackst., 186. Their whole session is considered in
law but as one day, and has relation to the first day thereof. Bro. Abr.
Parliament, 86.
Committees may be <> appointed
to sit during a recess by adjournment, but not by prorogation. 5 Grey,
374; 9 Grey, 350; 1 Chandler, 50. Neither House can continue any portion
of itself in any parliamentary function beyond the end of the session
without the consent of the other two branches. When done, it is by a
bill constituting them commissioners for the particular purpose.
The House may empower a committee to sit during a recess that is
within the constitutional term of the House (IV, 4541-4543), but not
thereafter (IV, 4545). A commission created by law may operate beyond
the term of the Congress in which it was created (IV, 4545). Under
clause 2(m)(1)(A) of rule XI, all committees are authorized to sit and
act anywhere within the United States, and to issue subpoenas, whether
the House is in session or has adjourned to a date certain or adjourned
sine die, even after the second regular session of a Congress until the
end of the constitutional term. Under clause 1(b)(4) and clause 1(d)(3)
of rule XI, all committees are authorized to file investigative reports
and activities reports following adjournment sine die.
[[Page [317]]]
Congress separate <> in two ways only, to wit, by adjournment, or dissolution by
the efflux of their time. What, then, constitutes a session with them? A
dissolution certainly closes one session, and the meeting of the new
Congress begins another. The Constitution authorizes the President, ``on
extraordinary occasions to convene both Houses, or either of them.'' I.
3. If convened by the President's proclamation, this must begin a new
session, and of course determine the preceding one to have been a
session. So if it meets under the clause of the Constitution which says,
``the Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such
meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by
law appoint a different day.'' I. 4. This must begin a new session; for
even if the last adjournment was to this day the act of adjournment is
merged in the higher authority of the Constitution, and the meeting will
be under that, and not under their adjournment. So far we have fixed
landmarks for determining sessions. * * *
The twentieth amendment to the Constitution, clause 2, now provides
that the Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, at noon on
the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 132 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812,
as amended by section 461 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,
84 Stat. 1140, provides that except in time of war the two Houses shall
adjourn sine die not later than the last day of July (Sundays excepted)
unless otherwise provided by the Congress. (For form of resolution used
to continue in session past July 31, see H. Con. Res. 648, 92d Cong.,
July 25, 1972, p. 25145.) The same section contemplates an adjournment
of Congress from the thirtieth day before to the second day following
Labor Day in the first session of a Congress (each odd-numbered year) in
lieu of an adjournment sine die. See Sec. 1106, infra. Congress is
adjourned for more than three days by a concurrent resolution (IV, 4031,
footnote), and
[[Page [318]]]
such adjournments to a day certain, within the session, do not terminate
the session (V, 6676, 6677). In one instance the two Houses by
concurrent resolution provided for adjournment to a day certain with the
provision that if there be no quorum present on that day the session
should terminate (V, 6686). Before the adoption of the twentieth
amendment it had become established practice that a meeting of Congress
once within the year did not make uncertain the constitutional mandate
to meet on the first Monday of December (I, 10, 11). And where a special
session continued until the time prescribed by the Constitution for the
annual meeting without an appreciable intervening time (V, 6690, 6692),
a question arose as to whether there had actually been a recess of
Congress (V, 6687, 6693), with the conclusion that a recess was a real
and not an imaginary time (V, 6687).
* * * In other <> cases it is declared by the joint vote authorizing
the President of the Senate and the Speaker to close the session on a
fixed day, which is usually in the following form: ``Resolved by the
Senate and House of Representatives, that the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be authorized to close
the present session by adjourning their respective Houses on the __ day
of __.''
In the modern practice the resolving clause of the concurrent
resolution is in form different from that given by Jefferson. For a
history and chronology of adjournment resolutions, see Sec. 84, supra.
When it was <> said above that all matters depending before
Parliament were discontinued by the determination of the session, it was
not meant for judiciary cases depending before the House of Lords, such
as impeachments, appeals, and writs of error. These stand continued, of
course, to the next session. Raym., 120, 381; Ruffh. Fac., L. D.,
Parliament.
Impeachments stand, in like manner, continued before the Senate of the
United States.
[[Page [319]]]
For a discussion of continuance of impeachments, see Sec. 620, infra.
sec. lii--treaties
* * * * *
Treaties are <> legislative acts. A treaty is the law of the land. It
differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign
nation, being but a contract with respect to that nation. In all
countries, I believe, except England, treaties are made by the
legislative power; and there, also, if they touch the laws of the land
they must be approved by Parliament. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dallas's Rep.,
223. It is acknowledged, for instance, that the King of Great Britain
cannot by a treaty make a citizen of an alien. Vattel, b. 1, c. 19, sec.
214. An act of Parliament was necessary to validate the American treaty
of 1783. And abundant examples of such acts can be cited. In the case of
the treaty of Utrecht, in 1712, the commercial articles required the
concurrence of Parliament; but a bill brought in for that purpose was
rejected. France, the other contracting party, suffered these articles,
in practice, to be not insisted on, and adhered to the rest of the
treaty. 4 Russell's Hist. Mod. Europe, 457; 2 Smollet, 242, 246.
By the <> Constitution of the United States this department of
legislation is confined to two branches only of the ordinary
legislature--the President originating and the Senate having a negative.
To what subjects this power extends has not been
[[Page [320]]]
defined in detail by the Constitution; nor are we entirely agreed among
ourselves. 1. It is admitted that it must concern the foreign nation
party to the contract, or it would be a mere nullity, res inter alias
acta. 2. By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must
have intended to comprehend only those subjects which are usually
regulated by treaty, and can not be otherwise regulated. 3. It must have
meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the States; for
surely the President and Senate can not do by treaty what the whole
Government is interdicted from doing in any way. 4. And also to except
those subjects of legislation in which it gave a participation to the
House. This last exception is denied by some on the ground that it would
leave very little matter for the treaty power to work on. The less the
better, say others. The Constitution thought it wise to restrain the
executive and Senate from entangling and embroiling our affairs with
those of Europe. Besides, as the negotiations are carried on by the
executive alone, the subjecting to the ratification of the
representatives such articles as are within their participation is no
more inconvenient than to the Senate. But the ground of this exception
is denied as unfounded. For examine, e.g., the treaty of commerce with
France, and it will be found that, out of thirty-one articles, there are
not more than small portions of two or three of them which would not
still remain as subjects of treaties, untouched by these exceptions.
[[Page [321]]]
The <> participation of the House in the treaty-making power has
been often examined since Jefferson's Manual was written. The House has
in several instances taken action in carrying into effect, terminating,
enforcing, and suggesting treaties (II, 1502-1505, 1520-1522), although
sometimes the propriety of requesting the executive to negotiate a
treaty has been questioned (II, 1514-1517).
The exact <> authority of the House in the making of general treaties has
been the subject of differences of opinion. In 1796 the House affirmed
that, when a treaty related to subjects within the power of Congress, it
was the constitutional duty of the House to deliberate on the expediency
of carrying such treaty into effect (II, 1509); and in 1816, after a
discussion with the Senate, the House maintained its position that a
treaty must depend on a law of Congress for its execution as to such
stipulations as relate to subjects constitutionally entrusted to
Congress (II, 1506). In 1868 the House's assertion of right to a voice
in carrying out the stipulations of certain treaties was conceded in a
modified form (II, 1508). Again, in 1871, the House asserted its
prerogative (II, 1523). In 1820 and 1868 there were discussions of the
House's functions as to treaties ceding or acquiring foreign territory
(II, 1507, 1508), and at various other times there have been discussions
of the general subject (II, 1509, 1546, 1547; VI, 324-326).
After long and <> careful consideration the Judiciary Committee of the House
decided, in 1887, that the executive branch of the Government might not
conclude a treaty affecting the revenue without the assent of the House
(II, 1528-1530), and a Senate committee after examination concluded that
duties were more properly regulated with the publicity of congressional
action than by treaties negotiated by the President and ratified by the
Senate in secrecy (II, 1532). In practice the House has acted on revenue
treaties (II, 1531, 1533); and in 1880 it declared the negotiation of a
revenue treaty an invasion of its prerogatives (II, 1524). At other
times the subject has been discussed (II, 1525-1528, 1531, 1533).
After long <> discussion the House, in 1871, successfully asserted its
right to a voice in approving Indian treaties (II, 1535, 1536), although
in earlier times this prerogative had been jealously guarded by the
executive (II, 1534).
There have been various conflicts with the executive over requests of
the House for papers relating to treaties (II, 1509-1513, 1518, 1519,
1561).
Treaties being <> declared, equally with the laws of the United States, to be the
supreme law of the land, it is understood that an act of the legislature
alone can declare them infringed and rescinded. This was ac
[[Page [322]]]
cordingly the process adopted in the case of France in 1798.
Notice to a foreign government of the abrogation of a treaty is
authorized by a joint resolution (V, 6270). A resolution alleging an
unconstitutional abrogation of a treaty by the President, and calling on
the President to seek the approval of Congress before such abrogation,
does not constitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule
IX (June 6, 2002, pp. 9492-98 (sustained by tabling of appeal)).
It has <> been the usage for the Executive, when it communicates a
treaty to the Senate for their ratification, to communicate also the
correspondence of the negotiators. This having been omitted in the case
of the Prussian treaty, was asked by a vote of the House of February 12,
1800, and was obtained. And in December, 1800, the convention of that
year between the United States and France, with the report of the
negotiations by the envoys, but not their instructions, being laid
before the Senate, the instructions were asked for and communicated by
the President.
The mode of voting on questions of ratification is by nominal call.
The Senate now has rules governing its procedure on treaties.
sec. liii--impeachment
* * * * *
These are the <> provisions of the Constitution of the United States
on the subject of impeachments. The following is a sketch of some of the
principles and practices of England on the same subject:
Jurisdiction. The Lords can not impeach any to themselves, nor join in
the accusation, be
[[Page [323]]]
cause they are the judges. Seld. Judic. in Parl., 12, 63. Nor can they
proceed against a commoner but on complaint of the Commons. Ib., 84. The
Lords may not, by the law, try a commoner for a capital offense, on the
information of the King or a private person, because the accused is
entitled to a trial by his peers generally; but on accusation by the
House of Commons, they may proceed against the delinquent, of whatsoever
degree, and whatsoever be the nature of the offense; for there they do
not assume to themselves trial at common law. The Commons are then
instead of a jury, and the judgment is given on their demand, which is
instead of a verdict. So the Lords do only judge, but not try the
delinquent. Ib., 6, 7. But Wooddeson denies that a commoner can now be
charged capitally before the Lords, even by the Commons; and cites
Fitzharris's case, 1681, impeached of high treason, where the Lords
remitted the prosecution to the inferior court. 8 Grey's Deb., 325-7; 2
Wooddeson, 576, 601; 3 Seld., 1604, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1641; 4 Blackst.,
25; 9 Seld., 1656; 73 Seld., 1604-18.
Accusation. The <> Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation, becomes
suitors for penal justice. 2 Wood., 597; 6 Grey, 356. The general course
is to pass a resolution containing a criminal charge against the
supposed delinquent, and then to direct some member to impeach him by
oral accusation, at the bar of the House of Lords, in the name of the
Commons. The person signifies that
[[Page [324]]]
the articles will be exhibited, and desires that the delinquent may be
sequestered from his seat, or be committed, or that the peers will take
order for his appearance. Sachev. Trial, 325; 2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords'
Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616; 6 Grey, 324.
In the <> House various events have been credited with setting an
impeachment in motion: charges made on the floor on the responsibility
of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526,
528, 535, 536); charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually
referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496,
2499, 2515; VI, 543); a resolution introduced by a Member and referred
to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); a
message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); charges
transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory
(III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or facts developed and
reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444).
In the 93d Congress, the Vice President sought to initiate an
investigation by the House of charges against him of possibly
impeachable offenses. The Speaker and the House took no action on the
request because the matter was pending in the courts and the offenses
did not relate to activities during the Vice President's term of office
(Sept. 25, 1973, p. 31368; III, 2510 (wherein the Committee on the
Judiciary, to which the matter had been referred by privileged
resolution, reported that the Vice President could not be impeached for
acts or omissions committed before his term of office)). On the other
hand, in 1826 the Vice President's request that the House investigate
charges against his prior official conduct as Secretary of War was
referred, on motion, to a select committee (III, 1736). On September 9,
1998, an independent counsel transmitted to the House under 28 U.S.C.
595(c) a communication containing evidence of alleged impeachable
offenses by the President. The House adopted a privileged resolution
reported by the Committee on Rules referring the communication to the
Committee on the Judiciary, restricting Members' access to the
communication, and restricting access to committee meetings and hearings
on the communication (H. Res. 525, Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the
House adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on the
Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee (H. Res.
581, Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). In the first impeachment of President
Trump, the House adopted a privileged resolution reported from the
Committee on Rules directing sundry committees to continue their ongoing
investigations as part of an existing inquiry into potential grounds for
impeachment (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _). In the second
impeachment of President Trump, the House considered an unreported
resolution containing a single article of impeachment pursu
[[Page [325]]]
ant to a special order of business only several days after the
underlying conduct occurred (Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).
A resolution disapproving of the conduct of the Speaker with respect
to the initiation of an impeachment inquiry constitues a question of the
privileges of the House (Sept. 25, 2019, p. _; Sept. 27, 2019, p. _).
A direct <> proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in
the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the
rules governing the order of business (III, 2045-2048, 2051, 2398; VI,
468, 469; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989,
p. 8814; Sept. 23, 1998, pp. 21560-62; Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29817; June 10,
2008, p. 12053; July 15, 2008, pp. 15084, 15086; Dec. 6, 2016, p. _;
Dec. 6, 2017, p. _; Jan. 19, 2018, p. _; July 17, 2019, p. _); see
Deschler, ch. 14, Sec. 8). It may not even be superseded by an election
case, which is also a matter of high privilege (III, 2581). It does not
lose its privilege from the fact that a similar proposition has been
made at a previous time during the same session of Congress (III, 2408;
July 15, 2008, pp. 15084, 15086 (see June 10, 2008, p. 12053)), previous
action of the House not affecting it (III, 2053). As such, a report of
the Committee on the Judiciary accompanying an impeachment resolution is
filed as privileged (Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27819; Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). A
proposition to impeach may be called up as privileged (Dec. 18, 1998, p.
27828) or considered pursuant to a special order of business reported by
the Committee on Rules (Dec. 18, 2019, p. _; Jan. 13, 2021, p. _). The
addition of new articles of impeachment offered by the managers but not
reported by committee is also privileged (III, 2418), as is a
proposition to refer to committee the papers and testimony in an
impeachment of the preceding Congress (V, 7261). After having recognized
an impeachment resolution as a question of the privileges of the House,
the Chair refused to respond to an inquiry regarding the substance of
the resolution, that being a matter for the House by its disposition of
the matter (Dec. 6, 2016, p. _). To a privileged resolution of
impeachment, an amendment proposing instead censure, which is not
privileged, was held not germane (Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28107). On several
occasions the Committee on the Judiciary, having been referred a
question of impeachment, reported a recommendation that impeachment was
not warranted and, thereafter, called up the report as a question of
privilege (Deschler, ch. 14, Sec. 1.3). Under an expired provision of
law an independent counsel appointed to investigate the President was
subject to impeachment (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21560). A resolution
impeaching the United States Ambassador to the United Nations (July 13,
1978, p. 20606) or the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service
(Dec. 6, 2016, p. _) constitutes a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX.
Propositions relating to an impeachment already made also are
privileged (III, 2400, 2402, 2410; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Dec. 2,
1987, p. 33720; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206), such as resolutions providing
for selection of managers of an impeachment (VI, 517; Dec. 19, 1998, p.
28112), proposing
[[Page [326]]]
abatement of impeachment proceedings (VI, 514), reappointing managers
for impeachment proceedings continued in the Senate from the previous
Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2),
empowering managers to hire special legal and clerical personnel and
providing for their pay, and to carry out other responsibilities (Jan.
3, 1989, p. 84; Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 240), and
replacing an excused manager (Feb. 7, 1989, p. 1726); but a resolution
simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment may be a
possible consequence, is not privileged (III, 2050, 2546; VI, 468). The
House has adopted special orders of business: (1) providing for the
consideration of a specified proposition relating to an impeachment once
made and denying privilege to any other such proposition (sec. 3, H.
Res. 767, Dec. 18, 2019, p. _); and (2) providing for the adoption of a
specified proposition relating to an impeachment upon adoption of an
article of impeachment and denying privilege to any other such
proposition (sec. 3, H. Res. 41, Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).
Where a resolution of investigation positively proposes impeachment or
suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege (III, 2051,
2052, 2401, 2402), such as a resolution reported by the Committee on the
Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee and
investing the committee with special investigative authorities to
facilitate the inquiry (III, 2029; VI, 498, 528, 549; Deschler, ch. 14,
Sec. Sec. 5.8, 6.2; H. Res. 581, Oct. 8, 1998, p. 24679). A committee to
which has been referred privileged resolutions for the impeachment of an
officer may call up as privileged resolutions incidental to
consideration of the impeachment question, including conferral of
subpoena authority and funding of the investigation from the contingent
fund (now referred to as ``applicable accounts of the House described in
clause 1(k)(1) of rule X'') (VI, 549; Feb. 6, 1974, p. 2349). Similarly,
a resolution authorizing depositions by committee counsel in an
impeachment inquiry is privileged under rule IX as incidental to
impeachment (Speaker Wright, Oct. 3, 1988, p. 27781).
The impeachment <> having been made on the floor by a Member (III, 2342, 2400;
VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536), or charges suggesting impeachment having
been made by memorial (III, 2495, 2516, 2520; VI, 552), or even
appearing through common fame (III, 2385, 2506), the House has at times
ordered an investigation at once. At other times it has refrained from
ordering investigation until the charges had been examined by a
committee (III, 2364, 2488, 2491, 2492, 2494, 2504, 2513) or has
referred to committee an impeachment resolution raised as a question of
privilege (Nov. 6, 2007, p. 29820; June 10, 2008, p. 12072 and June 11,
2008, p. 12218). Under the later practice, resolutions introduced
through the hopper that directly call for the impeachment of an officer
have been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, but resolutions
calling for an investigation by that committee or by a select committee
with a view toward impeachment have been referred to the Committee on
Rules (Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873). Upon receipt of a communication from an
independent counsel transmitting to the House
[[Page [327]]]
under 28 U.S.C. 595(c) a communication containing evidence of alleged
impeachable offenses by the President, the House adopted a resolution
reported by the Committee on Rules referring the communication to the
Committee on the Judiciary to conduct a review (H. Res. 525, 106th
Cong., Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020). Later, the House adopted a privileged
resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary authorizing an
impeachment inquiry by that committee (H. Res. 581, Oct. 8, 1998, pp.
24679, 24735) The House has adopted a privileged resolution reported by
the Committee on Rules directing sundry committees to continue ``ongoing
investigations'' as part of an ``existing'' impeachment inquiry (H. Res.
660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _). In the second impeachment of President Trump,
the House did not pursue any formal committee investigation or
impeachment inquiry.
The House has <> almost always examined the charges by its own committee
before it has voted to impeach (III, 2294, 2487, 2501). This committee
has sometimes been a select committee (III, 2342, 2487, 2494), sometimes
a standing committee (III, 2400, 2409). In some instances the committee
has made its inquiry ex parte (III, 2319, 2343, 2366, 2385, 2403, 2496,
2511); but in the later practice the sentiment of committees has been in
favor of permitting the accused to explain, present witnesses, cross-
examine (III, 2445, 2471, 2518), and be represented by counsel (III,
2470, 2501, 2511, 2516; 93d Cong., Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219; H. Rept.
105-830, Dec. 16, 1998; H. Rept. 116-346, Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). The
Committee on the Judiciary having been directed by the House to
investigate whether sufficient grounds existed for the impeachment of
President Nixon, and the President having resigned following the
decision of that committee to recommend his impeachment to the House,
the chair of the committee submitted from the floor as privileged the
committee's report containing the articles of impeachment approved by
the committee but without an accompanying resolution of impeachment. The
House thereupon adopted a resolution (1) taking notice of the
committee's action on a resolution and Articles of Impeachment and of
the President's resignation; (2) accepting the report and authorizing
its printing, with additional views; and (3) commending the chair and
members of the committee for their efforts (Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29361). In
the first impeachment of President Trump, the House adopted a privileged
resolution reported by the Committee on Rules directing sundry
committees to continue ongoing investigations, and directed the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to conduct specified
investigatory proceedings and to transmit a report of its findings to
the Committee on the Judiciary for use in the second phase of the
impeachment inquiry (H. Res. 660, Oct. 31, 2019, p. _).
During the <> pendency of an impeachment resolution, remarks in debate
may include references to personal misconduct on the part of the
President but may not include language generally abusive toward the
President and may not include comparisons to the personal conduct of
sitting Members of the House
[[Page [328]]]
or Senate (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27829). A resolution setting forth separate
articles of impeachment may be divided among the articles (e.g., Dec.
19, 1998, p. 28110; Mar. 11, 2010, p. 3153; Dec. 18, 2019, p. _).
Its committee <> on investigation having reported, the House may vote the
impeachment (III, 2367, 2412; VI, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3067-91),
and, after having notified the Senate by message (III, 2413, 2446), may
direct the impeachment to be presented at the bar of the Senate by a
single Member (III, 2294), or by two (III, 2319, 2343, 2367), five (III,
2445), seven (III, 2448, 2475; Jan. 15, 2020, p. _), nine (July 22,
1986, p. 17306; Jan. 13, 2021, p. _), 11 (III, 2300, 2323), or 13 (Dec.
19, 1998, p. 28112). These Members in several notable cases represented
the majority party alone (e.g., Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112), but ordinarily
include representation of the minority party (III, 2445, 2472, 2505).
Under early practice the House elected managers by ballot (III, 2300,
2323, 2345, 2368, 2417). In two instances the Speaker appointed the
managers on behalf of the House pursuant to an order of the House (III,
2388, 2475). Since 1912 the House has adopted a resolution appointing
managers. In the later practice the House considers together the
resolution and articles of impeachment (VI, 499, 500, 514; Mar. 2, 1936,
pp. 3067-91) and following their adoption adopts resolutions electing
managers to present the articles before the Senate, notifying the Senate
of the adoption of articles and election of managers, and authorizing
the managers to prepare for and to conduct the trial in the Senate (VI,
500, 514, 517; Mar. 6, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394; July 22, 1986, p. 17306;
Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206). These privileged incidental resolutions may be
merged into a single, indivisible privileged resolution (H. Res. 614,
Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2; H. Res.
798, Jan. 15, 2020, p. _; H. Res. 40, Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).
Process. If the <> party do not appear, proclamations are to be issued, giving
him a day to appear. On their return they are strictly examined. If any
error be found in them, a new proclamation issues, giving a short day.
If he appear not, his goods may be arrested, and they may proceed. Seld.
Jud. 98, 99.
Under <> an order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate
informed the House and the Chief Justice that it was ready to receive
the House managers for the purpose of exhibiting articles of impeachment
against President Trump (Jan. 15, 2020, p. _). The House managers
presented the articles of impeachment by reading two resolutions as
follows: (1) the appointment of managers (H. Res. 798, Jan. 16, 2020, p.
_); and (2) the two articles of impeachment (H. Res. 755, Jan. 16, 2020,
p. _).
[[Page [329]]]
The Senate adopted a resolution governing the initial impeachment
trial proceedings of President Trump following the tabling of multiple
amendments to that resolution (S. Res. 483, Jan. 21, 2020, p. _). The
resolution addressed: (1) the composition of the evidentiary record; (2)
a timetable for motions, arguments, and presentations by House managers
and President's counsel; (3) a time period for Senators to question the
parties; (4) a separate time period on the question of whether the
Senate would subpoena witnesses or documents; and (5) a process for
deposing subpoenaed witnesses and determining whether they should
testify at the trial. During debate on that resolution, the Chief
Justice admonished the House managers and the President's counsel for
breaches of decorum, citing in part a similar admonishment in the 1905
impeachment trial of Judge Swayne for use of the term ``pettifogging''
(Jan. 21, 2020, p. _; III, 2169). Upon an announcement by the Chief
Justice pursuant to the terms of the governing resolution, a classified
document identified by House managers was made available at the trial
but was not made public or printed (Jan. 22, 2020, p. _). The Senate
trial of President Trump featured a historical and legal argument from
the independent counsel who had led the investigation of President
Clinton which formed the basis for his impeachment in 1998 (Jan. 27,
2020, p. _). The trial also featured questions from Senators and
argument on the validity of House subpoenas issued before the House had
adopted a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry (Jan. 29, 2020,
p. _; Jan. 30, 2020, p. _). The Chief Justice refused to read a question
from a Senator that revealed the name of a whistleblower involved in the
impeachment charges (Jan. 30, 2020, p. _). The Senate rejected a motion
to allow for subpoenas of witnesses and documents (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _).
The Senate adopted a second resolution governing the remaining
impeachment trial proceedings (S. Res. 488, Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Such
resolution: (1) closed the evidentiary record; (2) provided for final
arguments; (3) provided for the adjournment of the Court of Impeachment;
and (4) provided for a vote on the articles of impeachment. The Chief
Justice responded to a parliamentary inquiry by advising that after
reviewing the precedents he did not view it as appropriate for a Chief
Justice, an unelected official from another branch of government, to
break a tie and change the result of a vote of the elected Members of
the Senate (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Counsel for the President in closing
arguments alleged that the House Committee on the Judiciary had violated
the rules of the House in not providing for a minority day of hearing
(Feb. 3, 2020, p. _). Following closing arguments, the Senate Clerk read
each article and each Senator voted ``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' on each
article (Feb. 5, 2020, p. _). The Senate adjudged President Trump not
guilty by a vote of 48-52 on the first article and 47-53 on the second
article (Feb. 5, 2020, p. _). By order of the Senate, the Secretary of
the Senate communicated the judgment of the Senate to the House (Feb. 5,
2020, p. _).
[[Page [330]]]
Under <> an order of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate
informed the House that it was ready to receive the House managers for
the purpose of exhibiting the article of impeachment against former
President Trump (Jan. 21, 2021, p. p. _). The House managers presented
the article of impeachment by reading two resolutions as follows: (1)
the appointment of managers (H. Res. 40, Jan. 25, 2021, p. _); and (2)
the article of impeachment (H. Res. 24, Jan. 25, 2021, p. _).
The President pro tempore of the Senate presided over the impeachment
trial (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The Senate tabled a threshold point of
order that the impeachment trial of a former President was
unconstitutional after the President pro tempore presented the question
directly to the body (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The Senate then adopted a
resolution governing the initial impeachment trial proceedings (S. Res.
16, Jan. 26, 2021, p. _). The resolution: (1) set the timing of the
impeachment trial for two weeks hence; (2) set a timetable for various
trial briefs by House managers and President's counsel; (3) directed
that any trial briefs include argument on the jurisdiction of the
Senate's ability to sit as a Court of Impeachment with respect to the
trial of a former President for acts committed as President; and (4)
directed parties to prepare to address the question of jurisdiction at
the outset of the trial proceedings. Prior to the start of the trial,
the Senate adopted a second resolution governing the trial proceedings
(S. Res. 47, Feb. 9, 2021, p. _). That resolution addressed: (1) the
composition of the evidentiary record; (2) initial argument on the
question of whether the former President was subject to the jurisdiction
of the Senate as a Court of Impeachment for conduct while President,
with an automatic vote at the end of such argument and immediate
dismissal of the article of impeachment upon a determination, by
majority vote with a quorum present, that the Senate had no
jurisdiction; (3) a timetable for motions, arguments, and presentations
by House managers and President's counsel in the case of a vote in favor
of jurisdiction; (4) a time period for Senators to question the parties;
(5) a separate time period on the question of whether the Senate would
subpoena witnesses or documents; (6) a process for deposing subpoenaed
witnesses and determining whether they should testify at the trial; (7)
a motion by the House managers to admit additional materials into the
evidentiary record; (8) a time period for final arguments; (9) convening
on a specified Sunday if the trial was not yet resolved; and (10) the
provision of a vote on the article of impeachment.
By a vote of 56-44 the Senate determined that it had jurisdiction to
sit as a Court of Impeachment with respect to former President Trump
following arguments from the House managers relying in large part on the
precedent of William Belknap (see Sec. 174, supra), and the President
pro tempore announced that the trial would proceed (Feb. 9, 2021, p. _).
The House managers relied on numerous video presentations of the attack
on the Capitol building on January 6, 2021, in their initial
presentation (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _). As part of their presentation, the
House managers
[[Page [331]]]
invoked a newspaper article referencing a call placed to a sitting
Senator, causing that Senator to attempt to move that the remarks of the
managers be stricken from the Record (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _). The
President pro tempore responded by ruling that the managers'
presentation was not limited to the evidentiary record already provided,
which was appealed by the moving Senator (Feb. 10, 2021, p. _).
Following a quorum call, the Senator withdrew his appeal and the House
managers agreed to withdraw the relevant portion of the presentation
without prejudice to raise the issue at a later time (Feb. 10, 2021, p.
_).
Following the initial presentations, the Senate agreed by unanimous
consent to structure the question response periods (Feb. 12, 2021, p.
_). During the questioning period, the President pro tempore took the
initiative to remind Senators of the admonition of Chief Justice Roberts
from the first impeachment trial of President Trump regarding civility
in debate (Feb. 12, 2021, p. _; see Sec. 608a, supra). Following the
question period, the House managers offered a motion to subpoena a
current Member of the House as a witness following reports of a phone
call on the day of the violent attack on the Capitol that was
purportedly relevant to the House managers' case (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _).
Following debate regarding the viability of virtual depositions and a
call for order from the President pro tempore, the Senate voted 55-45 to
allow a motion to subpoena witnesses or documents under the rules of
impeachment (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). After a short recess, the Senate
returned and, in exchange for the entry into evidence of a statement
from the current Member of the House regarding the phone call in
question, the House managers agreed to forego any motions to subpoena
witnesses, and the parties proceeded to closing arguments (Feb. 13,
2021, p. _). During the House managers' closing argument, the phone call
involving the sitting Senator was again raised. The Senator attempted to
engage in debate, and then appealed the ruling of the President pro
tempore that debate was not in order (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). He
eventually withdrew his appeal and the President pro tempore directed
that the remarks be stricken from the record on the grounds that the
evidentiary record was closed and that new evidence could not be raised
during the closing argument (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). Following closing
arguments, the Senate Clerk read the article and each Senator voted
``guilty'' or ``not guilty'' thereon (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). The Senate
adjudged President Trump not guilty on the charge of incitement of
insurrection by a vote of 57-43 in favor of conviction (less than two-
thirds) (Feb. 13, 2021, p. _). By order of the Senate, the Secretary of
the Senate communicated the judgment of the Senate to the House (Feb.
13, 2021, p. _).
In the <> impeachment trial of President Clinton, the Senate
adjudged President Clinton not guilty by a vote of 45-55 on the first
article and a vote of 50-50 on the second article (Feb. 12, 1999, p.
2375). For a procedural history of that trial, see Sec. 608a of the
House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).
[[Page [332]]]
See S. Doc. 93-102, ``Procedure and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials
in the United States Senate,'' for precedents relating to the conduct of
Senate impeachments.
Articles. The accusation <> (articles) of the Commons is substituted in place of an
indictment. Thus, by the usage of Parliament, in impeachment for writing
or speaking, the particular words need not be specified. Sach. Tr., 325;
2 Wood., 602, 605; Lords' Journ., 3 June, 1701; 1 Wms., 616.
Having delivered the impeachment, the committee returns to the House
and reports verbally (III, 2413, 2446; VI, 501). Formerly, the House
exhibited its articles after the impeachment had been carried to the bar
of the Senate; in the later practice, the resolution and articles of
impeachment have been considered together and exhibited simultaneously
in the Senate by the managers (VI, 501, 515; Mar. 10, 1936, pp. 3485-88;
Oct. 7, 1986, p. 29126; Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272). The managers, who are
elected by the House (III, 2300, 2345, 2417, 2448; VI, 500, 514, 517;
Mar. 2, 1936, pp. 3393, 3394) or appointed by the Speaker (III, 2388,
2475), carry the articles in obedience to a resolution of the House
(III, 2417, 2419, 2448) to the bar of the Senate (III, 2420, 2449,
2476), the House having previously informed the Senate (III, 2419, 2448)
and received a message informing them of the readiness of the latter
body to receive the articles (III, 2078, 2325, 2345; Aug. 6, 1986, p.
19335; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 240). Having exhibited the articles the managers
return and report verbally to the House (III, 2449, 2476).
The articles in the Belknap impeachment were held sufficient, although
attacked for not describing the respondent as one subject to impeachment
(III, 2123). In the proceedings against Judge Ritter, objections to the
articles of impeachment, on the ground that they duplicated and
accumulated separate offenses, were overruled (Apr. 3, 1936, p. 4898;
Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606). These articles are signed by the Speaker and
attested by the Clerk (III, 2302, 2449), and in form approved by the
practice of the House (III, 2420, 2449, 2476).
Articles of impeachment that have been exhibited to the Senate may be
subsequently modified or amended by the House (VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936,
pp. 4597-99), and a resolution proposing to amend articles of
impeachment previously adopted by the House is privileged for
consideration when reported by the managers on the part of the House
(VI, 520; Mar. 30, 1936, p. 4597).
For discussion of substantive charges contained in articles of
impeachment and the constitutional grounds for impeachment, see
Sec. 175, supra (accompanying Const., art. II, sec. 4). For a discussion
of the presentation
[[Page [333]]]
of the House managers in support of the impeachments of President Trump,
and related matters, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a discussion of
the same with respect to the impeachment of President Clinton, see
Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc.
115-177).
Appearance. If he <> appear, and the case be capital, he answers in custody;
though not if the accusation be general. He is not to be committed but
on special accusations. If it be for a misdemeanor only, he answers, a
lord in his place, a commoner at the bar, and not in custody, unless, on
the answer, the Lords find cause to commit him, till he finds sureties
to attend, and lest he should fly. Seld. Jud., 98, 99. A copy of the
articles is given him, and a day fixed for his answer. T. Ray.; 1
Rushw., 268; Fost., 232; 1 Clar. Hist. of the Reb., 379. On a
misdemeanor, his appearance may be in person, or he may answer in
writing, or by attorney. Seld. Jud., 100. The general rule on accusation
for a misdemeanor is, that in such a state of liberty or restraint as
the party is when the Commons complain of him, in such he is to answer.
Ib., 101. If previously committed by the commons, he answers as a
prisoner. But this may be called in some sort judicium parium suorum.
Ib. In misdemeanors the party has a right to counsel by the common law,
but not in capital cases. Seld. Jud., 102, 105.
This paragraph <> of the parliamentary law is largely obsolete
so far as the practice of the House and the Senate are concerned. The
accused may appear in person or by attorney (III, 2127, 2349, 2424), and
take the stand (VI, 511, 524; Apr. 11, 1936, pp. 5370-86; Oct. 7, 1986,
p. 29149), or may not appear at all (III, 2307, 2333, 2393). In case the
accused does not appear the House does not ask that the accused be
[[Page [334]]]
compelled to appear (III, 2308), but the trial proceeds as on a plea of
``not guilty.'' The writ of summons to the accused recites the articles
and notifies the accused to appear at a fixed time and place and file an
answer (III, 2127). In all cases respondent may appear by counsel (III,
2129), and in one trial, when a petition set forth that respondent was
insane, the counsel of his son was admitted to be heard and present
evidence in support of the petition, but not to make argument (III,
2333). For a discussion of answers, arguments, and presentations of the
respondent in the Trump impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 608a-
608b, supra. For a discussion of the same with respect to the Clinton
impeachment proceedings, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for
the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).
The chair of the committee impeaches at the bar of the Senate by oral
accusation (III, 2413, 2446, 2473), and the managers for the House
attend in the Senate after the articles have been exhibited and demand
that process issue for the attendance of respondent (III, 2451, 2478),
after which they return and report verbally to the House (III, 2423,
2451; VI, 501). The Senate thereupon issue a writ of summons, fixing the
day of return (III, 2423, 2451; S. Res. 16, Jan. 8, 1999, p. 349); and
in a case wherein the respondent did not appear by person or attorney
the Senate published a proclamation for him to appear (III, 2393). But
the respondent's goods were not attached. In only one case has the
parliamentary law as to sequestration and committal been followed (III,
2118, 2296), later inquiry resulting in the conclusion that the Senate
had no power to take into custody the body of the accused (III, 2324,
2367).
Answer. The <> answer need not
observe great strictness of the form. He may plead guilty as to part,
and defend as to the residue; or, saving all exceptions, deny the whole
or give a particular answer to each article separately. 1 Rush., 274; 2
Rush., 1374; 12 Parl. Hist., 442; 3 Lords' Journ., 13 Nov., 1643; 2
Wood., 607. But he cannot plead a pardon in bar to the impeachment. 2
Wood., 615; 2 St. Tr., 735.
In the Senate proceedings of the impeachment of President Andrew
Johnson, the answer of the President took up the articles one by one,
denying some of the charges, admitting others but denying that they set
forth impeachable offenses, and excepting to the sufficiency of others
(III, 2428). The form of this answer was commented on during preparation
of the replication in the House (III, 2431). In the Senate proceedings
on the impeachment of President Clinton, the answer of the President
also took up the articles one by one, denying some of the charges and
admitting others
[[Page [335]]]
but denying that they set forth impeachable offenses (Jan. 14, 1999, pp.
359-361). Blount and Belknap demurred to the charges on the ground that
they were not civil officers within the meaning of the Constitution
(III, 2310, 2453), and Swayne also raised questions as to the
jurisdiction of the Senate (III, 2481). The answer is part of the
pleadings, and exhibits in the nature of evidence may not properly be
attached thereto (III, 2124). The answer of the respondent in
impeachment proceedings is messaged to the House and subsequently
referred to the managers on the part of the House (VI, 506; Apr. 6,
1936, p. 5020; Sept. 9, 1986, p. 22317).
For a chronology of arguments and presentations of the respondent in
the Trump impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a
chronology of the same with respect to the Clinton impeachment
proceedings, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules and Manual for the 116th
Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).
Replication, rejoinder, <> &c. There
may be a replication, rejoinder, &c. Sel. Jud., 114; 8 Grey's Deb., 233;
Sach. Tr., 15; Journ. H. of Commons, 6 March, 1640-1.
A replication is always filed (for the form of replication in modern
practice, see Sept. 26, 1988, p. 25357), and in one instance the
pleadings proceeded to a rejoinder, surrejoinder, and similiter (III,
2455). A respondent also has filed a protest instead of pleading on the
merits (III, 2461), but there was objection to this and the Senate
barely permitted it. In another case respondent interposed a plea as to
jurisdiction of offenses charged in certain articles, but declined to
admit that it was a demurrer with the admissions pertinent thereto (III,
2125, 2431). In the Belknap trial the House was sustained in averring in
pleadings as to jurisdiction matters not averred in the articles (III,
2123). The right of the House to allege in the replication matters not
touched in the articles has been discussed (III, 2457). In the
Louderback (VI, 522) and Ritter (Apr. 6, 1936, p. 4971) impeachment
proceedings, the managers on the part of the House prepared and
submitted the replication to the Senate without its consideration by the
House, contrary to former practice (VI, 506). The Senate may consider in
closed session various preliminary motions made by respondent (e.g., to
declare the Senate rule on appointment of a committee to receive
evidence to be unconstitutional, to declare beyond a reasonable doubt as
the standard of proof in an impeachment trial, and to postpone the
impeachment trial) before voting in open session to dispose of those
motions (Oct. 7, 8, 1986, pp. 29151, 29412).
For a chronology of disposition of motions in the Senate under its
impeachment rules during the impeachment of President Trump, see
Sec. Sec. 608a-608b, supra. For a chronology of the same with respect to
the impeachment of President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules
and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).
[[Page [336]]]
Witnesses. The <> practice
is to swear the witnesses in open House, and then examine them there; or
a committee may be named, who shall examine them in committee, either on
interrogatories agreed on in the House, or such as the committee in
their discretion shall demand. Seld. Jud., 120, 123.
In trials before the Senate witnesses have always been examined in
open Senate, although examination by a committee has been suggested
(III, 2217) and utilized (S. Res. 38, 101st Cong., Mar. 16, 1989, p.
4533). In the 74th Congress, the Senate amended its rules for
impeachment trials to allow the presiding officer, upon the order of the
Senate, to appoint a committee to receive evidence and take testimony in
the trial of any impeachment (May 28, 1935, p. 8309). In the trial of
Judge Claiborne the Senate directed the appointment of a committee of
twelve Senators to take evidence and testimony pursuant to rule XI of
the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on
Impeachment Trials (S. Res. 481, Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22035); and in Nixon
v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the Supreme Court refused to
declare unconstitutional the appointment of such a committee to take
evidence and testimony.
For a chronology of motions to subpoena witnesses during the Senate
impeachment proceedings against President Trump, see Sec. Sec. 608a-
608b, supra. For a chronology of the same with respect to Senate
impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the
House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).
Jury. In the <> case of Alice Pierce, 1 R., 2, a jury was impaneled for
her trial before a committee. Seld. Jud., 123. But this was on a
complaint, not on impeachment by the Commons. Seld. Jud., 163. It must
also have been for a misdemeanor only, as the Lords spiritual sat in the
case, which they do on misdemeanors, but not in capital cases. Id., 148.
The judgment was a forfeiture of all her lands and goods. Id., 188.
This, Selden says, is the only jury he finds recorded in Parliament for
misdemeanors; but he makes no doubt, if the de
[[Page [337]]]
linquent doth put himself on the trial of his country, a jury ought to
be impaneled, and he adds that it is not so on impeachment by the
Commons, for they are in loco proprio, and there no jury ought to be
impaneled. Id., 124. The Ld. Berkeley, 6 E., 3, was arraigned for the
murder of L. 2, on an information on the part of the King, and not on
impeachment of the Commons; for then they had been patria sua. He waived
his peerage, and was tried by a jury of Gloucestershire and
Warwickshire. Id., 126. In 1 H., 7, the Commons protest that they are
not to be considered as parties to any judgment given, or hereafter to
be given in Parliament. Id., 133. They have been generally and more
justly considered, as is before stated, as the grand jury; for the
conceit of Selden is certainly not accurate, that they are the patria
sua of the accused, and that the Lords do only judge, but not try. It is
undeniable that they do try; for they examine witnesses as to the facts,
and acquit or condemn, according to their own belief of them. And Lord
Hale says, ``the peers are judges of law as well as of fact;'' 2 Hale,
P. C., 275; Consequently of fact as well as of law.
No jury is possible as part of an impeachment trial under the
Constitution (III, 2313). In 1868, after mature consideration, the
Senate overruled the old view of its functions (III, 2057), and decided
that it sat for impeachment trials as the Senate and not as a court
(III, 2057), and eliminated from its rules all mention of itself as a
``high court of impeachment'' (III, 2079, 2082). However, the modern
view of the Senate as a court was evident during the impeachment trial
of President Clinton. There the Senate convened as a ``Court of
Impeachment'' (see, e.g., Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272). In response to an
objection raised by a Senator, the Chief Justice held that the Senate
was not sitting as a ``jury'' but was sitting as a ``court'' during the
impeachment trial of President Clinton. As such, the House managers
[[Page [338]]]
were directed to refrain from referring to the Senators as ``jurors''
(Jan. 15, 1999, p. 580).
An anxiety lest <> the Chief
Justice might have a vote in the approaching trial of the President
seems to have prompted this earlier action (III, 2057). There was
examination of the question of the Chief Justice's power to vote (III,
2098); but the Senate declined to declare his incapacity to vote, and he
did in fact give a casting vote on incidental questions (III, 2067)
though in a later trial, the Chief Justice advised that he did not
believe it appropriate for the Chief Justice to cast a vote that would
change the result of the vote of the Senate (Jan. 31, 2020, p. _). Under
the earlier practice, the Senate declined to require that the Chief
Justice be sworn when about to preside (III, 2080); but the Chief
Justice had the oath administered by an associate justice (III, 2422).
The President pro tempore of the Senate, pursuant to an earlier order of
the Senate, appointed a committee to escort the Chief Justice into the
Senate chamber to preside over the impeachment trial of President
Clinton (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272).
In impeachments for officers other than the President of the United
States the presiding officer of the Senate presides, whether being Vice
President, the regular President pro tempore (III, 2309, footnote, 2337,
2394) or a special President pro tempore chosen to preside at the trial
only (III, 2089, 2477). The President pro tempore presided over the
impeachment trial of a former President who was still President at the
time of his impeachment (Jan. 26, 2021, p. _).
Senators elected after <> the
beginning of an impeachment trial are sworn as in the case of other
Senators (III, 2375). The quorum of the Senate sitting for an
impeachment trial is a quorum of the Senate itself, and not merely a
quorum of the Senators sworn for the trial (III, 2063). The vote
required for conviction is two-thirds of those Senators present and
voting (Oct. 20, 1989, p. 25335). In 1868, when certain States were
without representation, the Senate declined to question its competency
to try an impeachment case (III, 2060). The President pro tempore of the
Senate administered the oath to the Chief Justice presiding over the
impeachment trial of President Clinton, and the Chief Justice in turn
administered the oath to the Senators (Jan. 7, 1999, p. 272).
Presence of <> Commons.
The Commons are to be present at the examination of witnesses. Seld.
Jud., 124. Indeed, they are to attend throughout, either as a committee
of the whole House, or otherwise, at discretion, appoint managers to
conduct the proofs. Rushw. Tr. of Straff., 37; Com. Journ., 4 Feb.,
[[Page [339]]]
1709-10; 2 Wood., 614. And judgment is not to be given till they demand
it. Seld. Jud., 124. But they are not to be present on impeachment when
the Lords consider of the answer or proofs and determine of their
judgment. Their presence, however, is necessary at the answer and
judgment in case capital Id., 58, 158, as well as not capital; 162. * *
*.
The <> House has consulted its own inclination and
convenience about attending its managers at an impeachment. It did not
attend at all in the trials of Blount, Swayne, Archbald, Louderback, and
Ritter (III, 2318, 2483; VI, 504, 516); and after attending at the
answer of Belknap, decided that it would be represented for the
remainder of the trial by its managers alone (III, 2453). At the trial
of President Johnson the House, in Committee of the Whole, attended
throughout the trial (III, 2427), but this is exceptional. In the Peck
trial the House discussed the subject (III, 2377) and reconsidered its
decision to attend the trial daily (III, 2028). While the Senate is
deliberating the House does not attend (III, 2435); but when the Senate
votes on the charges, as at the other open proceedings of the trial, it
may attend (III, 2383, 2388, 2440). Although it has frequently attended
in Committee of the Whole, it may attend as a House (III, 2338).
* * * The <> Lords debate the judgment among themselves. Then the vote is
first taken on the question of guilty or not guilty; and if they
convict, the question, or particular sentence, is out of that which
seemeth to be most generally agreed on. Seld. Jud., 167; 2 Wood., 612.
The question in judgment in an impeachment trial has occasioned
contention in the Senate (III, 2339, 2340), and in the trial of
President Johnson the form was left to the Chief Justice (III, 2438,
2439). In the Belknap trial there was much deliberation over this
subject (III, 2466). In the Chase trial the Senate modified its former
rule as to form of final question (III, 2363). The yeas and nays are
taken on each article separately (III, 2098, 2339) in the form
``Senators, how say you? is the respondent guilty or not guilty?'' (Oct.
9, 1986, p. 29871). But in the trial of President Johnson the Senate, by
order, voted on the articles in an order differing from the numerical
order (III, 2440), adjourned after voting on one article (III, 2441),
[[Page [340]]]
and adjourned without day after voting on three of the eleven articles
(III, 2443). In other impeachments, the Senate has adopted an order to
provide the method of voting and putting the question separately and
successively on each article (VI, 524; Apr. 16, 1936, p. 5558). For a
discussion of the vote of the Senate on each article of impeachment with
respect to the impeachments of President Trump, see Sec. Sec. 608a-608b,
supra. For a discussion of the same with respect to articles of
impeachment against President Clinton, see Sec. 608a of the House Rules
and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).
Judgment. Judgments in <> Parliament, for death have been strictly guided per
legem terrae, which they can not alter; and not at all according to
their discretion. They can neither omit any part of the legal judgment
nor add to it. Their sentence must be secundum non ultra legem. Seld.
Jud., 168, 171. This trial, though it varies in external ceremony, yet
differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions before inferior
courts. The same rules of evidence, the same legal notions of crimes and
punishments, prevailed; for impeachments are not framed to alter the
law, but to carry it into more effectual execution against too powerful
delinquents. The judgment, therefore, is to be such as is warranted by
legal principles or precedents. 6 Sta. Tr., 14; 2 Wood., 611. The
Chancellor gives judgment in misdemeanors; the Lord High Steward
formerly in cases of life and death. Seld. Jud., 180. But now the
Steward is deemed not necessary. Fost., 144; 2 Wood., 613. In
misdemeanors the greatest corporal punishment hath been imprisonment.
Seld. Jud., 184. The King's assent is necessary to capital judgments
(but 2 Wood., 614, contra), but not in misdemeanors, Seld. Jud., 136.
[[Page [341]]]
The Constitution of the United States (art. I, sec. 3, cl. 7) limits
the judgment to removal and disqualification. The order of judgment
following conviction in an impeachment trial is divisible for a separate
vote if it contains both removal and disqualification (III, 2397; VI,
512; Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606), and an order of judgment (such as
disqualification) requires a majority vote (VI, 512; Apr. 17, 1936, p.
5607). Under earlier practice, after a conviction the Senate voted
separately on the question of disqualification (III, 2339, 2397), but no
vote is required by the Senate on judgment of removal from office
following conviction, because removal follows automatically from
conviction under article II, section 4 of the Constitution (Apr. 17,
1936, p. 5607). Thus, the presiding officer directs judgment of removal
from office to be entered and the respondent removed from office without
separate action by the Senate where disqualification is not contemplated
(Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29873). A resolution impeaching the President may
provide for only removal from office (H. Res. 1333, 93d Cong., Aug. 20,
1974, p. 29361) or for both removal and disqualification from holding
any future office (H. Res. 611, 105th Cong., Dec. 19, 1998, p. 27828; H.
Res. 755, 116th Cong., Dec. 18, 2019, p. _; H. Res. 24, 117th Cong.,
Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).
Continuance. An <> impeachment is not discontinued by the dissolution of
Parliament, but may be resumed by the new Parliament. T. Ray 383; 4 Com.
Journ., 23 Dec., 1790; Lord's Jour., May 15, 1791; 2 Wood., 618.
In Congress impeachment proceedings are not discontinued by a recess
(III, 2299, 2304, 2344, 2375, 2407, 2505, see also Sec. 592, supra). The
following impeachment proceedings extended from one Congress to the
next: (1) the impeachment of Judge Pickering was presented in the Senate
on the last day of the Seventh Congress (III, 2320), and the Senate
conducted the trial in the Eighth Congress (III, 2321); (2) the
impeachment of Judge Louderback was presented in the Senate on the last
day of the 72d Congress (VI, 515), and the Senate conducted the trial in
the 73d Congress (VI, 516); (3) the impeachment of Judge Hastings was
presented in the Senate during the second session of the 100th Congress
(Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20223) and the trial in the Senate continued into the
101st Congress (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84); (4) the impeachment of President
Clinton was presented to the Senate after the Senate had adjourned sine
die for the 105th Congress (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 8.2), and
the Senate conducted the trial in the 106th Congress (Jan. 7, 1999, p.
272); (5) the impeachment inquiry of Judge Porteous was authorized in
the 110th Congress (Sept. 17, 2008) and continued in the next Congress
(Precedents (Wickham), ch.
[[Page [342]]]
1, Sec. 8.1). Although impeachment proceedings may continue from one
Congress to the next, the authority of the managers appointed by the
House expires at the end of a Congress; and the managers must be
reappointed when a new Congress convenes (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1,
Sec. 8.2).
[[Page [343]]]
========================================================================
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
========================================================================
[[Page [345]]]
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WITH NOTES AND ANNOTATIONS
__________
Rule I
the speaker
Approval of the Journal
1. The Speaker shall take the Chair on every legislative day precisely
at the hour to which the House last adjourned and immediately call the
House to order. <> Having
examined and approved the Journal of the last day's proceedings, the
Speaker shall announce to the House approval thereof. The Speaker's
approval of the Journal shall be deemed agreed to unless a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner demands a vote thereon. If such a
vote is decided in the affirmative, it shall not be subject to a motion
to reconsider. If such a vote is decided in the negative, then one
motion that the Journal be read shall be privileged, shall be decided
without debate, and shall not be subject to a motion to reconsider.
This clause was adopted in 1789, amended in 1811, 1824 (II, 1310),
1971 (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, pp. 140-44, with the implementation of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1140), and 1979 (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7, 16). Clerical and stylistic changes were
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-based reference was eliminated in
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).
[[Page [346]]]
The hour of meeting is fixed by standing order, and was traditionally
set at noon (I, 104-109, 116, 117; IV, 4325); but beginning in the 95th
Congress, the House by standing order formalized the practice of varying
its convening time to accommodate committee meetings on certain days of
the week and to maximize time for floor action on other days (e.g., H.
Res. 7, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 70). The House retains the right to vary from
this schedule by use of the motion to fix the day and time to which the
House shall adjourn as provided in clause 4 of rule XVI. The House may
provide for a session of the House on a Sunday, traditionally a ``dies
non'' under the precedents of the House (e.g., Dec. 17, 1982, p. 31946;
Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36352; Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25483; Dec. 15, 2019, p. _).
Beginning in the second session of the 103d Congress, the House has by
unanimous consent agreed to convene earlier on certain days for morning-
hour debate and then recess to the hour established for convening under
a previous order (see Sec. 951, infra).
Immediately after the Members are called to order, the prayer is
offered by the Chaplain (IV, 3056), and the Speaker declines to
entertain a point of no quorum before prayer is offered (VI, 663; clause
7 of rule XX). Before the 96th Congress, clause 1 of rule I directed the
Speaker to announce the approval of the Journal on the appearance of a
quorum after having called the House to order. Under that form of the
rule, a point of no quorum could be made after the prayer and before the
approval of the Journal when the House convened, notwithstanding the
provisions of former clause 6(e) of rule XV (now clause 7 of rule XX),
allowing such points of order in the House only when the Speaker had put
the pending motion or proposition to a vote (Oct. 3, 1977, p. 31987).
Similarly, prior practice had permitted a point of no quorum before the
reading of the Journal (IV, 2733; VI, 625) or during its reading (VI,
624). In the 96th Congress, the House eliminated the necessity for the
appearance of a quorum before the Speaker's announcement of the approval
of the Journal (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7, 16). If a quorum fails
to respond on a motion incident to the approval, reading, or amendment
of the Journal, and there is an objection to the vote, a call of the
House under clause 6 of rule XX is automatic (Feb. 2, 1977, p. 3342).
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Speaker may postpone until a
later time on the same legislative day a record vote on the Speaker's
approval of the Journal. Where the House adjourns on consecutive days
without having approved the Journal of the previous days' proceedings,
the Speaker puts the question de novo in chronological order as the
first order of business on the subsequent day (Precedents (Wickham), ch.
5, Sec. 12.6).
The Journal of the last day of a session is not read on the first day
of the next session (IV, 2742). No business is transacted before the
approval of the Journal (or the postponement of a vote under clause 8 of
rule XX on agreeing to the Speaker's approval), including the filing of
a conference report (IV, 2751-2756; VI, 629, 630, 637). However, the
motion to adjourn
[[Page [347]]]
(IV, 2757; Speaker Wright, Nov. 2, 1987, p. 30387) and the swearing of a
Member (I, 172) could take precedence.
Once begun, the reading may not be interrupted, even by business so
highly privileged as a conference report (V, 6443; clause 7(a) of rule
XXII). However, a parliamentary inquiry (VI, 624), an arraignment of
impeachment (VI, 469), or a question of privilege relating to a breach
of privilege (such as an assault occurring during the reading) may
interrupt its reading or approval (II, 1630).
If the Speaker's approval of the Journal is rejected, a motion to
amend takes precedence of a motion to approve (IV, 2760; VI, 633), and a
Member offering an amendment is recognized under the hour rule
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 14.1); but the motion is not
admissible after the previous question is demanded on the motion to
approve (IV, 2770; VI, 633; VIII, 2684; Sept. 13, 1965, p. 23600). The
House by unanimous consent has permitted an untimely demand for a vote
on approval of the Journal (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 12.3).
Before the 92d Congress, the reading of the Journal was mandatory and
could not be dispensed with except by unanimous consent (VI, 625; Sept.
19, 1962, p. 19941) or by motion to suspend the rules (IV, 2747-2750).
It had to be read in full when demanded by any Member (IV, 2739-2741;
VI, 627, 628; Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2152), but the demand came too late
after the Journal was approved (VI, 626). The Speaker's examination and
approval of the Journal was preliminary to the reading and did not
preclude subsequent amendment by the House itself (IV, 2734-2738). Under
the rule as in effect from the 92d Congress through the 95th Congress,
any Member could offer a privileged, nondebatable motion that the
Journal be read pending the Speaker's announcement of approval and
before agreement by the House (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 13.1).
The House has adopted the provisions of this clause as a matter of
general parliamentary law prior to the adoption of standing rules at the
beginning of a Congress (Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Preservation of order
<> 2. The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and, in case of
disturbance or disorderly conduct in the galleries or in the lobby, may
cause the same to be cleared.
This clause was adopted in 1789 and amended in 1794 (II, 1343).
Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The Speaker may name a Member who is disorderly, but may not, of the
Speaker's own authority, censure or punish the Member (II, 1344, 1345;
VI, 237). In cases of extreme disorder in the Committee of the Whole the
[[Page [348]]]
Speaker has taken the chair and restored order without a formal rising
of the Committee (II, 1348, 1648-1653, 1657). Before the establishment
of recess authority in clause 12(b), the Speaker, as an exercise of
authority under this clause, has on initiative declared the House in
recess in an emergency (Speaker Martin, Mar. 1, 1954, p. 2424; see also
Speaker Rayburn, Mar. 1, 1943, p. 1487 (air-raid drill)). A former
Member must observe the rules of decorum while on the floor, and the
Speaker may request the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist in maintaining such
decorum (Sept. 17, 1997, pp. 19026, 19027). The Chair announced that
failure to heed the gavel constitutes an act of stark incivility
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.2), and the Chair has taken
initiative to remind Members to closely consider their words during
contentious proceedings in order to maintain decorum in the House (July
16, 2019, p. _).
The authority to have the galleries cleared has been exercised but
rarely (II, 1352; Speaker Albert, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4,
Sec. 4.1). On one occasion, acting on the basis of police reports and
other evidence, the Speaker ordered the galleries cleared before the
House convened (May 10, 1972, p. 16576) and then informed the House of
his decision. In an early instance the Speaker ordered the arrest of a
person in the gallery; but this exercise of power was questioned (II,
1605). In response to a disruptive demonstration in the gallery, the
Chair notes for the Record the disruptive character of the demonstration
and enlists the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove the offending parties (see,
e.g., Oct. 8, 2002, p. 19543; Apr. 29, 2010, p. 6858), including during
the pendency of a vote by electronic device (Dec. 19, 2017, p. _). After
repeated disturbances in the gallery, the chair of the Committee of the
Whole warned occupants of the gallery of possible prosecution (under 40
U.S.C. 5104) (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 4.6). Occupants of the
gallery are not to manifest approval or disapproval of, or otherwise
disrupt, proceedings on the floor (see, e.g., Speaker Foley, June 12,
1990, p. 13593) and the Speaker may quell such demonstrations before the
adoption of the rules (Speaker Gingrich, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1,
Sec. 6.6).
Although Members are permitted to use exhibits such as charts during
debate (subject to clause 6 of rule XVII), the Speaker may direct the
removal of a chart from the well of the House that is not being utilized
during debate (Apr. 1, 1982, p. 6304; Apr. 19, 1990, p. 7402). The
Speaker may inquire concerning a Member's intentions, as to the use of
exhibits, before conferring recognition to address the House (Mar. 21,
1984, p. 6187). The Speaker's responsibility to preserve decorum
requires the disallowance of exhibits in debate that would be demeaning
to the House, or to any Member of the House, or that would be disruptive
of the decorum thereof (Sept. 13, 1989, p. 20362; Oct. 16, 1990, p.
29647; Oct. 1, 1991, p. 24828; Nov. 16, 1995, p. 33395; Jan. 3, 1996, p.
42; July 27, 2017, p. _). The Speaker has disallowed the use of a person
on the floor as a guest of the House as an ``exhibit,'' including a
Member's child (see Sec. 678, infra). The Chair also has cautioned
Members to refrain from using audio devices during debate (May 24, 2005,
p. 11008), including a mobile device that
[[Page [349]]]
impairs decorum under clause 5 of rule XVII (June 22, 2018, p. _).
Although a Member may have enlisted the assistance of a House Page to
manage the placement of an exhibit on an easel, it was not appropriate
to refer to the Page or to use the Page as though part of the exhibit
(June 11, 2003, p. 14417; Speaker Hastert, June 12, 2003, p. 14576). The
Chair will distinguish between using an exhibit in the immediate area
the Member is addressing the House as a visual aid for the edification
of Members and staging an exhibition; for example, a Member having a
large number of his colleagues accompany him in the well, each carrying
a part of his exhibit, was held to impair the decorum of the House (June
12, 2003, p. 14627; July 7, 2016, p. _; June 20, 2018, p. _ (children
used as the exhibit)). Mass presence of Members in the well while not
under recognition (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.1), and a
gathering of Members improperly displaying electronic and non-electronic
exhibits (Mar. 13, 2014, p. 4393), each constitutes a breach of decorum.
The Chair has admonished Members to observe proper decorum before the
adoption of the rules (Jan. 3, 2017, p. _).
In the 101st Congress both the Speaker and the chair of the Committee
of the Whole reinforced the Chair's authority to control the use of
exhibits in debate, distinguishing between the constitutional authority
of the House to make its own rules and first amendment rights of free
speech, and the use of all exhibits was prohibited during the
consideration of a bill in the Committee of the Whole (Oct. 11, 1990, p.
28650). The Speaker may permit the display of an exhibit in the
Speaker's lobby during debate on a measure (May 20, 1999, p. 10280).
Just as an appeal may be entertained on a decision from the Chair that a
Member has engaged in personalities in debate (Sept. 28, 1996, pp.
25780-82; see also clause 4 of rule XVII), so also may an appeal be
entertained on a ruling of the Chair on the propriety of an exhibit
(Nov. 16, 1995, p. 33395; Jan. 20, 2018, p. _).
At the request of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now
Ethics), the Speaker announced that (1) all handouts distributed on or
adjacent to the floor must bear the name of a Member authorizing the
distribution; (2) the content of such handouts must comport with the
standards applicable to words used in debate; (3) failure to comply with
these standards may constitute a breach of decorum and thus give rise to
a question of privilege; (4) staff are prohibited in the Chamber or
rooms leading thereto from distributing handouts and from attempting to
influence Members with regard to legislation; and (5) Members should
minimize the use of handouts to enhance the quality of debate (Sept. 27,
1995, p. 26567; Mar. 20, 1996, p. 5644; Mar. 4, 1998, p. 2523; Mar. 21,
2010, p. 4095).
Questions having been raised concerning proper attire for Members in
the Chamber (thermostat controls having been raised to comply with a
Presidential directive conserving energy in the summer months), the
Speaker announced he considered traditional attire for Members
appropriate, including coats and ties for male Members and appropriate
attire for female Members, but that he would recognize for a question of
the
[[Page [350]]]
privileges of the House to relax such standards. The Speaker also
requested a Member in violation of those standards to remove himself
from the Chamber and appear in appropriate attire, and refused to
recognize such Member until he did so (Speaker O'Neill, Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.2; see also Mar. 28, 2012, pp. 4361, 4362). The
House later agreed to a resolution (presented as a question of the
privileges of the House) requiring Members to wear proper attire as
determined by the Speaker (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.3). See
also Sec. 962, infra.
Recognition is within the discretion of the Chair, and in order to
uphold order and decorum in the House as required under clause 2 of rule
I, the Speaker may deny a Member recognition for a ``one-minute speech''
(Aug. 27, 1980, p. 23456). Furthermore, it is a breach of decorum for a
Member to continue to speak beyond the time for which recognized (Mar.
22, 1996, p. 6086; May 22, 2003, p. 12965; Oct. 2, 2003, pp. 23949,
23950), and the Speaker may deny further recognition to such Member
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.13; Mar. 29, 2012, p. 4500; July
19, 2013, pp. 11946, 11947; Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14981), from which there is
no appeal (see Sec. 629, infra). In the event of disorder in the well,
the Chair may ask Members to uphold the dignity and decorum of the House
so that business can be conducted in an orderly fashion (Speaker Ryan,
June 22, 2016, p. _) or may order that the well be cleared (Speaker
McCormack, Dec. 9, 1963, p. 23831). Even before adoption of the rules,
the Speaker may maintain decorum by directing a Member engaging in such
breach of decorum to be removed from the well and by directing the
Sergeant-at-Arms to present the mace as the traditional symbol of order
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 6.5). A Member's comportment may
constitute a breach of decorum even though the content of that Member's
speech is not, itself, unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Under
this standard the Chair may deny further recognition to a Member engaged
in unparliamentary debate who ignores repeated admonitions by the Chair
to proceed in order (unless the Member is permitted to proceed by order
of the House) (Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535). The Chair has announced that
time consumed (1) obtaining order (Mar. 21, 2010, p. 4104; Apr. 18,
2012, p. 5130), (2) admonishing a Member for failing to address remarks
to the Chair (July 23, 2015, p. 12275), (3) admonishing the gallery
(Apr. 8, 2003, p. 8761), or (4) responding to a Member interrupting
debate without being recognized (Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2229; Feb. 6, 2002, p.
640), would not be charged to the Member under recognition.
During the 116th and 117th Congresses, the Speaker established a
series of policies requiring the wearing of masks in the Chamber in
response to a designated public health emergency, each of which
reiterated the Speaker's authority to enforce those policies as a matter
of decorum (July 29, 2020, p. _; Nov. 18, 2020, p. _; Dec. 15, 2020, p.
_; Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Pursuant to these policies the Chair took the
initiative in admonishing Members seeking or under recognition who were
not wearing masks
[[Page [351]]]
(e.g., Dec. 16, 2020, p. _) or were wearing them improperly (e.g., Mar.
3, 2021, p. _).
Control of Capitol facilities
3. <> Except as otherwise provided by rule or law, the Speaker shall
have general control of the Hall of the House, the corridors and
passages in the part of the Capitol assigned to the use of the House,
and the disposal of unappropriated rooms in that part of the Capitol.
This clause was adopted in 1811 and amended in 1824, 1885 (II, 1354),
and 1911 (VI, 261). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47).
Control of the appropriated rooms in the House portion of the Capitol
is exercised by the House itself (V, 7273-7279), but repairs and
alterations have been authorized by statute (V, 7280-7281; 59 Stat.
472). On January 15, 1979, the Speaker announced his directive
concerning free access by Members in the corridors approaching the
Chamber (p. 19). The Speaker has declined to recognize for a unanimous-
consent request to change the decor in the Chamber, stating that he
would take the suggestion under advisement in exercising his authority
under this clause (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.4). The Speaker
has announced that a joint Republican Conference and Democratic Caucus
meeting would be held in the Chamber following the adjournment of the
House on that day (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.13). The Speaker
has announced standards for use of the Chamber when the House is not in
session (Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 25; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5,
2011, p. 106; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 47; Speaker Boehner,
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 63; Speaker Ryan, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _; Speaker Pelosi,
Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Signature of documents
4. <> The Speaker shall sign all acts and joint resolutions passed by
the two Houses and all writs, warrants, and subpoenas of, or issued by
order of, the House. The Speaker may sign enrolled bills
[[Page [352]]]
and joint resolutions whether or not the House is in session.
The Speaker was given authority to sign acts, warrants, subpoenas,
etc., in 1794 (II, 1313). The last sentence of this clause, granting the
Speaker standing authority to sign enrolled bills, even if the House is
not in session, was added in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981,
pp. 98-113). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, clauses 4 and 5 occupied a single clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47).
Enrolled <> bills are
signed first by the Speaker (IV, 3429) or a Speaker pro tempore under
clause 8 of rule I. For precedents relevant to the signing of enrolled
bills before this clause was amended to permit the Speaker to sign at
any time, see IV, 3458, and V, 5705. Before the adoption of clause
2(d)(2) of rule II (enabling the Clerk to examine enrolled bills), the
House authorized the Speaker to sign an enrolled bill before the
Committee on Enrolled Bills could attest to its accuracy (IV, 3452). In
cases of error the House has permitted the Speaker's signature to be
vacated (IV, 3453, 3455-3457; VII, 1077-1080; Mar. 11, 1986, p. 4240;
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 14.9).
Warrants, <> subpoenas, etc., during recesses of Congress are signed only by
authority specially given (III, 1753, 1763, 1806). The issuing of
warrants must be specially authorized by the House (I, 287) or pursuant
to a standing rule (clause 6 of rule XX; Sec. 1026, infra). The House
has authorized the Speaker to issue a warrant for the arrest of
absentees (VI, 638). The Speaker also signs the articles, replications,
etc., in impeachments (III, 2370, 2455; e.g., H. Res. 611, Dec. 19,
1998, p. 28112); and certifies cases of contumacious witnesses for
action by the courts (III, 1691, 1769; VI, 385; 2 U.S.C. 194). A
subpoena validly issued under clause 2(m) of rule XI need only be signed
by the chair of that committee, whereas when the House issues an order
or warrant, the summons is issued under the hand and seal of the
Speaker, and it must be attested by the Clerk (III, 1668; see H. Rept.
96-1078, p. 22).
Questions of order
5. <> The Speaker shall decide all
questions of order, subject to appeal by a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner. On such an appeal a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner may not speak more than once without permission of the
House.
[[Page [353]]]
This rule was adopted in 1789 and amended in 1811. Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, clauses 4 and 5 occupied a
single clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The <> Speaker may require that a question of order be
presented in writing (V, 6865). When enough of a proposition has been
read to show that it is out of order, the question of order may be
raised without waiting for the reading to be completed (V, 6886, 6887;
VIII, 2912, 3378, 3437; July 9, 2009, pp. 17309-11), though the Chair
may decline to rule until the entire proposition has been read (Dec. 14,
1973, pp. 41716-18). For example, the Chair declined to entertain a
point of order that a motion to recommit was not germane before any
nongermane portion of the motion had been read (May 9, 2003, p. 11110);
and a motion to recommit with instructions was ruled out of order before
the entire motion had been read as a matter of form where a special
order of business precluded instructions (May 6, 2004, pp. 8590, 8591).
A point of order may be withdrawn as a matter of right before action
thereon (e.g., June 24, 2008, p. 13500), including withdrawal in favor
of reservation (June 2, 2015, p. 8358). Present insistence on a point of
order takes precedence over reservation (Nov. 19, 2009, pp. 28235,
28243). A point of order against consideration of a measure must be
raised (or reserved) before commencement of debate on the measure (e.g.,
Feb. 15, 1995, p. 5012; June 1, 2011, p. 8475; July 11, 2013, p. 11417;
May 29, 2014, pp. 9256, 9257; July 11, 2014, p. 11815) and a timely
reservation of a point of order by one Member inures to the benefit of
any other Member who desires to raise a point of order (V, 6906; July
18, 1990, p. 17930). Questions arising during a division are decided
peremptorily (V, 5926), and when they arise out of any other question
must be decided before that question (V, 6864). In rare instances the
Speaker has declined to rule until taking time for examination of the
question (III, 2725; VI, 432; VII, 2106; VIII, 2174, 2396, 3475; Mar.
24, 2010, p. 4767). In one instance, when the Chair announced an
abandonment of the gavel in lieu of issuing a ruling on a pending demand
that words be taken down, another Member took the Chair to rule on such
demand (July 16, 2019, p. _).
Debate on a point of order, being for the Chair's information, is
within the Chair's discretion (see, e.g., V, 6919, 6920; VIII, 3446-
3448; Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 67.3; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248; Sept.
12, 1996, p. 22901; Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25420; July 10, 2014, p. 11693)
and is solely to edify the judgment of the Chair, who may decline to
hear more when prepared to rule (Mar. 3, 2011, pp. 3171, 3172; Oct. 8,
2013, p. 15438; July 6, 2016, p. _; Mar. 7, 2017, p. _; Mar. 15, 2017,
p. _; June 7, 2017, p. _; June 21, 2017, p. _) and may decline to
respond to questions in advance of ruling (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14997).
Debate is confined to the question of order and may not extend to the
merits of the proposition against which it lies or to parliamentarily
similar propositions permitted to remain in the pending bill by waivers
of points of order (e.g., July 18, 1995, p. 19335; June
[[Page [354]]]
22, 2000, p. 12078). Members must address the Chair and cannot engage in
colloquies on the point of order (e.g., Sept. 18, 1986, p. 24083; May
19, 2005, p. 10337; June 18, 2014, p. 10412; June 7, 2017, p. _), nor
can they offer pro forma amendments to debate the point of order (July
21, 1998, p. 16369; June 27, 2007, pp. 17715, 17716) or the underlying
proposition (Feb. 16, 2011, p. 2174). To ensure that the arguments
recorded on a question of order are those actually heard by the Chair
before ruling, the Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent request
to permit a Member to revise and extend remarks on a point of order
(Sept. 22, 1976, p. 31873; May 15, 1997, pp. 8493, 8494; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.16; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.18).
However, a Member has been allowed by unanimous consent to revise and
extend remarks, or to insert extraneous material, to appear following
the ruling on a point of order (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.17;
May 17, 2017, p. _). A Member may raise multiple points of order
simultaneously, and the Chair may hear argument and rule on each
question individually (Mar. 28, 1996, pp. 6931, 6933); or the Chair may
choose to rule on only one of the points of order raised (July 24, 1998,
p. 17278). If a Member incorrectly demands the ``regular order,'' rather
than making a point of order to assert that remarks are not confined to
the question under debate, the Chair may treat the demand as a point of
order and rule thereon (May 1, 1996, p. 9889).
The Chair is constrained to give precedent its proper influence (II,
1317; VI, 248). Although the Chair will normally not disregard a
decision of the Chair previously made on the same facts (IV, 4045), such
precedents may be examined and reversed if shown to be erroneous (IV,
4637; VI, 639; VII, 849; VIII, 2794, 3435; Sept. 12, 1986, p. 23178).
The authoritative source for proper interpretation of a rule is a
statement made directly from the Chair and not a comment made by the
Speaker in another context (May 25, 1995, p. 14437; Sept. 19, 1995, p.
25454). Preserving the authority and binding force of parliamentary law
is as much the duty of each Member of the House as it is the duty of the
Chair (VII, 1479). The Speaker's decisions are recorded in the Journal
(IV, 2840, 2841), but responses to parliamentary inquiries are not so
recorded (IV, 2842).
The Chair does not decide on the legislative or legal effect of
propositions (II, 1274, 1323, 1324; VI, 254; VII, 2112; VIII, 2280,
2841; Mar. 16, 1983, p. 5669; May 13, 1998, p. 9129), on the consistency
of proposed action with other acts of the House (II, 1327-1336; VII,
2112, 2136; VIII, 3237, 3458), whether Members have abused leave to
print (V, 6998-7000; VIII, 3475), or on the propriety or expediency of a
proposed course of action (II, 1275, 1325, 1326, 1337; IV, 3091-3093,
3127).
Also, the Chair does not rule on: (1) the constitutional power of the
House (II, 1490; IV, 3507), such as the constitutional authority of the
House to propose a rule of the House, such matter appropriately being
decided by way of the question of consideration or disposition of the
proposal (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 5.8); (2) the constitutional
competency of proposed legislation (II, 1255, 1318-1322, VI, 250, 251;
VIII, 2225, 3031, 3427; July
[[Page [355]]]
21, 1947, pp. 9522, 9551; May 13, 1948, p. 5817; Oct. 10, 1998, p.
25424); (3) the constitutional rights of Members (VIII, 3071).
The Chair is not required to decide a question not directly presented
by the proceedings (II, 1314). Furthermore, it is not the duty of the
Chair to decide a hypothetical question (VI, 249, 253; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 4.2), including: (1) the germaneness of an
amendment not yet offered (Dec. 12, 1985, p. 36167; May 5, 1988, p.
9936; May 18, 1988, p. 11404; Mar. 22, 2000, p. 3283) or previously
offered and entertained without a point of order (June 6, 1990, p.
13194); (2) the admissibility under existing Budget Act allocations of
an amendment not yet offered, particularly if the Chair's response might
depend on the disposition of a prior amendment on which proceedings had
been postponed (June 27, 1994, p. 14593; June 12, 2000, p. 10377); (3)
the admissibility under clause 2 of rule XXI of an amendment already
pending (July 29, 1998, p. 17963), against which all points of order had
been waived (July 27, 1995, p. 20800); (4) the admissibility of an
amendment at a future date, pending a ruling of the Chair on its
immediate admissibility (June 25, 1997, p. 12488). The Chair will not
declare judgment on the propriety of words taken down before they are
read to the House (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 4.3). The Chair
does not take cognizance of complaints relating to pairs (VIII, 3087).
The Chair passes on the validity of conference reports (V, 6409, 6410,
6414-6416; VIII, 3256, 3264), but not on the sufficiency of the
accompanying statements as distinguished from the form (V, 6511-6513),
or on the question of whether a conference report violates instructions
of the House (V, 6395; VIII, 3246). As to reports of committees, the
Chair does not decide as to their sufficiency (II, 1339; IV, 4653) or
whether the committee has followed instructions (II, 1338; IV, 4404,
4689); or on matters arising in the Committee of the Whole (V, 6927,
6928, 6932-6937; Dec. 12, 1985, p. 36173); but has decided as to the
validity of the authorization of a report (IV, 4592, 4593) and has
indicated that a point of order could be raised at a proper time where
the content of a filed report varies from that approved by the committee
(May 16, 1989, p. 9356). An objection to the use of an exhibit under
clause 6 of rule XVII (formerly rule XXX) is not a point of order on
which the Chair must rule (July 31, 1996, pp. 20694, 20700). Before the
rule was rewritten in the 107th Congress, it required that the Chair put
the question whether the exhibit may be used. It now merely permits the
Chair to put such question (sec. 2(o), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
A complaint that certain remarks that might be uttered in debate would
improperly disclose executive-session material of a committee is not
cognizable as a point of order in the House if the Chair is not aware of
the executive-session status of the information (Nov. 5, 1997, p.
24648). The assertion that a Member may be inconvenienced by the
legislative schedule announced by the Leadership does not give rise to a
point of order that the Member cannot attend both to House and
constituent duties at the same time (Nov. 10, 1999, p. 29537).
[[Page [356]]]
Under long practice, precedents and applicable guidelines allowed the
Chair to refine a ruling on a point of order in the Record in order to
clarify the ruling without changing its substance, including one
sustained by the House on appeal (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
Sec. 19.13; see H. Res. 230, 99th Cong., July 31, 1985, p. 21783; and H.
Rept. 99-228 (in accordance with existing accepted practices, the Chair
may make such technical or parliamentary corrections or insertions in
transcript as may be necessary to conform to rule, custom, or
precedent); see also H. Res. 330, 101st Cong., Feb. 7, 1990, p. 1515,
and report of House Administration task force on Record inserted by
Speaker Foley, Oct. 27, 1990, p. 37124). The Chair ruled that the
requirement of former clause 9 of rule XIV (now clause 8 of rule XVII),
that the Record be a substantially verbatim account of remarks made
during House proceedings, extended to statements and rulings of the
Chair (Speaker Gingrich, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.15).
In interpreting the language of a special order adopted by the House,
the Chair will not look behind the unambiguous language of the
resolution itself (June 18, 1986, p. 14267). Questions concerning
informal guidelines of the Committee on Rules for advance submission of
amendments for possible inclusion under a ``modified closed'' rule may
not be raised under the guise of parliamentary inquiry (May 5, 1988, p.
9938). Because the Chair refrains from issuing advisory opinions on
hypothetical or anticipatory questions of order, the Chair will not
interpret a special order before it is adopted by the House (Oct. 14,
1986, p. 30862; July 27, 1993, p. 17116; July 27, 1995, p. 20741; Jan.
5, 1996, p. 366; Mar. 28, 1996, p. 7064; June 28, 2000, p. 12649; Mar.
8, 2001, p. 3229; May 22, 2002, p. 8681; Oct. 17, 2003, pp. 25031,
25032). Thus, the Chair has declined to identify provisions in a bill as
ostensible objects of a waiver in the pending resolution providing a
special order for that bill (Oct. 19, 1995, pp. 28503, 28504; Oct. 26,
1995, p. 29477; Mar. 28, 1996, p. 7064); to determine whether a bill,
for which the pending resolution provides a special order waiving any
requirement for a three-fifths vote on passage, actually ``carries'' a
Federal income tax rate increase under former clause 5(b) of rule XXI
(Oct. 26, 1995, p. 29477); or to opine whether an amendment might be in
order in the Committee of the Whole (May 22, 2002, p. 8681; Oct. 17,
2003, pp. 25031, 25032), including one required to be printed in the
Congressional Record where the Record had not yet been printed
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 24.13). The Chair will not compare
the text made in order by a pending special order as original text for
further amendment with the text reported by the committee of
jurisdiction (Oct. 19, 1995, p. 28503). Similarly, the Chair will not
issue an advisory opinion on how debate on a pending resolution will
bear on the Chair's ultimate interpretation of the resolution as an
order of the House (Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19343).
The Speaker rarely submits a question directly to the House for its
decision (IV, 3173, 3282, 4930; V, 5014, 5323, 6701; VI, 49; Speaker
Longworth, Apr. 8, 1926, p. 7148; Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28107), and rarely
takes initiative to raise and submit a question (II, 1277, 1315, 1316;
VIII, 3405). Even
[[Page [357]]]
as to questions of privilege the Speaker usually, in later practice,
makes a preliminary decision instead of submitting the question directly
to the House (III, 2648, 2649, 2650, 2654, 2678; Speaker Wright, Mar.
11, 1987, p. 5404).
Recognition <> for parliamentary inquiry lies
in the discretion of the Chair (VI, 541; Apr. 7, 1992, p. 8273; Mar. 21,
2010, p. 4106; Apr. 8, 2014, p. 5786; June 18, 2015, p. 9874). As such,
the Chair may recognize for a demand for the yeas and nays rather than
entertain a parliamentary inquiry (Aug. 4, 2007, p. 23233). The Speaker
may recognize and respond to a parliamentary inquiry although the
previous question may have been demanded (Mar. 27, 1926, p. 6469; Feb.
14, 2017, p. _). Although the Chair has discretion to recognize Members
for parliamentary inquiries when no other Member is occupying the floor
for debate, a parliamentary inquiry may not be raised unless the Member
having the floor yields for that purpose (Oct. 1, 1986, p. 27465; July
13, 1989, p. 14633; May 29, 2014, p. 4660; June 12, 2014, pp. 10057,
10058; Jan. 13, 2015, p. 527; July 7, 2016, p. _) and the yielding
Member is charged time consumed thereby (Deschler-Brown, ch. 31,
Sec. 15.4; Feb. 5, 2014, p. 2578). A Member under recognition for a
parliamentary inquiry may not yield to another Member (Nov. 22, 2002, p.
23510; Oct. 12, 2013, p. 15788) and may not engage in debate (June 24,
2011, p. 10018; Oct. 12, 2013, p. 15788; Apr. 8, 2014, p. 5786; June 12,
2014, p. 10058; June 18, 2015, p. 9874). A proper parliamentary inquiry
relates to an interpretation of a House rule, not of a statute or of the
Constitution (July 28, 1982, p. 18385; Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25424; July 18,
2006, p. 14784). The Chair may entertain a parliamentary inquiry during
argument on a point of order if relevant thereto (June 24, 2003, p.
15832).
The Speaker may take a parliamentary inquiry under advisement,
especially if not related to the pending proceedings (VIII, 2174; Apr.
7, 1992, p. 8273). The Chair responds to parliamentary inquiries
relating in a practical sense to the pending proceedings but does not
respond to requests to place them in historical context (June 25, 1992,
p. 16174; Jan. 3, 1996, pp. 36-41; Nov. 5, 1997, p. 24653; Sept. 9,
2003, pp. 21557, 21558). The Chair announced parameters for a proper
parliamentary inquiry (Mar. 21, 2010, p. 4106) and announced an
intention to refuse further recognition on a particular line of improper
inquiry (Mar. 21, 2010, p. 4093; Apr. 8, 2014, p. 5785; June 18, 2015,
p. 9869).
The Speaker may entertain a parliamentary inquiry during a record vote
if it relates to the vote (Oct. 9, 1997, p. 22017; Oct. 6, 1999, p.
24199; Sept. 9, 2003, pp. 21557, 21558; Mar. 30, 2004, pp. 5577, 5578).
However, the Speaker will not (1) respond to a request to place the
length of a record vote in historical context (Sept. 9, 2003, p. 21558),
(2) explain the exercise of discretion to hold a vote open beyond the
minimum time prescribed under clause 2 of rule XX (Mar. 30, 2004, pp.
5577, 5578; Mar. 21, 2010,
[[Page [358]]]
p. 4093), or (3) state the vote tally as it stood upon expiration of the
minimum time (May 8, 2008, p. 8147).
The Chair will not respond to a parliamentary inquiry to: (1) judge
the propriety of words spoken in debate pending a demand that those
words be taken down as unparliamentary (June 8, 1995, p. 15267; July 16,
2009, p. 18146; Feb. 11, 2011, p. 1585; July 11, 2013, p. 11408); (2)
judge the propriety of words uttered earlier in debate (June 15, 2000,
p. 11106; July 18, 2007, p. 19560; Nov. 20, 2013, p. 17591; Jan. 8,
2016, pp. 237, 238); (3) judge the veracity of remarks in debate (June
5, 1996, p. 13195; June 17, 2004, p. 12886); (4) decide whether certain
remarks in debate were confined to the question under consideration (as
required by clause 1 of rule XVII) (May 27, 2010, p. 9652); (5) decide
whether a Member revealed classified information during debate (June 18,
2015, p. 9868) or issue an advisory opinion regarding the authority to
publicize classified documents pursuant to a House rule (Feb. 2, 2018,
p. _; Feb. 6, 2018, p. _); (6) reexamine and explain the validity of a
prior ruling (Oct. 26, 1995, p. 29477; June 8, 2005, pp. 11945, 11946;
May 15, 2008, p. 9229); (7) anticipate the precedential effect of a
ruling (Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25424) or whether a future ruling by the Chair
will ``result in a vote'' (Oct. 9, 2015, p. 16022); (8) opine as to the
substantive effect of an objection to a unanimous-consent request (July
11, 2013, p. 11330); (9) judge the accuracy of the content of an exhibit
(Nov. 10, 1995, p. 32142); (10) indicate which side of the aisle has
failed under the Speaker's guidelines to clear a unanimous-consent
request (Feb. 1, 1996, p. 2260; Nov. 22, 2002, p. 23510; Oct. 11, 2013,
p. 15713; Oct. 12, 2013, p. 15788); (11) respond to political commentary
(June 25, 1998, p. 13978; Apr. 4, 2001, p. 5417; Oct. 8, 2004, p. 22634;
Mar. 17, 2016, pp. 3369, 3370); (12) comment on the effect of time
consumed on a pending amendment as a tactic to prevent the offering of
other amendments under a special order adopted by the House (May 10,
2000, p. 7508); (13) anticipate whether bill language would trigger
certain executive actions (Sept. 20, 1989, p. 20969); (14) interpret a
pending proposition (May 13, 1998, p. 9129; July 9, 2009, p. 17233; Mar.
20, 2010, p. 4041) (although the Chair may explain the application of
the procedural status quo to a pending proposal to change that status
quo by way of an amendment to the standing rules (Feb. 1, 2006, p. 541))
or advise whether a pending proposition conflicts with certain ethics
rules of the House (Mar. 17, 2016, pp. 3369, 3370); (15) interpret,
construe, or characterize a pending special order of business resolution
(May 22, 2002, p. 8681; Apr. 8, 2014, p. 5787; Feb. 14, 2017, p. _)
(although the Chair may interpret or construe the terms of a previously
adopted order under which the House may be operating (such as to respond
to a question of order) (May 22, 2002, p. 8681)); (16) identify which
points of order were waived by a special order of business for a measure
then pending (July 11, 2014, p. 11815); (17) judge the appropriateness
of Senate action (Apr. 10, 2003, p. 9279); (18) characterize proceedings
of a committee (June 15, 2006, p. 11409; Apr. 8, 2014, p. 5785; July 9,
2015, p. 11116; June 28, 2018, p. _) or speculate as to hypothetical
[[Page [359]]]
committee action (Feb. 6, 2012, p. 1005) or the operation of committee
rules (July 27, 2007, p. 21124; Oct. 10, 2007, p. 26993), although the
Chair confirmed that the adoption of a motion to recommit with
instructions to report ``promptly'' did not necessarily suspend the
operation of any rule of the House (Feb. 27, 2008, p. 2640) or of a
committee (Nov. 15, 2007, p. 31789); (19) advise whether a cost estimate
exists for a measure being considered by a committee (Mar. 8, 2017, p.
_) or issue an advisory opinion regarding whether hypothetical committee
action would violate a rule of the House (Mar. 8, 2017, p. _); (20)
speculate whether Members-elect are entitled to compensation prior to
taking the oath of office (Jan. 7, 2011, p. 228); (21) identify the
number or party membership of cosponsors of a measure (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 1.1; Apr. 8, 2014, p. 5785; Feb. 26, 2015, p.
2672) or signatories to a discharge petition (Apr. 8, 2014, p. 5785);
(22) address the legislative schedule (Sept. 28, 2012, p. 14956; Dec. 1,
2015, p. 19156; Dec. 9, 2015, pp. 19792, 19793; Speaker Ryan, June 13,
2016, p. _; June 21, 2016, p. _; June 23, 2016, p. _), including
advising on the Speaker's designation of a time to consider a purported
question of the privileges of the House noticed under rule IX (Mar. 20,
2017, p. _); (23) prejudge who would be recognized as the leader of
successful opposition to the previous question (Oct. 26, 2015, p.
16530); (24) explain a technical issue an outside entity may have had
with the House broadcast feed (Jan. 12, 2017, p. _); (25) confirm
differences between a reported text and a separate substitute text (July
19, 2017, p. _); (26) interpret the meaning of the remarks of another
Member (Jan. 22, 2018, p. _); (27) advise whether a specified discharge
petition is at the desk (Mar. 21, 2018, p. _); (28) explain the status
of current law (June 7, 2018, p. _); (29) advise as to the status of an
impeachment inquiry in the House (Oct. 15, 2019, p. _); (30) respond to
inquiries regarding whether the status of an administrative duty of the
Speaker could give rise to a vacancy in the Office of Speaker under
clause 8(b)(3) (Jan. 9, 2020, p. _).
The Chair may clarify a prior response to a parliamentary inquiry
(July 31, 1996, p. 20700; Mar. 21, 2010, p. 4106).
The <> right of appeal
insures the House against the arbitrary control of the Speaker and
cannot be taken away from the House (V, 6002). Although a decision of
the Chair on a point of order is subject to appeal on demand of any
Member, a Member cannot secure a recorded vote on a point of order
absent an appeal and the Chair's putting the question thereon (June 20,
1996, p. 14847).
An appeal may not be entertained from the following: (1) response to a
parliamentary inquiry (V, 6955; VIII, 3457; July 11, 2013, p. 11329);
(2) decision on recognition (II, 1425-1428; VI, 292; VIII, 2429, 2646,
2762; July 23, 1993, p. 16820; Apr. 4, 1995, p. 10298; June 17, 1999, p.
13465; June 22, 2006, p. 12299; July 9, 2009, p. 17233; Jan. 17, 2019,
p. _); (3) decision on dilatoriness of motions (V, 5731); (4) question
on which an appeal has just been decided (IV, 3036; V, 6877); (5) count
of the number
[[Page [360]]]
supporting a demand for tellers (VIII, 3105), for a recorded vote (June
24, 1976, p. 20390; June 14, 2000, p. 10841) or for the yeas and nays
(Sept. 12, 1978, p. 28950), or objecting to a request under the former
rule that required a committee have permission to sit during floor
proceedings under the five-minute rule (Sept. 12, 1978, p. 28984); (6)
count of a quorum (July 24, 1974, p. 25012); (7) call of a voice vote
(Aug. 10, 1994, p. 20766); (8) refusal to recapitulate a vote (VIII,
3128); (9) refusal under clause 7 of rule XX (formerly clause 6(e) of
rule XV) to entertain a point of no quorum when a pending question has
not been put to a vote (Sept. 16, 1977, p. 29594); (10) determination
that a Member's time in debate has expired (Mar. 22, 1996, p. 6086);
(11) announcement of the whole number of the House upon the death,
resignation, expulsion, disqualification, or removal of a Member (clause
5(d) of rule XX); (12) announcement of the content of a catastrophic
quorum failure report under clause 5(c) of rule XX (Sec. 1024a, infra);
(13) determination that a majority vote is required on a pending
proposition pursuant to the clear and unambiguous terms of a special
order of business (Feb. 13, 2020, p. _); (14) refusal to entertain a
prior appeal on any grounds (Feb. 13, 2020, p. _). Although an
announcement by the Chair that an objection to a unanimous-consent
request has been heard is not subject to appeal (Precedents (Wickham),
ch. 5, Sec. 20.28), the Chair's ruling on the timeliness of the
objection is subject to appeal (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 21.4).
Although the timeliness of the Chair's recognition of a Member to offer
a motion to table an appeal is not subject to appeal (June 22, 2006, p.
12299), the Chair's ruling on timeliness of a Member's demand that words
be taken down is subject to appeal (Jan. 22, 2007, p. 1899). The
decision of the Chair that a unanimous-consent request to revise and
extend remarks contains oratory extending beyond a simple declarative
statement of the Member's attitude toward the underlying measure and
thus constitutes debate is subject to appeal (Precedents (Wickham), ch.
5, Sec. 20.28).
An appeal also may not be entertained: (1) while another is pending
(V, 6939-6941); (2) between the motion to adjourn and vote thereon (V,
5361); (3) during a call of the yeas and nays (V, 6051); (4) when
dilatory (V, 5715-5722; VIII, 2822).
An appeal may be debated (VII, 1608; VIII, 2347, 2375, 3453-3455; June
24, 2003, pp. 15854-56); unless laid on the table (V, 5301; Mar. 16,
1988, p. 4086), or the previous question has been ordered (V, 5448,
5449). An appeal from a decision relating to the priority of business
(V, 6952), or relevancy of debate (V, 5056-5063) is not debatable.
Debate in the House is under the hour rule (V, 4978), but may be closed
at any time by the adoption of a motion for the previous question (V,
6947); or to lay on the table (VIII, 3453). An appeal may be withdrawn
at any time before action by the House thereon (as where the Chair has
not even stated the question on appeal) (May 6, 2004, pp. 8590, 8591).
Debate on an appeal in the Committee of the Whole is under the five-
minute rule (VII, 1608; VIII, 2347, 2556a, 3454, 3455; June 24, 2003,
pp. 15854-56; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _), and
[[Page [361]]]
may be closed by motion to close debate or to rise for such motion in
the House (V, 6947, 6950; VIII, 3453). Debate on an appeal in the
Committee of the Whole must be confined to the question of sustaining
the ruling of the Chair and may not extend to the merits of the
underlying proposition (V, 5055; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _). An appeal may be
withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole as a matter of right (June 8,
2000, p. 9954).
The House has postponed, along with the underlying matter, an appeal
from a decision of the Chair thereon (VIII, 2613). The Speaker may vote
to sustain the Speaker's own decision (IV, 4569; V, 5686, 6956, 6957).
Form of a question
6. <> The Speaker
shall put a question in this form: ``Those in favor (of the question),
say `Aye.'''; and after the affirmative voice is expressed, ``Those
opposed, say `No.'''. After a vote by voice under this clause, the
Speaker may use such voting procedures as may be invoked under rule XX.
This clause was adopted in 1789 (II, 1311) and amended in the 115th
Congress to remove a requirement that the Speaker rise to put a question
(sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). Before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, this clause (formerly clause 5)
consisted of this clause and current clause 1(a), clause 1(b), and
clause 2(a) of rule XX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The motion as stated by the Chair in putting the question and not as
stated by the Member in offering the motion, is the proposition voted on
(VI, 247). Under this paragraph the Speaker must put the pending
question to a voice vote before entertaining a demand for a recorded
vote or the yeas and nays (Speaker Foley, Mar. 9, 1992, p. 4698). It is
not in order for a Member having the floor in debate to conduct a
``straw vote'' or otherwise ask for a show of support for a proposition
(Nov. 18, 1995, p. 33973).
In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted a provision,
effective during a designated public health emergency, considering the
yeas and nays as ordered upon any request for a recorded vote or the
yeas and nays, or any objection under clause 6 of rule XX,
notwithstanding the directive under this clause to follow the procedures
invoked under rule XX (sec. 3(a), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec.
3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
[[Page [362]]]
Discretion to vote
7. <> The Speaker is not
required to vote in ordinary legislative proceedings, except when such
vote would be decisive or when the House is engaged in voting by ballot.
This clause was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1850 (V, 5964) and
1911. A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress
(sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, clause 7 (formerly clause 6) consisted
of this clause and current clause 1(c) of rule XX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47).
Although the amendment of 1850 granted the Speaker the same right to
vote as other Members (V, 5966, 5967), it has historically rarely been
exercised (V, 5964, footnote). The Speaker's name is not on the roll
from which the yeas and nays are called (V, 5970), is called only on the
Speaker's request (V, 5965), and is then called at the end of the roll
by name (V, 5965; VIII, 3075). During an electronic vote, the Speaker
directs the Clerk to record the Speaker's vote and verifies that
instruction by submitting a vote card (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6,
Sec. 5.5). The Speaker may vote to make a tie and so decide a question
in the negative, or may vote to break a tie and so decide a question in
the affirmative (VIII, 3100; Aug. 14, 1957, p. 14783). The Speaker never
has two votes on the same question; that is, having voted as a Member,
the Speaker may not vote again should the result be a tie (V, 5964). The
duty of giving a decisive vote may be exercised after the intervention
of other business, or after the announcement of the result or on another
day, if a correction of the roll shows a condition wherein the Speaker's
vote would be decisive (V, 5969, 6061-6063; VIII, 3075). In one instance
the Speaker asserted a right to withdraw a vote where a correction
indicated that it was unnecessary (V, 5971). The Speaker has voted for a
successor in that role where his resignation was effective ``upon the
election of my successor'' (Speaker Wright, June 6, 1989, p. 10800;
Speaker Boehner, Oct. 29, 2015, p. 16821).
Before the vote by tellers was repealed (Sec. Sec. 1012, 1013, infra),
the chair of the Committee of the Whole could be counted on a vote by
tellers without passing through the tellers (V, 5996, 5997; VIII, 3100,
3101).
Speaker pro tempore
8. <> (a) The Speaker may appoint a
Member to perform the duties of the Chair. Except as specified in
paragraph (b), such an appointment may not extend beyond three
legislative days.
[[Page [363]]]
(b)(1) In the case of illness, the Speaker may appoint a Member to
perform the duties of the Chair for a period not exceeding 10 days,
subject to the approval of the House. If the Speaker is absent and has
omitted to make such an appointment, then the House shall elect a
Speaker pro tempore to act during the absence of the Speaker.
(2) With the approval of the House, the Speaker may appoint a Member
to act as Speaker pro tempore only to sign enrolled bills and joint
resolutions for a specified period of time.
(3)(A) In the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker, the next
Member on the list described in subdivision (B) shall act as Speaker pro
tempore until the election of a Speaker or a Speaker pro tempore.
Pending such election the Member acting as Speaker pro tempore may
exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary
and appropriate to that end.
(B) As soon as practicable after the election of the Speaker and
whenever appropriate thereafter, the Speaker shall deliver to the Clerk
a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro
tempore under subdivision (A).
(C) For purposes of subdivision (A), a vacancy in the Office of
Speaker may exist by reason of the physical inability of the Speaker to
discharge the duties of the office.
Paragraph (a) was adopted in 1811 and limited to three legislative
days in 1920 (VI, 263). Paragraph (b)(1) was adopted in 1876 (II, 1377).
Paragraph (b)(2) was adopted in the 99th Congress (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3,
1985, p. 393). Paragraph (b)(3) was adopted in the 108th Congress (sec.
2(a),
[[Page [364]]]
H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Gender-based references were eliminated
in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, clause 8 (formerly
clause 7) and clause 9 occupied a single clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). The Speaker delivers to the Clerk the list required under
paragraph (b)(3)(B) and announces such delivery to the House (e.g., Mar.
13, 2003, p. 6118; Jan. 20, 2005, p. 266).
The <> right of the House to elect a Speaker pro tempore in the
absence of the Speaker was exercised before the rule was adopted (II,
1405), although the House sometimes preferred to adjourn (I, 179). An
elected Speaker pro tempore in the earlier practice was not sworn (I,
229; II, 1386); but the Senate and sometimes the President were notified
of such election (II, 1386-1389, 1405-1412; VI, 275). On August 31, 1961
(p. 17765), the House adopted House Resolution 445, electing Hon. John
W. McCormack as Speaker pro tempore in the absence and terminal illness
of Speaker Rayburn. The resolution provided that the Clerk notify the
President and the Senate. The chair of the Democratic Caucus then
administered the oath. The Speaker has appointed a Speaker pro tempore
to perform the duties of the Chair for a fourth consecutive day on
account of illness (Speaker Hastert, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6,
Sec. 10.3). Elected Speakers pro tempore have signed enrolled bills,
appointed select committees, administered the oath of office to a
Member-elect (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 3.12), etc., functions
not exercised by a Speaker pro tempore designated under paragraph (a) of
this clause (II, 1399, 1400, 1404; VI, 274, 277; Sept. 21, 1961, p.
20572; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 11.3). The House may permit the
Speaker to make appointments beyond the limit in paragraph (a) (e.g.,
Dec. 16, 2009, pp. 32039, 32040). The House may agree by unanimous
consent to the Speaker's appointment under this clause of Members in the
alternative to act as Speakers pro tempore to sign enrollments through a
date certain (e.g., Aug. 6, 1998, p. 19128) or for an entire Congress
(e.g., Jan. 6, 2009, p. 25).
A call of the House may take place with a Speaker pro tempore in the
chair (IV, 2989), and the Speaker pro tempore may issue a warrant for
the arrest of absent Members under a call of the House (VI, 688). When
the Speaker is not present at the opening of a session, including
morning-hour debate, the Speaker designates a Speaker pro tempore in
writing (II, 1378, 1401); but does not usually announce the Members
called to the chair temporarily during the day's sitting (II, 1379,
1400). The presence of the Speaker either at the opening of morning-hour
debate or at the opening of the regular session on a day satisfies the
requirement that the Speaker be present to convene the House at least
every fourth day. A Speaker pro tempore elected under clause 8 of rule I
may in turn designate another Member to act as Speaker pro tempore on a
day certain (II, 1384; VI, 275; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 12.3).
Members of the minority have been called to the chair on occasions of
ceremony (II, 1383; VI, 270;
[[Page [365]]]
Jan. 31, 1951, p. 779), but rarely otherwise (II, 1382, 1390; III, 2596;
VI, 264).
Other responsibilities
9. <> The Speaker, in
consultation with the Minority Leader, shall develop through an
appropriate entity of the House a system for drug testing in the House.
The system may provide for the testing of a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House, and otherwise shall be
comparable in scope to the system for drug testing in the executive
branch pursuant to Executive Order 12564 (Sept. 15, 1986). The expenses
of the system may be paid from applicable accounts of the House for
official expenses.
This clause was added in the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997,
p. 121). Clerical and stylistic changes to this clause were effected
when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This clause was redesignated from clause 13 to
clause 9 in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p.
7).
Clause 9 <> formerly was occupied
by a prohibition against the Speaker serving for more than four
consecutive Congresses, which was added in the 104th Congress (sec.
103(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462) and repealed in the 108th
Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, the former term-limit rule
and current clause 8 occupied a single clause (formerly clause 7) (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Designation of travel
10. <> The Speaker may designate a
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the
House to travel on the business of the House within or without the
United States, whether the House is meeting, has recessed, or has
adjourned. Ex
[[Page [366]]]
penses for such travel may be paid from applicable accounts of the House
described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X on vouchers approved and signed
solely by the Speaker.
This clause was adopted in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14,
1975, p. 20). In the 105th Congress this clause was amended to update
archaic references to the ``contingent fund'' (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997,
p. 121). In the 106th, 109th, and 112th Congresses, clerical corrections
were effected with respect to the ``applicable accounts of the House''
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47; sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p.
42; sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this clause and the
provision now found in clause 10 of rule XXIV together occupied former
clause 8 of this rule (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). See also
Sec. Sec. 769, 770, infra, for discussion of the Speaker's authority
under section 502(b) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 (22 U.S.C. 1754)
to authorize use of counterpart funds for Members and employees for
foreign travel, except where authorized by the chair of the committee
for members and employees thereof.
Committee appointment
11. The <> Speaker
shall appoint all select, joint, and conference committees ordered by
the House. At any time after an original appointment, the Speaker may
remove Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner from, or appoint
additional Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner to, a select
or conference committee. In appointing Members, Delegates, or the
Resident Commissioner to conference committees, the Speaker shall
appoint no less than a majority who generally supported the House
position as determined by the Speaker, shall name those who are
primarily responsible for the legislation, and shall, to the fullest
extent feasible, include the principal proponents of the major
provisions
[[Page [367]]]
of the bill or resolution passed or adopted by the House.
The provision of this clause relating to select committees was adopted
in 1880, and the provision relating to conference committees was first
adopted in 1890, although the practice of leaving the appointment of
conference committees to the Speaker had existed from the earliest years
of the House's history (IV, 4470; VIII, 2192). The provision authorizing
the Speaker to add or remove select committee members or conferees after
the initial appointment was added in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 1993, p. 49). The provision requiring the Speaker to appoint a
majority of Members who generally supported the House position became
effective on January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470). The provision requiring the Speaker to appoint Members primarily
responsible for the legislation was added in the 95th Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70). Before the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6(f) of
rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Before 1880 the House could take from the Speaker the appointment of a
select committee (IV, 4448, 4470; VIII, 2192) and on several occasions
did so (IV, 4471-4476). In the earlier practice of the House, the Member
moving a select committee was appointed its chair (II, 1275; III, 2342;
IV, 4514-4516). However, in modern practice, except for matters of
ceremony, the inconvenience and even impropriety of the usage has caused
it often to be disregarded (IV, 4517-4523, 4671). The Speaker has
removed Members from a select committee (e.g., Sept. 8, 2004, pp. 17754,
17755).
It is within the discretion of the Chair whom to appoint as conferees
(June 24, 1932, p. 13876; July 8, 1947, p. 8469), and such discretion is
not subject to challenge on a point of order even though clause 11
requires the Speaker to appoint as conferees Members who are primarily
responsible for the legislation (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 12, 1977, p.
33434). A motion to instruct the Speaker as to the number and
composition of a conference committee on the part of the House is not in
order (VIII, 2193, 3221), and a motion to instruct conferees does not
necessarily form the basis for the Speaker's determination under this
clause as to which Members support the legislation (May 9, 1990, p.
9830).
The Speaker may appoint conferees from committees: (1) that have not
reported a measure; (2) that have jurisdiction over provisions of a non-
germane Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate bill
originally narrower in scope (Speaker O'Neill, Nov. 28, 1979, p. 33904);
(3) that have jurisdiction over provisions of an original Senate bill
where the House amendment was narrower in scope (Speaker O'Neill, July
28, 1980, p. 19875; July 11, 1985, p. 18545). The Speaker may also
appoint one who, although not a member of the committee of jurisdiction,
is a principal proponent of the measure (Speaker Gingrich, Feb. 1, 1995,
p. 3258) or a principal proponent of an adopted floor amendment (June
21, 1977, p.
[[Page [368]]]
20132). The Speaker has appointed as sole conferees on a nongermane
portion of a Senate bill or amendment only members from the committee
having jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof (Speaker O'Neill,
Aug. 27, 1980, p. 23548; July 24, 1986, p. 17644), and also members from
such committees as additional rather than exclusive conferees on other
nongermane portions of the Senate bill (July 24, 1986, p. 17644). Where
a comprehensive matter is committed to conference, the Speaker may
appoint separate groups of conferees from several committees for
concurrent or exclusive consideration of provisions within their
respective jurisdictions (Feb. 7, 1990, p. 1522; May 9, 1990, p. 9830).
In the 102d Congress the Speaker reiterated the announced policy of
simplifying conference appointments by noting on the occasion of a
relatively complex appointment that, inasmuch as conference committees
are select committees that dissolve when their report is acted upon,
conference appointments should not be construed as jurisdictional
precedent (Speaker Foley, June 3, 1992, p. 13288).
Pursuant to this clause the Speaker may by the terms of the
appointment empower a group of exclusive conferees to report in total
disagreement (June 10, 1988, p. 14077; Sept. 20, 1989, p. 20955). The
Speaker may modify an appointment by removal (e.g., Mar. 10, 1998, p.
3049), addition (e.g., Nov. 14, 2005, p. 25816), or substitution of one
conferee for another (Dec. 16, 2005, p. 29212; Oct. 6, 2009, p. 23628;
Nov. 14, 2013, p. 17073; Oct. 19, 2017, p. _), or by expansion of the
specification of provisions for which a conferee is appointed (Oct. 3,
2002, p. 19011; Nov. 14, 2005, p. 25816). The Speaker may fill a vacancy
on a conference committee by appointment but may not accept a
resignation from a conference committee (as contrasted with the
authority to remove) absent an order of the House (Nov. 4, 1987, p.
30808). The Speaker may choose to appoint minority conferees on the
recommendation of the Minority Leader (Speaker Boehner, Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 6.11; Dec. 23, 2011, p. 21485).
For a further discussion of the Speaker's authority to appoint
conferees, see Sec. 536, supra. For the Speaker's authority to appoint
Delegates to select, joint, and conference committees, see clause 3(b)
of rule III (Sec. 676, infra).
Recess and Convening Authorities
12. <> (a) To suspend the
business of the House for a short time when no question is pending
before the House, the Speaker may declare a recess subject to the call
of the Chair.
This paragraph was added as clause 12 of rule I in the 103d Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). It was redesignated as paragraph (a)
in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Having
postponed proceedings on a pending question (Apr. 30, 1998, p. 7381) or
having
[[Page [369]]]
withdrawn recognition for a special-order speech (Nov. 4, 2009, p.
26795), the Speaker may declare a recess for a short time under this
paragraph (there being no question then pending before the House). A
Member's mere revelation that the Member seeks to offer a motion to
adjourn does not suffice to make that motion ``pending,'' and thus the
Chair remains able to declare a short recess under this paragraph (Oct.
28, 1997, p. 23524; June 25, 2003, p. 16241; July 13, 2009, p. 17493).
(b)(1) <> To suspend the business of the House when notified of an
imminent threat to its safety, the Speaker may declare an emergency
recess subject to the call of the Chair.
(2) To suspend the business of the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union when notified of an imminent threat to its safety,
the chair of the Committee of the Whole may declare an emergency recess
subject to the call of the Chair.
(c) During any recess or adjournment of not more than three days, if
the Speaker is notified by the Sergeant-at-Arms of an imminent
impairment of the place of reconvening at the time previously appointed,
then the Speaker may, in consultation with the Minority Leader--
(1) postpone the time for reconvening within the limits of clause
4, section 5, article I of the Constitution and notify Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner accordingly; or
(2) reconvene the House before the time previously appointed
solely to declare the House in recess within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution and notify Members, Delegates,
and the Resident Commissioner accordingly.
[[Page [370]]]
(d) The Speaker may convene the House in a place at the seat of
government other than the Hall of the House if, in the opinion of the
Speaker, the public interest shall warrant it.
(e) During any recess or adjournment of not more than three days, if
in the opinion of the Speaker the public interest so warrants, then the
Speaker, after consultation with the Minority Leader, may reconvene the
House at a time other than that previously appointed, within the limits
of clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, and notify
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner accordingly.
(f) The Speaker may name a designee for purposes of paragraphs (c),
(d), and (e).
Paragraphs (b)-(d) were added in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(c), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7) and the application of paragraph (b) to the
Committee of the Whole was clarified in the 110th Congress (sec. 505(a),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)). Gender-based
references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Paragraphs (e) and (f) were added in the 114th
Congress (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35). A clarifying
change to paragraph (d) was effected in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(f),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). Notification requirements under this
clause were applied to Delegates and the Resident Commissioner in the
116th Congress (sec. 102(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). An
emergency recess under paragraph (b) has been declared by the Speaker
pro tempore (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.10 (drill); May 11,
2005, p. 9163; Oct. 3, 2013, p. 15082; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
Sec. 11.6; Jan. 6, 2021, p. _; Jan. 6, 2021, p. _) and by the chair of
the Committee of the Whole (June 29, 2005, p. 14835). For the Speaker's
inherent authority to declare a recess under clause 2 of rule I, see
Sec. 622, supra. The Speaker has dispensed with morning-hour debate
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 11.18; see Sec. 951, infra),
postponed the time for reconvening (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1,
Sec. 11.16; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 11.17), or reconvened the
House before the time previously appointed (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1,
Sec. 11.14; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 11.15; Mar. 13, 2017, p.
_) under paragraph (c) upon notification by the Sergeant-at-Arms of an
imminent impairment to reconvening. The Speaker has reconvened the House
before the time previously appointed under paragraph (e) upon a
determination that doing so was in the public interest (Dec.
[[Page [371]]]
3, 2018, p. _). The House previously provided the public interest
reconvening authority now in paragraph (e) by standing order (see
Sec. 83a, supra, discussing also similar authority in the Senate). The
Speaker executes by letter the designation under paragraph (f) (e.g.,
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 63).
Rule II
other officers and officials
Elections
1. <> There
shall be elected at the commencement of each Congress, to continue in
office until their successors are chosen and qualified, a Clerk, a
Sergeant-at-Arms, a Chief Administrative Officer, and a Chaplain. Each
of these officers shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the
United States, and for the true and faithful exercise of the duties of
the office to the best of the knowledge and ability of the officer, and
to keep the secrets of the House. Each of these officers shall appoint
all of the employees of the department concerned provided for by law.
The Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Chief Administrative Officer may be
removed by the House or by the Speaker.
When the House recodified its rules, it consolidated former rules II
through VII, former clauses 10 and 11 of rule I, former clause 6 of rule
XIII, and former clause 5 of rule XVI under rule II (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). A rudimentary form of this clause was adopted in 1789, and
was amended several times before 1880, when it assumed the form it
retained for more than a century (I, 187). During the 102d Congress, the
House Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992 amended the clause to
abolish the Office of the Postmaster (see Sec. 668, infra) and to
empower the Speaker to remove certain elected officers (H. Res. 423,
Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9039). The 104th Congress made conforming changes to
the clause to reflect the abolishment of the Office of the Doorkeeper
and the establishment of an elected Chief Administrative Officer (sec.
201(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). Clerical and stylistic changes
were effected when the House
[[Page [372]]]
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec.
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). For a discussion of the former
Office of the Doorkeeper, see Sec. 663b, infra; and for a discussion of
the evolution of the Chief Administrative Officer (an elected officer)
from the former Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services (an
officer appointed jointly by the Speaker and the Majority and Minority
Leaders under clause 1 of rule VI of the 103d Congress), see Sec. 664,
infra.
The House having discarded a theory that the rules might be imposed by
one House on its successor (V, 6743-6745), it follows that this clause
is not operative at the organization before the rules are adopted.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, the House
was required under former rule II to elect its Speaker and other
officers by a viva voce vote following nominations (I, 204, 208).
However, the officers mentioned in the rule, other than Speaker, were,
even then, usually chosen by resolution, which is not a viva voce
election (I, 193, 194). A majority vote is required for the election of
officers of both Houses of Congress (VI, 23). The oath is administered
by the Speaker to the officers (I, 81; Sec. 198, supra). The requirement
that the officers be sworn to keep the secrets of the House had become
obsolete (I, 187), but the 104th Congress adopted a requirement that
Members, officers, and employees subscribe an oath of secrecy regarding
classified information (clause 13 of rule XXIII). Clause 4(d)(1)(A) of
rule X requires the Committee on House Administration to provide policy
direction for, and oversight of, the Chief Administrative Officer and
the Inspector General, and oversight of the Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms
(see Sec. 752, infra).
The Speaker has removed an officer prospectively (Speaker Ryan,
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.5). The House has declined to
interfere with the Clerk's power of removing subordinates (I, 249).
Employees under the Clerk and other officers are to be assigned only the
duties for which they are appointed (V, 7232). The Sergeant-at-Arms
having died, the Clerk was elected by the House to serve temporarily
also as Sergeant-at-Arms without additional compensation (July 8, 1953,
p. 8242). The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 5501)
authorizes the Speaker to fill temporary vacancies in the offices of
Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief Administrative Officer, and Chaplain. A
former version of the Act also permitted temporary appointments to the
former offices of Doorkeeper and Postmaster. The Speaker has exercised
the authority to fill temporary vacancies in the offices of Sergeant-at-
Arms (Jan. 6, 1954, p. 8; June 30, 1972, p. 23665; Feb. 28, 1980, p.
4350; Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5519; Jan. 11, 2021, p. _), Clerk (Nov. 15,
1975, p. 36901; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 14.6; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 14.4), Chaplain (Mar. 14, 1966, p. 5712; Mar. 23,
2000, p. 3481; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 16.3), Doorkeeper (Dec.
20, 1974, p. 41855), and Chief Administrative Officer (Jan. 9, 1997, p.
279; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.6; Dec. 16, 2015, p. 20274). A
resolution electing a House officer is presented as a question of
privilege
[[Page [373]]]
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.1; Speaker Hastert, Dec. 6, 2005,
p. 27569; May 25, 2011, p. 7885; Jan. 7, 2014, p. 449) even when
prospective (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 14.2; Speaker Ryan,
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.2; Speaker Pelosi, Feb. 25, 2019,
p. _). The Speaker may administer the oath to an officer elected
prospectively (Speaker Albert, June 26, 1972, p. 22387; Speaker Ryan,
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.2). The resignation of an elected
officer of the House is subject to acceptance by the House (Mar. 23,
2000, p. 3480; Feb. 6, 2007, p. 3156; Jan. 11, 2021, p. _) and may be
prospective (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.3; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 16.3) or retroactive (Precedents (Wickham), ch.
6, Sec. 16.5).
Clerk
2. <> (a) At the
commencement of the first session of each Congress, the Clerk shall call
the Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioner to order and proceed
to record their presence by States in alphabetical order, either by call
of the roll or by use of the electronic voting system. Pending the
election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore, and in the absence of a
Member acting as Speaker pro tempore pursuant to clause 8(b)(3)(A) of
rule I, the Clerk shall preserve order and decorum and decide all
questions of order, subject to appeal by a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner.
In 1880 several rules, adopted at different periods from 1794 to 1846,
were consolidated into this clause, which, before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, was found in rule III (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47). Paragraph (a) was initially framed in 1880, on a basis
furnished by a rule of 1860 (I, 64), and amended in 1911. It was amended
in the 115th Congress to clarify that the authority of the Clerk to
preside is subordinate to a Member serving as Speaker pro tempore under
clause 8(b)(3)(A) of rule I (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _).
Various <> administrative
duties, similar to those specified in this clause, are imposed on the
Clerk by law (I, 253; Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat.
812), such as: furnishing stationery, blank books, etc., to the
committees and officers of the House (V, 7322); exercising discretionary
authority as
[[Page [374]]]
to reprinting of bills and documents (V, 7319); and receiving testimony
taken in election contests (I, 703, 705; see also Federal Contested
Election Act, P.L. 91-138, 83 Stat. 284). The Clerk has served
temporarily also as Sergeant-at-Arms (July 8, 1953, p. 8242).
As <> rules are not
usually adopted until after the election of the Speaker, this paragraph
is not in force at the time of organization of a new House. The
procedure at organization does, however, follow a practice conforming to
the terms of the paragraph (I, 81), although the House may depart from
it. For a discussion of procedure in the House before the adoption of
rules, including the procedure by which the Clerk conducts the election
of the Speaker, see Sec. Sec. 27, 60, supra. The Clerk, in presiding
before the election of the Speaker, recognizes Members-elect (I, 74).
The Members-elect have on one occasion, before the election of the
Speaker or adoption of rules, authorized the Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms
of the last House to preserve order (I, 101).
Although the Speaker ceases to be an officer of the House with the
expiration of a Congress, the Clerk, by old usage, continues in a new
Congress (I, 187, 188, 235, 244).-
The <> roll of Members is
made up by the Clerk from the credentials, in accordance with a
provision of law (I, 14-62; VI, 2; 2 U.S.C. 26). A certificate of
election in due form having been filed, the Clerk placed the name of the
Member-elect on the roll, although he was subsequently advised that a
State Supreme Court had issued a writ restraining the Secretary of State
from issuing such certificate (Jan. 3, 1949, p. 8). As part of the
announcement prior to the call of the roll, the Clerk announces any
district for which the Clerk has not received a certificate of election
(Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; Jan. 3, 2021, p. _). The call of the roll may not
be interrupted, especially by one not on that roll (I, 84), and a person
not on the roll may not be recognized (I, 86). A motion to proceed to
the election of the Speaker is of higher privilege than a motion to
correct the roll (I, 19-24). The House has declined to permit enrollment
by the Clerk to be final as to prima facie right (I, 376, 589, 592).
In <> early years the authority of the Clerk to decide
questions of order pending the election of a Speaker was questioned (I,
65). The Clerks often declined to make decisions (I, 68-72; V, 5325).
However, in 1855 and 1997 the Clerk decided a question of order; and in
1997 the Clerk was sustained on appeal (I, 91; Jan. 7, 1997, pp. 115,
116). During the existence of a rule that applied the rules of a prior
House to a successor House (1860 through 1890) (I, 64; V, 6743-6747) the
Clerks made several rulings (I, 76, 77; VI, 623). The Clerk has
announced the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair by
unanimous consent after the call of the roll and before the election of
the Speaker (Jan. 3, 2021, p. _).
Before clause 8(b)(3) of rule I, this clause operated also in the case
of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker arising during a Congress. For
example,
[[Page [375]]]
upon the death of the Speaker during an adjournment sine die of the
first session of the 87th Congress, the Clerk called the House to order
on the first day of the second session (Jan. 10, 1962, p. 5). However,
clause 8(b)(3) of rule I now requires the Speaker to deliver to the
Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker
pro tempore in the case of a vacancy.
The Clerk having died, and in the absence of the Sergeant-at-Arms, the
Doorkeeper of the 79th Congress presided at organization of the 80th
Congress (Jan. 3, 1947, p. 33). The Clerk, having been appointed
pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 5501 by the previous Speaker at the end of the
105th Congress to fill a vacancy caused by resignation of the Clerk
elected for that Congress, presided at the organization of the 106th
Congress (Jan. 6, 1999, p. 41).
(b) <> At the
commencement of every regular session of Congress, the Clerk shall make
and cause to be delivered to each Member, Delegate, and the Resident
Commissioner a list of the reports that any officer or Department is
required to make to Congress, citing the law or resolution in which the
requirement may be contained and placing under the name of each officer
the list of reports required to be made by such officer.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 2 of rule II (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). The paragraph was initially adopted in 1822 (I, 252). It
was amended in the 107th Congress to permit the Clerk to publish the
list in a form other than printed (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001,
p. 25). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress
(sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).
(c) The Clerk shall--
(1) note <> all questions of order, with the decisions thereon, the
record of which shall be appended to the Journal of each session;
(2) enter on the Journal the hour at which the House adjourns;
[[Page [376]]]
(3) complete the distribution of the Journal to Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner, together with an accurate and
complete index, as soon as possible after the close of a session; and
(4) send a copy of the Journal to the executive of and to each
branch of the legislature of every State as may be requested by such
State officials.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
paragraph (except subparagraph (2)) was found in former clause 3 of rule
III (I, 251); and subparagraph (2) was found in former clause 5 of rule
XVI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Subparagraph (2) was adopted
initially in 1837 and amended in 1880 (V, 6740). Former provisions
directing the Clerk to make all contracts, keep contingent and
stationery accounts, and pay officers and employees were stricken by the
House Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, Apr. 9,
1992, p. 9050) to relieve the Clerk of functions to be transferred to
the Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services pursuant to that
resolution (see Sec. 664, infra). Clerical corrections were effected at
the beginning of the 104th Congress (sec. 223(f), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 469) and the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
During the 104th Congress the requirement to send a printed copy of the
Journal to each branch of every State legislature was changed to an
authorization to send such copies on request (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30,
1995, p. 35077). Subparagraphs (3) and (4) were amended in the 107th
Congress to permit the Clerk to publish the Journal in a form other than
printed (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
(d)(1) <> The
Clerk shall attest and affix the seal of the House to all writs,
warrants, and subpoenas issued by order of the House and certify the
passage of all bills and joint resolutions.
(2) The Clerk shall examine all bills, amendments, and joint
resolutions after passage by the House and, in cooperation with the
Senate, examine all bills and joint resolutions that have passed both
Houses to see that they are cor
[[Page [377]]]
rectly enrolled and forthwith present those bills and joint resolutions
that originated in the House to the President in person after their
signature by the Speaker and the President of the Senate, and report to
the House the fact and date of their presentment.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
subparagraph (1) was found in former clause 3 of rule III (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). When the House issues an order or warrant, the
Speaker must issue the summons under the Speaker's hand and seal, and it
must be attested by the Clerk; but when the power is granted to a
committee to send for persons and papers under clause 2(m) of rule XI, a
summons signed by the chair of the committee is sufficient (III, 1668).
The enrollment process was originally the responsibility of the
Committee on Enrolled Bills, which was created in 1789 by a joint rule
of the two Houses (IV, 4350). This joint rule lapsed in 1876 with other
joint rules, but in 1880 the Rules of the House were amended to again
recognize the Committee on Enrolled Bills (IV, 4350, 4416; VII, 2099).
Responsibility for the engrossment and enrollment process was given to
the Committee on House Administration when that committee was created
effective January 2, 1947 as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act
of 1946 (60 Stat. 812) as an enumerated subject of legislative
jurisdiction. That responsibility was transferred from the committee's
legislative jurisdiction to its special oversight jurisdiction (see
former clause 4(d)(1)(A) of rule X) by the Committee Reform Amendments
of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8,
1974, p. 34470) and was transferred to the Clerk in the 107th Congress
(sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 28).
A special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules
directing the Clerk to refrain from certifying an enrollment pending the
resolution of a given contingency does not violate subparagraph (2)
(Apr. 13, 2011, p. 5873).
(e) <> The Clerk shall cause
the calendars of the House to be distributed each legislative day.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph
(e) was found in former clause 6 of rule XIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). This paragraph was adopted initially in the 62d Congress, April
5, 1911 (VI, 743), and amended December 8, 1931 (pp. 10, 83). It was
amended in the 107th Congress to permit the Clerk to publish the
calendars in a form other than printed (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
2001, p. 25).
[[Page [378]]]
(f) The Clerk shall--
(1) retain <> in the library at the
Office of the Clerk for the use of the Members, Delegates, Resident
Commissioner, and officers of the House, and not to be withdrawn
therefrom, two copies of all the books and printed documents deposited
there; and
(2) deliver to any Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner
an extra copy of each document requested by that Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner that has been printed by order of either House of
Congress in any Congress in which the Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner served.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
paragraphs (c) and (f) were found in former clause 3 of rule III (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). They were amended in the 92d Congress to
include Delegates and the Resident Commissioner among those entitled to
the listed services (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, pp. 140-44; H. Res. 1153,
Oct. 13, 1972, pp. 36013-15). Paragraph (f) was amended in the 107th
Congress to permit the Clerk to distribute documents by a method other
than mail and in a form other than bound (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
2001, p. 25).
(g) <> The
Clerk shall provide for the temporary absence or disability of the Clerk
by designating an official in the Office of the Clerk to sign all papers
that may require the official signature of the Clerk and to perform all
other official acts that the Clerk may be required to perform under the
rules and practices of the House, except such official acts as are
provided for by statute. Official acts performed by the designated
official shall be under the name of the Clerk. The designation
[[Page [379]]]
shall be in writing and shall be laid before the House and entered on
the Journal.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
paragraph was found in former clause 4 of rule III (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). It was adopted initially on January 18, 1912 (VI, 25) and
was amended January 3, 1953 (p. 16). Form of designation of a Clerk pro
tempore (VI, 26). Technical corrections were effected in the 108th
Congress (sec. 2(u), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). A gender-based
reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).
(h) <> The Clerk may
receive messages from the President and from the Senate at any time when
the House is in recess or adjournment.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
paragraph was found in former clause 5 of rule III (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). It was adopted in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
1981, pp. 98-113) and amended in the 111th Congress to apply to recesses
as well as adjournments (sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 9) to
reflect current practice (see Dec. 22, 1987, p. 37966). In the case of
Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (see Sec. 113, supra,
accompanying Const., art. I, sec. 7, cl. 2) a United States court of
appeals held that a bill could not be pocket-vetoed by the President
during an ``intrasession'' adjournment of Congress to a day certain for
more than three days, where the House of origin has made appropriate
arrangements for the receipt of Presidential messages during the
adjournment.
(i) <> The
Clerk shall supervise the staff and manage the office of a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who has died, resigned, or been
expelled until a successor is elected. The Clerk shall perform similar
duties in the event that a vacancy is declared by the House in any
congressional district because of the incapacity of the person
representing such district or other reason. When acting as a supervisory
authority over such staff, the Clerk shall have authority to terminate
employees and, with the approval of
[[Page [380]]]
the Committee on House Administration, may appoint such staff as is
required to operate the office until a successor is elected.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
paragraph was found in former clause 6 of rule III (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). It was adopted initially in the 98th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). It was amended in the 104th and 106th Congresses
to reflect changes in the name of the Committee on House Administration
(sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress
(sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Outdated language was
removed in the 117th Congress to conform to the repeal of a statutory
provision providing for staff assistance to former Speakers (sec. 2(a),
H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). The Clerk managed the office of a
congressional district after the House was notified that a special
election had been ordered by the State in said district (where a vacancy
existed due to the lack of a certificate of election) (March 14, 2019,
p. _).
- (j) In <> addition to any other
reports required by the Speaker or the Committee on House
Administration, the Clerk shall report to the Committee on House
Administration not later than 45 days following the close of each
semiannual period ending on June 30 or on December 31 on the financial
and operational status of each function under the jurisdiction of the
Clerk. Each report shall include financial statements and a description
or explanation of current operations, the implementation of new policies
and procedures, and future plans for each function.
(k) <> The Clerk shall fully
cooperate with the appropriate offices and persons in the performance of
reviews and audits of financial records and administrative operations.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
paragraphs (j) and (k) were found in former clauses 7 and 8 of rule III
(H. Res. 5,
[[Page [381]]]
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). They were adopted initially in the 104th Congress
(sec. 201(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). A conforming change was
effected at the beginning of the 106th Congress in the name of the
Committee on House Administration (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Sergeant-at-Arms--
3. (a) <>
The Sergeant-at-Arms shall attend the House during its sittings and
maintain order under the direction of the Speaker or other presiding
officer. The Sergeant-at-Arms shall execute the commands of the House,
and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to the Sergeant-
at-Arms by the Speaker.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
paragraph was found in former clause 1 of rule IV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). It was adopted initially in 1789, with additions and
amendments in 1838, 1877, 1890 (I, 257), 1911 (VI, 29), and 1971. A
gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Amendments adopted in the 92d Congress
to clarify the responsibility of the Sergeant-at-Arms to keep the
accounts for the pay and mileage of the Delegates from the District of
Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands and the Resident Commissioner
from Puerto Rico as well as for Members (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p.
144; H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, pp. 36013-15) were stricken by the
House Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, Apr. 9,
1992, p. 9039) to relieve the Sergeant-at-Arms of functions transferred
to the Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services pursuant to
that resolution (see Sec. 664, supra). In the 94th Congress, the
provisions of House Resolution 732, directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to
enter into agreements with State officials, with the approval of the
Committee on House Administration, to withhold State income taxes from
the pay of each Member subject to such State income tax and requesting
such withholding, were enacted into permanent law (90 Stat. 1448; 2
U.S.C. 4556). During the 102d Congress, the House adopted a resolution
presented by the Majority Leader as a question of the privileges of the
House to terminate all bank and check-cashing operations in the Office
of the Sergeant-at-Arms and direct the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct (now Ethics) to review GAO audits of such operations
(Oct. 3, 1991, p. 25435). When former rule IV was rewritten in the 104th
Congress, clause 1 was restated without change (sec. 201(c), H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). The Chair may enlist the Sergeant-at-Arms to
[[Page [382]]]
assist the Chair in maintaining decorum (Sept. 17, 1997, p. 19027;
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 15.7; June 22, 2018, p. _).
The Sergeant-at-Arms is authorized to make payments from the
contingent fund of the House (now referred to as ``applicable accounts
of the House described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X''), under rules
prescribed by the Committee on House Administration, to defray the
expenses of the funeral of a deceased Member of the House and the
expenses of any delegation of Members of Congress duly appointed to
attend (76 Stat. 686; 2 U.S.C. 5606).
The Speaker ordered that documents received in a communication from an
independent counsel advising the House of substantial and credible
information that may constitute grounds for impeachment of the President
be kept under armed guard of the Sergeant-at-Arms until the House
determined which documents to make available to the public (Sept. 9,
1998, p. 19769).
At the organization of the House in a new Congress, the Speaker may
maintain decorum before adoption of rules by directing the Sergeant-at-
Arms to present the mace as the traditional symbol of order (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 6.5). Before the election of Speaker, a special
rule may be adopted conferring the authority of this paragraph, as was
done in 1849 and 1859 (I, 101, 102).
Duties imposed on the Sergeant-at-Arms by law (I, 258) include control
of the Capitol Police; and the making up of the roll of Members-elect
and presiding over the organization of a new Congress in case of vacancy
in the Office of the Clerk, or the absence or disability of that officer
(2 U.S.C. 26). The death of the Sergeant-at-Arms being announced, the
House passed appropriate resolutions and adjourned as a mark of respect
(VI, 32; July 8, 1953, p. 8263). The Clerk having died, and in the
absence of the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Doorkeeper of the 79th Congress
presided at the organization of the 80th Congress (Jan. 3, 1947, p. 33).
In the 83d Congress the Sergeant-at-Arms having died, the Clerk was
elected to serve temporarily both as Clerk and Sergeant-at-Arms (July 8,
1953, p. 8242), and upon resignation by the Clerk from the additional
position of Sergeant-at-Arms, the Speaker, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 5501,
appointed a temporary Sergeant-at-Arms (Jan. 6, 1954, p. 8). The
Sergeant-at-Arms having resigned in the 96th Congress, the Speaker
appointed a temporary Sergeant-at-Arms pursuant to the statute (Feb. 28,
1980, pp. 4349-50); and the same occurred in the 102d Congress (Mar. 12,
1992, p. 5519).
-- <> (b) The symbol of the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms shall be
the mace, which shall be borne by the Sergeant-at-Arms while enforcing
order on the floor.
[[Page [383]]]
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
paragraph was found in former clause 2 of rule IV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). It was adopted initially in 1789 (II, 1346). When former
rule IV was rewritten entirely in the 104th Congress, the paragraph was
restated without change (sec. 201(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463).
A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec.
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Extreme disorder arising on the
floor, the Speaker directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce order with
the mace (VI, 258; VIII, 2530), but an attempt to enforce order without
the mace has been questioned as illegitimate (II, 1347).
(c) <> The Sergeant-at-Arms shall
enforce strictly the rules relating to the privileges of the Hall of the
House and be responsible to the House for the official conduct of
employees of the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
(d) The Sergeant-at-Arms may not allow a person to enter the room over
the Hall of the House during its sittings and, from 15 minutes before
the hour of the meeting of the House each day until 10 minutes after
adjournment, shall see that the floor is cleared of all persons except
those privileged to remain.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
paragraphs (c) and (d) were found in former clauses 3 and 4 of rule IV
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). They were adopted initially in the
104th Congress to transfer functions incident to the abolishment of the
Office of the Doorkeeper (sec. 201(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463).
Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec.
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). For the history of the Office of
the Doorkeeper, see Sec. 663b, infra.
- (e) <> In addition to any other
reports required by the Speaker or the Committee on House
Administration, the Sergeant-at-Arms shall report to the Committee on
House Administration not later than 45 days following the close of each
semiannual period ending on June 30 or on December 31 on the financial
and operational status of each function
[[Page [384]]]
under the jurisdiction of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Each report shall
include financial statements and a description or explanation of current
operations, the implementation of new policies and procedures, and
future plans for each function.
(f) The <> Sergeant-at-Arms
shall fully cooperate with the appropriate offices and persons in the
performance of reviews and audits of financial records and
administrative operations.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
paragraphs (e) and (f) were found in former clauses 5 and 6 of rule IV
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). They were adopted initially in the
104th Congress (sec. 201(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). A
conforming change was effected at the beginning of the 106th Congress in
the name of the Committee on House Administration (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47).
(g)(1) <> The
Sergeant-at-Arms is authorized and directed to impose a fine against a
Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner for the use of an
electronic device for still photography or for audio or visual recording
or broadcasting in contravention of clause 5 of rule XVII and any
applicable Speaker's announced policy on electronic devices.
(2) A fine imposed pursuant to this paragraph shall be $500 for a
first offense and $2,500 for any subsequent offense.
(3)(A) The Sergeant-at-Arms shall promptly notify the Member,
Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner, the Speaker, the Chief
Administrative Officer, and the Committee on Ethics of any such fine.
[[Page [385]]]
(B) Such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may appeal the
fine in writing to the Committee on Ethics not later than 30 calendar
days or five legislative days, whichever is later, after notification
pursuant to subdivision (A).
(C) Upon receipt of an appeal pursuant to subdivision (B), the
Committee on Ethics shall have a period of 30 calendar days or five
legislative days, whichever is later, to consider the appeal. The fine
will be upheld unless the appeal is agreed to by a majority of the
Committee. Upon a determination regarding the appeal or if no appeal has
been filed at the expiration of the period specified in subdivision (B),
the chair of the Committee on Ethics shall promptly notify the Member,
Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner, the Speaker, the Sergeant-at-
Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer, and shall make such
notification publicly available. The Speaker shall promptly lay such
notification before the House.
(4) The Sergeant-at-Arms and the Committee on Ethics are authorized to
establish policies and procedures for the implementation of this
paragraph.
This clause was added in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(a)(1), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2017, p. _), and it was amended during the 117th Congress to
modify the process for consideration of appeals by the Committee on
Ethics (sec. 8, H. Res. 85, Feb. 2, 2021, p. _). Immediately following
its adoption, the Chair announced procedures regarding its enforcement
(Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). The Speaker has inserted in the Record announced
policies on electronic devices under clause 5 of rule XVII and on the
implementation of this clause (Speaker Ryan, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _; Speaker
Pelosi, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). The
Speaker has emphasized this rule as part of a larger enforcement
announcement regarding
[[Page [386]]]
proper decorum (Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. _). For annotations
under clause 5 of rule XVII, see Sec. 962, infra.
During the 117th Congress, the House established fines for the failure
to wear a mask during a designated public health emergency in
contravention of the Speaker's announced policies (sec. 4, H. Res. 38,
Jan. 12, 2021, p. _) and for the failure to complete a required security
screening for entrance to the House Chamber (H. Res. 73, Feb. 2, 2021,
p. _). The resolution that imposed a fine related to masks cross-
referenced this clause for enforcement purposes, and established mask-
wearing as a standard of conduct pursuant to clause 3(a)(2) of rule XI.
Chief Administrative Officer
4. <> (a) The Chief Administrative Officer shall
have operational and financial responsibility for functions as assigned
by the Committee on House Administration and shall be subject to the
policy direction and oversight of the Committee on House
Administration.-
(b) <> In addition to any other
reports required by the Committee on House Administration, the Chief
Administrative Officer shall report to the Committee on House
Administration not later than 45 days following the close of each
semiannual period ending on June 30 or December 31 on the financial and
operational status of each function under the jurisdiction of the Chief
Administrative Officer. Each report shall include financial statements
and a description or explanation of current operations, the
implementation of new policies and procedures, and future plans for each
function.
(c) <> The Chief
Administrative Officer shall fully cooperate with the appropriate
offices and persons in the perform
[[Page [387]]]
ance of reviews and audits of financial records and administrative
operations.
(d)(1) <> Upon notification from the chair of the Committee on Ethics
pursuant to clause 3(g)(3)(C), the Chief Administrative Officer shall
deduct the amount of any fine levied under clause 3(g) from the net
salary otherwise due the Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner.
(2) The Chief Administrative Officer is authorized to establish
policies and procedures for such salary deductions.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, clause 4
was found in former rule V (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It was
adopted initially in this form in the 104th Congress (sec. 201(c), H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). It was amended in the 105th Congress to
eliminate the supervisory role of the Speaker over the Chief
Administrative Officer (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). A conforming
change was effected at the beginning of the 106th Congress in the name
of the Committee on House Administration (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). Paragraph (a) was amended in the 107th Congress to reflect the
removal of the requirement that the Committee on House Administration
provide policy direction to the Chief Administrative Officer (sec. 2(g),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25), but that change was reversed in the
114th Congress (sec. 2(a)(3)(B), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34).
Paragraph (d) was added in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(a)(2), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). The earlier form of the rule enumerated the duties
of the Doorkeeper, which were transferred to the Sergeant-at-Arms
incident to the abolishment of the Office of the Doorkeeper. The Chief
Administrative Officer makes certain reports on receipts and
expenditures (2 U.S.C. 4108, 4109), which are available to the public.
However, members of the public have no statutory or constitutional right
to examine the actual financial records that are used in preparing such
reports. Trimble v. Johnston, 173 F. Supp. 651 (D.C. Cir. 1959).
During the 117th Congress, the House established a fine for failure to
wear a mask during a designated public health emergency in contravention
of the Speaker's announced policies, which required the Chief
Administrative Officer to deduct the amount of any such fine (sec. 4, H.
Res. 38, Jan. 12, 2021, p. _). The House also established a fine for the
failure to complete a required security screening for entrance to the
House Chamber, which required the Chief Administrative Officer, upon
failure of a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to pay such a
fine within
[[Page [388]]]
a specified period, to deduct the amount of the fine from the net salary
of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner in accordance with
procedures established by the Committee on House Administration (H. Res.
73, Feb. 2, 2021, p. _).
Before <> the 104th
Congress (sec. 201(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463), rule V
enumerated the duties of the Doorkeeper, who enforced the rules relating
to the privileges of the Hall of the House. The earlier form of the rule
was adopted in 1838 and amended in 1869, 1880 (I, 260), and 1890 (V,
7295). By law the Doorkeeper was assigned certain administrative duties
(I, 262), including certain housekeeping functions. Through employees
and appointees, the Doorkeeper also discharged various duties not
enumerated in the law or in the rules, such as announcing at the door of
the Hall of the House all messengers from the President and the Senate
(V, 6591). The Clerk having died, and the Sergeant-at-Arms having been
absent, the Doorkeeper of the 79th Congress presided at the organization
of the 80th Congress (Jan. 3, 1947, p. 33). In the 78th Congress, the
House adopted a resolution on the death of the Doorkeeper and appointed
a committee to attend his funeral (Jan. 28, 1943, pp. 421, 422).-
The Chief <> Administrative Officer supplanted the Director of
Non-legislative and Financial Services formerly provided for under
clause 1 of rule VI in the 103d Congress, which corresponded to an
erstwhile rule LII of the 102d Congress. Certain functions and entities
formerly within the purview of elected officers were transferred to the
Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services pursuant to the House
Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, Apr. 9, 1992, p.
9040), which also vested the Committee on House Administration with
authority to prescribe regulations providing for the orderly transfer of
such functions and entities and any other transfers necessary for the
improvement of non-legislative and financial services in the House, so
long as not transferring a function or entity within the jurisdiction of
the committee under rule X. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule VI of the 103d
Congress (then still designated as rule LII of the 102d Congress), the
Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader jointly appointed
the first Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services on October
23, 1992 (Oct. 29, 1992, p. 34802).
Chaplain
5. The <> Chaplain shall offer a
prayer at the commencement of each day's sitting of the House.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
clause was found in former rule VII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It
was adopted initially in 1880 (I, 272), but the sessions of the House
were opened with
[[Page [389]]]
prayer from the first, and the Chaplain was an officer of the House
before the adoption of the rule (I, 273-282). The Chaplain takes the
oath prescribed for the officers of the House (VI, 31; Feb. 1, 1950, p.
1311). Prayer by the Chaplain is not business requiring the presence of
a quorum and the Speaker declines to entertain a point of no quorum
before prayer is offered (VI, 663; clause 7 of rule XX). There is no
precedent for prayer to be offered by the Chaplain during a continuous
session of the House, absent an adjournment or recess (compare Apr. 22
and 23, 1985, pp. 8753 and 8959). Form of resignation of the Chaplain
(Feb. 28, 1921, p. 4075; Jan. 30, 1950, p. 1097; Mar. 23, 2000, p. 3480;
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 16.5; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6,
Sec. 16.3). Form of resolution electing a Chaplain emeritus (VI, 31;
Jan. 30, 1950, p. 1095; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 16.21).
During the 97th Congress, the Supreme Court held that employment of a
chaplain for the legislative body of Nebraska did not violate the
Establishment Clause of the first amendment to the Constitution. Marsh
v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). The Court of Appeals cited the Marsh
decision as controlling authority in a similar challenge to the House
Chaplain. Murray v. Buchanan, 729 F.2d 689 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The House
adopted a privileged resolution articulating its position in the Murray
case (H. Res. 413, Mar. 30, 1982, p. 5890). During the 113th Congress,
the Supreme Court held that the practice of opening a town board meeting
with a prayer offered by a member of the clergy did not violate the
Establishment Clause in part because of the tradition long followed by
Congress and state legislatures. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S.
565 (2014).
Office of Inspector General
6. (a) <> There is established an
Office of Inspector General.
(b) The Inspector General shall be appointed for a Congress by the
Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader, acting jointly.
(c) Subject to the policy direction and oversight of the Committee on
House Administration, the Inspector General shall only--
(1) provide audit, investigative, and advisory services to the
House and joint entities in a manner consistent with government-wide
standards;
[[Page [390]]]
(2) inform the officers or other officials who are the subject of
an audit of the results of that audit and suggesting appropriate
curative actions;
(3) simultaneously notify the Speaker, the Majority Leader, the
Minority Leader, and the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on House Administration in the case of any financial
irregularity discovered in the course of carrying out responsibilities
under this clause;
(4) simultaneously submit to the Speaker, the Majority Leader, the
Minority Leader, and the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on House Administration a
report of each audit conducted under this clause; and
(5) report to the Committee on Ethics information involving
possible violations by a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee of the House of any rule of the House or of any law
applicable to the performance of official duties or the discharge of
official responsibilities that may require referral to the appropriate
Federal or State authorities under clause 3(a)(3) of rule XI.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
clause was found in former rule VI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It
was adopted initially in this form at the beginning of the 104th
Congress (sec. 201(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). Later in the
104th Congress and in the 106th Congress it was amended to effect a
technical correction (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077; H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Its predecessor form was composed in the 103d
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49) by combining two rules adopted
in the House Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, Apr.
9, 1992, p. 9040). Paragraph (c)(1) was
[[Page [391]]]
amended, and gender-based references were eliminated, in the 111th
Congress (secs. 2(a), 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Paragraph
(c)(5) was amended in the 112th Congress to reflect a change in
committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Paragraph
(c)(4) was amended in the 113th Congress to add the Committee on
Appropriations (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26).
In the form of the rule adopted in the 103d Congress, paragraph (a)
(formerly clause 1) corresponded to an erstwhile rule LII of the 102d
Congress (relating to the Director of Non-legislative and Financial
Services, who in the 104th Congress was supplanted by the Chief
Administrative Officer; see clause 4 of rule II, Sec. Sec. 661-663a,
supra), and paragraph (b) (formerly clause 2) corresponded to an
erstwhile rule LIII of the 102d Congress (relating to the Inspector
General). The 104th Congress rewrote clause 2 of rule VI (as it was
composed in the 103d Congress) to occupy all of rule VI and to: broaden
the auditing responsibilities beyond the offices of the elected officers
(paragraph (c)(1), formerly clause 2(c)(1)); add requirements for
simultaneous reporting (paragraphs (c)(3) and (4), formerly clauses
2(c)(3) and (4)); delete a provision relating to classification of
employees (formerly clause 2(d)); and add the responsibility to report
certain information to the Committee on Ethics (paragraph (c)(5)) (sec.
201, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). The 104th Congress also mandated
that the Inspector General, in consultation with the Speaker and the
Committee on House Administration, procure an independent and
comprehensive audit of House financial records and administrative
operations and report the results thereof in accord with this rule (sec.
107, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463).
Until <> the 102d
Congress, former rule VI provided for an Office of the Postmaster, which
supervised the post offices of the House and the delivery of its mail.
The earlier form of the rule was adopted in 1838 and amended in 1880 (I,
270), 1911 (VI, 34), 1971 (H. Res. 5, Jan. 21, 1971, p. 15), and 1972
(H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, pp. 36013, 36014). The Office of the
Postmaster was abolished during the 102d Congress by the House
Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, Apr. 9, 1992, p.
9040).
Office of the Historian
7. <> There is established an Office of the
Historian of the House of Representatives. The Speaker shall appoint and
set the annual rate of pay for employees of the Office of the Historian.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 10 of rule I (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47).
[[Page [392]]]
It was adopted initially in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989,
p. 72). The second sentence was added in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). An earlier form of this clause provided for the
seven-year establishment of an Office for the Bicentennial to coordinate
the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the House of
Representatives (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 23.1). The
management, supervision, and administration of the office was under the
direction of the Speaker and was staffed by a professional historian
appointed by the Speaker on a nonpartisan basis. In 1984 the office was
removed from the standing rules and established for the remainder of its
existence by P.L. 98-367. Apart from the Office of the Historian, the
History of the House Awareness and Preservation Act requires the
Librarian of Congress to prepare a new and complete written history of
the House in consultation with the Committee on House Administration (2
U.S.C. 183). The Act also requires the Librarian to accept for deposit,
preserve, maintain, and make accessible an oral history of the House as
told by its Members and former Members (2 U.S.C. 183a).
Office of General Counsel
8. (a) <> There is established an Office
of General Counsel for the purpose of providing legal assistance and
representation to the House. Legal assistance and representation shall
be provided without regard to political affiliation. The Speaker shall
appoint and set the annual rate of pay for employees of the Office of
General Counsel. The Office of General Counsel shall function pursuant
to the direction of the Speaker, who shall consult with the Bipartisan
Legal Advisory Group.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 11 of rule I (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). It was adopted initially in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). The previous year, in the House Administrative
Reform Resolution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040), the
House had directed the Committee on House Administration to provide for
an Office of General Counsel in a manner ensuring appropriate
coordination with and participation by both the majority and minority
leaderships in matters of representation and litigation. It was amended
in the 114th Congress to move composition of the Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group to a new paragraph (b) (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
2015, p. 34).
[[Page [393]]]
The General Counsel is authorized by law to appear in any proceeding
before a State or Federal court (except the United States Supreme Court)
without compliance with admission requirements of such court (2 U.S.C.
5571(a)). Furthermore, the law requires the Attorney General to notify
the General Counsel of a determination not to appeal a court decision
affecting the constitutionality of an Act (2 U.S.C. 5571(b)). The House
may authorize the General Counsel to represent the House or a committee
or take other action in a judicial proceeding (Feb. 14, 2008, p. 2191;
sec. 4(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 10; June 28, 2012, pp. 10512,
10515; sec. 4(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 19.3; secs. 3(f)(1), 3(f)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
2015, p. 36; sec. 103(n), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; title III, H.
Res. 6, Jan. 9, 2019, p. _; H. Res. 430, June 11, 2019, _). The House
has authorized the Office of General Counsel to retain private counsel
in support of an ongoing impeachment inquiry (H. Res. 661, Nov. 14,
2019, p. _).
(b) <> There is
established a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group composed of the Speaker
and the majority and minority leaderships. Unless otherwise provided by
the House, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group speaks for, and
articulates the institutional position of, the House in all litigation
matters.
This paragraph was added in the 114th Congress to affirmatively
establish the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, whose composition was
previously included in what is now paragraph (a) (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). The second sentence reflected a separate order of
the House of the 113th Congress, which also authorized the Bipartisan
Legal Advisory Group to continue certain civil actions begun in the
previous Congress (sec. 4(a)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27). In the
116th Congress the House adopted a resolution reported from the
Committee on Rules reaffirming the authority of the Bipartisan Legal
Advisory Group to speak for the House in regard to authorizing
committees to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings (H. Res.
430, June 11, 2019, p. _).
(c) <> The House,
the Speaker, a committee or the chair of a committee authorized during a
prior Congress to act in a litigation matter is authorized to act as the
successor in interest to the House, the Speaker, such committee or the
chair of such committee
[[Page [394]]]
of a prior Congress, respectively, with respect to such litigation
matter, and to take such steps as may be appropriate, including, but not
limited to, the issuance of subpoenas, to ensure continuation of such
litigation matter.
This paragraph was added in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2017, p. _), and amended in the 117th Congress to clarify that
the issuance of subpoenas constituted an appropriate step to ensure
continuation of a litigation matter (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021,
p. _). Previously, authority to continue judicial proceedings had been
granted by separate orders for specific matters (e.g., sec. 4(f), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 10; sec. 4(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p.
27; secs. 3(f)(1), 3(f)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 36).
Office of Diversity and Inclusion
9. (a) <> There is established
an Office of Diversity and Inclusion. The Speaker, in consultation with
the Minority Leader, shall appoint a Director of the Office from
recommendations provided by the chair of the Committee on House
Administration in consultation with the ranking minority member of such
committee.
(b) Subject to the policy direction and oversight of the Committee on
House Administration, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion shall--
(1) direct and guide House employing offices to recruit, hire,
train, develop, advance, promote, and retain a diverse workforce;
(2) survey and evaluate diversity in House employing offices;
(3) through the Director of the Office at the end of each session
of Congress, submit a House of Representatives diversity report to the
Speaker, the Majority Leader, the Minor
[[Page [395]]]
ity Leader, the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
House Administration, and the chair and ranking minority member of the
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch of the Committee on
Appropriations; and
(4) provide consultation and guidance in furtherance of increasing
diversity and inclusion in the House.
This clause was adopted in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 8,
Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Prior to its inclusion in the standing rules, the
office was established in the 116th Congress with responsibility for the
development of plans for increased diversity in House employment as well
as a biennial report on diversity within the House (sec. 104(d), H. Res.
6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the 117th Congress the House required the
office to recommend a methodology for surveying the diversity of witness
panels at committee hearings, and required the Committees on House
Administration and Rules to ensure the implementation of such
recommendations by a date certain (sec. 3(t), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021,
p. _).
Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds
10. (a) <> There is established an
Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds. The Speaker, in consultation with
the chairs and ranking minority members of the Committee on House
Administration and the Committee on Oversight and Reform, shall appoint
a Director of the Office.
(b) Subject to the policy direction and oversight of the Committee on
House Administration, and in consultation with any other committee (at
the request of the chair or ranking minority member of such other
committee), the Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds shall--
(1) promulgate best practices for whistleblower intake for offices
of the House; and
[[Page [396]]]
(2) provide training for offices of the House on whistleblower
intake, including establishing an effective reporting system for
whistleblowers, maintaining whistleblower confidentiality, advising
staff of relevant laws and policies, and protecting information provided
by whistleblowers.
This clause was adopted in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 8,
Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Prior to its inclusion in the standing rules, the
office was established in the 116th Congress and given similar duties
(sec. 104(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
Rule III
the members, delegates, and resident commissioner of puerto rico
Voting
1. <> Every Member shall be present
within the Hall of the House during its sittings, unless excused or
necessarily prevented, and shall vote on each question put, unless
having a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the event of such
question.
When the House recodified its rules, it consolidated former rule VIII,
rule XII, and clause 6(h) of rule X under rule III, except that viable
provisions of former clause 2 of rule VIII were transferred to current
clause 3 of rule XX. This clause was adopted initially in 1789, with
amendment in 1890 (V, 5941). A gender-based reference was eliminated in
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this clause was
found in former clause 1 of rule VIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Leaves of absence are presented pending the motion to adjourn (IV,
3151), and are usually granted by unanimous consent, but sometimes are
opposed or even refused (II, 1142-1145). Application for leave of
absence is properly presented by filing with the Clerk the printed form
to be secured at the desk rather than by oral request from the floor
(VI, 199). Whether or not they are privileged is a matter of doubt (II,
1146, 1147). Excuses for absence, as distinguished from leaves of
absence, may be granted by
[[Page [397]]]
less than a quorum (IV, 3000-3002). The statutes provide that deductions
may be made from the salaries of Members who are absent without
sufficient excuse (II, 1149, 1150); and although this law has been
enforced (IV, 3011, footnote; VI, 30, 198), its general application is
not practical under modern conditions. Form of resolution for the arrest
of Members absent without leave (VI, 686).
It <> has been found
impracticable to enforce the provision requiring every Member to vote
(V, 5942-5948), and such question, even if entertained, may not
interrupt a pending record vote (V, 5947). The weight of authority also
favors the idea that there is no authority in the House to deprive a
Member of the right to vote (V, 5937, 5952, 5959, 5966, 5967; VIII,
3072). In one or two early instances the Speaker decided that because of
personal interest, a Member should not vote (V, 5955, 5958); but on all
other occasions and in the later practice the Speaker has held that the
Member and not the Chair should determine this question (V, 5950, 5951;
VIII, 3071; Speaker Albert, Dec. 2, 1975, p. 38135; Speaker O'Neill,
Mar. 1, 1979, p. 3748; July 30, 1996, p. 19952; July 16, 2009, pp.
18125, 18126), and the Speaker has denied the Speaker's own power to
deprive a Member of the constitutional right to vote (V, 5956; Speaker
Albert, Dec. 2, 1975, p. 38135; Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 1, 1979, p. 3748).
The House has at times excused Members from voting in cases of
personal interest (III, 2294; V, 5962; Aug. 2, 1949, pp. 10591, 10592;
Oct. 20, 1951, p. 13746; July 21, 1954, p. 11262; July 28, 1955, p.
11930; July 12, 1956, p. 12566).
It <> is a
principle of ``immemorial observance'' that a Member should withdraw
when a question concerning that Member arises (V, 5949); but it has been
held that the disqualifying interest must be such as affects the Member
directly (V, 5954, 5955, 5963), and not as one of a class (V, 5952;
VIII, 3071, 3072; Speaker Bankhead, May 31, 1939, p. 6359; Speaker
Albert, Dec. 2, 1975, p. 38135). In a case in which question affected
the titles of several Members to their seats, each refrained from voting
in his own case, but did vote on the identical cases of his associates
(V, 5957, 5958). A Member should not vote on direct questions affecting
that Member, but has sometimes voted on incidental questions (V, 5960,
5961).
2. <> (a) A Member may not authorize any
other person to cast the vote of such Member or record the presence of
such Member in the House or the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union.
(b) No other person may cast a Member's vote or record a Member's
presence in the House or
[[Page [398]]]
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
clause was found in former clause 3 of rule VIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). The Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) recommended this addition to
the rules in its May 15, 1980, report on voting anomalies that had
occurred in the House (H. Rept. 96-991), and the House adopted the rule
in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98-113). Even before
the addition of this clause, however, ``ghost voting'' was considered
unethical (VII, 1014; Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36274).
In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House permitted Members to vote
by proxy on behalf of other Members during a designated public health
emergency. A Member authorizing another Member to serve as their proxy
had to inform the Clerk by signed letter, and such authorization was
revoked upon a subsequent letter of revocation or when an authorizing
Member voted in person (sec. 1(a), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec.
3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). The Chair did not look behind such
signed letter (Feb. 26, 2021, p. _). A Member was not permitted to serve
as a proxy for more than 10 Members concurrently (sec. 2(a), H. Res.
965, May 15, 2020, p. _).
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner
3. <> (a) In a Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, each Delegate and the Resident
Commissioner shall possess the same powers and privileges as Members of
the House. Each Delegate and the Resident Commissioner shall be elected
to serve on standing committees in the same manner as Members and shall
possess in such committees the same powers and privileges as the other
members of the committee.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former rule XII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The first form of paragraph (a) was adopted in 1871, and it was
perfected by amendments in 1876, 1880, 1887, and 1892 (II, 1297).
Reference to the Resident Commissioner was first found in 1904 (II,
1306). Paragraph (a) was again amended on January 2, 1947 (Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946), Au
[[Page [399]]]
gust 2, 1949 (p. 10618), February 2, 1951 (p. 883), January 22, 1971 (H.
Res. 5, 92d Cong., p. 144), January 3, 1973 (H. Res. 6, 93d Cong., p.
26), January 3, 1991 (H. Res. 5, 102d Cong., p. 39), and January 5, 2011
(H. Res. 5, 112th Cong., p. 81) (technical correction). Paragraph (a)
was completely revised in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p.
49) to provide that each of the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner
be elected to committees of the House on the same bases, vote in any
committees on which they serve, and vote on questions arising in the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. The latter power
was subject to former clause 2(d) of rule XXIII (later changed to clause
6(h) of rule XVIII) (providing for immediate reconsideration in the
House of questions resolved in the Committee of the Whole by a margin
within which the votes of Delegates and the Resident Commissioner were
decisive; see Sec. 985, infra). The changes effected to this rule in the
103d Congress were revoked in the 104th Congress (sec. 212, H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462), reinstated in the 110th Congress (H. Res. 78,
Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2140), revoked in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(4), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), and reinstated in the 116th Congress (sec.
102(b)(1), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the 116th Congress, clause
6 of rule XVIII was amended to codify a previous interpretation of this
rule that Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are counted for
purposes of establishing a quorum in the Committee of the Whole (see
Sec. Sec. 982, 1A983a, and 1A984, infra; Feb. 8, 2007, p. 3550).
The constitutionality of granting to Delegates the right to vote in
the Committee of the Whole under this rule, as circumscribed by former
clause 2(d) of rule XXIII (later changed to clause 6(h) of rule XVIII),
was upheld based on the premise that immediate ``revote'' where votes
cast by Delegates had been decisive rendered their votes merely symbolic
and not an investment of true legislative power. Michel v. Anderson, 14
F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
The Office of Delegate was established by ordinance of the Continental
Congress and confirmed by a law of Congress (I, 400, 421). The nature of
the office has been the subject of much discussion (I, 400, 403, 473);
and except as provided by law (I, 431, 526) the qualifications of the
Delegate also have been a matter of discussion (I, 421, 423, 469, 470,
473). A territory or district must be organized by law before the House
will admit a Delegate (I, 405, 407, 411, 412). The Office of Delegate
from the District of Columbia was established by Public Law 91-405 (84
Stat. 845). The Offices of Delegate from the Territories of Guam and the
Virgin Islands were established by Public Law 92-271 (86 Stat. 118). The
Office of Delegate from American Samoa was established by Public Law 95-
556 (92 Stat. 2078) and was first filled by the general Federal election
of 1980. The Office of Delegate from the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands was established by Public Law 110-229 (122 Stat. 868).
The Office of Resident Commissioner was established (with a four-year
term) by the Act of March 2, 1917
[[Page [400]]]
(39 Stat. 963; 48 U.S.C. 891). The Act of May 17, 1932, changed the name
of Porto Rico to Puerto Rico (48 U.S.C. 731a).
Under an earlier practice, Delegates did not vote in committee (VI,
243); but this had not always been so (II, 1301). The Resident
Commissioner, who under the rules of the 91st and earlier Congresses,
was designated as an additional member of the Committees on Agriculture,
Armed Services, and Interior and Insular Affairs, is now elected to
committees in the same fashion as are other Members.
The law provides that on the floor of the House a Delegate may debate
(II, 1290), and may in debate call a Member to order (II, 1295), may
make any motion that a Member may make except the motion to reconsider
(II, 1291, 1292), and may make a point of order (VI, 240). A Delegate
has even moved an impeachment (II, 1303). However, a resolution offered
from the floor to permit the Delegate of the District of Columbia to
vote on the articles of impeachment against the President was held not
to constitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX
(Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27825). A Delegate may be appointed a teller (II,
1302); but the law forbids a Delegate to vote (II, 1290). A Delegate has
been recognized to object to the consideration of a bill (VI, 241), to a
unanimous-consent request to concur in a Senate amendment (June 29,
1984, p. 20267), and has made reports for committees (July 1, 1958, p.
12870). A discharge petition may not be signed by a Delegate or the
Resident Commissioner, even by unanimous consent (Oct. 1, 2003, p.
23853) because the phrase in clause 2 of rule XV ``a majority of the
total membership of the House'' is construed to mean 218 Members
(Speaker Byrns, Apr. 15, 1936, p. 5509), not including Delegates or the
Resident Commissioner. The rights and prerogatives of Delegates in
parliamentary matters are not limited to legislation affecting their own
territory (VI, 240).
At the organization of the House, the Delegates and Resident
Commissioner are sworn (I, 400, 401); but the Clerk does not put them on
the roll (I, 61, 62; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 41). A Delegate has been sworn
after opening day of a Congress (Jan. 9, 2019, p. _).
A Delegate resigns in a communication addressed to the Speaker (II,
1304). A Delegate may be arrested and censured for disorderly conduct
(II, 1305), but there has been disagreement as to whether expulsion is
by a majority or two-thirds vote (I, 469).
The privileges of the floor with the right to debate were extended to
Resident Commissioners in the 60th Congress (VI, 244). Before the
independence of the Philippines it was represented in the House by a
Resident Commissioner (Deschler, ch. 7, Sec. 3.3).
<> (b) The Delegates and the Resident Commissioner may be
appointed to any select committee, joint committee, or conference
committee.
[[Page [401]]]
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph
(b) was found in former clause 6(h) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). Paragraph (b), effective January 3, 1975, initially authorized
the appointment of Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to certain
conferences (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Paragraph
(b) was amended in the 96th Congress to authorize their appointment to
select committees (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16), in the 103d
Congress to authorize their appointment to any conference (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49), and in the 116th Congress to authorize their
appointment to any joint committee (sec. 102(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3,
2019, p._).
Before the adoption and refinement of this paragraph, a Delegate or
the Resident Commissioner could not be appointed to a conference
committee (Sept. 18, 1973, p. 30144; July 20, 1973, p. 25201); and they
could be appointed to a select committee only with the permission of the
House (Sept. 21, 1976, p. 31673).
Rule IV
the hall of the house
Use and admittance
1. The Hall <> of the House
shall be used only for the legislative business of the House and for
caucus and conference meetings of its Members, except when the House
agrees to take part in any ceremonies to be observed therein.
When the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, it
consolidated former rules XXXI, XXXII, and XXXIII under rule IV, and
clause 1 was found in former rule XXXI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Rules relating to the use of the Hall were adopted as early as 1804. The
present form of this clause dates from 1880 (V, 7270). It was renumbered
January 3, 1953 (p. 24). A technical amendment to this clause, in
conjunction with one to clause 2(b), was effected in the 112th Congress
(sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). The Speaker has announced
standards for use of the Chamber when the House is not in session
(Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 25; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011,
106; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 47; Speaker Boehner, Jan. 6,
2015, p. 63; Speaker Ryan, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 3,
2019, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
[[Page [402]]]
2. <> (a) Only the following persons shall be
admitted to the Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto:
(1) Members of Congress, Members-elect, Delegates, Delegates-
elect, the Resident Commissioner, and the Resident Commissioner-elect.
(2) Contestants in election cases during the pendency of their
cases on the floor.
(3) The President and Vice President of the United States and
their private secretaries.
(4) Justices of the Supreme Court.
(5) Elected officers and minority employees nominated as elected
officers of the House.
(6) The Parliamentarian.
(7) Staff of committees when business from their committee is
under consideration, and staff of the respective party leaderships when
so assigned with the approval of the Speaker.
(8) Not more than one person from the staff of a Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner when that Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner has an amendment under consideration (subject to clause 5).
(9) The Architect of the Capitol.
(10) The Librarian of Congress and the assistant in charge of the
Law Library.
(11) The Secretary and Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate.
(12) Heads of departments.
(13) Foreign ministers.
[[Page [403]]]
(14) Governors of States and of the Territories and the Mayor of
the District of Columbia.
(15) Former Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioners; former
Parliamentarians of the House; and former elected officers and minority
employees nominated as elected officers of the House (subject to clause
4).
(16) One attorney to accompany a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner who is the respondent in an investigation undertaken by the
Committee on Ethics when a recommendation of that committee is under
consideration in the House.
(17) Such persons as have, by name, received the thanks of
Congress.
(b) The Speaker may not entertain a unanimous consent request or a
motion to suspend this clause or clauses 1, 3, 4, or 5.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 1 of rule XXXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). It was subjected to many changes from 1802 until 1880 (V,
7283; VIII, 3634) and was renumbered in the 83d Congress (Jan. 3, 1953,
p. 24). The rule was amended in the 92d Congress to include the Delegate
from the District of Columbia among those having the privilege of the
floor (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144), and later in that Congress was
revised to grant all Delegates the privilege (H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13,
1972, pp. 36021-23). The latter revision was necessary because of the
enactment of Public Law 92-271, which created the positions of Delegate
from Guam and Delegate from the Virgin Islands. Officers and elected
employees, both present and former, were given floor privileges by the
adoption of this same resolution (H. Res. 1153, Oct. 13, 1972, p. 36013)
but had in fact, by custom, been permitted on the floor before this
change. This clause was substantially amended in the 94th Congress (H.
Res. 1435, Oct. 1, 1976, pp. 35175-80) and was amended by the Ethics
Reform Act of 1989 to permit floor privileges for one attorney for a
Member-respondent during consideration of a disciplinary resolution
(P.L. 101-194, Nov. 30, 1989). Clause 2(a)(7) was amended in the 108th
Congress to extend floor privileges to party
[[Page [404]]]
leadership staff when so assigned with the approval of the Speaker (sec.
2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). This amendment codified current
practice, including the Speaker's ultimate control over such
assignments. In the 112th Congress, paragraph (a)(16) was amended to
reflect a change in committee name and paragraph (b) was amended to
clarify the breadth of the restriction on suspending various
prohibitions of rule IV, which had been unintentionally narrowed by
recodification in the 106th Congress (secs. 2(e)(8), 2(f)(2), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). In the 116th Congress, paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) were amended to clarify that Delegates-elect and the Resident
Commissioner-elect, as well as contestants in election cases for
Delegate or the Resident Commissioner, have floor privileges, and
paragraph (a)(14) was amended to extend such privileges to Governors of
the Territories (sec. 102(d), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). Paragraph
(a)(14) was further amended in the 117th Congress to extend such
privileges to the Mayor of the District of Columbia (sec. 2(d)(1), H.
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
The portion of this clause that permits clerks of committees access to
the floor during the consideration of business from their committees has
been interpreted by the Speaker to allow four professional staff members
and one clerk on the floor at one time (Speaker Albert, June 8, 1972, p.
20318; Speaker O'Neill, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 5.5). The
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, section 503(3) (84 Stat. 1140,
1202; 2 U.S.C. 281b(3)), also allows two staff members of the
Legislative Counsel access to the floor to assist the committee.
The portion of the clause forbidding the Speaker to entertain requests
for suspension of certain clauses applies also to the chair of the
Committee of the Whole (V, 7285) but the House may grant specific access
by resolution (e.g., Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.7) and has
likewise governed admittance for a specified joint meeting by resolution
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 5.2). ``Heads of departments'' means
members of the President's Cabinet, and not subordinate executive
officers, and ``foreign ministers'' means ministers from foreign
governments only.
An alleged violation of the rule relating to admission to the floor
presents a question of privilege (III, 2624, 2625; VI, 579), but not a
higher question of privilege than an election case (III, 2626). In one
case in which a former Member was abusing the privilege, he was excluded
by direction of the Speaker (V, 7288), but in another case the Speaker
declared it a matter for the House and not the Chair to consider (V,
7286). In one case an alleged abuse was inquired into by a select
committee (V, 7287). See Sec. 680, infra, for the rule constraining
conduct of former Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner,
officers, and staff while on the floor. The Speaker announced an
intention to strictly enforce the rule to prevent a proliferation of
committee and other staff on the floor (Aug. 22, 1974, p. 30027;
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 5.6; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6,
Sec. 15.8). The Speaker announced that committee staff would be required
to display staff badges on the floor in exchange for identification
cards before admis
[[Page [405]]]
sion to the floor (Speaker O'Neill, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4,
Sec. 5.8; Jan. 5, 1993, p. 105). It is not in order to refer to persons
on the floor of the House as guests of the House, such as Members'
children (Apr. 28, 1994, p. 8783; Dec. 19, 1995, p. 37575; Jan. 22,
1996, p. 682; Apr. 30, 1998, p. 7320; June 17, 2004, p. 12847; Aug. 1,
2011, p. 12698) or other children (May 18, 1995, p. 13490; Oct. 7, 1999,
p. 24425; Apr. 25, 2013, pp. 5952, 5953; Apr. 21, 2016, p. _; Apr. 26,
2018, p. _).
3. (a) <> Except as provided in paragraph (b), all persons not entitled
to the privilege of the floor during the session shall be excluded at
all times from the Hall of the House and the cloakrooms.
(b) Until 15 minutes of the hour of the meeting of the House, persons
employed in its service, accredited members of the press entitled to
admission to the press gallery, and other persons on request of a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner by card or in writing, may be
admitted to the Hall of the House.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XXXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). It was adopted initially in 1902 (V, 7346).
4. <> (a) A former
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner; a former Parliamentarian of
the House; or a former elected officer of the House or former minority
employee nominated as an elected officer of the House shall not be
entitled to the privilege of admission to the Hall of the House and
rooms leading thereto if such individual--
(1) is a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal as
those terms are defined in clause 5 of rule XXV;
[[Page [406]]]
(2) has any direct personal or pecuniary interest in any
legislative measure pending before the House or reported by a committee;
(3) is in the employ of or represents any party or organization
for the purpose of influencing, directly or indirectly, the passage,
defeat, or amendment of any legislative proposal; or
(4) has been convicted by a court of record for the commission of
a crime in relation to that individual's election to, or service to, the
House.
(b) The Speaker may promulgate regulations to carry out this rule
including regulations that exempt ceremonial or educational functions
from the restrictions of this clause.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 3 of rule XXXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). It was adopted during the 94th Congress (H. Res. 1435,
Oct. 1, 1976, pp. 35175-80) to: (1) consolidate in one place and to
clarify the restrictions on admittance to the floor of former Members,
officers, and employees; (2) add the restriction now found in paragraph
(a)(3); and (3) give the Speaker the power to promulgate regulations to
enforce the rule. During the 109th Congress, the clause was amended to:
(1) add paragraph (a)(1) to establish plainer proscriptions with respect
to registered lobbyists, agents of foreign principals, and persons with
similar representational roles; and (2) specify particular exercises of
regulatory authority by the Speaker (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4,
Sec. 6.7). The 111th Congress clarified the authority of the Speaker
over the entire rule and not merely the exemptions specified in
paragraph (b), and eliminated a gender-based reference (secs. 2(l),
2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, pp. 7, 9). During the 117th Congress,
paragraph (a)(4) expanded the proscription on the privileges of the
floor to include individuals convicted for crimes related to that
individual's election or service to the House (sec. 2(d)(2), H. Res. 8,
Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Pursuant to the authority granted by this clause,
Speakers have issued regulations from time to time (Speaker O'Neill,
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.2; Speaker Foley, June 9, 1994, p.
12387; Speaker Gingrich, May 24, 1995, p. 14300; Speaker Gingrich, Aug.
1, 1996, p. 21031; Speaker Hastert, Feb. 1, 2006, p. 644; Speaker
Pelosi, Jan. 5, 2007, p. 273).
[[Page [407]]]
The Speaker has emphasized that this clause applies not only to the
floor but also to ``rooms leading thereto,'' and has construed the
latter phrase to include, for example, the Speaker's Lobby and the
cloakrooms (Speaker Rayburn, Oct. 2, 1945, p. 9251; Speaker Gingrich,
May 24, 1995, p. 14300; Aug. 1, 1996, p. 21031) and the Rayburn Room
(Feb. 1, 2006, p. 541).
Even before the addition of what is now paragraph (a)(3), the Speaker
advised that former Members did not have the privilege of the floor if
they were in the employ of an organization that was interested in
legislation before the Congress (Speaker Rayburn, Oct. 2, 1945, p.
9251). A former Member has not been entitled to the privileges of the
floor under this clause if (1) having a direct personal or pecuniary
interest in legislation under consideration in the House or reported by
any committee, or (2) representing any party or organization for the
purpose of influencing the disposition of legislation pending before the
House, reported by any committee or under consideration in any committee
or subcommittee (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.3). The essence of
the rule has been the former Member's status as one with a personal or
pecuniary interest and not whether the former Member may have a present
intent to lobby (Speaker Foley, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.4).
Even before the adoption of a more categorical form of the rule during
the 109th Congress, intent to lobby was assumed if a former Member was
employed or retained as a lobbyist to influence legislative measures as
described in (2) above (Aug. 1, 1996, p. 21031).
A former Member must observe the rules of proper decorum while on the
floor, and the Chair may direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist the Chair
in maintaining such decorum (Sept. 17, 1997, pp. 19026, 19027). A former
Member may not manifest approval or disapproval of the proceedings
(VIII, 3635). In the 105th Congress the House adopted a resolution
offered as a question of the privileges of the House alleging indecorous
behavior of a former Member and instructing the Sergeant-at-Arms to ban
the former Member from the floor, and rooms leading thereto, until the
resolution of a contested election to which he was party (H. Res. 233,
Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19340).
5. A person <> from the staff of a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may be admitted to the Hall
of the House or rooms leading thereto under clause 2 only upon prior
notice to the Speaker. Such persons, and persons from the staff of
committees admitted under clause 2, may not engage in efforts in the
Hall of the House or rooms leading
[[Page [408]]]
thereto to influence Members with regard to the legislation being
amended. Such persons are admitted only to advise the Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, or committee responsible for their admission. A
person who violates this clause may be excluded during the session from
the Hall of the House and rooms leading thereto by the Speaker.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 4 of rule XXXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). This clause was added initially in the 95th Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70) to extend the privilege of the floor to
one person from the staff of a Member having an amendment under
consideration (but not of a measure's sponsor), and was amended in the
115th Congress to remove a requirement that personal and committee staff
remain at the committee tables (sec. 2(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p.
_). The Speaker promulgated regulations for the implementation of this
clause in the 95th Congress (January 26, 1977, p. 2333), which should be
read in light of the amendment made in the 115th Congress. In the 97th
Congress the Speaker announced that personal staff of Members did not
have the privilege of the floor (Aug. 18, 1982, p. 21934). Staff
permitted on the floor under this clause are not permitted to distribute
literature or otherwise attempt to influence Members in their votes
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 5.9; Sept. 27, 1995, p. 26567) and
may not applaud during debate (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 5.10).
Gallery
6. (a) <> The Speaker shall set aside a portion of the west gallery for
the use of the President, the members of the Cabinet, justices of the
Supreme Court, foreign ministers and suites, and the members of their
respective families. The Speaker shall set aside another portion of the
same gallery for the accommodation of persons to be admitted on the
cards of Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner.
[[Page [409]]]
(b) The Speaker shall set aside the southerly half of the east gallery
for the use of the families of Members of Congress. The Speaker shall
control one bench. On the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, or Senator, the Speaker shall issue a card of admission to
the family of such individual, which may include their visitors. No
other person shall be admitted to this section.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former rule XXXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). It was adopted initially in 1880 (V, 7302) and renumbered January
3, 1953 (p. 24). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).
On special occasions the House sometimes makes a special rule for
admission to the galleries (V, 7303), as on the occasion of the
electoral count (III, 1961), of an address by the President, and of
public funerals.
Prohibition on campaign contributions
7. A <> Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or
employee of the House, or any other person entitled to admission to the
Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto by this rule, may not
knowingly distribute a political campaign contribution in the Hall of
the House or rooms leading thereto.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 5 of rule XXXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). It was adopted initially in the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121).
[[Page [410]]]
Rule V
broadcasting the house
1. <> The Speaker
shall administer, direct, and control a system for closed-circuit
viewing of floor proceedings of the House in the offices of all Members,
Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, and committees and in such other
places in the Capitol and the House Office Buildings as the Speaker
considers appropriate. Such system may include other communications
functions as the Speaker considers appropriate. Any such communications
shall be subject to rules and regulations issued by the Speaker.
2. (a) The Speaker shall administer, direct, and control a system for
complete and unedited audio and visual broadcasting and recording of the
floor proceedings of the House. The Speaker shall provide for the
distribution of such broadcasts and recordings to news media, for the
storage of audio and video recordings of the proceedings, and for the
closed-captioning of the proceedings for hearing-impaired persons.
(b) All television and radio broadcasting stations, networks,
services, and systems (including cable systems) that are accredited to
the House Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries, and all radio
and television correspondents who are so accredited, shall be provided
access to the live coverage of the House.
(c) Coverage made available under this clause, including any recording
thereof--
[[Page [411]]]
(1) may not be used for any partisan political campaign purpose;
(2) may not be used in any commercial advertisement; and
(3) may not be broadcast with commercial sponsorship except as
part of a bona fide news program or public affairs documentary program.
3. The Speaker may delegate any of the responsibilities under this
rule to such legislative entity as the Speaker considers appropriate.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 9 of rule I (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). It was adopted in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15,
1979, p. 7). Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). The requirement
that televised broadcasts of proceedings of the House be closed
captioned for hearing-impaired individuals was added in the 101st
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72). The authority of the Speaker
to make rules governing telecommunications functions within the House
was added in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39) and
broadened to all communications functions in the 113th Congress, along
with a clarification that clause 2(a) applies to proceedings on the
floor, and a clarification in clause 2(c)(1) of the restrictions on use
of coverage (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26).
In the 95th Congress the House considered as a question of the
privileges of the House and adopted a resolution directing the Committee
on Rules to investigate the impact on the safety, dignity, and integrity
of House proceedings, of a test authorized by the Speaker under the
Speaker's general control over the Hall of the House for the audiovisual
broadcast of House proceedings within the Capitol and House Office
Buildings (H. Res. 404, Mar. 15, 1977, p. 7608). The resolution directed
the Committee on Rules to report to the House at the earliest
practicable date its findings and recommendations, including whether
such coverage should be made available to the public. The committee
reported and the House adopted another resolution that: (1) authorized
the Speaker to establish a closed-circuit system for in-House
broadcasting of House proceedings; (2) directed the Committee on Rules
to study methods for providing complete audio and visual broadcasting of
House proceedings and to report to the House thereon; and (3) directed
the Speaker after receipt of the committee's report to establish a
system subject to his direction and control for audio and visual
broadcast and recording of House proceedings and to provide for
distribution and access to the news media (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4,
[[Page [412]]]
Sec. 3.1). The Speaker, after receipt of that report (H. Rept. 95-881,
Feb. 15, 1978), directed implementation of full audio coverage, with
distribution to the media, on June 8, 1978 (p. 16746). Public Law 95-391
(Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1979) contained the following
proviso: ``No funds in this bill may be used to implement a system for
televising and broadcasting the proceedings of the House pursuant to
House Resolution 866, Ninety-Fifth Congress, under which the TV cameras
in the Chamber purchased by the House are controlled and operated by
persons not in the employ of the House.''
Pursuant to this rule, the Speaker directed the Clerk in the 98th
Congress to immediately implement periodic wide-angle television
coverage of all ``special-order'' speeches at the end of legislative
business (with captions at the bottom of the screen indicating that
legislative business has been completed) (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4,
Sec. 3.2) but not during ``interim'' special orders (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.4). However, in the 103d and 104th Congresses,
the Speaker prohibited wide-angle coverage but continued the caption at
the bottom of the screen not only during special-order speeches but also
during morning-hour debate (Speaker Foley, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4,
Sec. 3.5; Speaker Gingrich, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551). In the 99th Congress,
the House adopted a resolution, raised as a question of the privileges
of the House, authorizing and directing the Speaker to provide for the
audio and visual broadcast coverage of the Chamber while Members are
voting (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.7). Although paragraph (a)
requires complete and unedited broadcast coverage of House proceedings,
the House held (by tabling an appeal of a ruling of the Chair) that it
does not require in-House microphone amplification of disorderly conduct
by a Member following expiration of recognition for debate (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.13).
Rule VI
official reporters and news media galleries
Official reporters
1. <> Subject to the direction and control of the Speaker,
the Clerk shall appoint, and may remove for cause, the official
reporters of the House, including stenographers of committees, and shall
supervise the execution of their duties.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 1 of rule XXXIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). From 1874 until March 1, 1978, the appointment and removal
of the
[[Page [413]]]
official reporters, and the manner of the execution of their duties, was
vested in the Speaker (V, 6958); effective March 1, 1978 (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 16.3) those responsibilities were vested in the
Clerk, subject to the direction and control of the Speaker.
The reporters of debates have played an important role in the
evolution of the system by which the House compiles a daily verbatim
report of its proceedings, made by its own corps of reporters (V, 6959).
Since these reporters have become officers of the House a correction of
the Congressional Record has been held a question of privilege (V, 7014-
7016). The House has directed the Clerk to provide a copy of the audio
backup file of a committee deposition made by the reporters to the
prosecuting attorney in a criminal proceeding (Precedents (Wickham), ch.
6, Sec. 26.7; Sept. 12, 2019, p. _).
The <> arrangement, style, etc., of the Congressional Record is
prescribed by the Joint Committee on Printing pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 901,
904 (see also VIII, 3500). The rules of the Joint Committee on Printing
governing publication of the Congressional Record are as follows:
1. Arrangement of the daily Congressional Record.--The Director of the
Government Publishing Office shall arrange the contents of the daily
Congressional Record as follows: The Senate proceedings shall alternate
with the House proceedings in order of placement in consecutive issues
insofar as such an arrangement is feasible, and Extensions of Remarks
and Daily Digest shall follow: Provided, That the makeup of the
Congressional Record shall proceed without regard to alternation
whenever the Director of the Government Publishing Office deems it
necessary in order to meet production and delivery schedules.
2. Type and style.--The Director of the Government Publishing Office
shall print the report of the proceedings and debates of the Senate and
House of Representatives, as furnished by the official reporters of the
Congressional Record, in 8-point type; and all matter included in the
remarks or speeches of Members of Congress, other than their own words,
and all reports, documents, and other matter authorized to be inserted
in the Congressional Record shall be printed in 7-point type; and all
roll calls shall be printed in 6-point type. No italic or black type nor
words in capitals or small capitals shall be used for emphasis or
prominence; nor will unusual indentions be permitted. These restrictions
do not apply to the printing of or quotations from historical, official,
or legal documents or papers of which a literal reproduction is
necessary.
3. Only as an aid in distinguishing the manner of delivery in order to
contribute to the historical accuracy of the Record, statements or
insertions in the Record where no part of them was spoken will be
preceded and followed by a ``bullet'' symbol, i.e., (now
applicable only in Senate).
4. Return of manuscript.--When manuscript is submitted to Members for
revision it should be returned to the Government Publishing Office not
later than 9 o'clock p.m. in order to insure publication in the Congres
[[Page [414]]]
sional Record issued on the following morning; and if all of the
manuscript is not furnished at the time specified, the Director of the
Government Publishing Office is authorized to withhold it from the
Congressional Record for 1 day. In no case will a speech be printed in
the Congressional Record of the day of its delivery if the manuscript is
furnished later than 12 o'clock midnight.
5. Tabular matter.--The manuscript of speeches containing tabular
statements to be published in the Congressional Record shall be in the
hands of the Director of the Government Publishing Office not later than
7 o'clock p.m. to insure publication the following morning. When
possible, manuscript copy for tabular matter should be sent to the
Government Publishing Office 2 or more days in advance of the date of
publication in the Congressional Record. Proof will be furnished
promptly to the Member of Congress to be submitted by him instead of
manuscript copy when he offers it for publication in the Congressional
Record.
6. Proof furnished.--Proofs or ``leave to print'' and advance speeches
will not be furnished the day the manuscript is received but will be
submitted the following day, whenever possible to do so without causing
delay in the publication of the regular proceedings of Congress. Advance
speeches shall be set in the Congressional Record style of type, and not
more than six sets of proofs may be furnished to Members without charge.
7. Notation of withheld remarks.--If manuscript or proofs have not
been returned in time for publication in the proceedings, the Director
of the Government Publishing Office will insert the words ``Mr. __
addressed the Senate (House or Committee). His remarks will appear
hereafter in Extensions of Remarks'' and proceed with the printing of
the Congressional Record.
8. Thirty-day limit.--The Director of the Government Publishing Office
shall not publish in the Congressional Record any speech or extension of
remarks which has been withheld for a period exceeding 30 calendar days
from the date when its printing was authorized: Provided, That at the
expiration of each session of Congress the time limit herein fixed shall
be 10 days, unless otherwise ordered by the committee.
9. Corrections.--The permanent Congressional Record is made up for
printing and binding 30 days after each daily publication is issued;
therefore all corrections must be sent to the Director of the Government
Publishing Office within that time: Provided, That upon the final
adjournment of each session of Congress the time limit shall be 10 days,
unless otherwise ordered by the committee: Provided further, That no
Member of Congress shall be entitled to make more than one revision. Any
revision shall consist only of corrections of the original copy and
shall not include deletions of correct material, substitutions for
correct material, or additions of new subject matter.
10. The Director of the Government Publishing Office shall not publish
in the Congressional Record the full report or print of any committee or
subcommittee when the report or print has been previously printed. This
[[Page [415]]]
rule shall not be construed to apply to conference reports. However,
inasmuch as rule XXII (Sec. 1082, infra) provides that conference
reports be printed in the daily edition of the Congressional Record,
they shall not be printed therein a second time.
11. Makeup of the Extensions of Remarks.--Extensions of Remarks in the
Congressional Record shall be made up by successively taking first an
extension from the copy submitted by the official reporters of one House
and then an extension from the copy of the other House, so that Senate
and House extensions appear alternately as far as possible. The sequence
for each House shall follow as closely as possible the order or
arrangement in which the copy comes from the official reporters of the
respective Houses.
The official reporters of each House shall designate and distinctly
mark the lead item among their extensions. When both Houses are in
session and submit extensions, the lead item shall be changed from one
House to the other in alternate issues, with the indicated lead item of
the other House appearing in second place. When only one House is in
session, the lead item shall be an extension submitted by a Member of
the House in session. This rule shall not apply to Congressional Records
printed after the sine die adjournment of the Congress.
12. Official reporters.--The official reporters of each House shall
indicate on the manuscript and prepare headings for all matter to be
printed in Extensions of Remarks and shall make suitable reference
thereto at the proper place in the proceedings.
13. Two-page rule--Cost estimate from Director of the Government
Publishing Office.--(1) No extraneous matter in excess of two printed
Record pages, whether printed in its entirety in one daily issue or in
two or more parts in one or more issues, shall be printed in the
Congressional Record unless the Member announces, coincident with the
request for leave to print or extend, the estimate in writing from the
Director of the Government Publishing Office of the probable cost of
publishing the same. (2) No extraneous matter shall be printed in the
House proceedings or the Senate proceedings, with the following
exceptions: (a) Excerpts from letters, telegrams, or articles presented
in connection with a speech delivered in the course of debate; (b)
communications from State legislatures; (c) addresses or articles by the
President and the Members of his Cabinet, the Vice President, or a
Member of Congress. (3) The official reporters of the House or Senate or
the Director of the Government Publishing Office shall return to the
Member of the respective House any matter submitted for the
Congressional Record which is in contravention of these provisions.
house supplement to ``laws and rules for publication of the
congressional record''--effective august 12, 1986
1. Extensions of Remarks in the daily Congressional Record.--When the
House has granted leave to print (1) a newspaper or magazine article, or
(2) any other matter not germane to the proceedings, it shall be
published under Extensions of Remarks. This rule shall not apply to
quotations
[[Page [416]]]
which form part of a speech of a Member, or to an authorized extension
of his own remarks: Provided, That no address, speech, or article
delivered or released subsequently to the sine die adjournment of a
session of Congress may be printed in the Congressional Record. One-
minute speeches delivered during the morning business of Congress shall
not exceed 300 words. Statements exceeding this will be printed
following the business of the day.
2. Any extraneous matter included in any statement by a Member, either
under the 1-minute rule or permission granted to extend at this point,
will be printed in the ``Extensions of Remarks'' section, and that such
material will be duly noted in the Member's statement as appearing
therein.
3. Under the general leave request by the floor manager of specific
legislation only matter pertaining to such legislation will be included
as per the request. This, of course, will include tables and charts
pertinent to the same, but not newspaper clippings and editorials.
4. In the makeup of the portion of the Record entitled ``Extensions of
Remarks,'' the Director of the Government Publishing Office shall
withhold any Extensions of Remarks which exceed economical press fill or
exceed production limitations. Extensions withheld for such reasons will
be printed in succeeding issues, at the direction of the Director of the
Government Publishing Office, so that more uniform daily issues may be
the end result and, in this way, when both Houses have a short session
the makeup would be in a sense made easier so as to comply with daily
proceedings, which might run extremely heavy at times.
5. The request for a Member to extend his or her remarks in the body
of the Record must be granted to the individual whose remarks are to be
inserted.
6. All statements for ``Extensions of Remarks,'' as well as copy for
the body of the Congressional Record must be submitted on the Floor of
the House to the Official Reporters of Debates and must carry the actual
signature of the Member. Extensions of Remarks will be accepted up to 15
minutes after adjournment of the House. To insure printing in that day's
proceedings, debate transcripts still out for revision must be returned
to the Office of Official Reporters of Debates, Room HT-60, the Capitol,
(1) by 5 p.m., or 2 hours following adjournment, whichever occurs later;
or (2) within 30 minutes following adjournment when the House adjourns
at 11 p.m., or later.
7. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVII of the Rules of the House, the
Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of
remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only to
technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the
Member making the remarks involved. Unparliamentary remarks may be
deleted only by permission or order of the House. Consistent with rule 9
of the Joint Committee on Printing Rules, any revision shall consist
only of technical, grammatical, or typographical corrections of the
original copy and shall not include deletions of correct material,
substitutions for correct material, or
[[Page [417]]]
additions of new subject matter. By obtaining unanimous consent to
revise and extend, a Member will be able to relax the otherwise strict
prohibition contained in clause 8 of rule XVII only in two respects: (1)
to revise by technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections; and
(2) to extend remarks in a distinctive type style to follow the remarks
actually uttered. In no event would the actually uttered remarks be
removable.
The requirement <> of
rule 7 of the supplemental rules that the Congressional Record be a
substantially verbatim account of remarks actually rendered was included
in clause 8(a) of rule XVII (formerly clause 9 of rule XIV) in the 104th
Congress, with the prescription that that rule constitute a standard of
conduct under clause 3(a)(2) of rule XI (formerly clause 4(e)(1)(B) of
rule X) (sec. 213, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Under clause 8 of
rule XVII, remarks actually delivered may not be deleted and remarks
inserted must appear in distinctive type (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 541). The
Speaker has instructed the Official Reporters of Debates to adhere
strictly to the requirement of rule 7 of the supplemental rules
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.5; Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1980).
Words spoken by a Member not under recognition are not included in the
Congressional Record (V, 6975-6978; VIII, 3466, 3471; Oct. 11, 2011, p.
15117) and a Member should not expect the official reporters to
transcribe such remarks (Jan. 24, 2011, p. 583) or the remarks of two
Members speaking simultaneously (Oct. 11, 2011, p. 15117; Speaker
Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 26, 2013, p. 1680;
Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p. 4783; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015,
p. 2553, 2554). For example the Record does not include remarks uttered:
(1) after a Member has been called to order (July 29, 1994, p. 18609);
(2) when a Member fails to heed the gavel at the expiration of time for
debate (May 22, 2003, p. 12965; Oct. 2, 2003, p. 23950; July 25, 2012,
p. 12253; June 13, 2016, p. _; Oct. 12, 2017, p. _; Jan. 18, 2018, p.
_); (3) when a Member interrupts another during debate without being
yielded to (Feb. 15, 2012, p. 1643) or otherwise recognized (as on a
point of order) (Speaker O'Neill, Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2229). Remarks held
irrelevant by the Chair may be removed from the Record by unanimous
consent only (Mar. 20, 2002, p. 3663).
In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair advised that when
the Pledge of Allegiance is delivered as the third element of the daily
order of business, the Record reflects the pledge in its statutory form
(Apr. 27, 2004, pp. 7588, 7600). The Chair announced the Record-printing
policy regarding remarks in debate uttered in languages other than
English, to deny transcription in the foreign language (unless a
transcript is provided in a language that the Government Publishing
Office can print) and to require Members to submit translations for
distinctive printing in the Record in English as a revision of remarks
(Mar. 4, 1998, p. 2535; see also Feb. 25, 2003, p. 4402; Mar. 15, 2013,
p. 3671).
Under long practice and applicable precedents and guidelines, the
Chair has refined rulings on points of order in the Record in order to
clarify
[[Page [418]]]
them without changing their substance, including those sustained by the
House on appeal (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.13; see H. Res.
230, 99th Cong., July 31, 1985, p. 21783, and H. Rept. 99-228). In
accordance with existing accepted practices, the Speaker customarily
made such technical or parliamentary corrections or insertions in the
transcript of a ruling or statement by the Chair as may have been
necessary to conform to rule, custom, or precedent (see H. Res. 330,
101st Cong., Feb. 7, 1990, p. 1515, and report of House Administration
task force on Record inserted by Speaker Foley, Oct. 27, 1990, p.
37124). In the 104th Congress the Speaker ruled that the requirement of
clause 8 of rule XVII (formerly clause 9 of rule XIV) that the Record be
a substantially verbatim account of remarks made during House
proceedings extended to statements and rulings of the Chair (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.15).
The Congressional Record is for the proceedings of the House and
Senate only, and matters not connected therewith are rigidly excluded
(V, 6962). It is not, however, the official record, that function being
fulfilled by the Journal (IV, 2727). Because the Record is maintained as
a substantially verbatim account of the proceedings of the House (44
U.S.C. 901), the Speaker will not entertain a unanimous-consent request
to give a special-order speech ``off the Record'' (Precedents (Wickham),
ch. 5, Sec. 16.5). As a general principle the Speaker has no control
over the Record (V, 6984, 7017).
The traditional practice to allow Members, with the approval of the
House and under conditions set forth by the Joint Committee on Printing,
to revise remarks before publication in the Congressional Record (V,
6971, 7024; VIII, 3500) should be interpreted in light of clause 8 of
rule XVII and rule 7 of the supplemental rules of the Joint Committee on
Printing, which require the Record to be a substantially verbatim
account of remarks made during House proceedings (see Sec. 686, supra,
and Sec. Sec. 967, 968, infra). In any event, a Member should not change
the notes of the Member's own speech in such a way as to affect the
remarks of another without bringing the correction to the attention of
that Member (V, 6972; VIII, 3461) because such alterations require
authorization by the House (VIII, 3463, 3497). Where a Member so revised
his remarks as to affect the import of words uttered by another Member,
the House corrected the Record (V, 6973). A Member is not entitled to
inspect the reporter's notes of remarks that do not contain reflections
on that Member, delivered by another Member and withheld for revision
(V, 6964). In response to a parliamentary inquiry regarding the specific
content of the reporter's transcript, the Chair advised that the Member
consult the Record in its regular course (Jan. 17, 2019, p. _).
[[Page [419]]]
As a general <> rule the Committee of the Whole has no
control over the Congressional Record (V, 6986); but the chair in the
preservation of order may direct the exclusion of disorderly words
spoken by a Member after a call to order (V, 6987). In a case wherein a
letter read in Committee involved a breach of privilege, the Committee
reported the matter to the House for action, and the House struck the
letter from the Record (V, 6986). The chair of the Committee of the
Whole does not determine the privileges of a Member under a general
leave to print in the Record, that being for the House alone (V, 6988).
The Committee of the Whole may neither grant a general leave to print,
although for convenience it does permit individual Members to extend
their remarks (V, 7009, 7010; VIII, 3488-3490; Aug. 31, 1965, p. 22385),
nor permit the inclusion of extraneous material (Jan. 23, 1936, p. 950;
Feb. 1, 1937, p. 656; Sept. 19, 1967, p. 26032).
Although the <> House controls the Congressional Record, the Speaker with the
assent of the House laid down the principle that words spoken by a
Member in order might not be changed by the House, because this would be
determining what a Member should utter on the floor (V, 6974; VI, 583;
VIII, 3469, 3498). Neither should one House strike matter placed in the
Record by permission of the other House (V, 6966). But the House may
correct the speech of one of its Members so that it may record
faithfully what was actually said (V, 6972). Similarly, a motion to
correct the Record has been entertained to allow a Member to print in a
subsequent edition of the daily Record the correct text of an amendment
offered on a previous day and that had been substantially misprinted in
the daily Record for the day on which it was offered (Deschler, ch. 5,
Sec. 18.6). In addition, privileged motions have been permitted to
correct the Record as follows: (1) striking unparliamentary words
inserted in the Record (Deschler, ch. 5, Sec. 17); (2) correcting the
Record where the remarks of one Member have been attributed to another
(Deschler, ch. 5, Sec. Sec. 18.1, 18.2); (3) correcting the Record where
a Member has improperly altered his remarks during an exchange of
colloquy with another Member (Deschler, ch. 5, Sec. 18.9). Mere
typographical errors in the Record or ordinary revisions of a Member's
remarks do not give rise to privileged motions for the correction of the
Record (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.19), because such changes
for the permanent edition of the Record may be made without the
permission of the House (Deschler, ch. 5, Sec. 19) (subject to clause 8
of rule XVII). The House does not change the Record merely to show what
a Member should have said during debate (Deschler, ch. 5, Sec. 18).
Furthermore, the Speaker declines to entertain unanimous-consent
requests to correct the Record on a vote taken by electronic device,
based upon the presumed accuracy of the electronic system and the
ability and responsibility of each Member to verify votes (Feb. 6, 1973,
p. 3558; Apr. 18, 1973, p. 13081; Dec. 3, 1974, p. 37897). It also has
been held that
[[Page [420]]]
a Member may not, in a controversy over a proposed correction of the
Record as to a matter of business, demand as a matter of right the
reading of the reporter's notes (V, 6967; VIII, 3460).
The accuracy and propriety of reports in the Congressional Record
constitute questions of the privileges of the House (see Sec. 704,
infra). Subject to the requirements of rule IX, a motion or resolution
for the correction of the Record that involves a question of privilege
may be made properly after the reading and approval of the Journal (V,
7013; VIII, 3496), is not in order pending the approval of the Journal
(V, 6989), and may not be raised until the Record has appeared (V,
7020). A correction of the Record that involves a motion and a vote is
recorded in the Journal (IV, 2877). A resolution directing the placement
of an asterisk in the Record to note alleged inaccuracies in a State of
the Union address (but not alleging improper transcription of that
address) was held not to constitute a question of privilege (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.22). Propositions to make corrections are
sometimes considered by the Committee on House Administration.
Where <> a Member had uttered disorderly words on the floor without
challenge, the House decided that it was not precluded from action when
the words, after being withheld for revision, appeared in the Record,
and struck them (V, 6979, 6981; VI, 582; VIII, 2538, 3463, 3472). The
House also has ordered stricken printed speeches condemned as
unparliamentary for reflections on Members, committees of the House, the
House itself (V, 7017), and the Senate (V, 5129). In the 101st Congress
a resolution presented as a question of privilege was adopted to direct
the Committee on House Administration to report with respect to certain
unauthorized deletions from the Record. A task force of that committee
recommended that deletion of unparliamentary remarks be permitted only
by consent of the House and not by the Member uttering the words under
authority to revise and extend (Oct. 27, 1990, p. 37124). That
recommendation has been incorporated into the Rules of the House (clause
8(b) of rule XVII). In debating a resolution to strike from the Record
disorderly language a Member may not read the language (V, 7004); but it
was held that as part of a personal explanation relating to matter
excluded as out of order a Member might read the matter, subject to a
point of order if the reading should develop anything in violation of
the rules of debate (V, 5079). A resolution to omit from the Record
certain remarks merely declared by the Member offering the resolution to
be out of order is not privileged (V, 7021). A motion to strike
unparliamentary words from the Record is privileged (see Sec. 961,
infra), although a question of privilege may not subsequently arise
therefrom (V, 7023; VI, 596).
[[Page [421]]]
The practice <> of inserting in the Congressional Record speeches not actually
delivered on the floor has developed by consent of the House as the
membership has increased and it has become difficult at times for every
Member to fully debate public questions on the floor (V, 6990-6996,
6998-7000). The House, in granting such leave to print, stipulates that
it be exercised without unreasonable freedom (V, 7002, 7003). For
example: (1) a Member with permission to insert one matter may not
insert another (V, 7001; VIII, 3462, 3479, 3480); (2) a Member may not
insert statements and letters of others unless the leave granted
specifies such matter as extraneous (VIII, 3475, 3481), whether the
extension be under general leave for all Members or individual; (3)
although a Member may not request leave to insert the remarks of another
Member (see supplemental rule 5 of the ``Laws and Rules for Publication
of the Congressional Record''), the House may grant general leave for
all Members to insert remarks (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.33);
(4) a Member may not insert that which would not have been in order if
uttered on the floor, and the House may exclude such insertion in whole
or in part (V, 7004-7008; VIII, 3495; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
Sec. 22.21; Sept. 27, 1996, p. 25633); (5) a Member may not insert the
individual votes of Members on a question of which the yeas and nays
have not been entered on the Journal (V, 6982). The principle that a
Member shall not be called to order for words spoken in debate if
business has intervened does not apply to a case where leave to print
has been violated (V, 7005). Neither the House nor the Committee of the
Whole may permit the insertion of an entire colloquy between two or more
Members not actually delivered (Aug. 10, 1982, pp. 20266, 20267; Oct. 3,
1985, p. 26028; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.19; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.21; June 5, 2013, p. 8086). This prohibition
does not apply to the insertion of remarks spoken in debate in the
Senate in the form of a colloquy (Mar. 7, 2006, p. 2791) given the form
of clause 1 of rule XVII as adopted in the 109th Congress. The House has
agreed to a single unanimous-consent request to grant general leave for
all Members with respect to multiple measures considered on the same day
(Sept. 13, 2018, p. _).
The House, and not the Speaker, determines what liberty shall be
allowed to a Member who has leave to extend remarks (V, 6997-7000; VIII,
3475), whether or not a copyrighted article shall be printed therein (V,
6985), as to an alleged abuse of the leave to print (V, 7012; VIII,
3474), or as to a proposed amendment (V, 6983). General leave to print
may be granted only by the House, although in the Committee of the Whole
a Member, by unanimous consent, may be given leave to extend remarks (V,
7009, 7010; VIII, 3488-3490), though such leave should be granted only
in connection with remarks actually delivered and relevant to the bill;
and the extension under such circumstances should be brief (Speaker
Longworth, Mar. 18, 1926, p. 5854).
[[Page [422]]]
Where a Member abused a leave to print on the last day of the session,
the House at the next session condemned the abuse and declared the
matter not a legitimate part of the official debates (V, 7017). An abuse
of leave to print gives rise to a question of privilege (V, 7005-7008,
7011; VIII, 3163, 3491, 3495), and a resolution or motion to expunge
from the Record in such a case is offered as a question of privilege (V,
7012; VIII, 3475, 3491). An inquiry by the House as to an alleged abuse
of the leave to print does not necessarily entitle the Member implicated
to the floor on a question of privilege (V, 7012). Clause 8 of rule XVII
(formerly clause 9 of rule XIV) requires substantive remarks inserted
under leave to revise and extend to be printed in distinctive type and
precludes deletion under such permission of words actually uttered (Jan.
4, 1995, p. 541).
A motion that a Member be permitted to extend remarks in the Record is
not privileged (Feb. 8, 1950, p. 1661), and under the rules of the Joint
Committee on Printing, one Member cannot obtain permission for other
individual Members to extend their remarks (rule 5 of House Supplement,
Sec. 686, supra).
Where extraneous material proposed to be inserted in the body or in
the Extension of Remarks portion of the Record exceeds two Record pages,
the rules of the Joint Committee on Printing require that the Member
state an estimate of printing cost when permission is requested to make
the insertion (Feb. 12, 1962, p. 2207; May 24, 1972, p. 18653; Sept. 12,
2019, p. _). It is the Member's responsibility and not that of the Chair
to ascertain the cost of printing extraneous material and obtaining
consent of the House when necessary (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
Sec. 21.6). As indicated in supplemental rule 3 of the Laws and Rules
for Publication of the Congressional Record, the general leave request
of the floor manager permits matter pertaining to specific legislation,
including tables and charts but not newspaper clippings and editorials.
The Clerk normally does not require a cost estimate for charts and
tables admitted under general leave that exceed two Record pages.
The former rules of the Joint Committee on Printing for publication of
the Record, effective March 1, 1978, required the identification by
``bullet'' symbols of statements or insertions no part of which were
actually delivered in debate (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 17.8).
Where the House permitted all Members leave to revise and extend their
remarks on a certain subject, those Members who actually spoke during
the debate could revise their remarks to appear as if actually
delivered, but Members' statements no part of which were spoken were
preceded and followed by a ``bullet'' symbol (Nov. 15, 1983, p. 32729).
In the 99th Congress, the House adopted a resolution requesting the
Joint Committee on Printing to adopt temporary rules to require
distinctive type styles to replace the bulleting of remarks not actually
spoken in debate (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 17.9), and also
adopted a resolution requesting that those rules be made permanent
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 17.11). Under regulations of the
Joint Committee on Printing, remarks delivered or inserted under leave
[[Page [423]]]
to revise and extend in connection with a ``one-minute speech'' made
before legislative business are printed after legislative business if
exceeding 300 words (Speaker O'Neill, Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
Sec. 17.1; Sec. 686, supra).
Based upon several unauthorized insertions of extensions of remarks in
the Record, the Speaker announced that henceforth all extensions of
remarks must be signed by the Member submitting them (Aug. 15, 1974, p.
28385), and in the 117th Congress the Speaker announced that extensions
of remarks may be submitted electronically (Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4,
2021, p. _), making permanent an announced policy from the 116th
Congress effective during the pendency of a designated public health
emergency (Speaker Pelosi, Apr. 7, 2020, p. _). The House by unanimous
consent may grant permission for all Members to extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material within the established limits in that
section of the Congressional Record entitled ``Extensions of Remarks''
for a session (e.g., Jan. 6, 1999, p. 247) or a Congress (e.g., Jan. 4,
2007, p. 42).
News media galleries
2. <> A portion of the gallery over the Speaker's chair, as may be
necessary to accommodate representatives of the press wishing to report
debates and proceedings, shall be set aside for their use. Reputable
reporters and correspondents shall be admitted thereto under such
regulations as the Speaker may prescribe from time to time. The Standing
Committee of Correspondents for the Press Gallery, and the Executive
Committee of Correspondents for the Periodical Press Gallery, shall
supervise such galleries, including the designation of its employees,
subject to the direction and control of the Speaker. The Speaker may
admit to the floor, under such regulations as the Speaker may prescribe,
not more than one representative of each press association.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XXXIV. It was adopted in
1857 and has been amended from time to time (V, 7304; VIII, 3642; Jan.
3, 1953, p. 24; Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144; Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). When it was
transferred to this clause, it was amended to reflect the existing
practice of including
[[Page [424]]]
the Periodical Press Gallery under the ambit of the rule (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the
111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). See also
Consumers Union v. Periodical Correspondents' Association, 515 F.2d 1341
(D.C. Cir. 1975), cert. den. 423 U.S. 1051 (1976) (action in enforcing
correspondents' association regulations is within legislative immunity
granted by the Speech or Debate Clause).
3. <> A portion of the gallery as may be necessary to accommodate
reporters of news to be disseminated by radio, television, and similar
means of transmission, wishing to report debates and proceedings, shall
be set aside for their use. Reputable reporters and correspondents shall
be admitted thereto under such regulations as the Speaker may prescribe.
The Executive Committee of the Radio and Television Correspondents'
Galleries shall supervise such gallery, including the designation of its
employees, subject to the direction and control of the Speaker. The
Speaker may admit to the floor, under such regulations as the Speaker
may prescribe, not more than one representative of each media outlet.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 3 of rule XXXIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). This provision was first adopted on April 20, 1939 (p.
4561) and has been amended from time to time (May 30, 1940, p. 7208;
Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144; Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). A gender-based reference
was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
2009, p. 7).
[[Page [425]]]
Rule VII
records of the house
Archiving
1. (a) <> At the end of each Congress, the chair of
each committee shall transfer to the Clerk any noncurrent records of
such committee, including the subcommittees thereof.
(b) At the end of each Congress, each officer of the House elected
under rule II shall transfer to the Clerk any noncurrent records made or
acquired in the course of the duties of such officer.
2. The Clerk shall deliver the records transferred under clause 1,
together with any other noncurrent records of the House, to the
Archivist of the United States for preservation at the National Archives
and Records Administration. Records so delivered are the permanent
property of the House and remain subject to this rule and any order of
the House.
Public availability
3. (a) The Clerk shall authorize the Archivist to make records
delivered under clause 2 available for public use, subject to clause
4(b) and any order of the House.
(b)(1) A record shall immediately be made available if it was
previously made available for public use by the House or a committee or
a subcommittee.
(2) An investigative record that contains personal data relating to a
specific living person
[[Page [426]]]
(the disclosure of which would be an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy), an administrative record relating to personnel, or a record
relating to a hearing that was closed under clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI
shall be made available if it has been in existence for 50 years.
(3) A record for which a time, schedule, or condition for availability
is specified by order of the House shall be made available in accordance
with that order. Except as otherwise provided by order of the House, a
record of a committee for which a time, schedule, or condition for
availability is specified by order of the committee (entered during the
Congress in which the record is made or acquired by the committee) shall
be made available in accordance with the order of the committee.
(4) A record (other than a record referred to in subparagraph (1),
(2), or (3)) shall be made available if it has been in existence for 30
years.
4. (a) A record may not be made available for public use under clause
3 if the Clerk determines that such availability would be detrimental to
the public interest or inconsistent with the rights and privileges of
the House. The Clerk shall notify in writing the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on House Administration of any such
determination.
(b) A determination of the Clerk under paragraph (a) is subject to
later orders of the House and, in the case of a record of a committee,
later orders of the committee.
[[Page [427]]]
5. (a) This rule does not supersede rule VIII or clause 11 of rule X
and does not authorize the public disclosure of any record if such
disclosure is prohibited by law or executive order of the President.
(b) The Committee on House Administration may prescribe guidelines and
regulations governing the applicability and implementation of this rule.
(c) A committee may withdraw from the National Archives and Records
Administration any record of the committee delivered to the Archivist
under this rule. Such a withdrawal shall be on a temporary basis and for
official use of the committee.
Definition of record
6. (a) In this rule the term ``record'' means any official, permanent
record of the House (other than a record of an individual Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner as described in paragraph (b)),
including--
(1) with respect to a committee, an official, permanent record of
the committee (including any record of a legislative, oversight, or
other activity of such committee or a subcommittee thereof); and
(2) with respect to an officer of the House elected under rule II,
an official, permanent record made or acquired in the course of the
duties of such officer.
(b) Records created, generated, or received by the congressional
office of a Member, Delegate,
[[Page [428]]]
or the Resident Commissioner in the performance of official duties are
exclusively the personal property of the individual Member, Delegate, or
the Resident Commissioner and such Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner has control over such records.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, clauses 1
through 6 were found in former rule XXXVI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). That rule was adopted initially in 1880 (V, 7260). Clause 2 (which
derived from section 140(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946 (60 Stat. 812)) was added in the 83d Congress when the rule was
also renumbered (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24). It was amended on
January 22, 1971 (p. 144). It was again amended in the 99th Congress to
change the reference from the General Services Administration to the
National Archives and Records Administration (H. Res. 114, Oct. 14,
1986, p. 30821). The rule was rewritten entirely in the 101st Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 73) to incorporate the provisions of H.
Res. 419 as reported from the Committee on Rules in the 100th Congress
(H. Rept. 100-1054). Clerical corrections were effected to reflect
changes in the name of the Committee on House Administration in the
104th and 106th Congresses (sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p.
467; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Clerical corrections were effected
in the 107th Congress to correct cross references (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). Gender-based references were eliminated in the
111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Clause 6(b)
was added in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p.
_).
The Clerk has historically been authorized to permit the Administrator
of General Services (now Archivist) to make available for use certain
records of the House transferred to the National Archives (H. Res. 288,
June 16, 1953, p. 6641). Under this rule, an order of the House is
required for the release of noncurrent records of the House not covered
by clause 3 of this rule (Mar. 22, 1991, p. 7549).
Withdrawal of papers
7. <> A
memorial or other paper presented to the House may not be withdrawn from
its files without its leave. If withdrawn certified copies thereof shall
be left in the Office of the Clerk. When an act passes for the
settlement of a claim, the Clerk
[[Page [429]]]
may transmit to the officer charged with the settlement thereof the
papers on file in the Office of the Clerk relating to such claim. The
Clerk may lend temporarily to an officer or bureau of the executive
departments any papers on file in the Office of the Clerk relating to
any matter pending before such officer or bureau, taking proper receipt
therefor.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former rule XXXVII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). It was adopted initially in 1873 and amended in 1880 (V, 7256). It
was renumbered January 3, 1953 (p. 24). Gender-based references were
eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p.
7).
The House usually allows the withdrawal of papers only in cases in
which there has been no adverse report. As the rules for the order of
business give no place to the motion to withdraw, it is made by
unanimous consent (V, 7259). The House formerly adopted a privileged
resolution at the beginning of each Congress authorizing the Clerk to
furnish certified copies of certain types of House papers subpoenaed by
courts upon determination of relevancy by the court, but not permitting
production of executive session papers or transfer of original papers
(Jan. 3, 1973, p. 30).
See rule VIII for procedure for response to subpoenas for papers of
the House.
Rule VIII
response to subpoenas
1. (a) <> When a Member,
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House is
properly served with a judicial subpoena or order, such Member,
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee shall comply,
consistently with the privileges and rights of the House, with the
judicial subpoena or order as hereinafter provided, unless otherwise
determined under this rule.
[[Page [430]]]
(b) For purposes of this rule, ``judicial subpoena or order'' means a
judicial subpoena or judicial order directing appearance as a witness
relating to the official functions of the House or for the production or
disclosure of any document relating to the official functions of the
House.
2. (a) Upon receipt of a properly served judicial subpoena or order, a
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the
House shall promptly notify the Speaker in writing of its receipt
together with either:
(1) a determination as to whether the issuance of the judicial
subpoena or order is a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the court and
is consistent with the privileges and rights of the House; or
(2) a statement that such Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee of the House intends to make a determination with
respect to the matters described in subparagraph (1).
(b) The notification required by paragraph (a) shall promptly be laid
before the House by the Speaker.
3. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) or otherwise ordered by
the House, upon notification to the House that a judicial subpoena or
order is a proper exercise of jurisdiction by the court and is
consistent with the privileges and rights of the House, the Member,
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall
comply with the judicial subpoena or order by supplying copies.
[[Page [431]]]
(b) Under no circumstances may minutes or transcripts of executive
sessions, or evidence of witnesses in respect thereto, be disclosed or
copied. During a period of recess or adjournment of longer than three
days, the Speaker may authorize compliance or take such other action as
the Speaker considers appropriate under the circumstances. Upon the
reconvening of the House, all matters that transpired under this clause
shall promptly be laid before the House by the Speaker.
4. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to deprive, condition, or
waive the constitutional or legal privileges or rights applicable or
available at any time to a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee of the House, or of the House itself, or the right
of such Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee,
or of the House itself, to assert such privileges or rights before a
court in the United States.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former rule L (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
It was added initially in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, p.
98). Until the 95th Congress, whenever a Member, officer, or employee
received a subpoena, the House would adopt a resolution authorizing the
person to respond. In the 95th and 96th Congresses general authority was
granted to respond to subpoenas without the necessity of a House vote
(H. Res. 10, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 73; H. Res. 10, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 19).
This standing authority was clarified and revised later in the 96th
Congress (H. Res. 722, Sept. 17, 1980, pp. 25777-90) and formed the
basis for the present rule. In the 107th Congress the rule was amended
to broaden its application to administrative subpoenas (sec. 2(c), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25), but this change was reversed in the 115th
Congress (sec. 2(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). The rule was re-
written entirely in the 115th Congress to consolidate and clarify the
notification process and eliminate a
[[Page [432]]]
requirement that the Clerk transmit a copy of this rule to the court
(sec. 2(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _).
In the 102d Congress the House considered as questions of the
privileges of the House resolutions: responding to a subpoena for
records of the ``bank'' in the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.3); responding to a
contemporaneous request for such records from a Special Counsel
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.3); and authorizing an officer of
the House to release certain documents in response to another such
request from the Special Counsel (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6,
Sec. 26.6).
A response to an administrative subpoena also raises a question of the
privileges of the House (Deschler, ch. 11, Sec. 14.8). A Member or
employee receiving such a subpoena may inform the House (July 30, 1998,
p. 18298; May 3, 1999, p. 8040).
Although clause 2 requires the Speaker to promptly lay before the
House a communication notifying the Speaker of the receipt of a
subpoena, the rule does not require that the text of a subpoena be
printed in the Record (July 31, 1992, p. 20602).
Rule IX
questions of privilege
1. <> Questions
of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House
collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings;
and second, those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of
Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their
representative capacity only.
2. (a)(1) A resolution <> reported as a question of the privileges of the House, or
offered from the floor by the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as
a question of the privileges of the House, or offered as privileged
under clause 1, section 7, article I of the Constitution, shall have
precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn. A
resolution offered from the floor by a Member, Dele
[[Page [433]]]
gate, or Resident Commissioner other than the Majority Leader or the
Minority Leader as a question of the privileges of the House shall have
precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn only at a
time or place, designated by the Speaker, in the legislative schedule
within two legislative days after the day on which the proponent
announces to the House an intention to offer the resolution and the form
of the resolution. Oral announcement of the form of the resolution may
be dispensed with by unanimous consent.
(2) The time allotted for debate on a resolution offered from the
floor as a question of the privileges of the House shall be equally
divided between (A) the proponent of the resolution, and (B) the
Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, or a designee, as determined by
the Speaker.
(3) A resolution causing a vacancy in the Office of Speaker shall not
be privileged except if offered by direction of a party caucus or
conference.
(b) A question of personal privilege shall have precedence of all
other questions except motions to adjourn.
This rule was adopted in 1880 (III, 2521) to codify long-established
practice that the House had hitherto been unwilling to define (II,
1603). It was amended in the 103d Congress to authorize the Speaker to
designate a time within a period of two legislative days for the
consideration of a resolution to be offered from the floor by a Member
other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader after that Member
has announced to the House an intention to do so and the content of the
resolution, and to divide the time for debate on the resolution (H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). Clause 2 was amended in the 106th Congress to
permit the announcement of the form of the resolution to be dispensed
with by unanimous consent, and clerical and stylistic changes were
effected when the House recodified its
[[Page [434]]]
rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-
based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Clause 2(a)(3) was added in the 116th Congress
to restrict the privilege of resolutions causing a vacancy in the Office
of Speaker to those offered by direction of a party caucus or conference
(sec. 102(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
The <> body of
precedent relating to questions of the privileges of the House includes
rulings that span the adoption of this rule. The rule was adopted ``to
prevent the large consumption of time which resulted from Members
getting the floor for all kinds of speeches under the pretext of raising
a question of privilege'' (III, 2521). In a landmark decision on
constitutional assertions of privilege, Speaker Gillett placed
significant reliance on the history of rule IX by observing that it
``was obviously adopted for the purpose of hindering the extension of
constitutional or other privilege'' (VI, 48). Thus a resolution merely
asserting the position of the House with regard to an external issue
does not qualify (Oct. 6, 2011, pp. 14941, 14942). A proposition of
privilege may lose its precedence by association with a matter not of
privilege (III, 2551; V, 5890; VI, 395; Oct. 7, 2015, pp. 15833, 15834,
15836). Legislative language unacheivable by simple resolution does not
qualify as a question of the privileges of the House (Dec. 20, 2018, p.
_ (sustained by tabling of appeal)).
The <> privileges
of the House include questions relating to its organization (I, 22-24,
189, 212, 290), and the title of its Members to their seats (III, 2579-
2587), which may be raised as questions of the privileges of the House
even though the subject has been previously referred to committee (I,
742; III, 2584; VIII, 2307). Such resolutions include those: (1) to
declare prima facie right to a seat, or to declare a vacancy, where the
House has referred the questions of prima facie and final rights to a
committee for investigation (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 4.1; H.
Res. 52, Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2220; H. Res. 97, Mar. 4, 1985, p. 4277; H.
Res. 121, Apr. 2, 1985, p. 7118; H. Res. 148, Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9801);
(2) to raise various questions incidental to the right to a seat (I,
322, 328, 673, 742; II, 1207; III, 2588; VII, 2316), such as a
resolution to declare a vacancy in the House because a Member-elect is
unable to take the oath of office and to serve as a Member or to
expressly resign the office due to an incapacitating illness (H. Res.
80, Feb. 24, 1981, p. 2916); (3) to declare neither of two claimants
seated pending a committee report and decision of final right to the
seat by the House (Jan. 3, 1961, pp. 23-25; Jan. 3, 1985, p. 381),
including incidental provisions providing compensation for both
claimants and office staffing by the Clerk (Jan. 3, 1985, p. 381) and to
direct temporary seating of a certified Member-elect pending
determination of final right notwithstanding prior House action
declining to seat either claimant (Feb. 7, 1985, p. 2220; Mar. 4, 1985,
p. 4277); (4) to propose directly to dispose of a contest over the title
to a seat in the House (Nov. 8, 1997, p. 25294; Nov. 9, 1997,
[[Page [435]]]
p. 25721; Jan. 28, 1998, p. 175) or to dispose of such contest upon the
expiration of a specified day (Oct. 23, 1997, p. 23231; Oct. 29, 1997,
p. 23695; Oct. 30, 1997, p. 23959; Nov. 5, 1997, p. 24645); (5) to
authorize and direct the Speaker to administer the oath of office to a
Member-elect (Nov. 29, 2018, p. _).
A resolution electing a House officer is presented as a question of
the privileges of the House (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 17.1;
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 14.2). A resolution declaring vacant
the Office of Speaker is presented as a matter of high constitutional
privilege (VI, 35), but in the 116th Congress the House adopted clause
2(a)(3) of this rule, providing that such a resolution constitutes a
question of the privileges of the House only if offered by direction of
a party caucus or conference (sec. 102(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p.
_). For further discussion with respect to the organization of the House
and the title of its Members to seats, see Sec. Sec. 18-30, 46-51, 56,
and 58-60, supra.
The <> privileges of the House, as distinguished from those of
the individual Member, include questions relating to its constitutional
prerogatives in respect to revenue legislation and appropriations (see,
e.g., II, 1480-1501; VI, 315; Nov. 8, 1979, p. 31517; Oct. 1, 1985, p.
25418; June 16, 1988, p. 14780; June 21, 1988, p. 15425; Aug. 12, 1994,
p. 21655). For a more thorough record of revenue bills returned to the
Senate, see Sec. 102, supra. Such a question of privilege may be raised
at any time when the House is in possession of the papers (June 20,
1968, Deschler, ch. 13, Sec. 14.2; Aug. 19, 1982, p. 22127), but not
otherwise (Apr. 6, 1995, p. 10701). Such a question of privilege
includes a resolution asserting that a conference report accompanying a
House bill originated revenue provisions in derogation of the sole
constitutional prerogative of the House and resolving that such bill be
recommitted to conference (July 27, 2000, p. 16565; July 24, 2018, p. _)
or that Senate amendments agreed to in conference be returned to the
Senate (Aug. 19, 1982, p. 22127). The constitutional prerogatives of the
House also include its function with respect to: (1) impeachment and
matters incidental thereto (see Sec. 604, supra); (2) bills ``pocket
vetoed'' during an intersession adjournment (Nov. 21, 1989, p. 31156);
(3) its power to punish for contempt, whether of its own Members (II,
1641-1665), of witnesses who are summoned to give information (II, 1608,
1612; III, 1666-1724), or of other persons (II, 1597-1640); (4)
questions relating to legal challenges involving the prerogatives of the
House (Jan. 29, 1981, p. 1304; Mar. 30, 1982, p. 5890), including a
resolution responding to a court challenge to the prerogative of the
House to establish a Chaplain (Mar. 30, 1982, p. 5890). A resolution
laying on the table a message from the President containing certain
averments inveighing disrespect toward Members of Congress was
considered as a question of the privileges of the House asserting a
breach of privilege in a formal communication to the House (VI, 330).
[[Page [436]]]
For a discussion of the relationship of the House and its Members to
the courts, see Sec. Sec. 290-291b, supra. For examples of Senate
messages requesting the return of Senate measures that intruded on the
constitutional prerogative of the House to originate revenue measures,
see Sec. 565, supra. For a discussion of the prerogatives of the House
with respect to treaties affecting revenue, see Sec. 597, supra.
The ordinary rights and functions of the House under the Constitution
are exercised in accordance with the rules without precedence as matters
of privilege (III, 2567). Neither the enumeration of legislative powers
in article I of the Constitution nor the prohibition in the seventh
clause of section 9 of that article against any withdrawal from the
Treasury except by enactment of an appropriation renders a measure
purporting to exercise or limit the exercise of those powers a question
of the privileges of the House, because rule IX is concerned not with
the privileges of the Congress, as a legislative branch, but only with
the privileges of the House, as a House (Feb. 7, 1995, p. 3905; Dec. 22,
1995, p. 38501; Jan. 3, 1996, p. 40; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248; Feb. 1,
1996, p. 2245; Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25420; Nov. 4, 1999, pp. 28528-33; June
6, 2002, p. 9492 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Oct. 2, 2002, pp.
18932 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 18934 (sustained by tabling of
appeal), 18936 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 18938 (sustained by
tabling of appeal); Oct. 3, 2002, pp. 19001 (sustained by tabling of
appeal), 19002 (sustained by tabling of appeal)). For example, the
following legislative propositions have been held not to involve a
question of constitutional privileges of the House: (1) a resolution
requiring a committee inquiry into the extent to which the right to vote
was denied under the provisions of the 14th amendment (VI, 48); (2) a
resolution alleging an unconstitutional abrogation of a treaty by the
President, and calling on the President to seek the approval of Congress
before such abrogation (June 6, 2002, p. 9492 (sustained by tabling of
appeal)); (3) a resolution alleging that Congress had been negligent in
its oversight responsibilities with regard to military involvement in
Iraq, and calling on leadership and committee chairs to conduct
oversight of that matter, but refraining from alleging any impropriety
(Nov. 3, 2005, pp. 24757-59 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (4) a
resolution alleging that the President, an actor entirely extramural to
the House, might be in violation of clause 8, section 9, article I of
the Constitution (``Foreign Emoluments Clause''), and directing the
House to immediately request the President's tax returns for a review of
such potential violation (Mar. 28, 2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of
appeal); June 21, 2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal); July 19,
2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal)). An extraordinary question
relating to the House vote required by the Constitution to pass a joint
resolution extending the ratification period of a proposed
constitutional amendment was raised as a question of privilege where the
House had not otherwise made a separate determination on that procedural
question and where consideration of the joint resolution had been made
in order (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 15, 1978, p. 26203).
[[Page [437]]]
The <> privileges of the House include certain questions relating to
the conduct of Members, officers, and employees (see, e.g., I, 284, 285;
III, 2628, 2645-2647). Under that standard, the following resolutions
have been held to constitute questions of the privileges of the House:
(1) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now
Ethics) to investigate illegal solicitation of political contributions
in the House Office Buildings by unnamed sitting Members (July 10, 1985,
p. 18397); (2) establishing an ad hoc committee to investigate
allegations of ``ghost'' employment in the House (Apr. 9, 1992, p.
9029); (3) directing a committee to further investigate the conduct of a
Member on which it has reported to the House (Aug. 5, 1987, p. 22458);
(4) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now
Ethics) to report to the House the status of an investigation pending
before the committee (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 7.2; Nov. 30,
1995, p. 35075); (5) appointing an outside counsel (Sept. 19, 1996, p.
23851; Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24525); (6) committing other matters to an
outside counsel already appointed by the committee (June 27, 1996, p.
15917); (7) directing the committee to release the report of an outside
counsel (Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23852; Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24526); (8) making
allegations concerning the propriety of responses by officers of the
House to court subpoenas for papers of the House without notice to the
House, and directions to a committee to investigate such allegations
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 27.5); (9) making allegations of
improper representation by counsel of the legal position of Members in a
brief filed in the Court and directions for withdrawal of the brief
(Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4996); (10) making allegations of unauthorized
actions by a committee employee to intervene in judicial proceedings
(Feb. 5, 1992, p. 1601); (11) directing the Clerk to notify interested
parties that the House regretted the use of official resources to
present to the Supreme Court of Florida a legal brief arguing the
unconstitutionality of congressional term limits, and that the House had
no position on that question (Nov. 4, 1991, p. 29968); (12) alleging a
chronology of litigation relating to the immunity of a Member from civil
liability for bona fide official acts and expressing the views of the
House thereon (May 12, 1988, p. 10574); (13) directing the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to establish an investigative
subcommittee and appoint outside counsel to investigate certain
allegations against a Member (Oct. 8, 2004, p. 22734); (14) alleging,
among other things, the improper and unilateral firing of nonpartisan
staff of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) and
directing the Speaker to appoint a bipartisan task force to address the
efficacy of that committee so as to restore public confidence in the
ethics process (Mar. 15, 2005, pp. 4657, 4658; Apr. 14, 2005, pp. 6399,
6400) and directing the committee to appoint nonpartisan professional
staff (June 9, 2005, pp. 12025, 12026); (15) alleging, among other
things, the improper and unilateral firing of nonpartisan staff of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) and illegal
activities between a lobbyist and Members, and directing that committee
[[Page [438]]]
to investigate misconduct of Members and staff with that lobbyist (Mar.
30, 2006, p. 4445; Apr. 5, 2006, pp. 4993, 4994); (16) alleging improper
conduct by a former Member with regard to the House Page program and
insufficient response thereto by the House leadership, and directing the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to establish a
subcommittee to investigate (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 24.3);
(17) alleging a violation of the Code of Official Conduct and issuing a
reprimand (May 22, 2007, p. 13525); (18) directing the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to investigate a Member's
conduct and make a recommendation regarding expulsion (June 5, 2007, p.
14600); (19) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
(now Ethics) to review irregularities in the conduct of a vote in the
House (Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22746); (20) directing the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) and a previously-established
select committee to investigate whether a vote was held open beyond a
reasonable period of time for the purpose of circumventing the will of
the House, and vacating such vote (Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3855); (21)
directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to
investigate violations of the Code of Official Conduct (Mar. 12, 2008,
p. 3864); (22) alleging receipt of illegal campaign contributions and
gifts and censuring a Member therefor (July 31, 2008, p. 17463); (23)
alleging receipt of illegal campaign contributions and gifts and
violations of Federal tax law, directing the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct (now Ethics) to investigate, and removing a Member as
chair of a standing committee pending such investigation (Sept. 18,
2008, p. 19600); (24) alleging failure to properly report the receipt of
gifts in accordance with financial disclosure and tax laws, and removing
the Member as chair pending an on-going investigation by the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) (Feb. 10, 2009, p. 3508;
Oct. 7, 2009, pp. 23770, 23771); (25) alleging a quid pro quo between
legislative activity and campaign contributions to Members, and
directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to
investigate that relationship (Feb. 25, 2009, p. 5759; Mar. 5, 2009, p.
6561; Mar. 10, 2009, p. 6765; Mar. 19, 2009, p. 8106; Mar. 25, 2009, p.
8743; Mar. 30, 2009, p. 9097; Apr. 1, 2009, p. 9542; May 12, 2009, p.
12213; July 22, 2009, p. 18588) and alleging an inadequate investigation
into such allegations by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
(now Ethics), and directing the committee to report on the extent of
said investigation (Mar. 18, 2010, p. 3846; Mar. 25, 2010, p. 5033; Apr.
15, 2010, pp. 5659, 5660; Apr. 22, 2010, pp. 6083, 6084); (26) alleging
improper involvement of Members with a certain lobbying organization,
and directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now
Ethics) to report any action it has taken with respect thereto (June 3,
2009, p. 13841); (27) alleging improper conduct by a former Member with
regard to various House staff and insufficient response thereto by House
leadership, and directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
(now Ethics) to establish a subcommittee to investigate the
circumstances surrounding the former Member's misconduct and the re
[[Page [439]]]
sponses thereto and to issue a report thereon (Mar. 11, 2010, pp. 3157,
3158; Apr. 14, 2010, p. 5518); (28) establishing a select committee to
investigate the actions and motivations of the Speaker surrounding the
resignation of the House Chaplain (Apr. 27, 2018, p. _; May 8, 2018, p.
_). On the other hand, a resolution alleging inconsistency between
statements of the Speaker and of an intelligence agency and
commissioning an investigation of the accuracy of her statements, where
such investigation would extend beyond the conduct of a Member and
necessarily involve a review of the agency itself, was held not to
constitute a question of the privileges of the House (May 21, 2009, p.
13175; June 16, 2009, p. 15272).
For a discussion of disciplinary resolutions meting out punishment for
violations of standards of official conduct, which constitute questions
of the privileges of the House, see Sec. Sec. 62-66, supra.
In the 102d and 103d Congresses, a large number of resolutions
relating to the operation of the ``bank'' in the Office of the Sergeant-
at-Arms and the management of the Office of the Postmaster were
presented as questions of the privileges of the House. The former
category included resolutions: (1) terminating all bank and check-
cashing operations in the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and directing
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to review
GAO audits of such operations (Oct. 3, 1991, p. 25435); (2) instructing
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to disclose
the names and pertinent account information of Members and former
Members found to have abused the privileges of the ``bank'' in the
Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5519); (3) instructing
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to disclose
further account information respecting Members and former Members having
checks held by that entity (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5534); (4) mandating full
and accurate disclosure of pertinent information concerning the
operation of that entity (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5551); (5) responding to a
subpoena for records of that entity (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6,
Sec. 26.3); (6) responding to a contemporaneous request for such records
from a Special Counsel (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.3); (7)
authorizing an officer of the House to release certain documents in
response to another such request from the Special Counsel (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 26.6). The latter category included resolutions:
(1) directing the Committee on House Administration to conduct a
thorough investigation of the operation and management of the Office of
the Postmaster in light of recent press allegations of wrongdoing (Feb.
5, 1992, p. 1589); (2) creating a select committee to investigate the
same matter (Feb. 5, 1992, p. 1599); (3) requiring an explanation of a
reported interference with authorized access to a committee
investigation of that matter (Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9024); (4) redressing a
perception of obstruction of justice by recusing the General Counsel to
the Clerk from matters relating to the investigation of that matter
(Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9076); (5) directing the Speaker to explain the lapse
of time before the House received notice that several Members and an
officer of the House had received subpoenas to testify before a Federal
grand jury
[[Page [440]]]
investigating that matter (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 18.16); (6)
directing the Committee on House Administration to transmit to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) and to the
Department of Justice all records obtained by its task force to
investigate that matter (July 22, 1992, p. 18786); (7) directing the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to investigate
violations of confidentiality by staff engaged in the investigation of
that matter (July 22, 1992, p. 18795); (8) directing the Committee on
House Administration to release transcripts of the proceedings of its
task force to investigate that matter, where the investigation was
ordered as a question of privilege and its results had been ordered
reported to the House (July 22, 1992, p. 18796; July 23, 1992, p.
19125); (9) directing the Committee on House Administration to redress
the erroneous naming of a Member in minority views accompanying a report
on that matter (July 23, 1992, p. 19121); (10) directing the public
release of official papers of the House relating to an investigation by
the Committee on House Administration's task force to investigate the
operation and management of the Office of the Postmaster (July 22, 1993,
p. 16634); (11) directing the public release of transcripts and other
relevant documents relating to an investigation by the Committee on
House Administration's task force to investigate the operation and
management of the Office of the Postmaster unless two designees of the
bipartisan leadership agree to the contrary (June 9, 1994, p. 12437);
(12) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now
Ethics) to defer any investigation relating to the operation of the
former Post Office until assured that its inquiry would not interfere
with an ongoing criminal investigation, as well as a resolution
directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to
proceed with the investigation (Mar. 2, 1994, p. 3672).
In the 105th Congress a 12-member bipartisan task force appointed by
the Majority and Minority Leaders conducted a comprehensive review of
the House ethics process. During the deliberations of the task force,
the House imposed a moratorium on raising certain questions of privilege
under this rule with respect to official conduct and on the filing or
processing of ethics complaints. The moratorium was imposed in the
expectation that the recommendations of the task force would include
rules changes relating to establishment and enforcement of standards of
official conduct for Members, officers, and employees of the House (Feb.
12, 1997, p. 2058). The moratorium was extended through September 10,
1997 (July 30, 1997, p. 16958). The task force recommendations
ultimately were reported from the Committee on Rules and were adopted
with certain amendments (H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19340).
The <> privileges of the House include questions relating to the
integrity of its proceedings, including the processes by which bills are
considered (III, 2597-2601, 2614; IV, 3383, 3388, 3478), such as the
constitutional question of the vote required to pass a joint resolution
extending the State ratification period of a proposed constitutional
amendment (Speaker
[[Page [441]]]
O'Neill, Aug. 15, 1978, p. 26203). Privileges of the House also include:
(1) resignation of a Member from a select or standing committee (Speaker
Albert, June 16, 1975, p. 19054; Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 8, 1977, pp.
6579-82); (2) newspaper charges affecting the honor and dignity of the
House (VII, 911); (3) the conduct of representatives of the press (II,
1630, 1631; III, 2627; VI, 553).
Admission to the floor of the House constitutes a question of
privilege (III, 2624-2626), including a resolution alleging indecorous
behavior of a former Member and instructing the Sergeant-at-Arms to ban
the former Member from the floor, and rooms leading thereto, until the
resolution of a contested election to which he was party (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.6).
The accuracy and propriety of reports in the Congressional Record also
constitute a question of privileges of the House (V, 7005-7023; VIII,
3163, 3461, 3463, 3464, 3491, 3499; Apr. 20, 1936, p. 5704; May 11,
1936, p. 7019; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.16), including a
resolution: (1) asserting that a Member's remarks spoken in debate were
omitted from the printed Record, directing that the Record be corrected
and requiring the Clerk to report on the circumstances and possible
corrective action (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.17); (2)
directing the Committee on Rules to investigate and report to the House
within a time certain on alleged alterations of the Record (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.18); (3) addressing whether the Record should
constitute a verbatim transcript (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
Sec. 19.20; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.21); (4) alleging
impropriety by a presiding officer and improper alteration of the
Record, and directing that a select committee investigate and that the
Record be corrected (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.23). Although
a motion to correct the Congressional Record based on improper
alterations or insertions may constitute a question of privilege, mere
typographical errors or ordinary revisions of a Member's remarks do not
form the basis for privileged motions to correct the Record (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 19.19; see Sec. 690, supra). A resolution
directing the placement of an asterisk in the Congressional Record to
note alleged inaccuracies in a State of the Union address (but not
alleging improper transcription of that address) was held not to
constitute a question of privilege (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
Sec. 19.22).
The protection of House records constitutes a question of the
privileges of the House, especially when records are demanded by the
courts (III, 2604, 2659-2664; VI, 587; Sept. 18, 1992, p. 25750; see
also Sec. 291a, supra). Privileges of the House involving records also
include resolutions: (1) furnishing certain requested information to an
Independent Counsel investigating covert arms transactions with Iran
(June 4, 1992, p. 13664); (2) responding to a request of a law
enforcement official regarding the timing of the public release of
official papers of the House (July 22, 1993, p. 16624); (3) directing a
committee to investigate press publication of a report that the House
had ordered not to be released (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 1976,
[[Page [442]]]
p. 3914); (4) directing the public release of transcripts and other
relevant documents relating to an investigation by the Committee on
House Administration's task force to investigate the operation and
management of the Office of the Postmaster unless two designees of the
bipartisan leadership agreed to the contrary (June 9, 1994, p. 12437);
(5) alleging that a Member willfully abused his power as chair of a
committee by unilaterally releasing records of the committee in
contravention of its rules (adopted ``protocol''), and expressing
disapproval of such conduct (May 14, 1998, p. 9279); (6) providing the
transcript of a committee hearing to the Attorney General in response to
an allegation of intentionally false testimony by a sworn witness (May
1, 2019, p. _). However, a resolution directing a standing committee to
release executive-session material referred to it as such by special
rule of the House was held to propose a change in the rules and,
therefore, not to constitute a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21562).
A question regarding the accuracy of House documents constitutes a
question of privileges of the House (V, 7329), including resolutions:
(1) asserting that a printed transcript of joint subcommittee hearings
contained unauthorized alterations of the statements of subcommittee
members in the prior Congress and that unauthorized alterations may have
occurred in other committee hearing transcripts, and proposing the
creation of a select committee to investigate and report by a date
certain (June 29, 1983, p. 18279); (2) alleging the unauthorized
creation and falsification of documents distributed to the general
public at a committee hearing and resolving that the Speaker take
appropriate measures to ensure the integrity of the legislative process
and report his actions and recommendations to the House (Oct. 25, 1995,
p. 29373); (3) alleging that a committee report contained descriptions
of recorded votes (as required by clause 3(b) of rule XIII) that
deliberately mischaracterized certain amendments and directing the chair
of the committee to file a supplemental report to change those
descriptions (May 3, 2005, pp. 8417, 8418); (4) alleging that known
errors in the engrossment of a bill were ignored, that matter had been
inserted into a conference report after conferees had signed it, that
material information concerning legislation had been withheld for the
purpose of achieving passage of that measure in a prior Congress, and
resolving that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now
Ethics) investigate inaccuracies in the enrollment of a bill (Feb. 16,
2006, p. 1948); (5) alleging that known errors in the enrollment of a
bill were ignored by the majority leadership after the President had
transmitted to the House a return veto of the measure, admonishing the
majority leadership for their roles therein, and directing the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to investigate the abuse
of power surrounding the inaccuracies (May 22, 2008, p. 10522). The
privileges of the House also include: (1) the integrity of its Journal
(II, 1363; III, 2620) and messages (III, 2613); (2) unreasonable delay
in transmitting an enrolled bill to the President (Oct. 8, 1991, p.
25761); (3) a concurrent resolution directing
[[Page [443]]]
the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate to produce
official duplicates of certain legislative papers (Precedents (Wickham),
ch. 6, Sec. 14.8). For a discussion of the privileged status of a
request of one House for the return of a measure messaged to the other,
see Sec. 565, supra.
A resolution alleging that the Chair had improperly ordered the
interruption of audio broadcast coverage of certain House proceedings
constitutes a question of privileges of the House (Precedents (Wickham),
ch. 4, Sec. 3.14), as does a resolution providing for an experiment in
the telecasting and broadcasting of House proceedings (Speaker O'Neill,
Mar. 15, 1977, p. 7607). Similarly, a resolution authorizing and
directing the Speaker to provide for the audio and visual broadcast
coverage of the Chamber while Members are voting has been held to
present a question of the privileges of the House, because rule V
(formerly clause 9 of rule I), which requires complete and unedited
audio and visual coverage of House proceedings and coverage of record
votes, had not been implemented (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.7).
Integrity in the conduct of a vote may involve a question of the
privileges of the House, including resolutions: (1) alleging intentional
abuse of House practices and customs in holding a vote open for
approximately three hours for the sole purpose of circumventing the
initial will of the House and directing the Speaker to take such steps
as necessary to prevent further abuse (Dec. 8, 2003, p. 32099), or
alleging such abuse, both in a prior Congress and in the current one,
and alleging illegal behavior on the House floor during one such vote
(bribery of a public official) (Dec. 8, 2005, pp. 27811, 27812); (2)
directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) to
review irregularities in the conduct of a vote in the House (Aug. 3,
2007, p. 22746); (3) alleging irregularities in the conduct of a vote,
directing House officers to preserve all records relating thereto, and
establishing a select committee of investigation thereof (Aug. 3, 2007,
p. 22768); (4) directing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
(now Ethics) and a previously-established select committee to
investigate whether a vote was held open beyond a reasonable period of
time for the purpose of circumventing the will of the House, and
vacating such vote (Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3855).
A resolution alleging partiality in the manner of presiding by a
Speaker pro tempore and stating that such actions bring dishonor and
discredit on the House (Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22783) or alleging impropriety
by a presiding officer, as well as alleging improper alteration of the
Congressional Record and directing an investigation and correction
thereof (Aug. 4, 2007, p. 23194), presents a question of the privileges
of the House.
Alleged improprieties in committee procedures may give rise to
questions of the privileges of the House, including resolutions: (1)
alleging that the chair of a committee directed his staff to request the
Capitol Police to remove minority party members from a committee room
where they were meeting during the reading of an amendment, alleging
that the chair deliberately and improperly refused to recognize a
legitimate and timely objec
[[Page [444]]]
tion by a member of the committee to dispense with the reading of that
amendment, resolving that the House disapproves of the manner in which
the chair conducted the markup, and finding that the bill considered at
that markup was not validly ordered reported (July 18, 2003, p. 18698)
and resolving that the House disapproves of the manner in which the
chair summoned the Capitol Police as well as the manner in which he
conducted the markup, finding that the bill considered at that markup
was not validly ordered reported, and calling for a police report to be
placed in the Record (July 23, 2003 p. 19171); (2) alleging, among other
things, the improper and unilateral firing of nonpartisan staff of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) and directing
the Speaker to appoint a bipartisan task force to address the efficacy
of that committee so as to restore public confidence in the ethics
process (Mar. 15, 2005, pp. 4657, 4658; Apr. 14, 2005, pp. 6399, 6400)
and directing the committee to appoint nonpartisan professional staff
(June 9, 2005, pp. 12025, 12026); (3) alleging that the chair of a
committee intentionally violated House rules and abused his power as
chair during a minority day of hearings under clause 2(j) of rule XI and
directing the chair to schedule a further day of hearings (June 16,
2005, p. 12994); (4) alleging that the majority members of a committee
wrongfully withheld a committee record from minority committee members
(Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2139); (5) alleging that staff of the House
Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards (now House Communications
Standards Commission) willfully applied different standards to submitted
material on the basis of party and disapproving of the failure of the
majority Members of that commission to ensure that staff executed their
duties in a professional, fair, and impartial manner (July 29, 2009, pp.
19687, 19688); (6) disapproving the actions of a committee chair for
alleged impropriety in interfering with a criminal investigation (June
29, 2012, pp. 10729, 10730); (7) alleging that the chair of a committee
violated House rules during a hearing and condemning his actions as
offensive and disrespectful (Mar. 6, 2014, p. 3933) and requiring him to
apologize in the well of the House (Mar. 13, 2014, p. 4394); (8)
alleging that a chair of a committee abused his power during impeachment
proceedings in the committee and that the chair of another committee
failed to respond to a request for a minority day of hearings related to
impeachment proceedings and condemning the actions of both committee
chairs (Dec. 18, 2019, p. _). However, charges of committee inaction
(III, 2610), secret committee conferences (VI, 578), refusal to make a
staff study available to certain Members and to the public (Feb. 14,
1939, p. 1370), refusal to hold hearings or allow petitions to be read
(III, 2607), refusal to permit a committee member to take photostatic
copies of committee files (Aug. 14, 1957, p. 14739), and calling for a
determination whether a committee violated House rules by voting to take
allegedly defamatory testimony in open session (June 30, 1958, p.
12690), were all held not to give rise to a question of the privileges
of the House.
[[Page [445]]]
A resolution alleging that a Member had interrupted an address by the
President to a joint session of Congress by interjecting remarks, and
disapproving of that behavior, presents a question of the privileges of
the House (Sept. 15, 2009, p. 21662). A resolution alleging that a
Member intimidated guests invited to a joint session of Congress by
calling for their arrest and condemning that behavior presents a
question of the privileges of the House (Feb. 6, 2018, p. _). A
resolution disapproving of the behavior of the Speaker related to the
handling of a written message from the President accompanying his
address to a joint session of Congress presents a question of the
privileges of the House (Feb. 6, 2020, p. _).
The <> privileges of the House include questions relating to the
comfort and convenience of Members and employees (III, 2629-2636), such
as resolutions concerning the proper attire for Members in the Chamber
when the temperature is uncomfortably warm (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4,
Sec. 1.2), the arrangement of furnishings in the Chamber (III, 2631),
the removal of state flags containing confederate battle flag imagery
from the House wing of the Capitol and the House Office Buildings (June
25, 2015, p. 10503, 10504; July 9, 2015, pp. 11113-6), and the removal
of any item referencing or symbolizing a political party or organization
that has taken a public position in support of slavery or the
confederacy from the House wing of the Capitol and the House Office
Buildings (Sept. 29, 2020, p. _); as well as questions relating to
safety, such as resolutions requiring an investigation into the safety
of Members in view of alleged structural deficiencies in the West Front
of the Capitol (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762-64) or an insecure ceiling in
the Hall (III, 2685); directing the appointment of a select committee to
inquire into alleged fire safety deficiencies in the environs of the
House (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.8); and directing the
Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure that House personnel are alerted to the
dangers of electronic security breaches on computer and information
systems (June 11, 2008, p. 12233).
A motion <> to amend
the Rules of the House does not present a question of privilege (Speaker
Cannon, sustained by the House, thereby overruling the House's decision
of March 19, 1910 (VIII, 3376), which held such motion privileged (VIII,
3377)), and a question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked
to effect a change in the rules or standing orders of the House or their
interpretation (Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 6, 1977, pp. 38470-73; Sept. 9,
1988, p. 23298; July 30, 1992, p. 20339; Jan. 31, 1996, p. 1887),
including directions to the Speaker infringing upon the discretionary
power of recognition under clause 2 of rule XVII (formerly clause 2 of
rule XIV) (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762-64), for example, by requiring that
the Speaker give priority in recognition to any Member seeking to call
up a matter highly privileged pursuant to a statutory provision, over a
member from the Committee on Rules seeking to call up a privileged
report from that committee (Speaker Wright, Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403), or
by requiring that the Speaker
[[Page [446]]]
state the question on overriding a veto before recognizing for a motion
to refer (thereby overruling prior decisions of the Chair to change the
order of precedence of motions) (Speaker Wright, Aug. 3, 1988, p.
20281). Similarly, a resolution alleging that, in light of an
internationally objectionable French program of nuclear test
detonations, for the House to receive the President of France in a joint
meeting would be injurious to its dignity and to the integrity of its
proceedings, and resolving that the Speaker withdraw the pending
invitation and refrain from similar invitations, was held not to present
a question of the privileges of the House because it proposed a
collateral change in an order of the House previously adopted (that the
House recess for the purpose of receiving the President of France) and a
new rule for future cases (Jan. 31, 1996, p. 1887). A resolution
providing that the House recess at a time certain to receive a petition
for redress of grievances and to permit the petitioner floor access
during that time was held not to give rise to a question of the
privileges of the House (May 24, 1972, pp. 18675, 18676). A resolution
collaterally challenging the validity or fairness of an adopted rule of
the House by delaying its implementation was held not to give rise to a
question of the privileges of the House (Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1974
(sustained by tabling of appeal)), as was a resolution dismantling a
select committee (Oct. 7, 2015, pp. 15833, 15834, 15836 (sustained by
tabling of appeal)).
A resolution directing that the party ratios of all standing
committees, subcommittees, and staffs thereof be changed within a time
certain to reflect overall party ratios in the House was held to
constitute a change in the Rules of the House and not to constitute a
proper question of the privileges of the House (the standing rules
already providing mechanisms for selecting committee members and staff)
(Jan. 23, 1984, p. 78). On the other hand, although the Rules of the
House establish a procedure for fixing the ratio of majority to minority
members on full committees and also provide that subcommittees are
subject to the direction and control of the full committee (clause 1 of
rule XI), a question of the privileges of the House is raised where it
is alleged that subcommittee ratios should reflect full committee ratios
established by the House and failure to do so denies representational
rights at the subcommittee level (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3,
Sec. 9.1).
A resolution alleging that a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at
the start of each legislative day would enhance the dignity and
integrity of the proceedings of the House and directing that the Speaker
implement such a recitation as the practice of the House was held to
propose a change in the rules and therefore not to give rise to a
question of the privileges of the House (Sept. 9, 1988, p. 23298). A
resolution directing that the reprogramming process established in law
for legislative branch appropriations be subjected to third-party review
for conformity with external standards of accounting but alleging no
deviation from duly constituted procedure was held not to give rise to a
question of the privileges of the House (May 20, 1992, p. 12005
(sustained by tabling of appeal)). A resolution
[[Page [447]]]
to permit the Delegate of the District of Columbia to vote on articles
of impeachment of the President in contravention of statutory law and
the Rules of the House was held to be tantamount to a change in the
rules and therefore not to constitute a question of the privileges of
the House (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27825). A resolution directing a standing
committee to release executive-session material referred to it as such
by special rule of the House was held to propose a change in the rules
and, therefore, not to constitute a question of the privileges of the
House (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21562). A resolution expressing Congressional
sentiment that the President should take specified action to achieve a
desired public policy, even though involving executive action under a
treaty (under which the Senate had exercised its prerogative to ratify),
does not present a question of the privileges of the House, but rather
is a legislative matter to be considered under ordinary rules relating
to priority of business (June 6, 2002, p. 9492 (sustained by tabling of
appeal)).
A question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to
prescribe a special order of business for the House, because otherwise
any Member would be able to attach privilege to a legislative measure
merely by alleging impact on the dignity of the House based upon House
action or inaction (June 27, 1974, p. 21596; Feb. 7, 1995, p. 3905; Dec.
22, 1995, p. 38501; Jan. 3, 1996, p. 40; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248; Feb. 1,
1996, p. 2245; Oct. 10, 1998, p. 25420; Nov. 4, 1999, pp. 28528-33; June
6, 2002, p. 9492 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Oct. 2, 2002, pp.
18932 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 18934 (sustained by tabling of
appeal), 18936 (sustained by tabling of appeal), 18938 (sustained by
tabling of appeal); Oct. 3, 2002, pp. 19001 (sustained by tabling of
appeal), 19002 (sustained by tabling of appeal)). For example, the
following resolutions have been held not to give rise to a question of
the privileges of the House: (1) a resolution directing a committee to
meet and conduct certain business (June 27, 1974, p. 21596; July 31,
1975, p. 26250; June 25, 2009, p. 16440 (sustained by tabling of
appeal); July 9, 2009, p. 17242 (sustained by tabling of appeal); July
23, 2009, p. 18853 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Feb. 27, 2017, p. _
(sustained by tabling of appeal); Mar. 7, 2017, p. _ (sustained by
tabling of appeal); Mar. 15, 2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of
appeal); Mar. 22, 2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal); Apr. 5,
2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of appeal); May 17, 2017, p. _
(sustained by tabling of appeal); May 24, 2017, p. _ (sustained by
tabling of appeal); June 7, 2017, p. _ (sustained by tabling of
appeal)); (2) a resolution amending a special order of business
resolution (July 17, 2009, p. 18192 (sustained by tabling of appeal);
July 24, 2009, p. 19156 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (3) a
resolution alleging that the inability of the House to enact certain
legislation constituted an impairment of the dignity of the House, the
integrity of its proceedings, and its place in public esteem, and
resolving that the House be considered to have passed such legislation
(Jan. 3, 1996, p. 40; Jan. 24, 1996, p. 1248), exhorting it to do so
(Mar. 11, 2008, p. 3707 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Dec. 13, 2011,
pp. 19859, 19860),
[[Page [448]]]
expressing its willingness to do so (Oct. 8, 2013, pp. 15438, 15439),
directing the Speaker to schedule such legislation for a vote (Dec. 10,
2015, pp. 19988, 19989 (sustained by tabling of appeal), or expressing
that the House should immediately consider such legislation (Feb. 27,
2018, p. _) (sustained by tabling of appeal)); (4) a resolution
precluding an adjournment of the House until a specified legislative
measure is considered (Feb. 1, 1996, p. 2247; Mar. 13, 2008, pp. 4075,
4076 (sustained by tabling of appeal)) or precluding an assembly during
a specified post-election period (Aug. 10, 2010, pp. 15438, 15439
(sustained by tabling of appeal); Sept. 23, 2010, pp. 16374-76
(sustained by tabling of appeal)); (5) a resolution prohibiting the
House from considering a measure alleged to violate a House rule and to
be unconstitutional (May 21, 2013, pp. 7293, 7294). See also Sec. 702,
supra, for a discussion of legislative propositions purporting to
present questions of the privileges of the House.
The <> clause
of the rule giving questions of privilege precedence over all other
questions except a motion to adjourn is a recognition of a well-
established principle in the House, for it is an axiom of the
parliamentary law that such a question ``supersedes the consideration of
the original question, and must be first disposed of'' (III, 2522, 2523;
VI, 595). As the business of the House began to increase it was found
necessary to give certain important matters a precedence by rule, and
such matters are called ``privileged questions.'' But as they relate
merely to the order of business under the rules, they are to be
distinguished from ``questions of privilege'' that relate to the safety
or efficiency of the House itself as an organ for action (III, 2718). It
is evident, therefore, that a question of privilege takes precedence
over a matter merely privileged under the rules (III, 2526-2530; V,
6454; VIII, 3465). Certain matters of business, arising under provisions
of the Constitution, have been held to have a privilege that superseded
the rules establishing the order of business, as bills providing for
census or apportionment (I, 305-308), bills returned with the objections
of the President (IV, 3530-3536), propositions of impeachment (see
Sec. 604, supra), and questions incidental thereto (III, 2401, 2418; V,
7261; July 22, 1986, p. 17306; Dec. 2, 1987, p. 33720; Jan. 3, 1989, p.
84; Feb. 7, 1989, p. 1726), matters relating to the count of the
electoral vote (III, 2573-2578), resolutions relating to adjournment and
recess of Congress (V, 6698, 6701-6706; Nov. 13, 1997, p. 26538), and a
resolution declaring the Office of Speaker vacant (VI, 35) (but for a
subsequent restriction of that privilege to resolutions offered by
direction of a party caucus or conference, see Sec. 699, supra); but
under later decisions certain of these matters that have no other basis
in the Constitution or in the rules for privileged status, such as bills
relating to census and apportionment, have been held not to present
questions of privilege, and the effect of such decisions is to require
all questions of privilege to come within the specific provisions of
this rule (VI, 48; VII, 889; Apr. 8, 1926, p. 7147) (see Sec. 702,
supra).
[[Page [449]]]
A resolution that presents a proper question of the privileges of the
House (alteration of subcommittee hearing transcripts) may propose the
creation of a select investigatory committee with subpoena authority to
report back to the House by a date certain (June 29, 1983, p. 18104),
but may not appropriate funds for the investigating committee from the
contingent fund (now referred to as ``applicable accounts of the House
described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X'') (VI, 395).
The <> privilege of
the Member rests primarily on the Constitution, which grants conditional
immunity from arrest (Sec. 90, supra) and an unconditional freedom of
debate in the House (III, 2670, Sec. 92, supra). An assault on a Member
within the Capitol when the House was not in session, from a cause not
connected with the Member's representative capacity, was also held to
involve a question of privilege (II, 1624). But there has been doubt as
to the right of the House to interfere for the protection of Members in
matters not connected with their official duties (II, 1277; III, 2678,
footnote). Charges against the conduct of a Member are held to involve
privilege when they relate to the Member's representative capacity (III,
1828-1830, 2716; VI, 604, 612; VIII, 2479), but not when they relate to
conduct at a time before such person became a Member (II, 1287; III,
2691, 2723, 2725). Although questions of personal privilege normally
involve matters touching on a Member's reputation, a Member may be
recognized for a question of personal privilege based on a violation of
his rights as a Member, such as unauthorized printed alterations in his
statements made during a subcommittee hearing in a prior Congress
(because the second phrase of this clause speaks to the ``rights,
reputation, and conduct of Members, individually'') (June 28, 1983, p.
17674). A printed characterization by an officer of the House of a
Member's proposed amendments as ``dilatory and frivolous'' may give rise
to a question of personal privilege (Aug. 1, 1985, p. 22542) as may the
fraudulent use of a Member's official stationery as a ``Dear Colleague''
letter (Sept. 17, 1986, p. 23605). Although a Member may be recognized
on a question of personal privilege to complain about an abuse of House
rules as applied to debate in which such Member was properly
participating, such Member may not raise a question of personal
privilege merely to complain that microphones had been turned off during
disorderly conduct following expiration of recognition for debate (Mar.
16, 1988, p. 4085). A Member's mere assertion of general corruption in
the House does not support a question of personal privilege (Jan. 18,
2007, p. 1625).
Speaker Wright rose to a question of personal privilege to respond to
a ``statement of alleged violations'' pending in the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics); and, pending the committee's
disposition of his motion to dismiss, announced his intention to resign
as Speaker and as a Member (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 7.4).
Speaker Gingrich rose to a question of personal privilege to discuss his
own official conduct previously resolved by the House, which question
was based upon press
[[Page [450]]]
accounts (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 7.5). Speaker Hastert rose
to a question of personal privilege to discuss the process for selecting
a Chaplain, which question was based on press accounts (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 16.2).
A Member rose to a question of personal privilege to discuss: (1) his
own official conduct relative to his account with the ``bank'' operated
by the Sergeant-at-Arms, which question was based on press accounts
(Mar. 19, 1992, p. 6074); (2) reflections on his character in pointed
descriptions of recorded votes taken in committee on a Member's
amendments, included in a committee report under clause 3(b) of rule
XIII, which question was based on the report and on certain media
coverage thereof (May 5, 2005, p. 8691; May 10, 2005, p. 9094); (3)
allegations that he had used procedural tactics to disrupt a memorial
service in the Rotunda for a late Member (Feb. 14, 2008, p. 2195); (4) a
``Dear Colleague'' alleging willful violation of the rules of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) by its ranking
minority member (Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3858); (5) allegations that he
accepted an appointment from the administration in exchange for certain
votes (Mar. 19, 2010, p. 3945); (6) a pending investigation by the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) of her,
including disciplinary action taken by the committee against
professional staff assigned to the case (Dec. 9, 2010, pp. 19394-5).
A committee chair rose to a question of personal privilege: (1) based
on press accounts concerning allegations by other Members that he had
been ``buying votes'' (Mar. 26, 1998, p. 4851); (2) based on press
accounts containing statements impugning his character and motive by
alleging intentional violation of rules governing the conduct of an
investigation (May 12, 1998, p. 8838); (3) to discuss his own official
conduct, which question was based on a letter of reproval reported by
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) (Oct. 5,
2000, p. 21048); (4) based on press accounts impugning his character to
discuss his decision to direct his staff to request the Capitol Police
to remove minority party members from a committee room where they were
meeting during the reading of an amendment at a committee markup (July
23, 2003, p. 19171); (5) based on press accounts regarding the receipt
of illegal gifts and campaign contributions (July 31, 2008, p. 17462)
and violations of Federal tax law (Sept. 10, 2008, p. 18419) and a
statement of alleged violations by the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct (now Ethics) regarding those accusations (Aug. 10,
2010, p. 15440).
A distinction has been drawn between charges made by one Member
against another in a newspaper or press release (July 28, 1970, p.
26002) or in a ``Dear Colleague'' letter (Aug. 4, 1989, p. 19139; May
14, 1996, p. 11081; Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3858), and the same when made on
the floor (III, 1827, 2691, 2717). Charges made in newspapers against
Members in their representative capacities involve privilege (III, 1832,
2694, 2696-2699, 2703, 2704; VI, 576, 621; VIII, 2479), even though the
names of individual Members are not given (III, 1831, 2705, 2709; VI,
616, 617).
[[Page [451]]]
But vague charges in newspaper articles (III, 2711; VI, 570), criticisms
(III, 2712-2714; VIII, 2465), or even misrepresentations of the Member's
speeches or acts or responses in an interview (III, 2707, 2708; Aug. 3,
1990, p. 22135), have not been entertained. A question of personal
privilege may not ordinarily be based merely on words spoken in debate
(July 23, 1987, p. 20861; Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4085; Nov. 16, 1989, p.
29569; Sept. 25, 1996, p. 24807; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 4.3;
Mar. 31, 2004, p. 5763; July 21, 2009, p. 18508) or conveyed by an
exhibit in debate (June 28, 2000, p. 12723) and the Chair does not
interpret remarks in debate challenged on the basis of personal
privilege (July 25, 2012, pp. 12200, 12201). However, a Member may raise
a question of personal privilege based upon press accounts of another
Member's remarks, in debate or off the floor, that impugn the character
or motives of that Member (May 15, 1984, pp. 12207, 12211; May 31, 1984,
p. 14620; Mar. 27, 2012, p. 4144), newspaper accounts of televised press
coverage of a committee hearing at which that Member was criticized
derogatorily (Mar. 3, 1988, p. 3196), or press accounts arraigning
personally offensive remarks a Member had made in debate regarding the
President (Oct. 23, 2007, p. 27967).
The <> body of precedent relating to the precedence of questions of
privilege spans both the adoption of this rule in 1880 and its amendment
to require notice in certain cases in 1993.
A question of privilege may interrupt: (1) the reading of the Journal
(II, 1630; VI, 637); (2) the consideration of a bill (or series of
measures) that had been made in order by a special rule (III, 2524,
2525); (3) under antiquated drafting conventions for special orders of
business that ordered the previous question after debate, the
consideration of certain matters on which the previous question has been
ordered (III, 2532; VI, 561; VIII, 2688). A question of privilege takes
precedence over (1) business in order on Calendar Wednesday (VI, 394;
VII, 908-910), a ``suspension day'' (III, 2553; VI, 553; June 5, 2007,
p. 14600), or over certain motions given precedence under a special rule
(VI, 565); (2) reports from the Committee on Rules before consideration
has begun (VIII, 3491; Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403); (3) call of the Consent
Calendar on Monday (VI, 553), before that Calendar was repealed (H. Res.
168, June 20, 1995, p. 16574); (4) motions to resolve into the Committee
of the Whole (VI, 554; VIII, 3461); (5) unfinished business, privileged
under clauses 1 and 3 of rule XIV (formerly rule XXIV) (Speaker Albert,
June 4, 1975, p. 16860); (6) a motion for the previous question on a
bill reported from Committee of the Whole (May 24, 1972, pp. 18675,
18676). Because a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the
House takes precedence over a motion to suspend the rules, it may be
offered and voted on between motions to suspend the rules on which the
Speaker has postponed record votes (May 17, 1983, p. 12486). In general,
one question of privilege may not take precedence over another (III,
2534, 2552, 2581), and the Chair's power of recognition determines which
of two matters of equal privilege is considered first (July 24, 1990, p.
[[Page [452]]]
18916). Although under rule IX a question of the privileges of the House
takes precedence over all other questions except the motion to adjourn,
the Speaker may, pursuant to the power of recognition under clause 2 of
rule XVII (formerly clause 2 of rule XIV), entertain unanimous-consent
requests for ``one-minute speeches'' pending recognition for a question
of privilege, because such unanimous-consent requests, if granted,
temporarily waive the standing rules of the House relating to the order
of business (Speaker O'Neill, July 10, 1985, p. 18394; Feb. 6, 1989, pp.
1676-82).
A Member's announcement of intent to offer a resolution as a question
of privilege may take precedence over a special order reported from the
Committee on Rules; but, if a special order is pending, such
announcements are counted against debate on the resolution absent
unanimous consent to the contrary (Oct. 28, 1997, pp. 23525, 23527).
Members may not announce intent to offer a resolution as a question of
privilege during morning-hour debate (July 23, 2020, p. _).
While a question of privilege is pending, a message of the President
is received (V, 6640-6642), but is read only by unanimous consent (V,
6639). A motion to reconsider may also be entered but may not be
considered (V, 5673-5676). It has been held that only one question of
privilege may be pending at a time (III, 2533), but having presented one
question of privilege, a Member, before discussing it, may submit a
second question of privilege related to the first and discuss both on
one recognition (VI, 562). Although a resolution raising a question of
the privileges of the House has precedence over all other questions, it
is nevertheless subject to disposition by the ordinary motions permitted
under clause 4 of rule XVI, and by the motion to commit under clause 2
of rule XIX (formerly clause 1 of rule XVII) (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19,
1976, p. 3914; Apr. 28, 1983, p. 10423; Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4996).
When <> a Member proposes merely to address the House on a question
of personal privilege, and does not offer a resolution affecting the
dignity or integrity of the House for action, the practice as to
precedence is somewhat different. Thus, a Member recognized on a
question of personal privilege may not interrupt a call of the yeas and
nays (V, 6051, 6052, 6058, 6059; VI, 554, 564), or take from the floor
another Member who has been recognized for debate (V, 5002; VIII, 2459,
2528; Sept. 29, 1983, p. 26508; July 23, 1987, p. 20861), but may
interrupt the ordinary legislative business (III, 2531). A Member may
address the House on a question of personal privilege even after the
previous question has been ordered on a pending bill (VI, 561; VIII,
2688). Under modern practice, a question of personal privilege may not
be raised in the Committee of the Whole (Sept. 4, 1969, p. 24372; Dec.
13, 1973, p. 41270), the proper remedy being a demand that words be
taken down pursuant to clause 4 of rule XVI; yet a breach of privilege
occurring in the Committee of the Whole relates to the dignity of the
House and is so treated (II, 1657). A question of per
[[Page [453]]]
sonal privilege may not be raised while a question of the privileges of
the House is pending (Apr. 30, 1985, p. 9808; May 1, 1985, p. 10003).
The Chair may require a Member to submit for examination the material
upon which the Member would rely before conferring recognition for a
question of personal privilege (Jan. 18, 2007, p. 1625).
<> During a call of the House in the absence of a quorum, only
such questions of privilege as relate immediately to those proceedings
may be presented (III, 2545). See also Sec. 1024, infra.
<> Whenever
it is asserted on the floor that the privileges of the House are
invaded, the Speaker entertains the question (II, 1501), and may then
refuse recognition if the resolution is not admissible as a question of
privilege under the rule. A proper question of privilege may be renewed
(Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33846). Although the early custom was for the Speaker
to submit to the House the question whether a resolution involved the
privileges of the House (III, 2718), the modern practice is for the
Speaker to rule directly on the question (VI, 604; Speaker Wright, Mar.
11, 1987, p. 5404; Feb. 3, 1995, p. 3571; Feb. 7, 1995, p. 3905),
subject to appeal where appropriate (Speaker Albert, June 27, 1974, p.
21596). In raising a question of personal privilege, a Member in the
first instance must apprise the Chair of the grounds on which
recognition may be conferred (Deschler, ch. 11, Sec. 21.1; Jan. 18,
2007, p. 1625; Sept. 10, 2008, p. 18422).
Under the form of the rule adopted in the 103d Congress, the Speaker
has discretion to recognize a Member other than the Majority or Minority
Leader to proceed immediately on a resolution offered as a question of
the privileges of the House (Speaker Foley, Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1974). The
Speaker may elect to announce the time designated to consider such a
resolution (Oct. 11, 2017, p. _) but is not otherwise required to do so
either at the time the resolution is noticed (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2209) or
in response to a parliamentary inquiry (Oct. 28, 1997, p. 23527; Mar.
20, 2017, p. _; May 23, 2017, p. _). The Speaker does not rule on the
privileged status of a resolution at the time that resolution is
noticed, but only when called up (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2209; Sept. 13,
1994, p. 24389; Feb. 3, 1995, p. 3571).
Common fame has been held sufficient basis for raising a question
(III, 2538, 2701); a telegraphic dispatch may also furnish a basis (III,
2539). A report relating to the contemptuous conduct of a witness before
a committee gives rise to a question of the privileges of the House and
may, under this rule, be considered on the same day reported
notwithstanding the requirement of clause 4(a) of rule XIII (formerly
clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI) that reports from committees be available to
Members for at least three calendar days before consideration (Speaker
Albert, July 13, 1971, pp. 24720-23). But a Member may not, as a matter
of right, require the reading of a book or paper by suggesting that it
contains matter infringing on the privileges of the House (V, 5258). In
presenting a question of personal
[[Page [454]]]
privilege the Member is not required in the first instance to offer a
motion or resolution, but must take this preliminary step in raising a
question of the privileges of the House (III, 2546, 2547; VI, 565-569,
580; VII, 3464). Such a resolution is read in full by the Clerk (Oct.
10, 1998, p. 25420), and a parliamentary inquiry regarding its content,
in the discretion of the Chair, should await the conclusion of the
reading (Dec. 8, 2005, p. 27812). Debate on a question of privilege is
under the hour rule (V, 4990; VIII, 2448), but the previous question may
be moved (II, 1256; V, 5459, 5460; VIII, 2672); since the 103d Congress,
however, the rule has provided for divided control of the hour in the
case of a resolution offered from the floor. Consideration of a
resolution as a question of the privileges of the House may include
recognition for an hour of debate on a motion to refer under clause 4 of
rule XVI (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5557; Sept. 29, 2006, p. 21334); a separate
hour of debate on the resolution, itself, under clause 2 of rule XVII
(formerly clause 2 of rule XIV); and a motion to commit (not debatable
after the ordering of the previous question) under clause 2 of rule XIX
(formerly clause 1 of rule XVII) (Mar. 12, 1992, p. 5557). Debate on a
letter of resignation is controlled by the Member moving the acceptance
of the resignation (Mar. 8, 1977, pp. 6579-82) if the resigning Member
does not seek recognition (June 16, 1975, p. 19054; June 8, 2006, p.
10498). Debate on a question of personal privilege must be confined to
the statements or issues that gave rise to the question of privilege (V,
5075-77; VI, 576, 608; VIII, 2448, 2481; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6,
Sec. 6.4). A Member recognized only on the question of whether a
resolution qualifies as a question of privilege is not recognized to
debate such resolution (Nov. 3, 2005, pp. 24757, 24758; May 21, 2013,
pp. 7293, 7294). Remarks uttered while not under recognition for debate
do not render untimely a motion before debate to lay on the table a
resolution offered under this rule (Aug. 3, 2007, p. 22783).
Rule X
organization of committees
Committees and their legislative jurisdictions
1. <> There shall be in the House the following standing
committees, each of which shall have the jurisdiction and related
functions assigned by this clause and clauses 2, 3, and 4. All bills,
resolutions, and other matters relating to subjects within the
jurisdiction of the standing commit
[[Page [455]]]
tees listed in this clause shall be referred to those committees, in
accordance with clause 2 of rule XII, as follows:
Under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), the
44 committees of the 79th Congress were consolidated into 19, effective
January 2, 1947. The number of standing committees grew over time with
the creation of the Committee on Science and Astronautics (now Science,
Space, and Technology), established on July 21, 1958 (p. 14513); the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics), established on
April 13, 1967 (p. 9425); the Committee on the Budget, established on
July 12, 1974, by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 297);
and the Committee on Small Business, established as a standing committee
effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470). The Committee on Internal Security was abolished in the 94th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20).
The 104th Congress reduced the number to 19 by abolishing the
Committees on the District of Columbia, Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
and Post Office and Civil Service (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995,
p. 464). Matters formerly in the jurisdiction of the Committees on the
District of Columbia and Post Office and Civil Service were transferred
to the Committee on Oversight and Reform (formerly Government Reform and
Oversight); and matters formerly in the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries were transferred to the Committees on
Natural Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure (formerly Public
Works and Transportation), Armed Services (National Security during the
104th and 105th Congresses), and Science, Space, and Technology (Science
during the 104th through 109th Congresses) (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 464). The 109th Congress established the Committee on
Homeland Security (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42).
A Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was established in the
95th Congress (H. Res. 658, July 14, 1977, pp. 22932-49). Before the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, that committee was
found in former rule XLVIII (current clause 11 of rule X) (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A Permanent Select Committee on Aging was added to
clause 6 of this rule effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470) and stricken in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49).
Although earlier forms of the rule specified the number of Members
comprising each of the standing committees, those specifications were
eliminated in the 93d Congress, leaving to the House the authority to
establish the sizes of committees by the numbers elected pursuant to
clause 5 of rule X. The rules still specify part of the composition of
the Committee on the Budget (clause 5(a)(2) of rule X), and the size and
ratio of the Committee on Ethics (clause 5(a)(3)(A) of rule X), as well
as the size and pre
[[Page [456]]]
ferred composition of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(clause 11(a) of rule X).
The Speaker refers public bills in accordance with clause 1 of rule X,
but when the House itself refers a bill it may send it to any committee
without regard to the rules of jurisdiction (IV, 4375; V, 5527; VII,
2131) and jurisdiction is thereby conferred (IV, 4362-4364; VII, 2105).
Motions for change of reference of public bills and resolutions must be
authorized by the committee claiming jurisdiction (clause 7 of rule XII;
VII, 2121; Feb. 13, 1918, p. 2070; Jan. 10, 1941, p. 100), must be made
immediately following the reading of the Journal (VII, 1809, 2119,
2120), must apply to a single bill and not to a class of bills (VII,
2125), may be amended (VII, 2127), may not be divided (VII, 2125), and
may not be debated (VII, 2126, 2128), but are not in order on Calendar
Wednesday (VII, 2117), and are not privileged if the original reference
was not erroneous (VII, 2125). The rereferral of most bills, however, is
accomplished by unanimous consent (see Procedure, ch. 17, Sec. Sec. 17-
38).
Before the 94th Congress, a bill could not be divided among two or
more committees, even though it might have contained matters properly
within the jurisdiction of several committees (IV, 4372). The Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974 added former clause 5 of rule X (current
clause 2 of rule XII), permitting the Speaker to refer any matter to
more than one committee (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470). That provision was amended in the 104th Congress to require the
Speaker to designate a primary committee among those to which a matter
is initially referred (sec. 205, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467).
However, the provision was amended again in the 108th Congress to permit
the Speaker to refrain from designating a primary committee in
extraordinary circumstances (sec. 2(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7;
see Sec. 816, infra).
A committee having jurisdiction over a subject by means of a petition
(IV, 3365) properly referred (IV, 4361) can report on the subject
thereof. It has generally been held that a committee may not report a
bill whereof the subject matter has not been referred to it by the House
(IV, 4355-4360, 4372; VII, 1029, 2101, 2102). Where a House bill is
returned from the Senate with a substitute amendment relating to a new
and different subject, the reference could nevertheless be to the
committee having jurisdiction over the original bill (IV, 4373, 4374);
normally, however, such amended measures are held at the Speaker's table
until disposed of by the House. The erroneous reference of a public bill
under this rule, if it remains uncorrected, in effect gives jurisdiction
(IV, 4365-4371; VII, 2108), but such is not the case with a private bill
or petition (IV, 3364, 4382-4389) unless the reference be made by action
of the House itself (IV, 4390, 4391; VII 2131). A point of order as to
the reference of a private bill is timely when the bill comes up for
consideration, either in the House or in the Committee of the Whole (IV,
4382-4389; VII, 2116, 2132; VIII, 2262) or at any time before passage
(VII, 2116). The reference of a bill to a committee involving the same
subject matter as a bill previously reported con
[[Page [457]]]
fers jurisdiction anew upon the committee to consider and report the
bill subsequently introduced (VIII, 2311).
Clause 4 of rule XII prohibits the receipt or consideration of certain
private bills relating to claims, pensions, construction of bridges, and
the correction of military or naval records. In the 104th Congress the
House adopted a rule to prohibit introduction or consideration of any
bill or resolution expressing a commemoration by designation of a
specified period of time (current clause 5 of rule XII, former clause 2
of rule XXII) (sec. 216, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468).
(a) Committee on Agriculture.
(1) <> Adulteration of seeds, insect
pests, and protection of birds and animals in forest reserves.
(2) Agriculture generally.
(3) Agricultural and industrial chemistry.
(4) Agricultural colleges and experiment stations.
(5) Agricultural economics and research.
(6) Agricultural education extension services.
(7) Agricultural production and marketing and stabilization of
prices of agricultural products, and commodities (not including
distribution outside of the United States).
(8) Animal industry and diseases of animals.
(9) Commodity exchanges.
(10) Crop insurance and soil conservation.
(11) Dairy industry.
(12) Entomology and plant quarantine.
(13) Extension of farm credit and farm security.
(14) Inspection of livestock, poultry, meat products, and seafood
and seafood products.
[[Page [458]]]
(15) Forestry in general and forest reserves other than those
created from the public domain.
(16) Human nutrition and home economics.
(17) Plant industry, soils, and agricultural engineering.
(18) Rural electrification.
(19) Rural development.
(20) Water conservation related to activities of the Department of
Agriculture.
This committee was established in 1820 (IV, 4149). In 1880 the subject
of forestry was added to its jurisdiction, and the committee was
conferred authority to receive estimates of and to report appropriations
(IV, 4149). However, on July 1, 1920, authority to report appropriations
for the Department of Agriculture was transferred to the Committee on
Appropriations (VII, 1860).
The basic form of the present jurisdictional statement was made
effective January 2, 1947, as a part of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812). Subparagraph (7) was altered by the 93d
Congress, effective January 3, 1975, to include jurisdiction over
agricultural commodities (including the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC)) while transferring jurisdiction over foreign distribution and
nondomestic production of commodities to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Nevertheless,
the committee has retained limited jurisdiction over measures to release
CCC stocks for such foreign distribution (Sept. 14, 1989, p. 20428).
Previously unstated jurisdictions over commodities exchanges and rural
development were codified effective January 3, 1975.
The 104th Congress consolidated the committee's jurisdiction over
inspection of livestock and meat products to include inspection of
poultry, seafood, and seafood products, and added subparagraph (20)
relating to water conservation (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p.
464). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47).
The committee has had jurisdiction over bills for establishing and
regulating the Department of Agriculture (IV, 4150), for inspection of
livestock and meat products, regulation of animal industry, diseases of
animals (IV, 4154; VII, 1862), adulteration of seeds, insect pests,
protection of birds and animals in forest reserves (IV, 4157; VII,
1870), the improvement of the breed of horses, even with the cavalry
service in view (IV, 4158; VII, 1865), and, in addition to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, amending the Horse Protection Act to prevent the
shipping, transporting, moving,
[[Page [459]]]
delivering, or receiving of horses to be slaughtered for human
consumption (July 13, 2006, p. 14304).
The committee, having charge of the general subject of forestry, has
reported bills relating to timber, and forest reserves other than those
created from the public domain (IV, 4160). The Committee on Natural
Resources, and not this committee, has jurisdiction over a bill to
convey land that is part of a National Forest created from the public
domain (Mar. 23, 2004, p. 4926). The committee also has exercised
jurisdiction over bills: relating to agricultural colleges and
experiment stations (IV, 4152), incorporation of agricultural societies
(IV, 4159), and establishment of a highway commission (IV, 4153); to
discourage fictitious and gambling transactions in farm products (IV,
4161; VII, 1861); to regulate the transportation, sale, and handling of
dogs and cats intended for use in research and the licensing of animal
research facilities (July 29, 1965, p. 18691); to designate an
agricultural research center (May 14, 1996, p. 11070). The committee
shares with the Committee on the Judiciary jurisdiction over a bill
comprehensively amending the Immigration and Nationality Act and
including food stamp eligibility requirements for aliens (Sept. 19,
1995, p. 25533).
The House referred the President's message dealing with the
refinancing of farm-mortgage indebtedness to the committee, thus
conferring jurisdiction (Apr. 4, 1933, p. 1209).
The committee has jurisdiction over a bill relating solely to
executive level positions in the Department of Agriculture (Mar. 2,
1976, p. 4958) and has jurisdiction over bills to develop land and water
conservation programs on private and non-Federal lands (June 7, 1976, p.
16768).
(b) Committee on Appropriations.
(1) <> Appropriation of the
revenue for the support of the Government.
(2) Rescissions of appropriations contained in appropriation Acts.
(3) Transfers of unexpended balances.
(4) Bills and joint resolutions reported by other committees that
provide new entitlement authority as defined in section 3(9) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and referred to the committee under
clause 4(a)(2).
(5) Bills and joint resolutions that provide new budget authority,
limitation on the use of funds, or other authority relating to new
direct loan obligations and new loan guarantee
[[Page [460]]]
commitments referencing section 504(b) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974.
This committee was established in 1865, when all the general
appropriation bills were confided to its care. In 1885 a portion of the
bills were distributed to other committees. On July 1, 1920, the
committee again was given jurisdiction over all appropriation measures
(VII, 1741).
In the 95th Congress this paragraph was amended to correct a
typographical error (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, p. 53). Subparagraph (4)
was amended in the 105th and 106th Congresses to conform to changes made
by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10116, P.L. 105-33; H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Subparagraph (5) was added in the 114th
Congress (sec. 2(a)(2)(B), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). When the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, it transferred an
undesignated portion of this paragraph to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The authority to conduct studies and examinations of the organization
and operation of executive departments and agencies was first given to
this committee on February 11, 1943 (p. 884); continued by resolution of
January 9, 1945 (p. 135); and incorporated into permanent law in section
202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812).
This authority was first made part of the standing rules on January 3,
1953 (pp. 17, 24), and is now listed as a special oversight
responsibility of the committee in clause 3 of rule X, effective January
3, 1975 (formerly clause 2(b)(3) of rule X) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The committee is also authorized and directed
to hold hearings on the budget as a whole in open session within 30 days
of its submission (clause 4(a)(1)(A) of rule X), and to study on a
continuing basis provisions of law providing spending authority or
permanent budget authority and to report to the House recommendations
for terminating or modifying such provisions (clause 4(a)(3) of rule X).
The requirement of section 139 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946 (60 Stat. 812) that the Committees on Appropriations of the House
and Senate develop a standard appropriation classification schedule was
superseded by section 202(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970 (84 Stat. 1167), which now imposes that responsibility upon the
Secretary of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget. The
further requirement of section 139 of the 1946 Act that the
Appropriations Committees study existing permanent appropriations and
recommend which, if any, should be discontinued was made the
responsibility of all standing committees of the House by clause 4(e) of
rule X, through enactment of section 253 of the 1970 Act (84 Stat.
1175).
Effective <> July
12, 1974, special Presidential messages on rescissions and deferrals of
budget authority submitted pursuant to sections 1012 and 1013 of the
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 683, 684), as well as
rescission bills and impoundment resolutions defined in section 1011 (2
U.S.C. 682)
[[Page [461]]]
and required in section 1017 (2 U.S.C. 688) to be referred to the
appropriate committee, are referred to the Committee on Appropriations
if the proposed rescissions or deferrals involve funds already
appropriated or obligated. Also effective July 12, 1974, the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (sec. 404(a)) added to the committee's
jurisdiction, which was later perfected by the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470,
subparagraphs (2), (3), and (4)).
(c) Committee on Armed Services.
(1) <> Ammunition depots; forts;
arsenals; and Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force
reservations and establishments.
(2) Common defense generally.
(3) Conservation, development, and use of naval petroleum and oil
shale reserves.
(4) The Department of Defense generally, including the Departments
of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, generally.
(5) Interoceanic canals generally, including measures relating to
the maintenance, operation, and administration of interoceanic canals.
(6) Merchant Marine Academy and State Maritime Academies.
(7) Military applications of nuclear energy.
(8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-related activities of
the Department of Defense.
(9) National security aspects of merchant marine, including
financial assistance for the construction and operation of vessels,
maintenance of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair industrial base,
cabotage, cargo preference, and merchant marine officers and seafarers
as these matters relate to the national security.
[[Page [462]]]
(10) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and privileges
of members of the armed forces.
(11) Scientific research and development in support of the armed
services.
(12) Selective service.
(13) Size and composition of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air
Force, and Space Force.
(14) Soldiers' and sailors' homes.
(15) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the common
defense.
(16) Cemeteries administered by the Department of Defense.
This committee was established January 2, 1947, as a part of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), combining the
Committee on Military Affairs with the Committee on Naval Affairs, both
of which had been created in 1822 (IV, 4179, 4189) and had jurisdiction
over appropriations from 1885 to 1920 (IV, 4179, 4189; VII, 1741). The
committee was redesignated the Committee on National Security in the
104th Congress (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464) and was
redesignated again the Committee on Armed Services in the 106th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Clerical and stylistic changes were
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
including the deletion of a redundant undesignated recitation of a
special oversight function (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-
based reference was eliminated in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(e)(1), H.
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Much of the present legislative jurisdiction in this paragraph was
adopted on January 3, 1953 (p. 17), to reflect jurisdiction over the
Department of Defense, which was created in the National Security Act of
1947 (61 Stat. 495). In the 95th Congress, when the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy was abolished, this committee gained jurisdiction over
military applications of nuclear energy (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, p.
53). The 104th Congress added subparagraph (8) for clarification and
subparagraphs (5), (6), and (9) to reflect the transfer of those matters
from the former Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries (sec. 202(a),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464), and later amended subparagraph (8) to
effect a technical correction (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077).
The 112th Congress added subparagraph (16), a matter formerly within the
sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs (sec. 2(e)(6),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p.
[[Page [463]]]
80). In the 117th Congress, subparagraphs (1) and (13) were amended to
incorporate the Space Force and to clarify the application of
subparagraph (1) to the Marine Corps (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4,
2021, p. _).
The committee has jurisdiction over bills: relating to military
housing construction (Feb. 21, 1962, p. 2684; Apr. 18, 1967, p. 9981);
amending title 10 of the United States Code to permit suits against the
United States for damage to reputation of members of Armed Forces
acquitted of charges of crimes against civilians in combat zones (July
15, 1970, p. 24451); for construction of military medical facilities
(Oct. 3, 1966, p. 24859); to require military commissary, post exchange,
and medical care privileges for veterans with sufficient service-
connected disabilities (Feb. 3, 1976, p. 1972); of a private character
to waive the statutory time limit on the award of the Congressional
Medal of Honor to individuals (Feb. 22, 1982, p. 1812); including
authorization of appropriations to the Department of Energy for resource
applications for naval petroleum and oil shale reserves (May 1, 1978, p.
11946); and effecting the transfer of military property to a State to be
designated by the State as a wilderness area (Nov. 15, 1995, p. 32627).
The committee exercised jurisdiction with the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs (now Natural Resources) over a resolution regarding
continued operation of the Hanford Nuclear Reactor to produce power for
the Bonneville Power Administration (July 17, 1986, p. 16888).
(d) Committee on the Budget.
(1) Concurrent resolutions on the <> budget (as defined in section 3(4) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974), other matters required to be referred to the committee
under titles III and IV of that Act, and other measures setting forth
appropriate levels of budget totals for the United States Government.
(2) Budget process generally.
(3) Establishment, extension, and enforcement of special controls
over the Federal budget, including the budgetary treatment of off-budget
Federal agencies and measures providing exemption from reduction under
any order issued under part C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
[[Page [464]]]
This committee was established in the 93d Congress, effective July 12,
1974, by section 101 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat.
299). The separate subpoena authority conferred upon the committee by
section 101(b) of that Act has been superseded by the general grant of
subpoena authority to all committees in clause 2(m) of rule XI (H. Res.
988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The committee is also charged
with the special oversight functions as described in clause 3(c) and
clause 4(b) of rule X.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
paragraph consisted of the committee's legislative jurisdiction (current
paragraph (d)), its oversight jurisdiction (current clause 4 of rule X),
and its composition (current clause 5(a)(2) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47)).
In the 99th Congress this paragraph was again amended by section
232(h) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
to confer jurisdiction over Senate joint or concurrent resolutions
constituting congressional responses to a Presidential sequestration
order issued pursuant to a report of the Comptroller General under
section 252(b) of that Act (P.L. 99-177). It was again amended by the
Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 to conform subparagraph (2) to changes in
the congressional budget laws (tit. XIII, P.L. 101-508). In the 104th
Congress, the House amended the paragraph to expand the limited
legislative jurisdiction of the committee by: (1) adding other measures
setting forth appropriate levels of budget totals to subparagraph (2)
(now subparagraph (1)); (2) granting the committee jurisdiction over the
congressional budget process generally in a new subparagraph (3) (now
subparagraph (2)); and (3) granting the committee jurisdiction over
special controls over the Federal budget in a new subparagraph (4) (now
subparagraph (3)), including receiving from the former Committee on
Government Operations (now Oversight and Reform) jurisdiction over
budgetary treatment of off-budget Federal agencies and measures
providing exemption from sequestration orders issued under the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 464). Three rereferrals from the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight (now Oversight and Reform) to the Committee on the
Budget marked this migration of off-budget treatment jurisdiction: (1)
the Committee on the Budget has primary jurisdiction over a bill
excluding from the budget the Civil Service Retirement and Disability
Fund (although the Committee on Oversight and Reform retains
programmatic jurisdiction over that Fund); (2) the Committee on the
Budget has primary jurisdiction over a bill excluding from the budget
the Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund, and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (although
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure retains programmatic
jurisdiction); and (3) the Committee on the Budget has secondary
jurisdiction over a bill amending title 49 of the United States Code and
providing off-budget treatment for the Highway Trust Fund, the Air
[[Page [465]]]
port and Airway Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (Dec. 6, 1995, p. 35572). The chair of the
Committee on the Budget inserted in the Congressional Record a
memorandum of understanding between this committee and the Committee on
Rules to clarify each Committee's jurisdiction over the congressional
budget process (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 617). In the 105th Congress the
jurisdictional statement in subparagraph (2), previously confined to the
congressional budget process, was broadened to encompass also the
executive budget process formerly included in the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight (now Oversight and Reform)
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Clerical and stylistic changes were
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This committee, and not the Committee on
Ways and Means, has jurisdiction over a bill establishing a rule of
sequestration under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act (Dec. 15, 2000, p. 27085). This committee has primary jurisdiction,
and the Committee on Ways and Means has additional jurisdiction, over a
bill taking Social Security trust funds off budget (Dec. 15, 2000, p.
27085). This committee has primary jurisdiction, and the Committee on
Rules has additional jurisdiction, over a bill amending the Budget Act
to establish new legislative points of order and directing that the
President include a specified matter with the budget (Feb. 13, 2001, p.
1817).
(e) Committee on Education and Labor.
(1) Child labor.
<> (2) Gallaudet University
and Howard University and Hospital.
(3) Convict labor and the entry of goods made by convicts into
interstate commerce.
(4) Food programs for children in schools.
(5) Labor standards and statistics.
(6) Education or labor generally.
(7) Mediation and arbitration of labor disputes.
(8) Regulation or prevention of importation of foreign laborers
under contract.
(9) Workers' compensation.
(10) Vocational rehabilitation.
(11) Wages and hours of labor.
[[Page [466]]]
(12) Welfare of miners.
(13) Work incentive programs.
(14) Organization, administration, and general management of the
Department of Education.
(15) Organization, administration, and general management of the
Department of Labor.
This committee was established on January 2, 1947, as part of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), combining the
Committee on Education (created in 1867) (IV, 4242) and the Committee on
Labor (created in 1883) (IV, 4244). When it was redesignated as the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities in the 104th
Congress, the jurisdictional statement remained unchanged except by the
combination of labor standards and labor statistics in a single
subparagraph (5) (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). In the
105th Congress the committee was redesignated the Committee on Education
and the Workforce (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121), was redesignated
the Committee on Education and Labor in the 110th Congress (sec. 212(a),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19), was redesignated the Committee on
Education and the Workforce in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(7), H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), and was redesignated again as the Committee on
Education and Labor in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(g), H. Res. 6, Jan.
3, 2019, p. _).
By the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975,
the committee gained jurisdiction over food programs for children in
schools, an expansion of earlier jurisdiction over school-lunch programs
(subpara. (4)), work incentive programs (subpara. (13)), and Indian
education, a matter formerly within the specific jurisdiction of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (now Natural Resources);
jurisdiction of the committee over international education matters was
specifically transferred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and its
special oversight function was inserted in clause 3(c) of rule X
(current clause 3(d) of rule X) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, including the deletion of
obsolete references to the Columbia Institution for the Deaf, Dumb, and
Blind, Freedmen's Hospital, and the United States Employees'
Compensation Commission and the deletion of a redundant undesignated
recitation of general and special oversight functions (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47). Subparagraphs (14) and (15) were added in the 116th
Congress to give the committee jurisdiction over organizational,
administrative, and managerial functions of the Departments of Education
and Labor (sec. 102(h), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
The committee has jurisdiction over bills dealing with juvenile
delinquency (Jan. 22, 1959, p. 1027), runaway youth (July 12, 1973, p.
23633;
[[Page [467]]]
Sept. 10, 1973, p. 28970), education of Indians (Apr. 15, 1975, p.
10247; June 10, 1991, p. 14049), including the Native American Programs
Act (Oct. 30, 1997, p. 23967), and compensation for work injuries to
Federal employees (Apr. 16, 1975, p. 10339); over bills amending the
Community Services Block Grant Act to continue antipoverty programs
originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Nov. 4,
1993, p. 27359); and over an executive communication proposing draft
legislation to amend the Labor Management Relations Act and the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (Mar. 24, 1983, p. 7402). The committee
shares with the Committee on the Judiciary jurisdiction over a bill
comprehensively amending the Immigration and Nationality Act and
including provisions addressing the enforcement of labor laws (Sept. 19,
1995, p. 25533). The committee has additional jurisdiction (Energy and
Commerce has primary jurisdiction) over a developmental disabilities
assistance and family support bill (Feb. 10, 2000, p. 1023). The
jurisdiction of this committee over education and vocational
rehabilitation does not include those subjects as they relate to
veterans, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs. This committee, and not also the Committees on
Oversight and Reform and House Administration, has jurisdiction over a
bill amending the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to address only
private-sector employees (Oct. 30, 2007, p. 28651).
(f) Committee on Energy and Commerce.
(1) Biomedical research and development.
<> (2) Consumer affairs and
consumer protection.
(3) Health and health facilities (except health care supported by
payroll deductions).
(4) Interstate energy compacts.
(5) Interstate and foreign commerce generally.
(6) Exploration, production, storage, supply, marketing, pricing,
and regulation of energy resources, including all fossil fuels, solar
energy, and other unconventional or renewable energy resources.
(7) Conservation of energy resources.
(8) Energy information generally.
[[Page [468]]]
(9) The generation and marketing of power (except by federally
chartered or Federal regional power marketing authorities); reliability
and interstate transmission of, and ratemaking for, all power; and
siting of generation facilities (except the installation of
interconnections between Government waterpower projects).
(10) General management of the Department of Energy and management
and all functions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
(11) National energy policy generally.
(12) Public health and quarantine.
(13) Regulation of the domestic nuclear energy industry, including
regulation of research and development reactors and nuclear regulatory
research.
(14) Regulation of interstate and foreign communications.
(15) Travel and tourism.
The committee shall have the same jurisdiction with respect to
regulation of nuclear facilities and of use of nuclear energy as it has
with respect to regulation of nonnuclear facilities and of use of
nonnuclear energy.
The committee dates from 1795 (IV, 4096). Effective January 3, 1975
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), the name of the
committee was changed from Interstate and Foreign Commerce to Commerce
and Health. Effective January 14, 1975, it was redesignated as
Interstate and Foreign Commerce (H. Res. 5, 94th Cong., p. 20). In the
96th Congress it was redesignated as Energy and Commerce and given much
of its present jurisdiction, effective January 3, 1981 (H. Res. 549,
Mar. 25, 1980, pp. 6405-10; note publication of intercommittee memoranda
of understanding). In the 104th Congress it was redesignated as the
Committee on Commerce
[[Page [469]]]
(sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). In the 107th Congress it
was redesignated again as the Committee on Energy and Commerce (sec.
2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
In the 74th Congress the jurisdictional statement of the committee was
amended to include jurisdiction over bills relating to radio, and to
transfer jurisdiction over water transportation, Coast Guard, lifesaving
service, lighthouses, lightships, ocean derelicts, Coast and Geodetic
Survey, and the Panama Canal to the former Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries (VII, 1814, 1847), but with the demise of the latter
committee in the 104th Congress, the latter subjects now reside in the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
except that the Committee on National Security (now Armed Services) has
jurisdiction over the Panama Canal (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 464). In the 85th Congress matters relating to the Bureau of
Standards, standardization of weights and measures, and the metric
system (conferred on the committee by the Legislative Reorganization Act
of 1946, 60 Stat. 812), were transferred to the Committee on Science and
Astronautics (now Science, Space, and Technology) (July 21, 1958, p.
14513). In the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3,
1975, the committee obtained specific jurisdiction over consumer affairs
and consumer protection (subpara. (2)), travel and tourism (subpara.
(15)), health and health facilities, except health care supported by
payroll deductions (subpara. (3)) (a matter formerly within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means), and biomedical
research and development (subpara. (1)), and was released of
jurisdiction over civil aeronautics to the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation (now Transportation and Infrastructure), jurisdiction
over civil aviation research and development, energy and environmental
research and development, and the National Weather Service to the
Committee on Science and Technology (now Science, Space, and
Technology), and jurisdiction over trading with the enemy to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470). In the 95th Congress, when the legislative jurisdiction of the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in the House was transferred to various
standing committees, this committee was given the same jurisdiction over
nuclear energy as it had over nonnuclear energy and facilities (H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70). In the 96th Congress the committee obtained
specific jurisdiction over national energy policy generally (subpara.
(11)), measures relating to exploration, production, storage, supply,
marketing, pricing, and regulation of energy resources (subpara. (6)),
measures relating to conservation of energy resources (subpara. (7)),
measures relating to energy information generally (subpara. (8)),
measures relating to the generation, marketing, interstate transmission
of, and ratemaking for power as well as the siting of generation
facilities, with certain exceptions (subpara. (9)), interstate energy
compacts (subpara. (4)), and measures relating to general management of
the Department of Energy and all functions of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (subpara. (10)) (H.
[[Page [470]]]
Res. 549, Mar. 25, 1980, pp. 6405-10). In the 104th Congress the
committee's jurisdiction over inland waterways and railroads (including
railroad labor, retirement, and unemployment) was transferred to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and jurisdiction over
measures relating to the commercial application of energy technology was
transferred to the Committee on Science (now Science, Space, and
Technology), while the committee obtained jurisdiction over regulation
of the domestic nuclear energy industry (subpara. (13)) from the
Committee on Natural Resources (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p.
464). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). In the 107th Congress the committee's jurisdiction over securities
and exchanges was transferred to the Committee on Financial Services
(sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). The Speaker inserted in the
Congressional Record a memorandum of understanding between the two
committees to clarify the nature of this transfer (Jan. 30, 2001, p.
995), the final two paragraphs of which no longer provide jurisdictional
guidance (Jan. 4, 2005, p. 71).
The committee has the special oversight responsibility under clause
3(e) as well as the general oversight responsibility required by clause
2. This special oversight responsibility was expanded in the 96th
Congress to include all energy, effective January 3, 1981 (H. Res. 549,
Mar. 25, 1980, pp. 6405-10). In the 104th Congress it was again expanded
to include nonmilitary nuclear energy and research and development
including the disposal of nuclear waste (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 464), though a conforming change in clause 3 was inadvertently
omitted.
The committee formerly reported the river and harbor appropriation
bill, but in 1883 the Committee on Rivers and Harbors was created for
that role (IV, 4096), and since the 66th Congress such appropriations
have been reported by the Committee on Appropriations.
The committee has general jurisdiction over bills affecting domestic
and foreign commerce, except such as may affect the revenue (IV, 4097).
It also has jurisdiction over bills authorizing the construction of
marine hospitals and the acquisition of sites therefor (IV, 4110; VII,
1816), the general subjects of quarantine and the establishment of
quarantine stations (IV, 4109), health, spread of leprosy and other
contagious diseases, international congress of hygiene, etc. (IV, 4111).
This committee formerly had jurisdiction over bills proposing
construction of bridges across navigable streams, which now are banned
under clause 4 of rule XII if private (see Sec. 822, infra; see also
General Bridge Act, 33 U.S.C. 525).
Before the 104th Congress the committee considered bills regulating
railroads in their interstate commerce relations (IV, 414) and exercised
jurisdiction with the Committees on Education and Labor and Public Works
and Transportation (now Transportation and Infrastructure) over bills
providing labor protections to workers in the transportation industry,
including railroad employees (Feb. 24, 1993, p. 3577). The committee
considers bills relating to commercial travelers as agents of interstate
commerce and
[[Page [471]]]
the branding of articles going into such commerce (IV, 4115), the
prevention of the carriage of indecent and harmful pictures or
literature (IV, 4116), the adulteration and misbranding of foods and
drugs (IV, 4112), and protection of game through prohibition of
interstate transportation (IV, 4117). The committee has jurisdiction
over bills imposing safety standards on motor vehicles purchased by the
U.S. Government (Feb. 16, 1959, p. 2420), bills creating civil remedies
for false advertising or other violations of commercial ethics (June 4,
1962, p. 9601), and bills to assist financing of the Arctic Winter Games
in Alaska (June 7, 1972, p. 19935). The committee had jurisdiction over
a bill to reauthorize the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill
of Rights Act (ultimately repealed), which was focused on health matters
rather than job training (June 1, 1981, p. 11028; Nov. 3, 1993, p.
27274). This committee and, in addition, the Committee on Education and
Labor, have jurisdiction over the Developmental Disabilities Assistance
and Bill of Rights Act of 1999 (which replaced the above-mentioned Act)
as it contained a family support program within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Education and Labor (Feb. 10, 2000, p. 1023). In the 94th
Congress, the committee gained jurisdiction over bills amending the
Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act and bills dealing with nursing
home construction as public health matters (June 10, 1975, p. 18009).
(g) Committee on Ethics.
The Code of Official Conduct.
In <> the 90th Congress the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct was established as a standing committee
(H. Res. 418, Apr. 13, 1967, p. 9425). Its precursor was the Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct, created in the 89th Congress (H.
Res. 1013, Oct. 19, 1966, pp. 27713-30). At various times in its
history, the legislative jurisdiction of the committee has included
jurisdiction over measures relating to (1) financial disclosure by
Members, officers, and employees of the House (H. Res. 1099, 90th Cong.,
Apr. 3, 1968, p. 8776); (2) the raising, reporting, and use of campaign
contributions for candidates for the House (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct.
8, 1974, p. 34470); and (3) lobbying activities (H. Res. 1031, 91st
Cong., July 8, 1970, p. 23141). However, legislative jurisdiction over
measures relating to financial disclosure was transferred to the
Committee on Rules in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp.
53-70); legislative jurisdiction over measures relating to campaign
contributions for candidates for the House was transferred to House
Administration, and legislative jurisdiction over measures relating to
lobbying activities was removed from the committee (thereby devolving on
the Committee on the Judiciary) in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
14, 1975, p. 20). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, including the deletion
of a redundant undesignated recitation of general and special functions
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 112th Congress it was
redesignated as the Committee on Ethics (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 2011, p. 80).
[[Page [472]]]
Under clause 5(a) of rule XIII, the committee is empowered to report
as privileged resolutions recommending action by the House of
Representatives with respect to the official conduct of an individual
Member, officer, or employee of the House.
In addition to its legislative jurisdiction, the committee has the
general oversight responsibility set forth in clause 2(b) and the
additional functions of conducting the investigations and making the
reports and recommendations required by clause 5 of rule XIII or by
resolution of the House (see, e.g., H. Res. 252, 95th Cong., Feb. 9,
1977, pp. 3966-75, directing investigation of gifts from the Korean
Government; H. Res. 1042, 94th Cong., Feb. 16, 1976, pp. 3158-61,
directing investigation of unauthorized publication of report of Select
Committee on Intelligence; and H. Res. 608, 96th Cong., Mar. 27, 1980,
pp. 6995-98, relating to ``Abscam'').
The committee has investigated roll call procedures in the House and
recommended installation of a modernized voting system (June 19, 1969,
p. 16629). In the 95th Congress the committee was authorized by section
515 of Public Law 95-105 to act as the ``employing agency'' for the
House of Representatives under the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act,
and the committee promulgated regulations under that statute concerning
acceptance of foreign gifts and decorations by Members and employees
(Jan. 23, 1978, p. 452). In the 96th Congress the committee was assigned
as additional responsibilities the functions designated in title I of
the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-521) relating to the
administration of government ethics laws as they apply to Members,
officers, and employees of the House (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 7).
In the 102d Congress those responsibilities were enlarged to include the
functions designated in title V of the Act and the specified sections of
title 5, United States Code (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39).
The committee has compiled statutory and rule-based ethical standards
in the House Ethics Manual (110th Cong., 2d Sess.). In the Manual, the
committee incorporates its advisory opinions issued under clause 3(a)(4)
of rule XI, together with advisory opinions issued by the former Select
Committee on Ethics, in its discussions of various ethical issues,
including gifts, outside income, financial disclosure, staff rights and
duties, official allowances and franking, casework considerations,
campaign financing and practices, and involvement with official and
unofficial organizations.
In the 95th <> Congress, the House established a Select Committee on Ethics
and granted it exclusive legislative jurisdiction over bills that
incorporated into permanent law provisions of House rules addressing
financial ethics of Members, officers, and employees (H. Res. 383, Mar.
9, 1977, pp. 6811-16). The Select Committee was also granted
jurisdiction to promulgate implementing regulations and to issue
advisory opinions. The resolution creating the Select Committee provided
that it would expire on December 31, 1977, but the committee and its
functions ultimately were extended through the completion of its
official business (H. Res. 871, Oct. 31, 1977, p. 35957).
[[Page [473]]]
In the 105th Congress a new subparagraph (3) was added at the end of
former clause 4(e) of rule X to establish a Select Committee on Ethics
only to resolve an inquiry originally undertaken by the standing
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) in the 104th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). The Select Committee filed
one report to the House (H. Rept. 105-1, H. Res. 31, Jan. 21, 1997, p.
393).
For Office of Congressional Ethics, see Sec. 1125h, infra.
(h) Committee on Financial Services.
(1) Banks and banking, including deposit insurance and Federal
monetary policy.
<> (2) Economic
stabilization, defense production, renegotiation, and control of the
price of commodities, rents, and services.
(3) Financial aid to commerce and industry (other than
transportation).
(4) Insurance generally.
(5) International finance.
(6) International financial and monetary organizations.
(7) Money and credit, including currency and the issuance of notes
and redemption thereof; gold and silver, including the coinage thereof;
valuation and revaluation of the dollar.
(8) Public and private housing.
(9) Securities and exchanges.
(10) Urban development.
This committee was established in 1865 as the Committee on Banking and
Currency (IV, 4082). In the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974,
effective January 3, 1975, its name was changed to Banking, Currency and
Housing (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). In the 95th
Congress its name was changed to Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70). In the 104th Congress its name was
changed to Banking and Financial Services (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 464). In the 107th Congress its name was changed to
Financial Services (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
[[Page [474]]]
The committee was given much of its present jurisdiction in the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), by which it
absorbed the jurisdiction of the former Committee on Coinage, Weights,
and Measures (created in 1864) (IV, 4090), except jurisdiction over the
standardization of weights and measures and the metric system was given
to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and was later
transferred to the Committee on Science and Astronautics (now Science,
Space, and Technology) in the 85th Congress (H. Res. 580, July 21, 1958,
p. 14513). In the 92d Congress jurisdiction over the impact on the
economy of tax-exempt foundations and charitable trusts was transferred
from the Subcommittee on Foundations of the Select Committee on Small
Business, along with all that subcommittee's files, to this committee
(H. Res. 320, Apr. 27, 1971, p. 12081). Before the end of the 93d
Congress, the committee had legislative jurisdiction over the problems
of small business under its general jurisdiction over financial aid to
commerce and industry; but with the adoption of the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975, that jurisdiction was
transferred to the standing Committee on Small Business, the permanent
Select Committee on Small Business was abolished, and this committee was
specifically given jurisdiction over Federal monetary policy, money and
credit, urban development, economic stabilization, defense production,
and renegotiation (the latter matter formerly within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Ways and Means), international finance, and
international financial and monetary organizations (formerly within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs), while jurisdiction
over the Commodity Credit Corporation was transferred to the Committee
on Agriculture, jurisdiction over export controls and international
economic policy to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, jurisdiction over
construction of nursing home facilities to what is now the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and jurisdiction over urban mass transportation to
what is now the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (H. Res.
988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). In the 104th Congress
subparagraphs (2) and (3) were added (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 464). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). In the 107th Congress jurisdiction over securities and
exchanges was transferred from the Committee on Energy and Commerce to
this committee (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). As a result
of the new jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services over
securities and exchanges, its former jurisdiction over matters relating
to bank capital markets activities and depository institutions
securities activities were deleted as redundant (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). In the 107th Congress this committee also received
jurisdiction over insurance generally (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
2001, p. 25). The Speaker inserted in the Congressional Record a
memorandum of understanding between this committee and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce to clarify these jurisdictional changes (Jan. 30,
2001, p. 995), the final two paragraphs of which no longer provide
[[Page [475]]]
jurisdictional guidance (Jan. 4, 2005, p. 71). A technical change to
subparagraph (6) was effected in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(u), H. Res.
5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7).
The committee has reported on propositions to maintain the parity of
the money of the United States (IV, 4089; VII, 1792), the issue of
silver certificates as currency (IV, 4087, 4088), national banks and
current deposits of public money (IV, 4083; VII, 1790), the
incorporation of an international bank (IV, 4086), subjects relating to
the Freedman's Bank (IV, 4085), and Federal Reserve System, Farm Loan
Act, home loan bills, stabilization of the dollar, War Finance
Corporation, Federal Reserve bank buildings (VII, 1793, 1795). The
committee has jurisdiction over bills providing consolidation of grant-
in-aid programs for urban development (Mar. 18, 1970, p. 7887), bills
providing for U.S. participation in the International Development
Association (Mar. 9, 1960, p. 5046), bills to authorize GSA to acquire
land in D.C. for transfer to the International Monetary Fund (May 1,
1962, p. 7428), bills relating to flood insurance (Dec. 4, 1975, p.
38701), and over an executive communication proposing regulations for
college housing programs (notwithstanding that the requirement for such
regulations was contained in higher education legislation reported from
the Committee on Education and Labor) (June 15, 1982, p. 13638).
(i) Committee on Foreign Affairs.
(1) <> Relations of the United
States with foreign nations generally.
(2) Acquisition of land and buildings for embassies and legations
in foreign countries.
(3) Establishment of boundary lines between the United States and
foreign nations.
(4) Export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear
technology and nuclear hardware.
(5) Foreign loans.
(6) International commodity agreements (other than those involving
sugar), including all agreements for cooperation in the export of
nuclear technology and nuclear hardware.
(7) International conferences and congresses.
(8) International education.
[[Page [476]]]
(9) Intervention abroad and declarations of war.
(10) Diplomatic service.
(11) Measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign
nations and to safeguard American business interests abroad.
(12) International economic policy.
(13) Neutrality.
(14) Protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation.
(15) The American National Red Cross.
(16) Trading with the enemy.
(17) United Nations organizations.
This committee was established in 1822 (IV, 4162), and from 1885 to
1920 had authority to report appropriations. In the 94th Congress the
name of the committee was changed from Foreign Affairs to International
Relations (H. Res. 163, Mar. 19, 1975, p. 7343). In the 96th Congress it
was changed back to Foreign Affairs (H. Res. 89, Feb. 5, 1979, p. 1848).
In the 104th Congress the name was again changed to International
Relations (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). In the 110th
Congress it was changed back to Foreign Affairs (sec. 213(a), H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19).
In addition to the jurisdiction vested in the committee by the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), the Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975, gave the committee
jurisdiction over measures relating to: international economic policy
(subpara. (12)) and export controls (subpara. (4)), matters formerly
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency (now
Financial Services); international commodity agreements other than those
relating to sugar (subpara. (6)), formerly within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Agriculture; trading with the enemy (subpara. (16)),
formerly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce (now Energy and Commerce); and international education
(subpara. (8)); while transferring jurisdiction over international
financial and monetary organizations to the Committee on Banking and
Currency (now Financial Services), and jurisdiction over international
fishing agreements to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
(now Natural Resources) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470). When the legislative jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy in the House was abolished in the 95th Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70), the committee was given jurisdiction over
nonproliferation of nuclear technology and hardware
[[Page [477]]]
(subpara. (4)), and over international agreements on nuclear exports
(subpara. (6)). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, including the deletion
of a redundant undesignated recitation of general and special oversight
functions (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The committee has broad jurisdiction over foreign relations, including
boundary lines between the United States and foreign nations, bridges
and dams on international waters (IV, 4166; see also the ``General
Bridge Act,'' 33 U.S.C. 525, 533), the protection of American citizens
abroad and expatriation (IV, 4169; VII, 1883), extradition with foreign
nations, international arbitration, relating to violations of neutrality
(IV, 4178a), international conferences and congresses (IV, 4177; VII,
1884), the incorporation of the American National Red Cross and
protection of its insignia (IV, 4173), intervention abroad and
declarations of war (IV, 4164; VII 1880), affairs of the consular
service, including acquisition of land and buildings for legations in
foreign capitals (IV, 4163; VII, 1879), creation of courts of the United
States in foreign countries (IV, 4167), treaty regulations as to
protection of fur seals (IV, 4170), matters relating to the Philippines
(see 60 Stat. 315), and measures establishing a District of Columbia
corporation to support private American organizations engaged in
communications with foreign nations (June 21, 1971, p. 21062).
The committee also has considered measures for fostering commercial
intercourse with foreign nations and for safeguarding American business
interests abroad (IV, 4175), and even the subjects of commercial
treaties and reciprocal arrangements (IV, 4174), although in later
practice the Committee on Ways and Means has considered such matters
(IV, 4021). The committee has exercised general but not exclusive
jurisdiction over legislation relating to claims affecting international
relations (IV, 4168; VII, 1882). Pursuant to its jurisdiction over
international education, the committee (and not the Committee on
Education and Labor) has exercised jurisdiction over bills establishing
scholarship programs for foreign students (May 10, 1988, p. 10305). The
committee has jurisdiction over a communication from the President
notifying the House, consistent with the War Powers Resolution, of the
deployment abroad of U.S. armed forces to participate in an embargo
against another nation (Nov. 4, 1993, p. 27393).
The special oversight function of the committee set forth in clause
3(f) of rule X was made effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470).
[[Page [478]]]
(j) Committee on Homeland Security.
(1) Overall homeland <> security policy.
(2) Organization, administration, and general management of the
Department of Homeland Security.
(3) Functions of the Department of Homeland Security relating to
the following:
(A) Border and port security (except immigration policy and
non-border enforcement).
(B) Customs (except customs revenue).
(C) Integration, analysis, and dissemination of homeland
security information.
(D) Domestic preparedness for and collective response to
terrorism.
(E) Research and development.
(F) Transportation security.
This committee was established in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(a), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42). Subparagraph (2) was amended in the 113th
Congress to include general management of the department (sec. 2(c), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). For debate (and material submitted during
debate) that may edify the reader on the jurisdictional issues
surrounding the new committee, see January 4, 2005, pp. 60-62. The
Speaker announced that the referral of measures in the 108th Congress to
the Select Committee on Homeland Security would not constitute precedent
for referral to this committee (Jan. 4, 2005, p. 71).
In the <> 107th Congress the House established a Select Committee on
Homeland Security (H. Res. 449, June 19, 2002, p. 10722). Its mission
was to develop recommendations on such matters that relate to the
establishment of a department of homeland security as may be referred to
it by the Speaker and on recommendations submitted to it by standing
committees to which the Speaker referred a bill establishing the
department and to report its recommendation to the House on such bill.
It was terminated after final disposition of the specified bill (Nov.
25, 2002, p. 23433). In the 108th Congress the House reestablished a
Select Committee on Homeland Security (sec. 4, H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003,
p. 11). Its mission was to develop recommendations on such matters that
relate to the Home
[[Page [479]]]
land Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) as may be referred to it by the
Speaker; to conduct oversight of laws, programs, and Government
activities relating to homeland security; to conduct a study of the
operation and implementation of the Rules of the House, including rule
X, with respect to homeland security; and to report its recommendations
to the House by bill or otherwise on matters referred to it by the
Speaker and to report its recommendations on changes to House rules to
the Committee on Rules.
(k) Committee on House Administration.
(1) <> Appropriations from
accounts for committee salaries and expenses (except for the Committee
on Appropriations); House Information Resources; and allowance and
expenses of Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and
administrative offices of the House.
(2) Auditing and settling of all accounts described in
subparagraph (1).
(3) Employment of persons by the House, including staff for
Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, and committees; and
reporters of debates, subject to rule VI.
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (r)(11), the Library of
Congress, including management thereof; the House Library; statuary and
pictures; acceptance or purchase of works of art for the Capitol; the
Botanic Garden; and purchase of books and manuscripts.
(5) The Smithsonian Institution and the incorporation of similar
institutions (except as provided in paragraph (r)(11)).
(6) Expenditure of accounts described in subparagraph (1).
(7) Franking Commission.
(8) Printing and correction of the Congressional Record.
[[Page [480]]]
(9) Accounts of the House generally.
(10) Assignment of office space for Members, Delegates, the
Resident Commissioner, and committees.
(11) Disposition of useless executive papers.
(12) Election of the President, Vice President, Members, Senators,
Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner; corrupt practices; contested
elections; credentials and qualifications; and Federal elections
generally.
(13) Services to the House, including the House Restaurant,
parking facilities, and administration of the House Office Buildings and
of the House wing of the Capitol.
(14) Travel of Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.
(15) Raising, reporting, and use of campaign contributions for
candidates for office of Representative, of Delegate, and of Resident
Commissioner.
(16) Compensation, retirement, and other benefits of the Members,
Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and employees of
Congress.
This committee was created as the Committee on House Administration on
January 2, 1947, as a part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
(60 Stat. 812), combining the Committees on Accounts (created in 1803)
(IV, 4328), Enrolled Bills (created in 1789) (IV, 4350), Disposition of
Executive Papers (created in 1889) (IV, 4419), Printing (created in
1846), Elections (created in 1794 and divided into three committees in
1895) (IV, 4019), Election of President, Vice President, and
Representatives in Congress (created in 1893) (IV, 4299), and Memorials
(created January 3, 1929, VII, 2080).
The committee was redesignated as the Committee on House Oversight in
the 104th Congress, obtaining from the former Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service jurisdiction over the Franking Commission (also known
[[Page [481]]]
as the House Communications Standards Commission) in subparagraph (7),
while transferring to the Committee on Resources (now Natural Resources)
jurisdiction over erection of monuments to the memory of individuals
(sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). References in
subparagraphs (1) and (2) to the ``contingent fund'' were eliminated
without changing the committee's jurisdiction over the accounts that the
fund comprised. In the 105th Congress subparagraph (1) was amended to
effect a technical correction (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). In the
106th Congress the committee was redesignated House Administration, and
the House recodified its rules to effect clerical and stylistic changes,
including the deletion of a redundant undesignated recitation of general
and special oversight functions (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the
107th Congress the committee's responsibilities with respect to enrolled
bills (which were set forth in former clause 4(d)(1)(A) of rule X) were
transferred to the Clerk (see clause 2(d)(2) of rule II) (sec. 2(b), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
The committee has jurisdiction over measures relating to the election
of the President, Vice President, or Members of Congress; corrupt
practices; contested elections; credentials and qualifications; Federal
elections generally; and the electoral count, which formerly was within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Election of the President, Vice
President, and Representatives in Congress (IV, 4303).
The committee's former responsibility to report on Members' travel was
supplanted by the function of providing policy direction to and
oversight of the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief Administrative Officer,
and Inspector General (sec. 10, H. Res. 423, Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040; sec.
201(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463; see rule II and Sec. 752,
infra). In the 107th Congress the committee retained the responsibility
to provide policy direction to and oversight of the Inspector General
but retained only oversight of the remaining officers (sec. 2(g), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25) until the 114th Congress restored its
function of providing policy direction to the Chief Administrative
Officer (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34; see Sec. 754,
infra).
The <> committee has jurisdiction
over measures relating to the House Restaurant (2 U.S.C. 2041), which
was first under the jurisdiction of the former Committee on Accounts,
then under the supervision of the Architect of the Capitol (H. Res. 590,
76th Cong., Sept. 5, 1940, p. 11552, as made permanent law by P.L. 76-
812), and then the Select Committee on the House Restaurant (H. Res.
472, 91st Cong., July 10, 1969, p. 19080; H. Res. 111, 93d Cong., Feb.
7, 1973, p. 3680), which was not reestablished after the 93d Congress.
By the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975,
the committee obtained jurisdiction over parking facilities of the
House, a matter formerly assigned to a select committee (subpara. (13))
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). In the 94th Congress
the committee was given jurisdiction over campaign contributions to
candidates for the House, a matter formerly within the jurisdiction of
the
[[Page [482]]]
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) (subpara. (15)),
and over compensation, retirement, and other benefits of Members,
officers, and employees of Congress (subpara. (16)) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14,
1975, p. 20).
The committee has jurisdiction over resolutions authorizing committees
to employ additional professional and clerical personnel (Feb. 7, 1966,
p. 2373). The committee has supervisory authority over the House barber
shops, beauty shops, and House Information Resources.
Under <> the Reorganization Act the
committee has jurisdiction over some of the subjects formerly within the
jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on the Library, such as matters
relating to the Library of Congress and the House Library, statuary and
pictures, acceptance or purchase of works of art for the Capitol, the
Botanic Gardens, management of the Library of Congress, purchase of
books and manuscripts, matters relating to the Smithsonian Institution,
and the incorporation of similar institutions. Excepted are measures
relating to the construction or reconstruction, maintenance, and care of
the buildings and grounds of the Botanic Gardens, the Library of
Congress, and the Smithsonian Institution, which fall under the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation (now Transportation and
Infrastructure). The House members of the Joint Committee on the
Library, provided for by law (2 U.S.C. 132b), are elected by resolution
each Congress.
The <> committee has
jurisdiction over matters relating to printing and correction of the
Congressional Record, formerly within the jurisdiction of the erstwhile
Committee on Printing. The House members of the Joint Committee on
Printing, provided for by law (44 U.S.C. 101), are elected by resolution
each Congress.
(l) Committee on the Judiciary.
(1) <> The judiciary and judicial
proceedings, civil and criminal.
(2) Administrative practice and procedure.
(3) Apportionment of Representatives.
(4) Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and counterfeiting.
(5) Civil liberties.
(6) Constitutional amendments.
(7) Criminal law enforcement and criminalization.
[[Page [483]]]
(8) Federal courts and judges, and local courts in the Territories
and possessions.
(9) Immigration policy and non-border enforcement.
(10) Interstate compacts generally.
(11) Claims against the United States.
(12) Meetings of Congress; attendance of Members, Delegates, and
the Resident Commissioner; and their acceptance of incompatible offices.
(13) National penitentiaries.
(14) Patents, the Patent and Trademark Office, copyrights, and
trademarks.
(15) Presidential succession.
(16) Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints
and monopolies.
(17) Revision and codification of the Statutes of the United
States.
(18) State and territorial boundary lines.
(19) <> Subversive activities
affecting the in-
ternal security of the United States.
This committee dates from 1813 (IV, 4054). The essential jurisdiction
defined in the rule was made effective January 2, 1947, as a part of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), and combined the
Committees on Revision of Laws (created 1868, IV, 4293), Patents
(created in 1837) (IV, 4254), Immigration and Naturalization (created in
1893) (IV, 4309), Claims (created in 1794) (IV, 4262), and War Claims
(created in 1883) (IV, 4269). By the Committee Reform Amendments of
1974, effective January 3, 1975, the committee's jurisdiction over
holidays and celebrations was transferred to the former Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service (now Oversight and Reform) (H. Res. 988,
93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). In the 94th Congress the Committee
on Internal Security was abolished and jurisdiction over communist and
other subversive activities affecting the internal security of the
United States was transferred to this committee (subpara. (18), now
(19)) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20), though an accompanying
provision for the transfer of records and staff of the Inter
[[Page [484]]]
nal Security Committee to this committee was deleted as obsolete in the
95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70), and the specific
reference to communism was deleted as unnecessary in the 104th Congress
(sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). The 104th Congress also
inserted ``the judiciary'' in subparagraph (1); added subparagraph (2)
for clarification; combined former subparagraphs (6) and (9) in a new
subparagraph (7) (now (8)); and combined former subparagraphs (13) and
(14) in a new subparagraph (13) (now (14)) (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 464). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, including an update of
a reference to the Patent and Trademark Office (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). In the 109th Congress the House established the Committee on
Homeland Security with jurisdiction over certain functions of the
Department of Homeland Security that resulted in a conforming change to
subparagraph (9) (sec. 2(a)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42). For
debate (and material submitted during debate) that may edify the reader
on the jurisdictional issues surrounding the creation of the Committee
on Homeland Security, see January 4, 2005, pp. 60-62. In the 109th
Congress the House added subparagraph (7) (sec. 2(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan.
4, 2005, p. 42) and expanded it to include ``criminalization'' in the
114th Congress (sec. 2(a)(2)(A), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34).
Under subparagraph (15) the committee has jurisdiction over
Presidential nominations to fill vacancies in the Office of Vice
President, submitted pursuant to the 25th amendment to the Constitution
(Oct. 13, 1973, p. 34032; Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29366). The committee has
reported Articles of Impeachment of the President (Aug. 20, 1974, pp.
29219-81; Dec. 17, 1998, p. 27819; Dec. 15, 2019, p. _). If the House
has voted to impeach, members of the committee have been appointed as
managers on the part of the House in presenting the charges to the
Senate for trial (H. Res. 501, 99th Cong., July 22, 1986, p. 17306; H.
Res. 511, 100th Cong., Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20223; H. Res. 12, 101st Cong.,
Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84; Dec. 19, 1998, p. 28112; Jan. 6, 1999, p. 15; H.
Res. 798, Jan. 15, 2020, p. _; H. Res. 40, Jan. 13, 2021, p. _).
The committee considers charges against judges of the Federal courts
(IV, 4062), legislative propositions relating to the service of the
Department of Justice (IV, 4067), bills relating to local courts in the
District of Columbia, Alaska, and the territories (IV, 4068), the
establishment of a court of patent appeals (IV, 4075), relations of
labor to courts and corporations (IV, 4072), crimes, penalties,
extradition (IV, 4069; VII, 1747), construction and management of
national penitentiaries (IV, 4070), matters relating to trusts (VII,
1764), claims of States against the United States (IV, 4080), general
legislation relating to international and other claims (IV, 4078, 4079,
4081), including measures extending the terms of members of the Foreign
Claims Settlement Commission (Nov. 14, 1991, p. 32130), bills relating
to the flag (IV, 4055), bankruptcy (IV, 4065), removal of political
disabilities (IV, 4058), prohibition of traffic in intoxicating liquors
(IV,
[[Page [485]]]
4061; VII, 1773), mutiny and willful destruction of vessels (IV, 4145),
counterfeiting (IV, 4071; VII, 1753), settlement of State and
territorial boundary lines (VII, 1768), meeting of Congress and
attendance of Members and their acceptance of incompatible offices (IV,
4077).
The committee also has jurisdiction over joint resolutions proposing
amendments to the Constitution (IV, 4056; VII, 1779). Although the
committee has historically exercised jurisdiction over lobbying
activities, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics)
was assigned such jurisdiction during a brief period (H. Res. 1031, 91st
Cong., July 8, 1970, p. 23141; H. Res. 5, 94th Cong., Jan. 14, 1975, p.
20).
The committee also has jurisdiction over bills regulating the
authority of States to impose taxes on interstate commerce (June 18,
1959, p. 11317), imposing conflict of interest standards and civil and
criminal penalties relating thereto on government employees (Feb. 25,
1960, p. 3484), establishing an academy of criminal justice (Apr. 5,
1965, p. 6822), eliminating racketeering in the interstate sale of
cigarettes (Feb. 9, 1972, p. 3429), providing worker's compensation for
non-Federal firefighters killed during civil disorder (May 6, 1968, p.
11798) or to non-Federal policemen and firemen (Dec. 12, 1975, p.
40204), authorizing the Attorney General to consent to a modification of
a certain trust on behalf of the Library of Congress (Aug. 17, 1959, p.
16051), amending an omnibus pension act to increase the amount of
pension granted a certain class of persons (Feb. 15, 1960, p. 2523), and
imposing criminal sanctions under the Controlled Substances Act (Nov.
14, 1983, p. 32457). The committee has sole jurisdiction over the Legal
Services Corporation (Nov. 19, 1975, p. 37288). The committee has
exercised jurisdiction, with the Committee on Education and Labor, over
bills to amend the Walsh-Healey Act regarding hours of work under
government contracts (May 15, 1985, p. 11946). This committee, and not
the Committee on Public Works and Transportation (now Transportation and
Infrastructure), exercised jurisdiction over a bill extending the
authority for the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court
Police to protect the Chief Justice, Associate Justices, officers, and
employees of the Supreme Court beyond its building and grounds (Nov. 22,
1993, p. 32074). The Committee on Oversight and Reform, and not this
committee, has jurisdiction over pay adjustments for administrative law
judges (July 31, 1991, p. 20677; June 10, 1999, p. 12435). The Committee
on Natural Resources, and not this committee, has jurisdiction over a
bill to designate an immigration museum within a facility of the
National Park Service (July 8, 2004, p. 5348).
(m) Committee on Natural Resources.
(1) <> Fisheries and wildlife,
including research, restoration, refuges, and conservation.
[[Page [486]]]
(2) Forest reserves and national parks created from the public
domain.
(3) Forfeiture of land grants and alien ownership, including alien
ownership of mineral lands.
(4) Geological Survey.
(5) International fishing agreements.
(6) Interstate compacts relating to apportionment of waters for
irrigation purposes.
(7) Irrigation and reclamation, including water supply for
reclamation projects and easements of public lands for irrigation
projects; and acquisition of private lands when necessary to complete
irrigation projects.
(8) Native Americans generally, including the care and allotment
of Native American lands and general and special measures relating to
claims that are paid out of Native American funds.
(9) Insular areas of the United States generally (except those
affecting the revenue and appropriations).
(10) Military parks and battlefields, national cemeteries
administered by the Secretary of the Interior, parks within the District
of Columbia, and the erection of monuments to the memory of individuals.
(11) Mineral land laws and claims and entries thereunder.
(12) Mineral resources of public lands.
(13) Mining interests generally.
(14) Mining schools and experimental stations.
[[Page [487]]]
(15) Marine affairs, including coastal zone management (except for
measures relating to oil and other pollution of navigable waters).
(16) Oceanography.
(17) Petroleum conservation on public lands and conservation of
the radium supply in the United States.
(18) Preservation of prehistoric ruins and objects of interest on
the public domain.
(19) Public lands generally, including entry, easements, and
grazing thereon.
(20) Relations of the United States with Native Americans and
Native American tribes.
(21) Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline (except ratemaking).
The Committee on Public Lands was created in 1805 (IV, 4194). Its name
has since been changed to Interior and Insular Affairs (Feb. 2, 1951, p.
883); to Natural Resources (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49); to
Resources (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464); and back to
Natural Resources (sec. 214(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19).
The core of the jurisdiction reflected in this paragraph was assigned
to the committee effective January 2, 1947, as a part of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), which consolidated in this
committee the jurisdictions of the former Committees on Mines and Mining
(created in 1865) (IV, 4223), Insular Affairs (created in 1899) (IV,
4213), Irrigation and Reclamation (created in 1893) (IV, 4307), Indian
Affairs (created in 1821) (IV, 4204), and Territories (created in 1825)
(IV, 4208), though vesting the subject of welfare of miners, formerly
under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Mines and Mining, in the
Committee on Education and Labor. Until the Reorganization Act, military
parks, battlefields, and national cemeteries were under the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Military Affairs. Jurisdiction over cemeteries of
the United States in which veterans may be buried, except those
administered by the Secretary of the Interior, was transferred to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the 90th Congress (H. Res. 241, Oct.
20, 1967).
In the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975,
the committee gained jurisdiction over parks within the District of
Columbia, formerly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation (now Transportation and Infrastructure)
(subpara. (10)), and lost specific jurisdiction over Indian education
and
[[Page [488]]]
over Hawaii and Alaska, generally (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470). By that same resolution, the committee was given special
oversight functions in clause 3.
The 104th Congress expanded the jurisdiction of the committee by:
adding subparagraphs (1), (5), (15), and (16) to reflect the transfer of
those matters from the former Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries; inserting the subject of monuments in memory of individuals
in subparagraph (10) to reflect the transfer of that matter from the
Committee on House Administration; adding subparagraph (21), an
exceptional treatment of pipeline jurisdiction otherwise vested in the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and deleting the subject
of regulation of the domestic nuclear energy industry to reflect the
transfer of that jurisdiction, which this committee had acquired when
the 95th Congress abolished the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70) and which it shared with the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, to the Committee on Energy and Commerce (sec.
202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). At the same time, the
statements of special oversight functions formerly found in this
paragraph and in former paragraph (e) of this clause were adjusted to
reflect the transfer of nonmilitary nuclear energy and research and
development, including disposal of nuclear waste, from this committee to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, though conforming changes in
former paragraphs (e) and (h) of clause 3 were inadvertently omitted.
The 113th Congress amended subparagraph (9) by changing ``insular
possessions'' to ``insular areas'' (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013,
p. 26). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47).
The committee reports on subjects relating to the mineral resources of
the public lands (IV, 4202), forfeiture of land grants and alien
ownership (IV, 4201), validation of certain conveyances of erstwhile
public lands by a railway company (July 11, 1995, p. 18397), public
lands of Alaska (IV, 4196), forest reserves created out of the public
domain (IV, 4197, 4199), including measures relating to criminal
trespass provisions applying only within national forests created from
the public domain (July 18, 1977, p. 23434); admission of States (IV,
4208); preservation of prehistoric ruins and objects of interest on the
public domain (IV, 4199); and various classes of land claims (IV, 4203).
The committee also has jurisdiction over the following bills: to dispose
of proceeds from oil shale on public lands (other than naval oil shale
reserves) (Aug. 3, 1967, p. 21179); to exclude certain lands in the
Outer Continental Shelf from mineral leasing provisions of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (May 16, 1963, p. 8777); to reinstate a U.S.
oil and gas lease (Aug. 5, 1959, p. 15190); to address U.S. claims to
lands along the Colorado River forming State boundaries (June 28, 1967,
p. 17738); to designate national forest lands created from the public
domain as wilderness (May 6, 1969, p. 11459); to include additional
units in the Missouri River Basin project (Sept. 8, 1959, p. 18587); to
establish a commission on development of Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C. as
a national his
[[Page [489]]]
toric site (Oct. 21, 1965, p. 27803); to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a feasibility investigation of potential water
resource development (May 1, 1975, p. 12764); to establish a commission
to consider the creation of a (Hudson) River compact (July 21, 1975, p.
23653); to name a building constructed as part of a Federal recreation
area (June 8, 1988, p. 13803); to address the siting on Federal park
land of an established national memorial (Sept. 24, 1991, p. 23731);
(with the Committee on Agriculture) to exchange a Federal tree nursery
for certain State mining patents touching a public domain (western)
forest (Sept. 17, 1991, p. 23193); and to transfer interest in a
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries research
laboratory (Oct. 1, 2002, p. 18796). The Committee on National Security
(now Armed Services), and not this committee, has jurisdiction over the
transfer of military property to a State to be designated by the State
as a wilderness area (Nov. 15, 1995, p. 32627). The Committee on
Agriculture, and not this committee, has jurisdiction over the
designation of an agricultural research center (May 14, 1996, p. 11070).
The Committee on Education and Labor, and not this committee, has
jurisdiction over a bill amending the Native American Programs Act of
1974 (an Indian education matter) (Oct. 30, 1997, p. 23967). This
committee, and not the Committee on Agriculture, has jurisdiction over a
bill to convey land that is part of a National Forest created from the
public domain (Mar. 23, 2004, p. 4926). This committee, and not the
Committee on the Judiciary, has jurisdiction over a bill to designate an
immigration museum within a facility of the National Park Service (July
8, 2004, p. 14755). This committee, and not the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, has jurisdiction over a bill
addressing a federal water project operated by the Bureau of Reclamation
(June 25, 2007, p. 17128).
The authority of the committee to report as privileged bills for the
forfeiture of land grants to railroad and other corporations, preventing
speculation in the public lands, for the preservation of the public
lands for the benefit of actual and bona fide settlers, and for the
admission of new States was eliminated in the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470).
(n) Committee on Oversight and Reform.
(1) <> Federal civil
service, including intergovernmental personnel; and the status of
officers and employees of the United States, including their
compensation, classification, and retirement.
(2) Municipal affairs of the District of Columbia in general
(other than appropriations).
(3) Federal paperwork reduction.
[[Page [490]]]
(4) Government management and accounting measures generally.
(5) Holidays and celebrations.
(6) Overall economy, efficiency, and management of government
operations and activities, including Federal procurement.
(7) National archives.
(8) Population and demography generally, including the Census.
(9) Postal service generally, including transportation of the
mails.
(10) Public information and records.
(11) Relationship of the Federal Government to the States and
municipalities generally.
(12) Reorganizations in the executive branch of the Government.
In the 82d Congress the name of this committee was changed from
Expenditures in the Executive Departments to Government Operations (July
3, 1952, p. 9217). In the 104th Congress it was changed to Government
Reform and Oversight (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464), in
the 106th Congress to Government Reform (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47), in the 110th Congress to Oversight and Government Reform (sec.
215(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19), and in the 116th Congress to
Oversight and Reform (sec. 102(f), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). The
former Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments was
established December 5, 1927 (VII, 2041), and took the place of 11
separate committees on expenditures in the several executive
departments. The first of these committees was established in 1816, and
others were added as new departments were created (IV, 4315). They
reported bills relating to the efficiency and integrity of the public
service (IV, 4320) and creation and abolition of offices (IV, 4318).
In addition to the jurisdiction vested in the committee by the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), the Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975, assigned the
committee jurisdiction over measures relating to the overall economy and
efficiency of Government operations and activities, including Federal
procurement, intergovernmental relationships, and general revenue
sharing (the latter from the Committee on Ways and Means was stricken
from the jurisdictional statement of this committee in the 104th
Congress (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
[[Page [491]]]
4, 1995, p. 464)), and the National Archives (from the former Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470). In the 104th Congress (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995,
p. 464), the committee assumed the jurisdictions of the former Committee
on the District of Columbia (subpara. (2)) and the former Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service except that relating to the Franking
Commission (subparas. (1), (5), (8), and (9)); and subparagraphs (3) and
(10) were added to clarify existing jurisdiction. At the same time the
committee's jurisdiction over measures relating to off-budget treatment
of agencies or programs, which had been added by the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177), was transferred to
the Committee on the Budget. Three rereferrals from this committee to
the Committee on the Budget marked this migration of off-budget
treatment jurisdiction: (1) the Committee on the Budget has primary
jurisdiction over a bill excluding from the budget the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund (although this committee retains
programmatic jurisdiction over that Fund); (2) the Committee on the
Budget has primary jurisdiction over a bill excluding from the budget
the Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund, and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (although
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure retains programmatic
jurisdiction); and (3) the Committee on the Budget has additional
jurisdiction over a bill amending title 49 of the United States Code and
providing off-budget treatment for the Highway Trust Fund, the Airport
and Airway Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund (Dec. 6, 1995, p. 35572). The committee was also
released from jurisdiction over measures relating to exemptions from
executive orders sequestering budget authority, which had been added by
the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101-508). In the
105th Congress any residual jurisdiction over budget process was
transferred to the Committee on the Budget (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p.
121). In the 104th Congress the committee was also given the
responsibility to consider and report recommendations concerning
alternatives to commemorative legislation, although no such report was
made to the House (sec. 216(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468).
Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, including the deletion of a redundant
undesignated recitation of general and special oversight functions (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The committee has exercised jurisdiction over bills: waiving
Reorganization Plans to establish the Rural Electrification
Administration as an independent agency and transferring certain
functions thereto (Mar. 19, 1959, p. 4692); establishing a Commission on
Population Growth (Sept. 23, 1969, p. 26568); establishing a Cabinet
Committee on Opportunities for Spanish-Speaking Americans (Nov. 24,
1969, p. 35509); providing payment of travel costs for Federal
employment applicants (Feb. 15, 1967, p. 3466); and a bill to rename an
existing post office building (Aug. 4, 1995, p. 22085;
[[Page [492]]]
Oct. 1, 1998, p. 22933), even if the post office building also houses a
courthouse (Sept. 14, 2000, p. 18054). The Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, and not this committee, has jurisdiction over a
measure redesignating a general-purpose Federal building as a post
office (Apr. 24, 1997, p. 22085). The committee has exercised
jurisdiction over countercyclical programs of revenue-sharing grants to
State and local governments, such as that contained in Title II of the
Public Works Employment Act of 1976 (Feb. 1, 1977, p. 3057). The
committee shares jurisdiction over a bill to facilitate the
reorganization of an agency by instituting a separation pay program to
encourage eligible employees to voluntarily resign or retire (Aug. 2,
1993, p. 18161). The committee has jurisdiction over a bill explicitly
waiving the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act and
directing the Administrator of General Services to convey excess real
property (Oct. 2, 1998, p. 23186). This committee, and not the Committee
on the Judiciary, has jurisdiction over a bill authorizing a pay
adjustment for administrative law judges (July 31, 1991, p. 20677; June
10, 1999, p. 12435).
The specific subpoena authority conferred upon the committee in the
standing rules on February 10, 1947 (p. 942) was superseded by the
general conferral of subpoena authority on all committees in clause 2(m)
of rule XI. The committee may authorize the taking of depositions
pursuant to subpoena under the standing rules (clause 4(c)(3)) or under
a separate order (see, e.g., sec. 3(b), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
By the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975,
the committee was given the general function under clause 4(c)(1) of
examining and reporting upon reports of the Comptroller General,
evaluating laws reorganizing the legislative and executive branches, and
studying intergovernmental relationships domestically and with
international organizations to which the United States belongs (H. Res.
988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Under section 2954 of title 5,
United States Code, an executive agency, if so requested by this
committee or any seven members thereof, shall submit any information
requested of it relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
committee.
(o) Committee on Rules.
(1) <> Rules and joint rules (other than
those relating to the Code of Official Conduct) and the order of
business of the House.
(2) Recesses and final adjournments of Congress.
This committee, which had existed as a select committee from 1789,
became a standing committee in 1880 (IV, 4321; VII, 2047). The
jurisdiction defined in this paragraph became effective January 2, 1947,
as a part of
[[Page [493]]]
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812). Clerical and
stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress, including the deletion of a redundant undesignated
paragraph permitting the committee to sit during sessions of the House
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). That undesignated paragraph,
originally designated as subparagraph (3) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p.
49), was derived from section 134(c) of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946, even though the committee had authority to sit during
sessions of the House since 1893 (IV, 4546). Effective January 3, 1975,
however, the authority for all committees to sit and act whether the
House is in session or has adjourned rendered this provision obsolete
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470).
The Speaker was first made a member of the committee in 1858 (IV,
4321), and ceased to be a member on March 19, 1910 (VII, 2047). However,
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 deleted from the former rule
the prohibition against the Speaker serving on the committee. The size
of the committee was increased from 12 to 15 members for the 87th
Congress (Jan. 31, 1961, p. 1589), and the increase in the committee's
size was incorporated as a part of the rules in the 88th Congress (Jan.
9, 1963, p. 14). Effective January 3, 1975, however, the rules were
amended to eliminate prescriptions of committee sizes (H. Res. 988, 93d
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), and in the 94th through the 98th
Congresses 16 Members were named to the committee on nominations from
the respective party caucuses (see, e.g., H. Res. 76, Jan. 20, 1975, p.
803; H. Res. 101, Jan. 28, 1975, p. 1611), and in the 99th through 101st
Congresses, 13 Members were so named to the committee (see, e.g., H.
Res. 34, 35, Jan. 30, 1985, pp. 1271, 1273).
The subject of recesses and adjournments was formerly under the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. In section 402(b) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344, July 12, 1974), the
committee was given specific authority to report emergency waivers of
the required reporting date for bills and resolutions authorizing new
budget authority. That authority was incorporated into this rule,
effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470), but was repealed as obsolete in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). Jurisdiction over rules relating to official
conduct and financial disclosure was transferred to the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) on April 3, 1968 (H. Res.
1099, 90th Cong.), but in the 95th Congress, jurisdiction over rules
relating to financial disclosure by Members, officers, and employees of
the House was returned to this committee (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp.
53-70).
The jurisdiction of this committee is primarily over propositions to
make or change the rules (V, 6770, 6776; VII, 2047), to create
committees (IV, 4322; VII, 2048), and to direct them to make
investigations (IV, 4322-4324; VII, 2048). Effective January 3, 1975,
however, the authority for all committees to conduct investigations and
studies was made a part of
[[Page [494]]]
the standing rules (clause 1(b) of rule XI), as was the authority to
issue subpoenas (clause 2(m) of rule XI) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct.
8, 1974, p. 34470). The committee also reports resolutions relating to
the hour of daily meeting and the days on which the House shall sit (IV,
4325), and orders relating to the use of the galleries during the
electoral count (IV, 4327). The chair of the Committee on the Budget
inserted in the Congressional Record a memorandum of understanding
between this committee and the Committee on the Budget to clarify each
committee's jurisdiction over the congressional budget process (Jan. 4,
1995, p. 617). The Committee on the Budget has primary jurisdiction, and
this committee has additional jurisdiction, over a bill amending the
Budget Act to establish new legislative points of order and directing
that the President include a specified matter in the budget (Feb. 13,
2001, p. 1817).
Since <> 1883 the
Committee on Rules has reported special orders providing times and
methods for consideration of individual measures or classes of measures,
thereby enabling the House by majority vote to forward particular
legislation, instead of being forced to use for this purpose the motion
to suspend the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote (IV, 3152; V,
6870; for forms of, IV, 3238-3263).
Special orders may still be made by suspension of the rules (IV, 3154)
or by unanimous consent (IV, 3165, 3166; VII, 758); but it is not in
order to provide that a subject be made a special order by way of a
motion to postpone to a day certain (IV, 3164). Before the adoption of
rules, and consequently before there is a rule as to the order of
business, the Speaker may recognize a Member to offer for immediate
consideration a special order providing for the consideration in the
House of a subsequent resolution to adopt rules for the new Congress
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 6.10; H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 7;
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). A special order reported by the
Committee on Rules must be agreed to by a majority vote of the House
(IV, 3169).
It is not in order to move to postpone a special order providing for
the consideration of a class of bills (V, 4958), but a bill that comes
before the House by the terms of a special order merely assigning the
day for its consideration may be postponed by a majority vote (IV, 3177-
3182). A motion to rescind a special order is not privileged under the
rules regulating the order of business (IV, 3173, 3174; V, 5323).
A motion to amend the Rules of the House does not present a question
of privilege (VIII, 3377, overruling VIII, 3376; see also Sec. 706,
supra), and it is not in order by raising a question of the privileges
of the House under rule IX to move to direct the Committee on Rules to
consider a request to report a special order of business (Speaker
Albert, June 27, 1974, p. 21599), or to direct the Committee on Rules to
meet, to elect a temporary chair (in the temporary absence of the chair)
and consider special orders of business (Speaker Albert, July 31, 1975,
p. 26250).
For further discussion of the Committee on Rules, see Sec. Sec. 857-
863, infra.
[[Page [495]]]
(p) Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
(1) <> All energy
research, development, and demonstration, and projects therefor, and all
federally owned or operated nonmilitary energy laboratories.
(2) Astronautical research and development, including resources,
personnel, equipment, and facilities.
(3) Civil aviation research and development.
(4) Environmental research and development.
(5) Marine research.
(6) Commercial application of energy technology.
(7) National Institute of Standards and Technology,
standardization of weights and measures, and the metric system.
(8) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(9) National Space Council.
(10) National Science Foundation.
(11) National Weather Service.
(12) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
(13) Science scholarships.
(14) Scientific research, development, and demonstration, and
projects therefor.
The standing Committee on Science and Astronautics was established in
the 85th Congress and given jurisdiction formerly vested in a Select
Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration established a few months
earlier (Mar. 5, 1958, p. 3443), as well as the former jurisdiction of
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (now Energy and
Commerce) over the Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute of
Standards and Technology) and science scholarships (July 21, 1958, p.
[[Page [496]]]
14513). By the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3,
1975, the committee was redesignated as the Committee on Science and
Technology and given additional jurisdiction over civil aviation
research and development, environmental research and development,
nonnuclear energy research and development, and the National Weather
Service (now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). At the
same time the committee was given the general and special oversight
functions set forth in clause 2(b) and former clause 3(f) (current
clause 3(k)). When the House abolished the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy in the 95th Congress, this committee was given jurisdiction over
nuclear research and development as well (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp.
53-70). Its jurisdiction over energy research and development (now
subpara. (1)) was amended in the 96th Congress, effective January 3,
1981, to specifically include energy demonstration projects and
federally owned nonmilitary energy laboratories (H. Res. 549, Mar. 25,
1980, pp. 6405-10). In the 100th Congress, the committee was
redesignated as the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6). In the 103d Congress the jurisdictional
statement of the committee was updated to reflect the renaming of
executive branch entities (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). The 104th
Congress renamed the committee as the Committee on Science and expanded
its jurisdiction by adding subparagraph (5), from the former Committee
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and subparagraph (6), from the
Committee on Energy and Commerce (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995,
p. 464). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, including the deletion of a
redundant undesignated recitation of general and special oversight
functions (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The 110th Congress renamed
the committee as the Committee on Science and Technology (sec. 216(a),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19) and the 112th Congress redesignated it
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (sec. 2(e)(9), H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80).
The committee has jurisdiction over proposals dealing with U.S.
participation in the World Science Pan-Pacific Exposition (June 24,
1959, p. 11810); over a resolution condemning Soviet Union internal
exile of an individual, and recommending that Government agencies
including NASA, the National Bureau of Standards and the National
Science Foundation defer official travel to that country (Jan. 30, 1980,
p. 1320); with the Committees on Armed Services and Interior and Insular
Affairs (now Natural Resources), over bills to test the commercial
viability of oil shale technologies within the naval oil shale reserves
or on other public lands (Sept. 26, 1978, p. 31623); and with four other
committees over a bill coordinating Federal agencies' research into
ground water contamination, including that done by the Environmental
Protection Agency (Mar. 15, 1989, p. 4163). The Committee on Natural
Resources, and not this committee, has jurisdic
[[Page [497]]]
tion over a bill transferring interest in a National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration fisheries research laboratory (Oct. 1, 2002,
p. 18796).
(q) Committee on Small Business.
(1) <> Assistance to and
protection of small business, including financial aid, regulatory
flexibility, and paperwork reduction.
(2) Participation of small-business enterprises in Federal
procurement and Government contracts.
A Select Committee on Small Business was first established in the 77th
Congress (H. Res. 294, pp. 9418-28) and was reconstituted each Congress
thereafter by resolution reported from the Committee on Rules until made
permanent in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144).
The Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 established a standing
Committee on Small Business, effective January 3, 1975, and vested it
with legislative jurisdiction formerly held by the Committee on Banking
and Currency (now Financial Services) (subpara. (1)) and the Committee
on the Judiciary (subpara. (2)) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470). At the same time the general and special oversight functions
were set forth in clause 2(b) and in former clause 3(g) (current clause
3(l)). The 104th Congress expanded the jurisdiction of the committee
over assistance to and protection of small business by inserting the
references to regulatory flexibility and paperwork reduction in
subparagraph (1) (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464; see also
Feb. 9, 1995, p. 4328) and later effected a technical correction (H.
Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077). Clerical and stylistic changes were
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
including the deletion of a redundant undesignated recitation of general
and special oversight functions (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(r) Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
(1) <> Coast
Guard, including lifesaving service, lighthouses, lightships, ocean
derelicts, and the Coast Guard Academy.
(2) Federal management of emergencies and natural disasters.
[[Page [498]]]
(3) Flood control and improvement of rivers and harbors.
(4) Inland waterways.
(5) Inspection of merchant marine vessels, lights and signals,
lifesaving equipment, and fire protection on such vessels.
(6) Navigation and laws relating thereto, including pilotage.
(7) Registering and licensing of vessels and small boats.
(8) Rules and international arrangements to prevent collisions at
sea.
(9) The Capitol Building and the Senate and House Office
Buildings.
(10) Construction or maintenance of roads and post roads (other
than appropriations therefor).
(11) Construction or reconstruction, maintenance, and care of
buildings and grounds of the Botanic Garden, the Library of Congress,
and the Smithsonian Institution.
(12) Merchant marine (except for national security aspects
thereof).
(13) Purchase of sites and construction of post offices,
customhouses, Federal courthouses, and Government buildings within the
District of Columbia.
(14) Oil and other pollution of navigable waters, including
inland, coastal, and ocean waters.
(15) Marine affairs, including coastal zone management, as they
relate to oil and other pollution of navigable waters.
[[Page [499]]]
(16) Public buildings and occupied or improved grounds of the
United States generally.
(17) Public works for the benefit of navigation, including bridges
and dams (other than international bridges and dams).
(18) Related transportation regulatory agencies (except the
Transportation Security Administration).
(19) Roads and the safety thereof.
(20) Transportation, including civil aviation, railroads, water
transportation, transportation safety (except automobile safety and
transportation security functions of the Department of Homeland
Security), transportation infrastructure, transportation labor, and
railroad retirement and unemployment (except revenue measures related
thereto).
(21) Water power.
The committee was created effective January 2, 1947, as a part of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), combining the
Committees on Flood Control (created in 1916) (VII, 2069), Public
Buildings and Grounds (created in 1837) (IV, 4231), Rivers and Harbors
(created in 1883) (IV, 4118)), and Roads (created in 1913) (VII, 2065).
The authority of the committee to report as privileged bills authorizing
the improvement of rivers and harbors was eliminated by the Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). At the same time the committee's
jurisdiction over parks in the District of Columbia was transferred to
the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (now Natural Resources);
and it gained jurisdiction over transportation, including civil aviation
(except railroads, railroad labor, and railroad pensions), over roads
and the safety thereof, over water transportation subject to the
jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and over related
transportation regulatory agencies with certain exceptions. The 104th
Congress changed the name of the Committee from Public Works and
Transportation to Transportation and Infrastructure and expanded its
jurisdiction by: adding subparagraphs (1), (5)-(8), (12), and (15) to
reflect the transfer of those matters from the former Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries; adding subparagraph (4) and enlarging
subparagraph (20) to reflect the transfer of those matters from the Com
[[Page [500]]]
mittee on Energy and Commerce; and adding subparagraph (2) and inserting
the reference to inland, coastal, and ocean waters in subparagraph (14),
as clarifying consolidations of formerly fractionalized subjects (sec.
202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464). Clerical and stylistic changes
were effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress.
The 106th Congress also adopted a substantive amendment to this
provision deleting the prohibition against including a provision for a
specific road in a bill providing for another specific road or in a
general road bill (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 109th
Congress the House established the Committee on Homeland Security (sec.
2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42). The new committee was given
jurisdiction over certain functions of the Department of Homeland
Security that resulted in two conforming changes to this paragraph. For
debate (and material submitted during debate) that may edify the reader
on the jurisdictional issues surrounding the creation of that committee,
see January 4, 2005, pp. 60-62.
The committee has jurisdiction over proposals establishing Treasury
revolving funds for the Southeastern and Southwestern Power
Administrations (July 2, 1959, p. 12629); directing the Secretary of the
Army to provide school facilities for dependents of Corps of Engineers
construction workers (June 17, 1968, p. 17429); conveying Corps of
Engineers flood-control project lands (July 15, 1965, p. 17002), naming
reservoirs within such projects (Oct. 3, 1989, p. 22770) or allocating
or limiting water use therefrom (Feb. 28, 1990, p. 2893); directing the
Secretary of the Army to renew the license of an American Legion Post to
use a parcel of land on a Corps of Engineers project (May 10, 1988, p.
10282); authorizing construction of an annex to the National Gallery of
Art by the Smithsonian Institution (Apr. 10, 1968, p. 9553); addressing
the location and development of the J. F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts (Sept. 15, 1965, p. 23927; Oct. 21, 1965, p. 27803);
transferring land under the control of the Corps of Engineers to Indian
tribes (Jan. 29, 1976, p. 1577); amending the Interstate Commerce Act to
regulate truck transportation (Feb. 24, 1976, p. 4109; Mar. 1, 1979, p.
3754); concerning the treatment of a U.S. air freight carrier by the
Japanese Ministry of Transport pursuant to an understanding negotiated
under the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979 (not
a Trade Act matter) (July 28, 1988, p. 19536); and over an executive
communication amending Public Law 90-553, reported by the committee, to
authorize the transfer, conveyance, lease and improvement of, and
construction on, certain property in the District of Columbia, for use
as a headquarters site for an international organization, as sites for
governments of foreign countries (Sept. 15, 1981, p. 20598). The
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight (now Oversight and Reform),
and not this committee, has jurisdiction over a bill renaming an
existing post office building (Aug. 4, 1995, p. 22085; Oct. 1, 1998, p.
22933) and renaming an existing post office building that also housed a
courthouse (Sept. 14, 2000, p. 18054). However, this committee, and not
the Committee on Oversight and Reform, has jurisdiction over a bill
redesignating a gen
[[Page [501]]]
eral-purpose Federal building as a post office (Apr. 24, 1997, p. 6291).
This committee, and not the Committee on Ways and Means, has
jurisdiction over a bill designating a customs building (Dec. 12, 1995,
p. 36165). The Committee on Natural Resources, and not this committee,
has jurisdiction over a bill to validate certain conveyances of
erstwhile public lands by a railway company (July 11, 1995, p. 18397).
The Committee on Oversight and Reform, and not this committee, has
jurisdiction over a bill transferring real property administered by the
Coast Guard where the bill explicitly waives the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act and directs the Administrator of General
Services to convey the property (Oct. 2, 1998, p. 23186).
The committee has shared jurisdiction: with the Committee on Energy
and Commerce over a bill amending the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
provide for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites or discharges
presenting a threat to human health and the environment, including
navigable waters (Mar. 21, 1984, p. 6186); with the Committee on
Government Operations (now Oversight and Reform) over a bill to require
the Administrator of General Services to convey certain real property (a
Federal building) to the Museum for the American Indian and providing
for renovation and alteration of the property (Oct. 28, 1987, p. 29685);
with the Committee on House Administration over a bill authorizing the
Smithsonian Institution to construct, expand, and renovate facilities at
the Cooper-Hewitt Museum in New York (July 21, 1987, p. 20309), and over
a bill authorizing appropriations to plan, design, construct, and equip
museum space for the Smithsonian (July 18, 1991, p. 18830); with several
other committees over bills to convert from a defense economy by, inter
alia, authorizing economic assistance for public works and economic
development (June 24, 1991, p. 16021; June 11, 1992, p. 14470); and with
the Committee on Education and Labor over bills providing labor
protections to workers, including airline employees, in the
transportation industry (June 24, 1991, p. 16020; Feb. 24, 1993, p.
3577).
In the 101st Congress, the committee reported a bill requiring a
cooling-off period in a labor-management dispute between an airline and
its unions under the Railway Labor Act (H.R. 1231, Mar. 13, 1989, p.
4032).
(s) Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
(1) Veterans' measures generally.
(2) <> Cemeteries of the
United States in which veterans of any war or conflict are or may be
buried, whether in the United States or abroad (except cemeteries
administered by the Secretary of the Interior).
[[Page [502]]]
(3) Compensation, vocational rehabilitation, and education of
veterans.
(4) Life insurance issued by the Government on account of service
in the Armed Forces.
(5) Pensions of all the wars of the United States, general and
special.
(6) Readjustment of servicemembers to civil life.
(7) Servicemembers' civil relief.
(8) Veterans' hospitals, medical care, and treatment of veterans.
This committee was established January 2, 1947, as a part of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), and was vested
with jurisdiction formerly exercised by the Committees on World War
Veterans' Legislation (VII, 2077); Invalid Pensions (IV, 4258); and
Pensions (IV, 4260). Jurisdiction over veterans' cemeteries administered
by the Department of Defense was transferred from the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs (now Natural Resources) in the 90th
Congress (H. Res. 241, Oct. 20, 1967, p. 29560), a matter now shared
with the Committee on Armed Services. Vocational rehabilitation, except
that pertaining to veterans, is under the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Education and Labor. The committee has jurisdiction over bills to
amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to permit certain declarations
of fact in lieu of affidavits (Feb. 4, 1959, p. 1812), and over bills to
amend the Servicemen's and Veterans' Survivor Benefits Act relating to
service-connected deaths of retired members of the uniformed services
(May 18, 1959, p. 8273). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected
when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Technical changes to subparagraphs (6) and (7)
were effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005,
p. 44).
(t) Committee on Ways and Means.
(1) <> Customs revenue,
collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery.
(2) Reciprocal trade agreements.
(3) Revenue measures generally.
(4) Revenue measures relating to insular possessions.
[[Page [503]]]
(5) Bonded debt of the United States, subject to the last sentence
of clause 4(f).
(6) Deposit of public monies.
(7) Transportation of dutiable goods.
(8) Tax exempt foundations and charitable trusts.
(9) National social security (except health care and facilities
programs that are supported from general revenues as opposed to payroll
deductions and except work incentive programs).
A select Committee on Ways and Means dates from 1789. It was made a
standing committee in 1802. Originally it considered both revenue and
appropriations, but in 1865 the appropriation bills were given to the
Committee on Appropriations and certain other bills to the Committee on
Banking and Currency (now Financial Services) (IV, 4020). Its
jurisdiction was also amended on April 5, 1911 (p. 58), and further
defined in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812),
which transferred the subject of recesses and final adjournments from
this committee to the Committee on Rules.
By the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975,
the committee gained legislative jurisdiction over tax exempt
foundations and charitable trusts (subpara. (8)), formerly within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Currency (now Financial
Services) because of their impact on the economy, while it was released
from: jurisdiction over health care and facilities programs supported
from general revenues to the Committee on Energy and Commerce;
jurisdiction over work incentive programs to the Committee on Education
and Labor; and jurisdiction over renegotiation to the Committee on
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs (now Financial Services) (H. Res.
988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The Committee Reform Amendments
also transferred jurisdiction over general revenue sharing from this
committee to the Committee on Government Operations (now Oversight and
Reform); however, revenue sharing was stricken from the jurisdictional
statement of that committee in the 104th Congress (sec. 202(a), H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464).
The committee's jurisdiction over the bonded debt of the United States
(subpara. (5)) was made subject to the last sentence of clause 4(f)
(formerly clause 4(g)) of rule X in the 96th Congress by Public Law 96-
78 (93 Stat. 589). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). In the 109th Congress the House established the Committee
on Homeland Security (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42), which
was given jurisdiction
[[Page [504]]]
over certain functions of the Department of Homeland Security that
resulted in a conforming change to this paragraph. For debate (and
material submitted during debate) that may edify the reader on the
jurisdictional issues surrounding the creation of that committee, see
January 4, 2005, pp. 60-62.
The revenue jurisdiction of the committee extends to such subjects as
transportation of dutiable goods, collection districts, ports of entry
and delivery (IV, 4026), customs unions, reciprocity treaties (IV,
4021), revenue relations of the United States with Puerto Rico (IV,
4025), the revenue bills relating to agricultural products generally,
excepting oleomargarine (IV, 4022), and tax on cotton and grain futures.
The committee formerly had jurisdiction as to seal herds and other
revenue-producing animals in Alaska but this jurisdiction was changed in
the 68th Congress to the former Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries (VII, 1725, 1851). As exemplified by sequential referrals in
the 96th Congress, the committee has jurisdiction over reported bills
creating major oil spill and hazardous waste trust funds in the
Treasury, funded by assessments on all quantities of oil, petrochemical
feedstocks, and other hazardous substances offered for sale, where the
scope and size of the funds and the method of assessment (similar to an
excise tax) represented the collection of general revenue to fund
particular Federal activities, a type of financing mechanism over which
the Ways and Means Committee has traditionally exercised jurisdiction
(May 20, 1980, p. 11862).
The committee has jurisdiction over subjects relating to the Treasury
of the United States and the deposit of the public moneys (IV, 4028),
but it failed to make good a claim to the subjects of ``national
finances'' and ``preservation of the Government credit'' (IV, 4023). The
committee has jurisdiction over bills providing tax incentives for
persons investing in Indian property (Feb. 1, 1964, p. 1582), providing
unemployment compensation to individuals with military or Federal
service (Apr. 28, 1976, p. 11590), providing extended and increased
unemployment compensation (Apr. 16, 1975, p. 10346), and over private
bills waiving provisions of the Tariff Act to require reliquidation of
certain imported materials as duty-free (July 13, 1982, p. 16014). The
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and not this committee,
has jurisdiction over a bill to designate a customs administrative
building (Dec. 12, 1995, p. 36165). The Committee on the Budget, and not
this committee, has jurisdiction over a bill establishing a rule of
sequestration under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act (Dec. 15, 2000, p. 27085). The Committee on the Budget has primary
jurisdiction, and this committee has additional jurisdiction, over a
bill taking Social Security trust funds off budget (Dec. 15, 2000, p.
27085).
The committee has exercised jurisdiction, with the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation (now Transportation and Infrastructure), over
executive communications proposing draft legislation reauthorizing the
Surface Transportation Act but also containing a revenue title raising
taxes
[[Page [505]]]
to fund surface transportation programs (Mar. 20, 1986, p. 5804); with
the former Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries (succeeded by the
Committee on Natural Resources) over a bill amending the Fishermen's
Protective Act to authorize the President to prohibit the importation of
any product from a country violating an international fishery
conservation program (Mar. 21, 1989, p. 5077); and with three other
committees over a bill imposing certain international economic sanctions
including tariffs (May 27, 1992, p. 12658).
The committee in the earlier practice reported resolutions
distributing the President's annual message (IV, 4030), but since the
first session of the 64th Congress this practice has been discontinued
(VIII, 3350).
General oversight responsibilities
2. (a) <> The various standing
committees shall have general oversight responsibilities as provided in
paragraph (b) in order to assist the House in--
(1) its analysis, appraisal, and evaluation of--
(A) the application, administration, execution, and
effectiveness of Federal laws; and
(B) conditions and circumstances that may indicate the
necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional legislation; and
(2) its formulation, consideration, and enactment of changes in
Federal laws, and of such additional legislation as may be necessary or
appropriate.
(b)(1) In order to determine whether laws and programs addressing
subjects within the jurisdiction of a committee are being implemented
and carried out in accordance with the intent of Congress and whether
they should be continued, curtailed, or eliminated, each standing
committee (other than the Committee on Appropria
[[Page [506]]]
tions) shall review and study on a continuing basis--
(A) the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness
of laws and programs addressing subjects within its jurisdiction;
(B) the organization and operation of Federal agencies and
entities having responsibilities for the administration and execution of
laws and programs addressing subjects within its jurisdiction;
(C) any conditions or circumstances that may indicate the
necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional legislation
addressing subjects within its jurisdiction (whether or not a bill or
resolution has been introduced with respect thereto); and
(D) future research and forecasting on subjects within its
jurisdiction.
(2) <> Each committee to
which subparagraph (1) applies having more than 20 members shall
establish an oversight subcommittee, or require its subcommittees to
conduct oversight in their respective jurisdictions, to assist in
carrying out its responsibilities under this clause. The establishment
of an oversight subcommittee does not limit the responsibility of a
subcommittee with legislative jurisdiction in carrying out its oversight
responsibilities.
(c) Each standing committee shall review and study on a continuing
basis the impact or probable impact of tax policies affecting subjects
within its jurisdiction as described in clauses 1 and 3.
[[Page [507]]]
(d)(1) Not later than March 1 of the first session of a Congress, the
chair of each standing committee (other than the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on Ethics, and the Committee on Rules)
shall--
(A) prepare, in consultation with the ranking minority member, an
oversight plan for that Congress;
(B) provide a copy of that plan to each member of the committee
for at least seven calendar days before its submission; and
(C) submit that plan (including any supplemental, minority,
additional, or dissenting views submitted by a member of the committee)
simultaneously to the Committee on Oversight and Reform and the
Committee on House Administration.
(2) In developing the plan, the chair of each committee shall, to the
maximum extent feasible--
(A) consult with other committees that have jurisdiction over the
same or related laws, programs, or agencies with the objective of
ensuring maximum coordination and cooperation among committees when
conducting reviews of such laws, programs, or agencies and include in
the plan an explanation of steps that have been or will be taken to
ensure such coordination and cooperation;
(B) review specific problems with Federal rules, regulations,
statutes, and court decisions that are ambiguous, arbitrary, or non
[[Page [508]]]
sensical, or that impose severe financial burdens on individuals;
(C) give priority consideration to including in the plan the
review of those laws, programs, or agencies operating under permanent
budget authority or permanent statutory authority;
(D) have a view toward ensuring that all significant laws,
programs, or agencies within the committee's jurisdiction are subject to
review every 10 years;
(E) have a view toward insuring against duplication of Federal
programs; and
(F) give priority consideration to including in the plan a
discussion of how the committee's work will address issues of inequities
on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, disability, age, or national origin.
(3) Not later than April 15 in the first session of a Congress, after
consultation with the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority
Leader, the Committee on Oversight and Reform shall report to the House
the oversight plans submitted under subparagraph (1) together with any
recommendations that it, or the House leadership group described above,
may make to ensure the most effective coordination of oversight plans
and otherwise to achieve the objectives of this clause.
(e) The Speaker, with the approval of the House, may appoint special
ad hoc oversight committees for the purpose of reviewing specific
[[Page [509]]]
matters within the jurisdiction of two or more standing committees.
Clause 2(a), and the first requirement of clause 2(b)(1) that each
standing committee shall review the application, etc., of all laws
within its jurisdiction, were originally contained in section 118(b) of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and were made
part of the standing rules on January 22, 1971 (H. Res. 5, p. 144).
Effective January 3, 1975, general oversight responsibilities were
incorporated into the rule (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470). Oversight responsibilities are also contained in section 190d of
title 2, United States Code. On January 14, 1975, the size of those
standing committees required by clause 2(b)(2) (formerly clause 2(b)(1))
to establish an oversight subcommittee or to require its subcommittees
to conduct oversight was increased from 15 to more than 20 (H. Res. 5,
94th Cong., p. 20). In the 100th Congress a requirement that
representatives from the Committee on Government Operations (now
Oversight and Reform) meet with other committees at the beginning of
each Congress to discuss oversight plans and that that committee report
to the House its oversight coordination recommendations within 60 days
after the convening of the first session was deleted (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1987, p. 6). Beginning in the 104th Congress, paragraph (d) required
that each standing committee adopt by February 15 of the first session
of a Congress its oversight plans for that Congress. Such plans were to
be submitted to the Committees on Government Reform and Oversight (now
Oversight and Reform) and House Oversight (now House Administration),
and consideration of resolutions funding each committee were contingent
on submission of its oversight plans to the committees specified (sec.
203(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467). That restriction was repealed
in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The paragraph
was re-written entirely in the 115th Congress to expand the focus of the
oversight plan to include authorization of programs and agencies within
a committee's jurisdiction, to exclude the Committees on Appropriations,
Ethics, and Rules, and to add the Committee on Appropriations as a
recipient (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). It was again re-
written entirely in the 116th Congress to delay the submission deadlines
in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3), to remove the focus on authorization of
programs and agencies, to require that committee chairs, rather than the
committees themselves, bear responsibility for the preparation and
submission of the plans, and to remove the Committee on Appropriations
as a recipient (sec. 102(i), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). Before such
revisions, various amendments to paragraph (d) were effected in the
106th (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47), 107th (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25), 109th (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, pp. 42,
43), 110th (sec. 215(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19), and 112th
Congresses (sec. 2(c)(11), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Following
such revisions, paragraph (d)(2)(F) was added in the 117th Congress to
direct committee chairs, in forming the plans, to prioritize
[[Page [510]]]
issues of inequity (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Paragraph
(e) was added in the 104th Congress (sec. 203(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 467).
Special oversight functions
3. <> (a) The Committee on
Appropriations shall conduct such studies and examinations of the
organization and operation of executive departments and other executive
agencies (including an agency the majority of the stock of which is
owned by the United States) as it considers necessary to assist it in
the determination of matters within its jurisdiction.
(b) The Committee on Armed Services shall review and study on a
continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities relating to
international arms control and disarmament and the education of military
dependents in schools.
(c) The Committee on the Budget shall study on a continuing basis the
effect on budget outlays of relevant existing and proposed legislation
and report the results of such studies to the House on a recurring
basis.
(d) The Committee on Education and Labor shall review, study, and
coordinate on a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government
activities relating to domestic educational programs and institutions
and programs of student assistance within the jurisdiction of other
committees.
(e) The Committee on Energy and Commerce shall review and study on a
continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities relat
[[Page [511]]]
ing to nuclear and other energy and nonmilitary nuclear energy research
and development including the disposal of nuclear waste.
(f) The Committee on Foreign Affairs shall review and study on a
continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities relating to
customs administration, intelligence activities relating to foreign
policy, international financial and monetary organizations, and
international fishing agreements.
(g)(1) The Committee on Homeland Security shall review and study on a
continuing basis all Government activities relating to homeland
security, including the interaction of all departments and agencies with
the Department of Homeland Security.
(2) In addition, the committee shall review and study on a primary and
continuing basis all Government activities, programs, and organizations
related to homeland security that fall within its primary legislative
jurisdiction.
(h) The Committee on Natural Resources shall review and study on a
continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities relating to
Native Americans.
(i) The Committee on Oversight and Reform shall review and study on a
continuing basis the operation of Government activities at all levels,
including the Executive Office of the President.
(j) The Committee on Rules shall review and study on a continuing
basis the congressional budget process, and the committee shall report
[[Page [512]]]
its findings and recommendations to the House from time to time.
(k) The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology shall review and
study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities
relating to nonmilitary research and development.
(l) The Committee on Small Business shall study and investigate on a
continuing basis the problems of all types of small business.
(m) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence shall review and
study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and activities of the
intelligence community and shall review and study on an exclusive basis
the sources and methods of entities described in clause 11(b)(1)(A).
The oversight authority conferred on the Committee on Appropriations
was first given that committee on February 11, 1943 (p. 884), continued
by resolution of January 9, 1945 (p. 135), and incorporated into
permanent law in section 202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946, and made a part of the standing rules on January 3, 1953 (pp. 17,
24). The special oversight responsibilities of the Committee on the
Budget were made part of the rules effective July 12, 1974 by section
101(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 300). Paragraph
(e) (formerly paragraph (h)) was added on January 4, 1977, upon the
abolition of the legislative jurisdiction in the House of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy (H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., pp. 53-70). The
special oversight responsibilities of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce over nuclear energy to all energy programs became effective
January 3, 1981 (H. Res. 549, Mar. 25, 1980, pp. 6405-10). The oversight
authority conferred on the Committee on Oversight and Reform was first
made effective as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60
Stat. 812). In the 104th Congress conforming amendments to the special
oversight functions of the Committees on Natural Resources and Energy
and Commerce were adopted to reflect the transfer of jurisdiction over
nonmilitary nuclear energy from the Committee on Natural Resources to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p.
35077). Paragraph (j) was added by section 226 of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177). The remainder
of the clause (except for paragraphs (g) and
[[Page [513]]]
(m)) became effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8,
1974, p. 34470). This clause has been amended several times to conform
references to renamed committees (H. Res. 89, Feb. 5, 1979, p. 1848; H.
Res. 549, Mar. 25, 1980, pp. 6405-10; H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49;
sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464; H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997,
p. 121; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47; H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19;
H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80; H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). Clerical
and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, including the transfer to this clause of
oversight functions of the Committees on Oversight and Reform and
Appropriations found in clause 2 (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The
oversight authority of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in
paragraph (m) was added in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). The Committee on Homeland Security was established
in the 109th Congress and given the oversight authority set forth in
paragraph (g)(1) (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42). Paragraph
(g)(2) was added in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
2009, p. 7). Paragraph (i) was revised in the 116th Congress to clarify
the inclusion of the Executive Office of the President under the special
oversight authority of the Committee on Oversight and Reform (sec.
102(k), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
Section 9 of the House Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992 (H.
Res. 423, Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040) added a paragraph in this clause
creating a bipartisan Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight of the
Committee on House Administration, to be chaired by the chair of the
Committee on House Administration and to be composed of members of the
Committee on House Administration, one-half from the majority party and
one-half from the minority party. The paragraph was rewritten in the
103d Congress to provide that the Speaker, the Majority and Minority
Leaders, and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
House Administration be informed of tie votes in that subcommittee (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49), but the paragraph was deleted entirely in
the 104th Congress (sec. 201(d), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). In
the 114th Congress, the House established a select investigative panel
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, to be chaired by a member of
that committee and to be composed of additional members appointed by the
Speaker (six upon recommendation of the Minority Leader) who would be
treated as though members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce during
their service on the panel (H. Res. 461, Oct. 7, 2015, pp. 15847-48).
Additional functions of committees
4. <> (a)(1)(A) The Committee on Appropriations shall, within 30
days after the transmittal of the Budget to Congress each year, hold
hearings on
[[Page [514]]]
the Budget as a whole with particular reference to--
(i) the basic recommendations and budgetary policies of the
President in the presentation of the Budget; and
(ii) the fiscal, financial, and economic assumptions used as bases
in arriving at total estimated expenditures and receipts.
(B) In holding hearings under subdivision (A), the committee shall
receive testimony from the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget, the Chair of the Council of
Economic Advisers, and such other persons as the committee may desire.
(C) <> A hearing under
subdivision (A), or any part thereof, shall be held in open session,
except when the committee, in open session and with a quorum present,
determines by record vote that the testimony to be taken at that hearing
on that day may be related to a matter of national security. The
committee may by the same procedure close one subsequent day of hearing.
A transcript of all such hearings shall be printed and a copy thereof
furnished to each Member, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner.
(D) A hearing under subdivision (A), or any part thereof, may be held
before a joint meeting of the committee and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate in accordance with such procedures as the
two committees jointly may determine.
[[Page [515]]]
This part of clause 4 was originally contained in section 242(c)(1) of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and was made part of the
standing rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144).
Paragraph (a)(1)(C), requiring open hearings, was first adopted in the
93d Congress (H. Res. 259, Mar. 7, 1973, pp. 6713-20) and was amended in
the 94th Congress to limit the effect of a vote to close a hearing to
that day and one subsequent day (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20).
Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A
gender-based reference was eliminated in the 117th Congress (sec.
2(e)(2), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
- (2) <> Pursuant to section 401(b)(2) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, when a committee reports a bill or joint resolution
that provides new entitlement authority as defined in section 3(9) of
that Act, and enactment of the bill or joint resolution, as reported,
would cause a breach of the committee's pertinent allocation of new
budget authority under section 302(a) of that Act, the bill or joint
resolution may be referred to the Committee on Appropriations with
instructions to report it with recommendations (which may include an
amendment limiting the total amount of new entitlement authority
provided in the bill or joint resolution). If the Committee on
Appropriations fails to report a bill or joint resolution so referred
within 15 calendar days (not counting any day on which the House is not
in session), the committee automatically shall be discharged from
consideration of the bill or joint resolution, and the bill or joint
resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
(3) In addition, the Committee on Appropriations shall study on a
continuing basis those provisions of law that (on the first day of the
[[Page [516]]]
first fiscal year for which the congressional budget process is
effective) provide spending authority or permanent budget authority and
shall report to the House from time to time its recommendations for
terminating or modifying such provisions.
(4) In the manner provided by section 302 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, the Committee on Appropriations (after consulting with the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate) shall subdivide any
allocations made to it in the joint explanatory statement accompanying
the conference report on such concurrent resolution, and promptly report
the subdivisions to the House as soon as practicable after a concurrent
resolution on the budget for a fiscal year is agreed to.
Subparagraph (2) first became effective on July 12, 1974, by inclusion
in section 401(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat.
317), was incorporated into the rules effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res.
988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), was amended in the 95th
Congress to correct an error in cross-reference (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4,
1977, pp. 53-70), and was again amended in the 105th Congress to reflect
the repeal of the collective definition of ``new spending authority''
and the revision of various remaining parts (Budget Enforcement Act of
1997 (sec. 10116, P.L. 105-33). Subparagraph (3) was also contained in
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in section 402(f), and was likewise
incorporated into the rules effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The requirements of subparagraph (4)
(formerly paragraph (h)) was originally contained in section 302(b) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344, July 12, 1974) and
was incorporated into this rule effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988,
93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). It was amended by the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990 (tit. XIII, P.L. 101-508) to conform to the
enactment of title VI of the Budget Act. It was again amended by the
Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10118, P.L. 105-33) to conform to
the subsequent repeal of title VI. Clerical and stylistic changes were
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
including the transfer of former paragraph (h) to this paragraph as new
subparagraph (4) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[[Page [517]]]
A former <> subparagraph (5) added in the 110th Congress established a
Select Intelligence Oversight Panel of the Committee on Appropriations
to review budget requests for and execution of intelligence activities
(H. Res. 35, Jan. 9, 2007, p. 567). It was abolished in the 112th
Congress (sec. 2(e)(10), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80).
(b) The Committee on the Budget shall--
(1) <> review on a continuing basis the
conduct by the Congressional Budget Office of its functions and duties;
(2) hold hearings and receive testimony from Members, Senators,
Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, and such appropriate
representatives of Federal departments and agencies, the general public,
and national organizations as it considers desirable in developing
concurrent resolutions on the budget for each fiscal year;
(3) make all reports required of it by the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974;
(4) study on a continuing basis those provisions of law that
exempt Federal agencies or any of their activities or outlays from
inclusion in the Budget of the United States Government, and report to
the House from time to time its recommendations for terminating or
modifying such provisions;
(5) study on a continuing basis proposals designed to improve and
facilitate the congressional budget process, and report to the House
from time to time the results of such studies, together with its
recommendations; and
(6) request and evaluate continuing studies of tax expenditures,
devise methods of coordi
[[Page [518]]]
nating tax expenditures, policies, and programs with direct budget
outlays, and report the results of such studies to the House on a
recurring basis.
Paragraph (b)(1) became a part of the rules on July 12, 1974 by
enactment of section 101(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88
Stat. 300). Subparagraph (2), contained in section 301(d) of that Act,
subparagraph (3), subparagraph (4), contained in section 606 of that
Act, and subparagraph (5), contained in section 703 of that Act, all
were made part of the rules effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Paragraph (b)(2) was amended in the 99th
Congress by section 232 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177) to remove reference to the first
concurrent resolution on the budget. Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, subparagraph (6) was found in former clause
1(d)(5)(C) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(c)(1) <> The Committee on
Oversight and Reform shall--
(A) receive and examine reports of the Comptroller General of the
United States and submit to the House such recommendations as it
considers necessary or desirable in connection with the subject matter
of the reports;
(B) evaluate the effects of laws enacted to reorganize the
legislative and executive branches of the Government; and
(C) study intergovernmental relationships between the United
States and the States and municipalities and between the United States
and international organizations of which the United States is a member.
(2) In addition to its duties under subparagraph (1), the
Committee on Oversight and Reform may at any time conduct investigations
of any matter without regard to clause 1,
[[Page [519]]]
2, 3, or this clause conferring jurisdiction over the matter to another
standing committee. The findings and recommendations of the committee in
such an investigation shall be made available to any other standing
committee having jurisdiction over the matter involved.
Paragraph (c)(1) became effective January 2, 1947, as part of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812). Paragraph (c)(2)
was made a function of the Committee effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res.
988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Paragraph (c)(2) was amended in
the 107th Congress to delete the requirement that committees include
oversight findings and recommendations by the Committee on Government
Reform in their reports as was required under the former clause 3(c)(4)
of rule XIII (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). Clerical and
stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Under section 2954
of title 5, United States Code, an executive agency, if so requested by
this committee or any seven members thereof, shall submit any
information requested of it relating to any matter within the
jurisdiction of the committee.
(3)(A) <> The Committee on
Oversight and Reform may adopt a rule authorizing and regulating the
taking of depositions by a member or counsel of the committee, including
pursuant to subpoena under clause 2(m) of rule XI (which hereby is made
applicable for such purpose).
(B) A rule adopted by the committee pursuant to this subparagraph--
(i) may provide that a deponent be directed to subscribe an oath
or affirmation before a person authorized by law to administer the same;
and
(ii) shall ensure that the minority members and staff of the
committee are accorded equitable treatment with respect to notice of and
[[Page [520]]]
a reasonable opportunity to participate in any proceeding conducted
thereunder.
(C) Information secured pursuant to the authority described in
subdivision (A) shall retain the character of discovery until offered
for admission in evidence before the committee, at which time any proper
objection shall be timely.
This subparagraph was added in the 110th Congress (sec. 502, H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)). A requirement that a
member of the committee attend the deposition was added in the 112th
Congress (sec. 2(e)(14), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80) and removed in
the 116th Congress (sec. 102(l), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). Other
committees have been granted such authority generally (sec. 3(b), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35 (extended for second session by H. Res. 579,
Jan. 6, 2016, pp. 45, 46); sec. 3(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _
(with expanded circumstances under which a deposition may take place
without a member of the committee present); sec. 103(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
3, 2019, p. _ (removing the requirement that a member of the committee
attend the deposition); sec. 3(b), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _) or for
specific investigations (Dec. 5, 2007, p. 32250; sec. 4(f), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2009, p. 10; May 20, 2010, p. 8758), including a select panel of
a standing committee (H. Res. 461, Oct. 7, 2015, pp. 15847-48).
(d)(1) <> The Committee on
House Administration shall--
(A) <> provide policy
direction for the Chief Administrative Officer, the Inspector General,
the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, and the Office of the
Whistleblower Ombuds and oversight of the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief
Administrative Officer, Inspector General, Office of Diversity and
Inclusion, and Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds;
(B) oversee the management of services provided to the House by the
Architect of the Capitol, except those services that lie within the ju
[[Page [521]]]
risdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure under
clause 1(r);
(C) <> have the function of
accepting on behalf of the House a gift, except as otherwise provided by
law, if the gift does not involve a duty, burden, or condition, or is
not made dependent on some future performance by the House;
(D) promulgate regulations to carry out subdivision (C); and
(E) establish and maintain standards for making documents publicly
available in electronic form by the House and its committees.
(2) <> An employing
office of the House may enter into a settlement of a complaint under the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 that provides for the payment
of funds only after receiving the joint approval of the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration
concerning the amount of such payment.
The duty of the committee to arrange for memorial services of Members
was eliminated from the rules effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988,
93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Former paragraph (d)(3) required the
committee to provide a committee scheduling service, which was provided
through House Information Resources and was made mandatory on all
committees and subcommittees in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
1981, pp. 98-113). The requirement was stricken altogether when two
provisions were added by section 10 of the House Administrative Reform
Resolution of 1992 (H. Res. 423, Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040) to ensure the
orderly transfer of functions and entities from elected officers to the
Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services and to provide for
policy direction and oversight of certain administrative officials and
elected officers. However, in the 107th Congress the House amended
clause 4(d)(1) of rule X to remove the requirement that the committee
provide policy direction to such officials and officers except the
Inspector General (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24), but
policy direction for the Chief Administrative
[[Page [522]]]
Officer was restored in the 114th Congress (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). The committee also provides policy review and
oversight of the Chief Executive Officer for Visitor Services within the
Office of the Architect of the Capitol (sec. 6701, P.L. 110-28). In the
104th Congress the rule was amended (1) to reflect the change in the
name of the Committee on House Administration to the Committee on House
Oversight and (2) to reflect the abolishment of the Director of Non-
legislative and Financial Services (sec. 201, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995,
p. 463). Later in the 104th Congress the provision for the acceptance of
gifts was added as paragraph (d)(3) (H. Res. 250, Nov. 16, 1995, p.
33434). In the 105th Congress paragraph (d) was redesignated as (d)(1),
its former subparagraphs (1) through (3) were redesignated as (1)(A)
through (1)(C), and a new paragraph (d)(2) was added to require approval
by the committee for monetary settlements of certain employment claims
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). In the 111th Congress a new
subparagraph (1)(B) was inserted regarding the Architect of the Capitol
(and existing subparagraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) were redesignated) (sec.
2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). In the 112th Congress subparagraph
(1)(E) was added (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). In the
117th Congress subparagraph (1)(A) was amended to reflect the
establishment of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and the Office of
the Whistleblower Ombuds (sec. 2(b), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). The
104th Congress also prohibited the establishment or continuation of any
legislative service organization (as that term had been understood in
the 103d Congress) and directed the Committee on House Oversight (now
House Administration) to take such steps as were necessary to ensure an
orderly termination and accounting for funds of any legislative service
organization in existence on January 3, 1995 (sec. 222, H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 469), but the 114th through 117th Congresses authorized the
payment of salaries and expenses by certain similar groups (called
``Congressional Member Organizations'') that had registered with the
Committee on House Administration during the previous Congress (sec.
3(p), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 37; sec. 3(n), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
2017, p. _; sec. 103(p), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; sec. 3(o), H.
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Clerical and stylistic changes were
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The 107th Congress transferred the
committee's responsibilities with respect to enrolled bills (formerly
paragraph (d)(1)(A)) to the Clerk (clause 2(d)(2) of rule II) (sec.
2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
(e)(1) <> Each standing
committee shall, in its consideration of all public bills and public
joint resolutions within its jurisdiction, ensure that appropriations
for continuing programs and activities of the Federal Government and the
government of the District
[[Page [523]]]
of Columbia will be made annually to the maximum extent feasible and
consistent with the nature, requirement, and objective of the programs
and activities involved. In this subparagraph programs and activities of
the Federal Government and the government of the District of Columbia
includes programs and activities of any department, agency,
establishment, wholly owned Government corporation, or instrumentality
of the Federal Government or of the government of the District of
Columbia.
(2) Each standing committee shall review from time to time each
continuing program within its jurisdiction for which appropriations are
not made annually to ascertain whether the program should be modified to
provide for annual appropriations.
The provisions of this paragraph derive from section 253(c) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140), and were made
part of the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p.
144). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47).
Budget Act responsibilities
(f)(1) <> Each standing
committee shall submit to the Committee on the Budget not later than six
weeks after the submission of the budget by the President, or at such
time as the Committee on the Budget may request--
(A) its views and estimates with respect to all matters to be set
forth in the concurrent resolution on the budget for the ensuing fiscal
[[Page [524]]]
year that are within its jurisdiction or functions; and
(B) an estimate of the total amounts of new budget authority, and
budget outlays resulting therefrom, to be provided or authorized in all
bills and resolutions within its jurisdiction that it intends to be
effective during that fiscal year.
(2) The views and estimates submitted by the Committee on Ways and
Means under subparagraph (1) shall include a specific recommendation,
made after holding public hearings, as to the appropriate level of the
public debt that should be set forth in the concurrent resolution on the
budget.
The requirements of paragraph (f)(1) were originally contained in
section 301(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344,
July 12, 1974), and were incorporated into this rule effective January
3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The
requirement of paragraph (f)(2) that the Committee on Ways and Means
include a specific recommendation as to the appropriate level of the
public debt in its views and estimates submitted to the Committee on the
Budget was added in the 96th Congress by Public Law 96-78 (93 Stat. 589)
and was originally intended to apply to concurrent resolutions on the
budget for fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 1980. However,
in the 96th Congress the provisions of that public law amending the
Rules of the House were made applicable to the third concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1980 as well as the first
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1981 (H. Res. 642,
Apr. 23, 1980, pp. 8789-90). The deadline for submitting views and
estimates to the Committee on the Budget has changed several times
(Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, sec. 232(c),
P.L. 99-177; Budget Enforcement Act of 1997, sec. 10104, P.L. 105-33; H.
Res. 5, 106th Cong., Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A former paragraph directing
standing committees to submit reconciliation recommendations to the
Committee on the Budget was deleted in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47), but committees are still required to submit such
recommendations under section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974. Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). Paragraph (f)(2) was amended in the 107th Congress to reflect the
repeal of
[[Page [525]]]
former rule XXIII (``Statutory Limit on Public Debt'') (sec. 2(s), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24), which was reinstated in the 108th Congress
as rule XXVII (sec. 2(t), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7), renumbered in
the 110th Congress as rule XXVIII (sec. 301, P.L. 110-81), repealed in
the 112th Congress (sec. 2(d)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), and
reinstated with modifications in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(jj), H.
Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). A gender-based reference was eliminated in
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).
Election and membership of standing committees
5. <> (a)(1) The standing committees
specified in clause 1 shall be elected by the House within seven
calendar days after the commencement of each Congress, from nominations
submitted by the respective party caucus or conference. A resolution
proposing to change the composition of a standing committee shall be
privileged if offered by direction of the party caucus or conference
concerned.
The old rule entrusting the appointment of committees to the Speaker
was adopted in 1789 and amended in 1790 and in 1860 (IV, 4448-4476).
Committees are now elected on resolutions offered from the floor (VIII,
2171) and it is in order to move the previous question on each
resolution (VIII, 2174). The resolution is not divisible (clause 5 of
rule XVI), and is privileged (VIII, 2179) if offered by direction of the
respective party caucus (a requirement that was made part of the rules
effective January 3, 1975, by the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974
(H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470)). That same resolution
also eliminated the designations in the rules of the numbers of Members
comprising the standing committees, thereby permitting the House to
establish committee size by the numbers of Members elected to each
committee pursuant to this paragraph. The role of the party caucuses in
presenting privileged resolutions to the House electing Members to
committees is discussed in detail in Deschler, ch. 17, Sec. 9 (see also
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 8). In the 99th Congress the
requirement for election of standing committees within the first seven
calendar days and the conferral of privileged status on resolutions from
the party caucuses to change the composition of standing committees were
added by section 227 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177). Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6 of
rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[[Page [526]]]
(2) <> The Committee on the
Budget shall be composed of members as follows:
(A) Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner who are
members of other standing committees, including five from the Committee
on Appropriations, five from the Committee on Ways and Means, and one
from the Committee on Rules;
(B) one Member designated by the elected leadership of the
majority party; and
(C) one Member designated by the elected leadership of the
minority party.
This paragraph (formerly clause 1(d) of rule X) was amended in the
96th Congress to relax the limitation on Members' service on the
Committee on the Budget to three Congresses (from two) in any period of
five successive Congresses, to exempt representatives from the party
leaderships from the limitation, and to permit an incumbent chair who
had served on the committee for three Congresses and as chair for not
more than one Congress to be eligible for reelection as chair for one
additional Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 8). It was again
amended in the 100th Congress to eliminate as obsolete the words
``beginning after 1974'' following ``any period of five successive
Congresses'' as a measure of permissible terms of service on the
committee (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6). It was further amended in the
101st Congress to permit, in that Congress only, a minority Member who
had served on the committee for three terms to run within the party's
caucus for the position of ranking minority member and thus be able to
serve on the committee for one additional Congress, and to permit a
Member elected as ranking minority member during a third term on the
committee to serve one additional term on the committee as the ranking
minority member (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72). It was again amended
in the 102d Congress to extend the waiver of the tenure restriction for
the ranking minority member of the committee (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991,
p. 39), but in the 103d Congress that provision was stricken as obsolete
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49). In the 104th Congress the limitation
on a Member's service on the committee was relaxed to four Congresses
(from three) in any period of six successive Congresses, with the
exception that a Member who has served as chair or as ranking minority
member during a fourth such Congress may serve in either capacity during
a fifth, so long as not thereby exceeding two consecutive terms as chair
or as ranking minority member (sec. 202(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p.
464). The tenure
[[Page [527]]]
limitation of clause 5(a)(2)(B) was suspended during the 106th Congress
(sec. 2(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The special tenure
limitation for the chair and ranking minority member was replaced in the
108th Congress with a provision subjecting the chair only to the overall
tenure limitation that applies to all standing committee chairs (sec.
2(e-1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). This provision was replaced in
the 111th Congress with an exception to the tenure limitation for the
second consecutive Congress in which a chair or ranking minority member
serves (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). In the 109th Congress
subdivisions (A)(ii) and (A)(iii) were amended to address a member
designated by the elected leadership as opposed to a member of the
elected leadership of each party, and a conforming change was made to
subdivision (B) (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). In the
116th Congress, the term limits in subdivision (B) and the accompanying
exemptions in subdivision (C) were repealed (sec. 102(m)(1), H. Res. 6,
Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
In the 94th Congress the membership of the committee was increased to
25 (from 23), with 13 (rather than 11) members elected from committees
other than Appropriations and Ways and Means (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975,
p. 20). The membership was increased again in the 97th Congress to 30,
with 28 from other standing committees and two from the respective
leaderships (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98-113), and again in the 98th
Congress to 31 (unanimous-consent order, Feb. 7, 1983, p. 1791). In the
99th Congress, the House amended this paragraph to remove any numerical
limitation on the membership of the committee (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985,
p. 393). In the 108th Congress the composition of the committee was
changed to require inclusion of one member from the Committee on Rules
(sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7).
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 1(d) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47).
(3)(A) <> The Committee on
Ethics shall be composed of 10 members, five from the majority party and
five from the minority party.
(B) Except as permitted by subdivision (C), a member of the Committee
on Ethics may not serve on the committee during more than three
Congresses in a period of five successive Congresses (disregarding for
this purpose any service for less than a full session in a Congress).
(C) A member of the Committee on Ethics may serve on the committee
during a fourth or fifth
[[Page [528]]]
Congress in a period of five successive Congresses only as either the
chair or the ranking minority member of the committee.
(4)(A) At the beginning of a Congress, the Speaker or a designee and
the Minority Leader or a designee each shall name 10 Members, Delegates,
or the Resident Commissioner from the respective party of such
individual who are not members of the Committee on Ethics to be
available to serve on investigative subcommittees of that committee
during that Congress. The lists of Members, Delegates, or the Resident
Commissioner so named shall be announced to the House.
(B) Whenever the chair and the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ethics jointly determine that Members, Delegates, or the
Resident Commissioner named under subdivision (A) should be assigned to
serve on an investigative subcommittee of that committee, each of them
shall select an equal number of such Members, Delegates, or Resident
Commissioner from the respective party of such individual to serve on
that subcommittee.
Before the 93d Congress, the rule that established the size of the
Committee on Ethics (formerly Standards of Official Conduct) at 12
members also required that its membership be equally divided between the
parties. Effective in the 93d Congress, the ratio of the committee was
codified in the first sentence of subparagraph (3)(A) (formerly clause
6(a)(2)) (H. Res. 988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The Ethics Reform Act of
1989 added a sentence to limit service on the committee (P.L. 101-194,
Nov. 30, 1989), which was amended in the 105th, 106th, and 117th
Congresses (sec. 2, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19336; H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47; sec. 2(n)(1), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). A
requirement that two members from each party rotate off the committee
was adopted in the 105th Congress (sec. 2, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997,
p. 19336), but was deleted in the 106th
[[Page [529]]]
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Subparagraph (4) (formerly
clause 6(a)(3)) was adopted in the 105th Congress (sec. 1, H. Res. 168,
Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19335). The 106th Congress formally reduced the size
of the committee to 10 members, which was the de facto size of the
committee in the 105th Congress even though the Ethics Reform Act of
1989 required each party caucus to nominate seven Members (sec. 803(b),
P.L. 101-194, Nov. 30, 1989; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Gender-
based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). This subparagraph was amended in the 112th
Congress to reflect a change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6(a) of rule X (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(b)(1) Membership on a standing committee during the course of
a <> Congress
shall be contingent on continuing membership in the party caucus or
conference that nominated the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
concerned for election to such committee. Should a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner cease to be a member of a particular party caucus
or conference, that Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall
automatically cease to be a member of each standing committee to which
elected on the basis of nomination by that caucus or conference. The
chair of the relevant party caucus or conference shall notify the
Speaker whenever a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner ceases to
be a member of that caucus or conference. The Speaker shall notify the
chair of each affected committee that the election of such Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to the committee is automatically
vacated under this subparagraph.
(2)(A) Except as specified in subdivision (B), a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner
[[Page [530]]]
may not serve simultaneously as a member of more than two standing
committees or more than four subcommittees of the standing committees.
(B)(i) Ex officio service by a chair or ranking minority member of a
committee on each of its subcommittees under a committee rule does not
count against the limitation on subcommittee service.
(ii) Service on an investigative subcommittee of the Committee on
Ethics under paragraph (a)(4) does not count against the limitation on
subcommittee service.
(iii) Any other exception to the limitations in subdivision (A) may be
approved by the House on the recommendation of the relevant party caucus
or conference.
(C) In this subparagraph the term ``subcommittee'' includes a panel
(other than a special oversight panel of the Committee on Armed
Services), task force, special subcommittee, or other subunit of a
standing committee that is established for a cumulative period longer
than six months in a Congress.
The requirement that membership on standing committees be contingent
on continuing membership in a party caucus or conference, along with the
mechanism for the automatic vacating of a Member's election to committee
should party relationship cease, was added to the rules in the 98th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). The limitation on full
committee and subcommittee assignments was added in the 104th Congress
(sec. 204, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467; see H. Res. 11, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 549). The exception for special service on an investigative
subcommittee of the Committee on Ethics (formerly Standards of Official
Conduct) from the limitation on subcommittee service was added in the
105th Congress (sec. 1, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19335). A
technical correction was effected in the 106th and 112th Congresses to
conform references to a renamed
[[Page [531]]]
committee (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47; H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p.
80). A technical correction to paragraph (b)(2)(B)(iii) was effected in
the 109th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44). Gender-
based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).
The Speaker lays before the House communications relative to the
removal of a Member from committee pursuant to this clause (see, e.g.,
Sept. 11, 1984, p. 24790; Feb. 22, 1989, p. 2500; May 10, 1995, p.
12396; July 19, 1999, p. 16586; Feb. 1, 2000, p. 401; Sept. 13, 2000, p.
17832; July 9, 2019, p. _; Jan. 7, 2020, p. _; Dec. 15, 2020, p. _). The
Speaker may also lay before the House a communication from a Member
announcing a change in party affiliation (Sept. 13, 2000, p. 17832). On
one occasion there was a delay in laying the latter communication before
the House, and the House by unanimous consent retroactively changed
informational voting records from the date on the communication (Sept.
13, 2000, p. 17832). Instance where a Member submitted his resignation
from a committee on grounds of disqualifying personal interest (VIII,
3074). The earlier practice was for the minority party to handle
committee assignments for third-party Members (VIII, 2184-2185). On some
occasions, the majority party takes that responsibility by separate
resolution (see, e.g., H. Res. 45, Jan. 24, 1991, p. 2171).
(c) <> One of the members of each
standing committee shall be elected by the House, on the nomination of
the majority party caucus or conference, as chair thereof. In the
absence of the member serving as chair, the member next in rank (and so
on, as often as the case shall happen) shall act as chair. Rank shall be
determined by the order members are named in resolutions electing them
to the committee. In the case of a vacancy in the elected chair of a
committee, the House shall elect another chair.
The requirement that nominations for chairs be submitted by the
majority party caucus was made part of the rules effective January 3,
1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). A provision
addressing temporary and permanent vacancies in chairs was adopted on
April 5, 1911 (VIII, 2201), and was continued in the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), but the 111th Congress
deleted such references when clarifying the devolution of authority in
case of absence or vacancy (sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 9).
The 104th Congress adopted a
[[Page [532]]]
limitation on terms for committee and subcommittee chairs (sec. 103(b),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). The 109th Congress excepted the
Committee on Rules from that limitation (sec. 2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4,
2005, p. 43). The 111th Congress repealed the limitation (sec. 2(d), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7), the 112th Congress restored it (sec.
2(e)(12), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), and the 116th Congress
repealed it again (sec. 102(m)(2), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec.
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause
6(c) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
In the 102d Congress a resolution included as a matter properly
incidental to its election of the chair of a standing committee a
proviso that his powers and duties be exercised by the vice chair until
otherwise ordered by the House (H. Res. 43, Jan. 24, 1991, p. 2169;
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 8.2). In the 103d Congress a
privileged resolution, offered at the direction of the Democratic
Caucus, authorized a named acting chair to exercise the powers and
duties of a chair of a standing committee until otherwise ordered by the
House (H. Res. 396, Mar. 23, 1994, p. 6093). Upon the resignation of a
chair, the acting chair assumes that role without further action of the
House (Mar. 3, 2010, p. 2344). The Chair has refused to respond to a
parliamentary inquiry seeking hypothetical guidance on how a Member,
having resigned as chair of a committee, could be reinstated in that
role (Mar. 3, 2010, p. 2344). A Member may resign the role of acting
chair (Mar. 4, 2010, p. 2573), in which case the member third in rank
assumes the role of acting chair (Mar. 4, 2010, p. 2589).
In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted a provision,
effective during a designated public health emergency, to clarify that
remote participation by the chair was not considered ``absence'' for
purposes of this paragraph and clause 2(d) of rule XI (sec. 4(c)(1), H.
Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
(d)(1) <> Except as
permitted by subparagraph (2), a committee may have not more than five
subcommittees.
(2)(A) A committee that maintains a subcommittee on oversight may have
not more than six subcommittees.
(B) The Committee on Appropriations may have not more than 13
subcommittees.
(C) The Committee on Armed Services may have not more than seven
subcommittees.
[[Page [533]]]
(D) The Committee on Foreign Affairs may have not more than seven
subcommittees.
(E) The Committee on Oversight and Reform may have not more than seven
subcommittees.
(F) The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure may have not
more than six subcommittees.
This paragraph was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 101(b), H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462), replacing a requirement that all standing
committees having more than 20 members (except the Committee on the
Budget) establish at least four subcommittees (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975,
p. 20). In the 106th Congress the paragraph was amended to delete the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure from the list of
exceptions to the general rule and to add a new exception for committees
that maintain a subcommittee on oversight (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). In the 110th and 116th Congresses it was amended to reflect a
change in the name of a committee (sec. 215(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007,
p. 19; sec. 102(f), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the 115th
Congress, subparagraph (2) was amended to codify exceptions for the
Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, and Transportation and
Infrastructure (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _) that had been
carried as separate orders for several Congresses. For citation to such
separate orders, see Sec. 762 of the House Rules and Manual for the
114th Congress (H. Doc. 113-181). Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6(d) of
rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Notwithstanding paragraph (d), the Committee on Oversight and Reform
was permitted to have not more than eight subcommittees during the 106th
and 107th Congresses (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47; sec.
3(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26), the Committee on Agriculture was
permitted to have not more than six during the 114th through 117th
Congresses (sec. 3(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 36; sec. 3(p), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _; sec. 103(h), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _;
sec. 3(n), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _), and the Committee on
Financial Services was permitted to have not more than seven during the
116th Congress (sec. 103(h), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the
108th Congress the Committee on Appropriations reorganized its
subcommittees to reflect the creation of the new Department on Homeland
Security (P.L. 107-296) by creating a new subcommittee on Homeland
Security and combining the subcommittees on Transportation and Treasury,
Postal Service and General Government. That committee reduced the number
of its subcommittees to 10 in the 109th Congress, and increased it to 12
in the 110th Congress.
[[Page [534]]]
(e) The House shall fill a vacancy on a standing committee by election
on the nomination of the respective party caucus or conference.
This paragraph was first adopted in the 62d Congress (VIII, 2178). At
the beginning of the 80th Congress it was amended to prevent a Member
from serving on more than one standing committee, except that Members
elected to serve on the Committees on District of Columbia or Un-
American Activities (renamed the Committee on Internal Security and
jurisdiction redefined on Feb. 19, 1969, p. 3723) could be elected to
serve on not more than two standing committees, and that Members of the
majority party, serving on the Committee on Expenditures in the
Executive Departments (changed to Committee on Government Operations
July 3, 1952, p. 9217) or House Administration could be elected to serve
on not more than two standing committees. This limitation was continued
through the 80th, 81st, and part of the 82d Congresses until July 3,
1952 (p. 9217) when it was modified so that Members elected to serve on
the Committees on the District of Columbia, Government Operations, Un-
American Activities, or House Administration could be elected to serve
on not more than two standing committees. It was restored to its
original form by amendment on January 13, 1953 (p. 368) so that there
was no limitation in House rules on the number of committees to which a
Member may be elected until the 104th Congress added paragraph (b)(2)
(see Sec. 760, supra). Party caucuses or conferences have also placed
restrictions on committee assignments. The role of the respective party
caucus or conference in making nominations to fill vacancies in standing
committees was made part of the rule in the 98th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6(e) of rule X (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The House by unanimous consent fixed the relative rank of two Members
on a committee where an error had been made on the original appointment
(Jan. 20, 1947, p. 481). The House has filled a vacancy on a standing
committee (H. Res. 43, Jan. 24, 1991, p. 2169) with a Member
subsequently designated by the party caucus as ``temporary'' (in order
to avoid caucus limitations on committee assignments) (Feb. 5, 1991, p.
2814).
Expense resolutions
6. <> (a) Whenever a
committee, commission, or other entity (other than the Committee on
Appropriations) is granted authorization for the payment of its expenses
(including staff salaries) for a Congress, such authorization initially
shall be procured by one pri
[[Page [535]]]
mary expense resolution reported by the Committee on House
Administration. A primary expense resolution may include a reserve fund
for unanticipated expenses of committees. An amount from such a reserve
fund may be allocated to a committee only by the approval of the
Committee on House Administration. A primary expense resolution reported
to <> the House may not be
considered in the House unless a report thereon was available on the
previous calendar day. For the information of the House, such report
shall--
(1) state the total amount of the funds to be provided to the
committee, commission, or other entity under the primary expense
resolution for all anticipated activities and programs of the committee,
commission, or other entity; and
(2) to the extent practicable, contain such general statements
regarding the estimated foreseeable expenditures for the respective
anticipated activities and programs of the committee, commission, or
other entity as may be appropriate to provide the House with basic
estimates of the expenditures contemplated by the primary expense
resolution.
(b) After the date of adoption by the House <> of a primary expense resolution for a
committee, commission, or other entity for a Congress, authorization for
the payment of additional expenses (including staff salaries) in that
Congress may be procured by one or more supplemental expense resolutions
re
[[Page [536]]]
ported by the Committee on House Administration, as necessary. A
supplemental expense resolution reported to the House may not be
considered in the House unless a report thereon was available on the
previous calendar day. For the information of the House, such report
shall--
(1) state the total amount of additional funds to be provided to
the committee, commission, or other entity under the supplemental
expense resolution and the purposes for which those additional funds are
available; and
(2) state the reasons for the failure to procure the additional
funds for the committee, commission, or other entity by means of the
primary expense resolution.
(c) The preceding provisions of this clause do not apply to--
(1) a <> resolution providing for the payment from committee salary
and expense accounts of the House of sums necessary to pay compensation
for staff services performed for, or to pay other expenses of, a
committee, commission, or other entity at any time after the beginning
of an odd-numbered year and before the date of adoption by the House of
the primary expense resolution described in paragraph (a) for that year;
or
(2) a resolution providing each of the standing committees in a
Congress additional office equipment, airmail and special-delivery
postage stamps, supplies, staff personnel, or any
[[Page [537]]]
other specific item for the operation of the standing committees, and
containing an authorization for the payment from committee salary and
expense accounts of the House of the expenses of any of the foregoing
items provided by that resolution, subject to and until enactment of the
provisions of the resolution as permanent law.
Paragraphs (a)-(c) of this clause were contained originally in section
110(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and
were added to the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971,
p. 144). Effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8,
1974, p. 34470), the authority of all committees to incur expenses,
including travel expenses, was made contingent upon adoption by the
House of resolutions reported pursuant to this clause (clause 1(b) of
rule XI). The clause was amended in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
4, 1977, pp. 53-70) to extend its applicability to all committees,
commissions, and entities rather than just to standing committees.
Paragraphs (a)-(c) were amended in the 104th Congress to institute
biennial funding of committee expenses and to require that all committee
staff salaries and expenses (including statutory staff) be authorized by
expense resolution (sec. 101(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). In
the 105th Congress paragraph (a) was amended to permit a primary expense
resolution to include a reserve fund for unanticipated expenses of
committees (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). A technical correction to
paragraphs (a) and (b) was effected in the 106th Congress to conform
references to a renamed committee (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In
the 117th Congress this clause was amended to facilitate electronic
availability of reports on expense resolutions (sec. 2(h)(1), H. Res. 8,
Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5 of rule XI (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The Committee on Appropriations is not covered by this clause, but is
reimbursed by funds in appropriation Acts for expenses of examinations
of estimates of appropriations in the field (31 U.S.C. 1108). An
exemption from this clause for the Committee on the Budget was effective
from the enactment of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 through the
103d Congress.
Based on the exception stated in paragraph (c), a resolution
establishing a task force of members of a standing committee and
providing for the payment of its expenses from the contingent fund of
the House (now referred to as ``applicable accounts of the House
described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X'') was held not to be subject to a
point of order under clause 5(a) of rule XI (now clause 6(a) of this
rule) for lack of report language
[[Page [538]]]
detailing the funding provided, because the resolution was called up at
the beginning of the session before consideration of a primary expense
resolution for all committees for that calendar year (Feb. 5, 1992, p.
1621).
(d) <> From the funds made available for the appointment of
committee staff by a primary or additional expense resolution, the chair
of each committee shall ensure that sufficient staff is made available
to each subcommittee to carry out its responsibilities under the rules
of the committee and that the minority party is treated fairly in the
appointment of such staff.
Paragraph (d) was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 101(c)(4), H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). A preceding form of the paragraph, first
adopted in the 94th Congress, authorized the chair and ranking minority
member of a subcommittee each to appoint one staff member to the
subcommittee (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). As adopted in the 93d
Congress to take effect on the first day of the 94th Congress, the
paragraph had required that each standing committee, upon request of a
majority of its minority members, devote one-third of its staffing funds
to the needs of the minority (H. Res. 988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). As
adopted in the 92d Congress, the paragraph required that the minority be
accorded fair consideration in the appointment of committee staff (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Before the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(d) of
rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-based reference was
eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p.
7).
(e) Funds authorized for a committee under this clause and clauses 7
and 8 are for expenses incurred in the activities of the committee.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 2(n)(1) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47).
Interim funding
7. (a) <> For the period beginning at
noon on January 3 and ending at midnight on March 31 in each odd-
numbered
[[Page [539]]]
year, such sums as may be necessary shall be paid out of the committee
salary and expense accounts of the House for continuance of necessary
investigations and studies by--
(1) each standing and select committee established by these rules;
and
(2) except as specified in paragraph (b), each select committee
established by resolution.
(b) In the case of the first session of a Congress, amounts shall be
made available for a select committee established by resolution in the
preceding Congress only if--
(1) a resolution proposing to reestablish such select committee is
introduced in the present Congress; and
(2) the House has not adopted a resolution of the preceding
Congress providing for termination of funding for investigations and
studies by such select committee.
(c) Each committee described in paragraph (a) shall be entitled for
each month during the period specified in paragraph (a) to 9 percent (or
such lesser percentage as may be determined by the Committee on House
Administration) of the total annualized amount made available under
expense resolutions for such committee in the preceding session of
Congress.
(d) Payments under this clause shall be made on vouchers authorized by
the committee involved, signed by the chair of the committee, except as
provided in paragraph (e), and approved by the Committee on House
Administration.
[[Page [540]]]
(e) Notwithstanding any provision of law, rule of the House, or other
authority, from noon on January 3 of the first session of a Congress
until the election by the House of the committee concerned in that
Congress, payments under this clause shall be made on vouchers signed by
the ranking member of the committee as it was constituted at the
expiration of the preceding Congress who is a member of the majority
party in the present Congress.
(f)(1) The authority of a committee to incur expenses under this
clause shall expire upon adoption by the House of a primary expense
resolution for the committee.
(2) Amounts made available under this clause shall be expended in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House
Administration.
(3) This clause shall be effective only insofar as it is not
inconsistent with a resolution reported by the Committee on House
Administration and adopted by the House after the adoption of these
rules.
This clause (formerly clause 5(f) of rule XI) was originally adopted
in the 99th Congress to provide automatic interim funding for committees
at the beginning of a Congress (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393).
Resolutions providing such interim funding had been routinely adopted at
the convening of Congress before the adoption of this standing
authority. In the 100th Congress, the provision was amended to make the
automatic committee funding mechanism applicable to the first three
months of the second session of a Congress, as well as the first
session, and to authorize the Committee on House Administration to
establish interim funding for any committee at a percentage lower than 9
percent of the total annualized amount (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6).
In the 104th and 106th Congresses technical corrections were effected to
conform references to a renamed committee (sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 464; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Clerical corrections
were effected in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(x),
[[Page [541]]]
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). Paragraph (e) was simplified and a
gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (secs. 2(l),
2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause
5(f) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
At its organization the 104th Congress suspended the operation of
paragraph (f) in favor of special provisions for interim funding in
light of its abolishment of three standing committees, its reduction in
the overall number of committee staff, and its institution of biennial
primary expense resolutions (sec. 101(c)(3), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p.
462). The House by unanimous consent has agreed to a resolution
providing funding for interim expenses of a new select committee (Feb.
13, 2003, p. 3793) and a new standing committee (Jan. 4, 2005, p. 71).
The House has adopted a special order of business extending the period
for interim funding under paragraph (a) (sec. 10, H. Res. 233, Mar. 16,
2021, p. _).
Travel
8. (a) <> Local currencies owned by the
United States shall be made available to the committee and its employees
engaged in carrying out their official duties outside the United States
or its territories or possessions. Appropriated funds, including those
authorized under this clause and clause 6, may not be expended for the
purpose of defraying expenses of members of a committee or its employees
in a country where local currencies are available for this purpose.
(b) The following conditions shall apply with respect to travel
outside the United States or its territories or possessions:
(1) A member or employee of a committee may not receive or expend
local currencies for subsistence in a country for a day at a rate in
excess of the maximum per diem set forth in applicable Federal law.
[[Page [542]]]
(2) A member or employee shall be reimbursed for the expenses of
such individual for a day at the lesser of--
(A) the per diem set forth in applicable Federal law; or
(B) the actual, unreimbursed expenses (other than for
transportation) incurred during that day.
(3) <> Each member or employee of
a committee shall make to the chair of the committee an itemized report
showing the dates each country was visited, the amount of per diem
furnished, the cost of transportation furnished, and funds expended for
any other official purpose and shall summarize in these categories the
total foreign currencies or appropriated funds expended. Each report
shall be filed with the chair of the committee not later than 60 days
following the completion of travel for use in complying with reporting
requirements in applicable Federal law and shall be open for public
inspection.
(c)(1) In carrying out the activities of a committee outside the
United States in a country where local currencies are unavailable, a
member or employee of a committee may not receive reimbursement for
expenses (other than for transportation) in excess of the maximum per
diem set forth in applicable Federal law.
(2) A member or employee shall be reimbursed for the expenses of such
individual for a day, at the lesser of--
[[Page [543]]]
(A) the per diem set forth in applicable Federal law; or
(B) the actual unreimbursed expenses (other than for
transportation) incurred during that day.
(3) A member or employee of a committee may not receive reimbursement
for the cost of any transportation in connection with travel outside the
United States unless the member or employee actually paid for the
transportation.
(d) The restrictions respecting travel outside the United States set
forth in paragraph (c) also shall apply to travel outside the United
States by a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or
employee of the House authorized under any standing rule.
Before the adoption of this clause (formerly clause 2(n) of rule XI)
and of clause 1(b) of rule XI under the Committee Reform Amendments of
1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470), each committee was given separate authority to incur expenses
in connection with its investigations and studies, and certain
committees were authorized to use local currencies for foreign committee
travel, in resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules in each
Congress. This clause was amended in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
4, 1977, pp. 53-70) to clarify the availability of local currencies for
travel outside the United States and its territories and possessions, to
require reports within 60 days for use in complying with statutory
reporting requirements, and to authorize the Committee on House
Administration to recommend in expense resolutions expenses for foreign
as well as domestic travel. This clause was further amended on March 2,
1977 (H. Res. 287, 95th Cong., pp. 5933-53) to limit all travel expenses
to the maximum per diem rate or actual, unreimbursed expenses, whichever
is less. Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former clause 2(n) of rule XI, except that
the ``lame duck'' travel prohibitions formerly found in clause 2(n)(5)
of rule XI and clause 8 of rule I were transferred to former rule XXV
(redesignated as rule XXIV in the 107th Congress) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). Clerical corrections were effected and gender-based
references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (secs. 2(l), 2(m), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).
[[Page [544]]]
Under section 502(b) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 (22 U.S.C.
1754(b)), foreign local currencies owned or purchased by the United
States may be used for foreign travel expenses by members or employees
of standing or select committees when authorized by the chair thereof,
and by other Members or employees when authorized by the Speaker.
Consolidated committee reports prepared on a quarterly basis, and
individual reports required within 30 days after the travel involved,
must be forwarded to the Clerk of the House and published in the
Congressional Record.
Committee staffs
9. <> (a)(1) Subject to
subparagraph (2) and paragraph (f), each standing committee may appoint,
by majority vote, not more than 30 professional staff members to be
compensated from the funds provided for the appointment of committee
staff by primary and additional expense resolutions. Each professional
staff <> member appointed under this
subparagraph shall be assigned to the chair and the ranking minority
member of the committee, as the committee considers advisable.
(2) <> Subject to paragraph (f) whenever a
majority of the minority party members of a standing committee (other
than the Committee on Ethics or the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence) so request, not more than 10 persons (or one-third of the
total professional committee staff appointed under this clause,
whichever is fewer) may be selected, by majority vote of the minority
party members, for appointment by the committee as professional staff
members under subparagraph (1). The committee shall appoint persons so
selected whose character and qualifications are acceptable to a majority
of the committee. If the com
[[Page [545]]]
mittee determines that the character and qualifications of a person so
selected are unacceptable, a majority of the minority party members may
select another person for appointment by the committee to the
professional staff until such appointment is made. Each professional
staff member appointed under this subparagraph shall be assigned to such
committee business as the minority party members of the committee
consider advisable.
This clause (formerly clause 6 of rule XI) had its origins in section
202 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), which
allocated up to four nonpartisan professionals to each committee other
than Appropriations and specifically provided for clerical staff, and
which was incorporated into the rules on January 3, 1953 (p. 24).
Section 302(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat.
1140), which increased the authorized maximum for professional staff
from four to six and added the concept of minority staffing, was
incorporated into the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22,
1971, p. 144). In the 93d Congress the maximum was increased from six to
18, the minority entitlement within that number was increased from two
to six, a requirement that professional staff be appointed without
regard to political affiliation was eliminated, and prohibitions against
consideration of race, creed, sex, or age in the appointment of staff
were added (H. Res. 988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). An exemption for the
Committee on the Budget was included in section 901 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 330), was later omitted under the Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), and was
reinserted by the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). The
requirement added in 1975 that staff positions made available to
subcommittee chairs and ranking minority members pursuant to former
provisions of clause 5 of rule XI be provided from staff positions
available under this clause unless provided in a primary or additional
expense resolution was eliminated in the 104th Congress (sec. 101(c)(5),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). The 98th Congress added the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence to the exception for the Committee on
Ethics (formerly Standards of Official Conduct) (H. Res. 58, Mar. 1,
1983, p. 3241). The 101st Congress added an exemption for the Committee
on Rules (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72). The Ethics Reform Act of 1989
struck the antidiscrimination provisions as redundant (P.L. 101-194,
Nov. 30, 1989). The 104th Congress eliminated the former distinction
between professional and clerical staff, set the authorized maximum for
committee staff under expense resolutions at 30, eliminated subcommittee
[[Page [546]]]
entitlement to staff, and set the entitlement of the full committee
minority within that number at one-third (sec. 101(c)(5), H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). The 104th Congress also mandated that the total
number of staff of House committees be at least one-third less than the
corresponding total in the 103d Congress (sec. 101(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 462). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Subparagraph (2)
was amended in the 112th Congress to reflect a change in committee name
(sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 6 of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Additional staff of committees are authorized by the Committee on
House Administration and agreed to by the House. There is no legal power
to fill a vacancy in the clerkship of a committee after one Congress has
expired and before the next House has been organized (IV, 4539). An
assault upon the clerk of a committee within the walls of the Capitol
was held to be a breach of privilege (II, 1629). The pay of clerks has
been the subject of several decisions (IV, 4536-4538).
Committees <> may, with the
approval of the Committee on House Administration, procure the temporary
or intermittent services of consultants and obtain specialized training
for professional staff, subject to expense resolutions, under the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, sections 303 and 304 (2 U.S.C.
4301(i) and (j)).
(b)(1) <> The professional staff
members of each standing committee--
(A) may not engage in any work other than committee business
during congressional working hours; and
(B) may not be assigned a duty other than one pertaining to
committee business.
(2)(A) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to staff designated by a
committee <> as
``associate'' or ``shared'' staff who are not paid exclusively by the
committee, provided that the chair certifies that the compensation paid
by the committee for any such staff is commensurate with the work
performed for the
[[Page [547]]]
committee in accordance with clause 8 of rule XXIII.
(B) The use of any ``associate'' or ``shared'' staff by a committee
other than the Committee on Appropriations shall be subject to the
review of, and to any terms, conditions, or limitations established by,
the Committee on House Administration in connection with the reporting
of any primary or additional expense resolution.
The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 prescribed that staff work be confined
to committee business during congressional working hours but maintained
exceptions for the Committees on the Budget and Rules (P.L. 101-194,
Nov. 30, 1989). The 104th Congress eliminated exceptions by committee in
favor of exceptions for ``associate'' or ``shared'' staff (sec.
101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). Technical corrections were
effected in the 104th Congress (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077);
in the 106th Congress, which conformed references to a renamed committee
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47); in the 107th Congress, which conformed
references to a redesignated rule (sec. 2(s), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001,
p. 24); and in the 108th Congress, which confined the exception for the
Committee on Appropriations to subparagraph (B), rather than to the
entire paragraph (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). A gender-
based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6 of rule XI
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(c) <> Each employee on the professional or
investigative staff of a standing committee shall be entitled to pay at
a single gross per annum rate, to be fixed by the chair and that does
not exceed the maximum rate of pay as in effect from time to time under
applicable provisions of law.
This provision (formerly clause 6(c) of rule XI) was derived from
section 477(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat.
1140) and was incorporated into the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Under the Committee Reform Amendments of
1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470), the maximum salary was set at level V of the Executive
Schedule, rather than at the highest rate of basic pay law (5 U.S.C.
5332(a)(1)), as specified in
[[Page [548]]]
the 1970 Reorganization Act, and effective in the 95th Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70), the authority for two professional staff to
be paid at level IV of the Executive Schedule was added to the clause.
Under section 311 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1988 (2
U.S.C. 4532), the maximum salary for staff members is now set by pay
order of the Speaker. At the beginning of the 101st Congress, references
to particular levels of the executive schedule were deleted (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72). In the 104th Congress this paragraph was amended
to reflect the elimination of the former distinction between
``professional'' and ``clerical'' staff (sec. 101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 462). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 6 of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(d) <> Subject to
appropriations hereby authorized, the Committee on Appropriations may
appoint by majority vote such staff as it determines to be necessary (in
addition to the clerk of the committee and assistants for the minority).
The staff appointed under this paragraph, other than minority
assistants, shall possess such qualifications as the committee may
prescribe.
This paragraph (formerly clause 6(d) of rule XI) derives from section
202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812),
which was incorporated into the rules on January 3, 1953 (p. 24). The
exemption was extended to the Committee on the Budget by section 901 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 330). The reference to
that committee was inadvertently omitted by the 93d Congress (H. Res.
988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470) and reinserted by the 94th Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). The 104th Congress deleted the exemption
for the Committee on the Budget (sec. 101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 462). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6(d) of rule XI (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(e) <> A committee may not
appoint to its staff an expert or other personnel detailed or assigned
from a department or agency of the Government except with the writ
[[Page [549]]]
ten permission of the Committee on House Administration.
This paragraph was contained in section 202(f) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812) and was incorporated into the
rules on January 3, 1953 (p. 24). In the 104th and 106th Congresses it
was amended to conform references to a renamed committee (sec. 202(b),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 464; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(f) If a request for the appointment of a minority professional staff
member under paragraph (a) is made when no vacancy exists for such an
appointment, the committee nevertheless may appoint under paragraph (a)
a person selected by the minority and acceptable to the committee. A
person so appointed shall serve as an additional member of the
professional staff of the committee until such a vacancy occurs (other
than a vacancy in the position of head of the professional staff, by
whatever title designated), at which time that person is considered as
appointed to that vacancy. Such a person shall be paid from the
applicable accounts of the House described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X.
If such a vacancy occurs on the professional staff when seven or more
persons have been so appointed who are eligible to fill that vacancy, a
majority of the minority party members shall designate which of those
persons shall fill the vacancy.
(g) Each staff member appointed pursuant to a request by minority
party members under paragraph (a), and each staff member appointed to
assist minority members of a committee pursuant to an expense resolution
described in clause 6(a), shall be accorded equitable treatment with
respect to the fixing of the rate of
[[Page [550]]]
pay, the assignment of work facilities, and the accessibility of
committee records.
(h) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to authorize the appointment of
additional professional staff members of a committee pursuant to a
request under paragraph (a) by the minority party members of that
committee if 10 or more professional staff members provided for in
paragraph (a)(1) who are satisfactory to a majority of the minority
party members are otherwise assigned to assist the minority party
members.
Paragraphs (f)-(h) (formerly clause 6(f)-(h) of rule XI) are derived
from section 302(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84
Stat. 1140) and were incorporated into the rules in the 92d Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988,
93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), conforming changes were made in
paragraphs (f) and (h) to reflect increased minority professional and
clerical staff permitted to committees under paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this clause. In the 104th Congress paragraphs (f)-(h) were amended to
reflect the elimination of the former distinction between
``professional'' and ``clerical'' staff (sec. 101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 462). The 104th Congress also mandated that the total number
of staff of House committees be at least one-third less than the
corresponding total in the 103d Congress (sec. 101(a), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 462). In the 105th Congress paragraph (f) was amended to
update an archaic reference to the ``contingent fund'' (H. Res. 5, Jan.
7, 1997, p. 121). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6 of rule XI (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A clerical correction was effected in the
107th Congress (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24), and
conforming changes to paragraph (f) were effected in the 109th and 112th
Congresses (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42; sec. 2(e)(8), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80).
(i) <> Notwithstanding paragraph
(a)(2), a committee may employ nonpartisan staff, in lieu of or in
addition to committee staff designated exclusively for the majority or
minority party, by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of
the major
[[Page [551]]]
ity party and of a majority of the members of the minority party.
Section 202(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat.
812), which was incorporated into the rules on January 3, 1953 (p. 24),
required committee professional staffs to be appointed on a permanent
basis without regard to political affiliation. The concept of minority
staffing was added by section 302(b) of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1970. Under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective
January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470),
paragraph (i) (formerly clause 6(i) of rule XI) was added to permit
committees to employ nonpartisan staff upon an affirmative vote of the
majority of the members of each party. In the 104th Congress it was
amended to reflect the elimination of the former distinction between
``professional'' and ``clerical'' staff (sec. 101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 462). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6(i) of rule XI (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Effective <> in the 95th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70), former clause 6(j) of
rule XI, which was added on January 3, 1953 (p. 24) and which was
contained in section 134(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1945, was deleted; that clause required committees to report
semiannually to the Clerk on the names, professions, and salaries of
committee employees.
Select and joint committees
10. (a) <> Membership on a select or joint committee appointed by
the Speaker under clause 11 of rule I during the course of a Congress
shall be contingent on continuing membership in the party caucus or
conference of which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
concerned was a member at the time of appointment. Should a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner cease to be a member of that caucus
or conference, that Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall
automatically cease to be a member of any select or joint committee to
which assigned. The chair of the relevant party caucus or conference
shall notify the Speaker
[[Page [552]]]
whenever a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner ceases to be a
member of a party caucus or conference. The Speaker shall notify the
chair of each affected select or joint committee that the appointment of
such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to the select or joint
committee is automatically vacated under this paragraph.
This party membership requirement for select and joint committees,
analogous to clause 5(b), was added in the 98th Congress (H. Res. 5,
1983, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). Gender-based references were eliminated in
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
found in former clause 6(g) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(b) <> Each
select or joint committee, other than a conference committee, shall
comply with clause 2(a) of rule XI unless specifically exempted by law.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph
(b) was found in clause 2(a) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). The extension of clause 2(a) requirements to select and joint
committees was added to clause 2(a) when that rule was rewritten by the
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8,
1974, p. 34470).
A <> paragraph (i) of former clause 6 of rule
X was incorporated into the rules effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res.
988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), to provide for a permanent
select committee on aging. That provision was stricken in the 103d
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49).
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
11. (a)(1) There is <> established a Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(hereafter in this clause referred to as the ``select committee''). The
select committee shall be composed of not more than 22 Members,
Delegates, or the Resident
[[Page [553]]]
Commissioner, of whom not more than 13 may be from the same party. The
select committee shall include at least one Member, Delegate, or the
Resident Commissioner from each of the following committees:
(A) the Committee on Appropriations;
(B) the Committee on Armed Services;
(C) the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and
(D) the Committee on the Judiciary.
(2) The Speaker and the Minority Leader shall be ex officio members of
the select committee but shall have no vote in the select committee and
may not be counted for purposes of determining a quorum thereof.
(3) The Speaker and Minority Leader each may designate a respective
leadership staff member to assist in the capacity of the Speaker or
Minority Leader as ex officio member, with the same access to committee
meetings, hearings, briefings, and materials as employees of the select
committee and subject to the same security clearance and confidentiality
requirements as employees of the select committee under this clause.
(4)(A) Except as permitted by subdivision (B), a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner, other than the Speaker or the Minority Leader,
may not serve as a member of the select committee during more than four
Congresses in a period of six successive Congresses (disregarding for
this purpose any service for less than a full session in a Congress).
[[Page [554]]]
(B) In the case of a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
appointed to serve as the chair or the ranking minority member of the
select committee, tenure on the select committee shall not be limited.
(b)(1) There shall be referred to the select committee proposed
legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating
to the following:
(A) The Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of National
Intelligence, and the National Intelligence Program as defined in
section 3(6) of the National Security Act of 1947.
(B) Intelligence and intelligence-related activities of all other
departments and agencies of the Government, including the tactical
intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the Department of
Defense.
(C) The organization or reorganization of a department or agency
of the Government to the extent that the organization or reorganization
relates to a function or activity involving intelligence or
intelligence-related activities.
(D) Authorizations for appropriations, both direct and indirect,
for the following:
(i) The Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of National
Intelligence, and the National Intelligence Program as defined in
section 3(6) of the National Security Act of 1947.
(ii) Intelligence and intelligence-related activities of all
other departments and agencies of the Government, including the tac
[[Page [555]]]
tical intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the Department
of Defense.
(iii) A department, agency, subdivision, or program that is a
successor to an agency or program named or referred to in (i) or (ii).
(2) Proposed legislation initially reported by the select committee
(other than provisions solely involving matters specified in
subparagraph (1)(A) or subparagraph (1)(D)(i)) containing any matter
otherwise within the jurisdiction of a standing committee shall be
referred by the Speaker to that standing committee. Proposed legislation
initially reported by another committee that contains matter within the
jurisdiction of the select committee shall be referred by the Speaker to
the select committee if requested by the chair of the select committee.
(3) Nothing in this clause shall be construed as prohibiting or
otherwise restricting the authority of any other committee to study and
review an intelligence or intelligence-related activity to the extent
that such activity directly affects a matter otherwise within the
jurisdiction of that committee.
(4) Nothing in this clause shall be construed as amending, limiting,
or otherwise changing the authority of a standing committee to obtain
full and prompt access to the product of the intelligence and
intelligence-related activities of a department or agency of the
Government relevant to a matter otherwise within the jurisdiction of
that committee.
[[Page [556]]]
(c)(1) For purposes of accountability to the House, the select
committee shall make regular and periodic reports to the House on the
nature and extent of the intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the various departments and agencies of the United States.
The select committee shall promptly call to the attention of the House,
or to any other appropriate committee, a matter requiring the attention
of the House or another committee. In making such report, the select
committee shall proceed in a manner consistent with paragraph (g) to
protect national security.
(2) The select committee shall obtain annual reports from the Director
of National Intelligence, the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Such reports shall
review the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
agency or department concerned and the intelligence and intelligence-
related activities of foreign countries directed at the United States or
its interests. An unclassified version of each report may be made
available to the public at the discretion of the select committee.
Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the public disclosure in
such reports of the names of persons engaged in intelligence or
intelligence-related activities for the United States or the divulging
of intelligence methods employed or the sources of information on which
the reports are based or the amount of funds authorized to be
[[Page [557]]]
appropriated for intelligence and intelligence-related activities.
(3) Within six weeks after the President submits a budget under
section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, or at such time as the
Committee on the Budget may request, the select committee shall submit
to the Committee on the Budget the views and estimates described in
section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 regarding matters
within the jurisdiction of the select committee.
(d)(1) Except as specified in subparagraph (2), clauses 8(a), (b), and
(c) and 9(a), (b), and (c) of this rule, and clauses 1, 2, and 4 of rule
XI shall apply to the select committee to the extent not inconsistent
with this clause.
(2) Notwithstanding the requirements of the first sentence of clause
2(g)(2) of rule XI, in the presence of the number of members required
under the rules of the select committee for the purpose of taking
testimony or receiving evidence, the select committee may vote to close
a hearing whenever a majority of those present determines that the
testimony or evidence would endanger the national security.
(e) An employee of the select committee, or a person engaged by
contract or otherwise to perform services for or at the request of the
select committee, may not be given access to any classified information
by the select committee unless such employee or person has--
(1) agreed in writing and under oath to be bound by the Rules of
the House, including
[[Page [558]]]
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ethics and of the select committee
concerning the security of classified information during and after the
period of the employment or contractual agreement of such employee or
person with the select committee; and
(2) received an appropriate security clearance, as determined by
the select committee in consultation with the Director of National
Intelligence, that is commensurate with the sensitivity of the
classified information to which such employee or person will be given
access by the select committee.
(f) The select committee shall formulate and carry out such rules and
procedures as it considers necessary to prevent the disclosure, without
the consent of each person concerned, of information in the possession
of the select committee that unduly infringes on the privacy or that
violates the constitutional rights of such person. Nothing herein shall
be construed to prevent the select committee from publicly disclosing
classified information in a case in which it determines that national
interest in the disclosure of classified information clearly outweighs
any infringement on the privacy of a person.
(g)(1) The select committee may disclose publicly any information in
its possession after a determination by the select committee that the
public interest would be served by such disclosure. With respect to the
disclosure of information for which this paragraph requires action by
the select committee--
[[Page [559]]]
(A) the select committee shall meet to vote on the matter within
five days after a member of the select committee requests a vote; and
(B) a member of the select committee may not make such a
disclosure before a vote by the select committee on the matter, or after
a vote by the select committee on the matter except in accordance with
this paragraph.
(2)(A) In a case in which the select committee votes to disclose
publicly any information that has been classified under established
security procedures, that has been submitted to it by the executive
branch, and that the executive branch requests be kept secret, the
select committee shall notify the President of such vote.
(B) The select committee may disclose publicly such information after
the expiration of a five-day period following the day on which notice of
the vote to disclose is transmitted to the President unless, before the
expiration of the five-day period, the President, personally in writing,
notifies the select committee that the President objects to the
disclosure of such information, provides reasons therefor, and certifies
that the threat to the national interest of the United States posed by
the disclosure is of such gravity that it outweighs any public interest
in the disclosure.
(C) If the President, personally in writing, notifies the select
committee of objections to the disclosure of information as provided in
subdivision (B), the select committee may, by majority vote, refer the
question of the disclosure of such
[[Page [560]]]
information, with a recommendation thereon, to the House. The select
committee may not publicly disclose such information without leave of
the House.
(D) Whenever the select committee votes to refer the question of
disclosure of any information to the House under subdivision (C), the
chair shall, not later than the first day on which the House is in
session following the day on which the vote occurs, report the matter to
the House for its consideration.
(E) If the chair of the select committee does not offer in the House a
motion to consider in closed session a matter reported under subdivision
(D) within four calendar days on which the House is in session after the
recommendation described in subdivision (C) is reported, then such a
motion shall be privileged when offered by a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner. In either case such a motion shall be decided
without debate or intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.
(F) Upon adoption by the House of a motion to resolve into closed
session as described in subdivision (E), the Speaker may declare a
recess subject to the call of the Chair. At the expiration of the
recess, the pending question, in closed session, shall be, ``Shall the
House approve the recommendation of the select committee?''.
(G) Debate on the question described in subdivision (F) shall be
limited to two hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the select committee. After
[[Page [561]]]
such debate the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
question of approving the recommendation without intervening motion
except one motion that the House adjourn. The House shall vote on the
question in open session but without divulging the information with
respect to which the vote is taken. If the recommendation of the select
committee is not approved, then the question is considered as
recommitted to the select committee for further recommendation.
(3)(A) Information in the possession of the select committee relating
to the lawful intelligence or intelligence-related activities of a
department or agency of the United States that has been classified under
established security procedures, and that the select committee has
determined should not be disclosed under subparagraph (1) or (2), may
not be made available to any person by a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House except as provided in
subdivision (B).
(B) The select committee shall, under such regulations as it may
prescribe, make information described in subdivision (A) available to a
committee or a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, and permit a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to attend a hearing of the
select committee that is closed to the public. Whenever the select
committee makes such information available, it shall keep a written
record showing, in the case of particular information, which committee
or which Member, Del
[[Page [562]]]
egate, or Resident Commissioner received the information. A Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who, and a committee that, receives
information under this subdivision may not disclose the information
except in a closed session of the House.
(4) The Committee on Ethics shall investigate any unauthorized
disclosure of intelligence or intelligence-related information by a
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the
House in violation of subparagraph (3) and report to the House
concerning any allegation that it finds to be substantiated.
(5) Upon the request of a person who is subject to an investigation
described in subparagraph (4), the Committee on Ethics shall release to
such person at the conclusion of its investigation a summary of its
investigation, together with its findings. If, at the conclusion of its
investigation, the Committee on Ethics determines that there has been a
significant breach of confidentiality or unauthorized disclosure by a
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the
House, it shall report its findings to the House and recommend
appropriate action. Recommendations may include censure, removal from
committee membership, or expulsion from the House, in the case of a
Member, or removal from office or employment or punishment for contempt,
in the case of an officer or employee.
(h) The select committee may permit a personal representative of the
President, designated
[[Page [563]]]
by the President to serve as a liaison to the select committee, to
attend any closed meeting of the select committee.
(i) Subject to the Rules of the House, funds may not be appropriated
for a fiscal year, with the exception of a bill or joint resolution
continuing appropriations, or an amendment thereto, or a conference
report thereon, to, or for use of, a department or agency of the United
States to carry out any of the following activities, unless the funds
shall previously have been authorized by a bill or joint resolution
passed by the House during the same or preceding fiscal year to carry
out such activity for such fiscal year:
(1) The activities of the Director of National Intelligence and
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
(2) The activities of the Central Intelligence Agency.
(3) The activities of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
(4) The activities of the National Security Agency.
(5) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities of other
agencies and subdivisions of the Department of Defense.
(6) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
Department of State.
(7) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
[[Page [564]]]
(8) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities of all
other departments and agencies of the executive branch.
(j)(1) In this clause the term ``intelligence and intelligence-related
activities'' includes--
(A) the collection, analysis, production, dissemination, or use of
information that relates to a foreign country, or a government,
political group, party, military force, movement, or other association
in a foreign country, and that relates to the defense, foreign policy,
national security, or related policies of the United States and other
activity in support of the collection, analysis, production,
dissemination, or use of such information;
(B) activities taken to counter similar activities directed
against the United States;
(C) covert or clandestine activities affecting the relations of
the United States with a foreign government, political group, party,
military force, movement, or other association;
(D) the collection, analysis, production, dissemination, or use of
information about activities of persons within the United States, its
territories and possessions, or nationals of the United States abroad
whose political and related activities pose, or may be considered by a
department, agency, bureau, office, division, instrumentality, or
employee of the United States to pose, a threat to the internal security
of the United States; and
(E) covert or clandestine activities directed against persons
described in subdivision (D).
[[Page [565]]]
(2) In this clause the term ``department or agency'' includes any
organization, committee, council, establishment, or office within the
Federal Government.
(3) For purposes of this clause, reference to a department, agency,
bureau, or subdivision shall include a reference to any successor
department, agency, bureau, or subdivision to the extent that a
successor engages in intelligence or intelligence-related activities now
conducted by the department, agency, bureau, or subdivision referred to
in this clause.
(k) Clause 12(a) of rule XXII does not apply to meetings of a
conference committee respecting legislation (or any part thereof)
reported by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
This clause (formerly rule XLVIII) was <> adopted in the 95th Congress (H. Res.
658, July 14, 1977, pp. 22932-49) and has had several technical
amendments: (1) to change the size of the committee from 13 to 14
members (H. Res. 70, 96th Cong., Jan. 25, 1979, p. 1023); (2) to conform
references to a renamed committee (H. Res. 89, 96th Cong., Feb. 5, 1979,
p. 1848); (3) to change the size to not more than 16 members (H. Res.
33, 99th Cong., Jan. 30, 1985, p. 1271); (4) to change the size to not
more than 17 members and to change the cross-reference in clause 7(c)(1)
to include paragraph (a) or (b) (H. Res. 5, 100th Cong., Jan. 6, 1987,
p. 6); (5) to change the size to not more than 19 members (H. Res. 5,
101st Cong., Jan. 3, 1989, p. 73) and to permit the Speaker to attend
meetings and have access to information (H. Res. 268, Nov. 14, 1989, p.
28789); (6) to strike obsolete language relating to tenure restrictions
in clause 1 and relating to the requirement for authorizations of
appropriations in clause 9 (H. Res. 5, 102d Cong., Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39);
(7) to limit the size of the panel to 16, with no more than nine members
from the same party; to set the tenure limitation at four Congresses
within a period of six Congresses, with exceptions for ongoing service
as chair or ranking minority member; to make the Speaker (rather than
the Majority Leader) an ex officio member of the panel (as opposed to
former free access to its meetings and information); and to conform
references to renamed committees (sec. 221, H. Res. 6, 104th Cong., Jan.
4, 1995, p. 469); (8) to make certain
[[Page [566]]]
conforming changes (Budget Enforcement Act of 1997, sec. 10104, P.L.
105-33; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47); (9) to increase the size of the
committee to not more than 18 members, of whom not more than 10 shall be
of the same political party (sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5, 107th Cong., Jan. 3,
2001, p. 25); (10) to make a clerical correction in a cross reference
(sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, 107th Cong., Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26); (11) to remove
the tenure limitation for the chair and ranking minority member (sec.
2(e-1), H. Res. 5, 108th Cong., Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7); (12) to increase
the size of the committee to not more than 21 members, of whom not more
than 12 shall be of the same political party (H. Res. 51, 109th Cong.,
Jan. 26, 2005, p. 826); (13) to conform references to a renamed
committee (sec. 213(c), H. Res. 6, 110th Cong., Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19);
(14) to conform jurisdictional statements to changes in the intelligence
community (sec. 504, H. Res. 6, 110th Cong., Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19
(adopted Jan. 5, 2007)); (15) to eliminate gender-based references (sec.
2(l), H. Res. 5, 111th Cong., Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7); (16) to increase the
size of the committee to not more than 22 members, of whom not more than
13 shall be of the same political party (H. Res. 97, 111th Cong., Jan.
28, 2009, p. 1946); (17) to conform references to a renamed committee
and to reduce the size of the committee to not more than 20 members, of
whom not more than 12 shall be of the same political party (secs.
2(e)(8), 2(e)(11), H. Res. 5, 112th Cong., Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80); (18) to
increase the size of the committee to not more than 22 members, of whom
not more than 13 shall be of the same political party (sec. 2(a)(9), H.
Res. 5, 114th Cong., Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). By order of the House, the
size of the committee was increased for the 107th Congress to not more
than 20 members, of whom not more than 11 could be of the same political
party (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 8.8), for the 113th Congress to
not more than 21 members (Feb. 13, 2013, p. 1374), and for the 117th
Congress to not more than 23 members (March 12, 2021, p. _). Before the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
found in former rule XLVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458)
reorganized the intelligence community.
More substantive amendments have been adopted as follows: (1) clause 4
was amended to make former clause 6(c) of rule XI (current clause 9(c)
of rule X) applicable to salaries of the staff of the committee (H. Res.
5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16); (2) paragraph (d) (formerly clause 4) was
amended to make an exception to the provisions of clause 2(g)(2) of rule
XI (requiring a majority of the membership of a committee be present in
order to vote to close a hearing) to allow the committee to vote to go
into executive session if a majority of the members present, there being
in attendance the requisite number under the committee rules for the
purpose of taking testimony, determine that it is necessary to do so for
national security reasons (but in no event to be determined by less than
two members) (H. Res. 165, Mar. 29, 1979, p. 6820); (3) paragraph (d)
(formerly clause 4) was amended to provide the committee with permanent
professional and
[[Page [567]]]
clerical staff as provided by former clauses 6(a) and (b) of rule XI
(current clauses 9(a) and (b) of rule X) (H. Res. 58, Mar. 1, 1983, p.
3241); (4) paragraph (b)(1) (formerly clause 2(a)) was amended to
clarify jurisdiction over the National Foreign Intelligence Program and
the tactical intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the
Department of Defense and paragraph (a)(3) (formerly clause 1(b)) was
added to clarify staffing arrangements for the Speaker and the Minority
Leader as ex officio members (sec. 221, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p.
469).
The resolution creating the committee directed the committee to make a
study with respect to intelligence and intelligence-related activities
of the U.S. and to report thereon, together with appropriate
recommendations, not later than the close of the 95th Congress (sec. 3,
H. Res. 658; see H. Rept. 95-1795, Oct. 14, 1978), and transferred to
the committee all records, files, documents, and other materials of the
Select Committee on Intelligence of the 94th Congress in the possession,
custody, or control of the Clerk of the House.
The committee has shared jurisdiction with the Committee on the
Judiciary over electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence (Nov. 4,
1977, p. 37070) and with the Committees on Science, Space, and
Technology and Foreign Affairs over a bill establishing a satellite
monitoring commission (Mar. 15, 1988, p. 3847), and has sole
jurisdiction over a resolution of inquiry directing the Secretary of
Defense to furnish to the House documents and information on Cuban or
other foreign military or paramilitary presence in Panama or the Canal
Zone (Apr. 6, 1978, p. 9105).
Paragraph (g)(2) places restrictions on the committee only with
respect to the public disclosure of classified information in the
possession of that committee, and does not prevent the House from
determining to release any matter properly presented to it in secret
session pursuant to clause 10 of rule XVII (formerly rule XXIX) (Feb.
25, 1980, p. 3618).
In the 107th Congress the committee was given oversight authority
described in clause 3(m) of rule X (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001,
p. 25).
Rule XI
procedures of committees and unfinished business
In general
1. <> (a)(1)(A) The Rules of the
House are the rules of its committees and subcommittees so far as
applicable.
(B) Each subcommittee is a part of its committee and is subject to the
authority and direc
[[Page [568]]]
tion of that committee and to its rules, so far as applicable.
(2)(A) In a committee or subcommittee--
(i) a motion to recess from day to day, or to recess subject to
the call of the Chair (within 24 hours), shall be privileged; and
(ii) a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a
bill or resolution shall be privileged if printed copies are available.
(B) A motion accorded privilege under this subparagraph shall be
decided without debate.
This paragraph was first adopted December 8, 1931, to provide that the
Rules of the House are the rules of the standing committees (without
reference to subcommittees) and to provide for a privileged motion to
recess from day to day (VIII, 2215). The paragraph was amended March 23,
1955, when the House adopted rules governing committee investigations
that are now embodied in clause 2 (pp. 3569-3585). In the 92d Congress
paragraph (a) was amended in the form contained in the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) to specifically address
subcommittees (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). It was amended again
in the 99th Congress to allow a privileged motion to dispense with the
first reading of a measure if printed copies are available (H. Res. 7,
Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). In the 109th Congress paragraph (a) was reorganized and
amended to provide for a privileged motion to recess subject to the call
of the chair (within 24 hours) (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p.
43). For the requirement in Jefferson's Manual that a bill or resolution
be read in full upon demand, before being read by paragraphs or sections
for amendment, see Sec. 412, supra.
Each committee may appoint subcommittees (VI, 532), which should
include majority and minority representation (IV, 4551), and confer on
them powers delegated to the committee itself (VI, 532) except such
powers as are reserved to the full committee by the Rules of the House;
but express authority also has been given subcommittees by the House
(III, 1754-1759, 1801, 2499, 2504, 2508, 2517; IV, 4548).
As indicated in Sec. 369, supra, clause 1(a)(1)(A) enables standing
and select committees to enforce in committee applicable House rules of
decorum, such as clause 2 of rule I and rule XVII.
[[Page [569]]]
(b)(1) <> Each committee may
conduct at any time such investigations and studies as it considers
necessary or appropriate in the exercise of its responsibilities under
rule X. Subject to the adoption of expense resolutions as required by
clause 6 of rule X, each committee may incur expenses, including travel
expenses, in connection with such investigations and studies.
(2) A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be considered
as read in committee if it has been available to the members for at
least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except
when the House is in session on such a day).
(3) A report of an investigation or study conducted jointly by more
than one committee may be filed jointly, provided that each of the
committees complies independently with all requirements for approval and
filing of the report.
(4) After an adjournment sine die of the last regular session of a
Congress, an investigative or oversight report may be filed with the
Clerk at any time, provided that a member who gives timely notice of
intention to file supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting
views shall be entitled to not less than seven calendar days in which to
submit such views for inclusion in the report.
Paragraph (b)(1) was incorporated into the rules under the Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), and, together with clause 8 of rule X
and clause 2(m) of rule XI, eliminated the necessity that each committee
obtain such authority each Congress by a separate resolution reported
from the
[[Page [570]]]
Committee on Rules. Paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) were added in
the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Clerical and
stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Subparagraph (4)
was amended in the 114th Congress to include dissenting views to mirror
an amendment to clause 2(l) (sec. 2(a)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p.
34).
(c) <> Each committee may have
printed and bound such testimony and other data as may be presented at
hearings held by the committee or its subcommittees. All costs of
stenographic services and transcripts in connection with a meeting or
hearing of a committee shall be paid from the applicable accounts of the
House described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X.
Paragraph (c) was made part of the rules by the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). In the 105th and 106th Congresses, it was
amended to update a reference to the ``contingent fund'' (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47), and conforming
changes were effected in the 109th and 112th Congresses (sec. 2(a), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42; sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p.
80). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47).
(d)(1) <> Not later than January 2
of each odd-numbered year, a committee shall submit to the House a
report on the activities of that committee.
(2) Such report shall include--
(A) separate sections summarizing the legislative and oversight
activities of that committee under this rule and rule X during the
Congress;
(B) a summary of the oversight plans submitted by the committee
under clause 2(d) of rule X;
[[Page [571]]]
(C) a summary of the actions taken and recommendations made with
respect to the oversight plans specified in subdivision (B);
(D) a summary of any additional oversight activities undertaken by
that committee and any recommendations made or actions taken thereon;
and
(E) a delineation of any hearings held pursuant to clauses 2(n),
(o), or (p) of this rule.
(3) After an adjournment sine die of the last regular session of a
Congress, or after December 15 of an even-numbered year, whichever
occurs first, the chair of a committee may file the report described in
subparagraph (1) with the Clerk at any time and without approval of the
committee, provided that--
(A) a copy of the report has been available to each member of the
committee for at least seven calendar days; and
(B) the report includes any supplemental, minority, additional, or
dissenting views submitted by a member of the committee.
The provisions of paragraph (d)(1) were first made requirements of the
rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144,
incorporating the provisions of sec. 118(b) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140)), and effective on January 3,
1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), exemptions from
the reporting requirements for the Committees on Appropriations, the
Budget, House Administration, Rules, and Ethics (formerly Standards of
Official Conduct) were removed, so the paragraph from that point applied
to all committees. The 104th Congress added what is now subparagraph (2)
to require that activity reports include separate sections on
legislative and oversight activities, including a summary comparison of
oversight plans and eventual recommendations and actions (sec. 203(b),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467) which requirement for a summary
comparison was modified in the 115th Congress to reflect the addition of
authorization and oversight plans in clause 2(d) of rule X (sec. 2(b),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _), and again
[[Page [572]]]
in the 116th Congress to reflect a return to oversight plans in that
same clause (sec. 102(j), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). What is now
subparagraph (3) was added in the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7,
1997, p. 121). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). In the 111th Congress, the House amended subparagraph (2)
to require the inclusion of hearings under paragraphs (n), (o), and (p)
of this clause in the oversight section of activities reports (H. Res.
40, Jan. 14, 2009, p. 757), and eliminated a gender-based reference
(sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). In the 112th Congress, the
paragraph was rewritten entirely to clarify late-session filing and to
increase from biennial to semiannual the frequency of reports (sec.
2(e)(13), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), which was reduced to annual
in the 113th Congress (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 25) and
back to biennial in the 114th Congress (sec. 2(a)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
2015, p. 34). Subparagraph (3)(B) was amended in the 114th Congress to
include dissenting views to mirror an amendment to clause 2(l) (sec.
2(a)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34).
Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the Committee on Rules
is required to include in its activity report a separate item
identifying all waivers of points of order relating to Federal mandates,
listed by bill or joint resolution number and subject matter (sec.
107(b), P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 63).
Adoption of written rules
2. <> (a)(1) Each standing committee
shall adopt written rules governing its procedure. Such rules--
(A) shall be adopted in a meeting that is open to the public
unless the committee, in open session and with a quorum present,
determines by record vote that all or part of the meeting on that day
shall be closed to the public;
(B) may not be inconsistent with the Rules of the House or with
those provisions of law having the force and effect of Rules of the
House;
(C) shall in any event incorporate all of the succeeding
provisions of this clause to the extent applicable; and
[[Page [573]]]
(D) shall include provisions to govern the implementation of
clause 4 as provided in paragraph (f) of such clause.
(2) Each committee shall make its rules publicly available in
electronic form and submit such rules for publication in the
Congressional Record not later than 60 days after the chair of the
committee is elected in each odd-numbered year.
(3) A committee may adopt a rule providing that the chair be directed
to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII whenever the chair
considers it appropriate.
The requirement that standing committees adopt written rules was first
incorporated into the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22,
1971, p. 144), having been included in the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140). Under the Committee Reform Amendments of
1974, clause 2(a) became effective in essentially its present form on
January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). In the
94th Congress it was amended to permit a record vote to close the
committee meeting at which committee rules are adopted only on the day
of the meeting (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). In the 102d Congress
it was amended to allow a committee 30 days after the election of its
members, rather than after the convening of the Congress, to publish its
rules in the Congressional Record (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). The
provision requiring publication of committee rules in the Congressional
Record derived from statute (2 U.S.C. 190a-2 (repealed 1979)). A court
interpreted that statute to be mandatory in a case in which a Senate
committee failed to publish in the Record a rule regarding a quorum for
the purpose of taking sworn testimony. In overturning a perjury
conviction, the court held that the unpublished committee rule was not
valid. United States v. Reinecke, 524 F.2d 435 (D.C. Cir. 1975).
Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Subparagraph (2) was amended in the 112th Congress to require committee
rules to also be publicly available in electronic form, and to begin the
day-count for submission from the election of the chair (vice the
committee) (sec. 2(c)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Subparagraph
(3) was added in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005,
p. 43). Subparagraph (1)(D) was added in the 114th Congress when this
requirement was removed from clause 4(f) (sec. 2(a)(6), H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 2015, p. 34). Subparagraph (2) was amended in the 116th Congress
[[Page [574]]]
to allow a committee 60 days (instead of 30) to submit its rules for
publication in the Congressional Record after the election of the chair
(sec. 102(n), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _) Gender-based references
were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
2009, p. 7).
Committees have historically adopted rules under which they function
(I, 707; III, 1841, 1842; VIII, 2214). It is the responsibility of the
committees, and not the House, to construe and enforce additional
committee rules on the calling of committee meetings (Speaker Albert,
July 22, 1974, pp. 24436, 24437). This provision requires a select
committee to publish its adopted rules in the Record (June 25, 1998, p.
14014).
Failure <> to follow
certain procedural requirements imposed on committees by this rule may
invalidate committee actions. Violation of the requirements as to open
meetings and hearings and other hearing irregularities improperly
overruled (see clause 2(g)(5) of rule XI) or the prescribed committee
procedures for reporting bills and resolutions (clause 2(h) of rule XI)
may in some instances be the basis for a point of order in the House,
resulting in the recommittal of the bill. However, a point of order does
not ordinarily lie in the House against consideration of a bill by
reason of defective committee procedures occurring before the time the
bill is ordered reported to the House (Procedure, ch. 17, Sec. 11.1).
Many of the procedures applicable to committees derive from
Jefferson's Manual, which governs the House and its committees in all
cases to which it is applicable (clause 1 of rule XXIX). A committee may
act only when together, and not by separate consultation and consent,
nothing being the report (or recommendation) of the committee except
what has been agreed to in committee actually assembled (see Jefferson's
Manual at Sec. 407, supra). A measure before a committee for
consideration must be read for amendment by section as in the House (see
Jefferson's Manual at Sec. Sec. 412-414, supra), and reading of the
measure and of amendments thereto must be in full. The procedures
applicable in the House as in the Committee of the Whole (see
Sec. Sec. 424, 427, supra) generally apply to proceedings in committees
of the House of Representatives, except that because a measure
considered in committee must be read for amendment, a motion to limit
debate under the five-minute rule in committee must be confined to the
portion of the bill then pending. The motion for the previous question
may be applied to a question under debate in committee when it has been
read (or considered as read) for amendment in its entirety.
Committees generally conduct their business under the five-minute rule
but may employ the ordinary motions that are in order in the House, such
as under clause 4 of rule XVI.
In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted provisions,
effective during a designated public health emergency, permitting
committees to conduct proceedings remotely and to allow committee
members to participate remotely during in-person committee proceedings,
including by casting their votes or recording their presence remotely.
In addition, such
[[Page [575]]]
provisions: (1) permitted committee chairs to declare a recess subject
to the call of the chair at any time to address technical difficulties
with remote proceedings; (2) deemed electronic versions of motions,
amendments, measures or other documents to satisfy all requirements
under the rules for printed or written documents during committee
proceedings; and (3) deemed remote proceedings to satisfy all
requirements under the rules related to broadcasting and audio and
visual coverage (sec. 4, H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H.
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). In the 117th Congress, a requirement that
committees notify the Speaker in writing of the satisfaction of certain
prerequisites prior to conducting remote proceedings was eliminated
(sec. 3(s)(2), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Regular meeting days
(b) <> Each standing committee shall
establish regular meeting days for the conduct of its business, which
shall be not less frequent than monthly. Each such committee shall meet
for the consideration of a bill or resolution pending before the
committee or the transaction of other committee business on all regular
meeting days fixed by the committee if notice is given pursuant to
paragraph (g)(3).
Additional and special meetings
(c)(1) The chair of each standing committee may call and convene, as
the chair considers necessary, additional and special meetings of the
committee for the consideration of a bill or resolution pending before
the committee or for the conduct of other committee business, subject to
such rules as the committee may adopt. The committee shall meet for such
purpose under that call of the chair.
(2) Three or more members of a standing committee may file in the
offices of the committee a written request that the chair call a special
meeting of the committee. Such request shall
[[Page [576]]]
specify the measure or matter to be considered. Immediately upon the
filing of the request, the clerk of the committee shall notify the chair
of the filing of the request. If the chair does not call the requested
special meeting within three calendar days after the filing of the
request (to be held within seven calendar days after the filing of the
request) a majority of the members of the committee may file in the
offices of the committee their written notice that a special meeting of
the committee will be held. The written notice shall specify the date
and hour of the special meeting and the measure or matter to be
considered. The committee shall meet on that date and hour. Immediately
upon the filing of the notice, the clerk of the committee shall notify
all members of the committee that such special meeting will be held and
inform them of its date and hour and the measure or matter to be
considered. Such notice shall also be made publicly available in
electronic form and shall be deemed to satisfy paragraph (g)(3)(A)(ii).
Only the measure or matter specified in that notice may be considered at
that special meeting.
Temporary absence of chair
(d) A member of the majority party on each standing committee or
subcommittee thereof shall be designated by the chair of the full
committee as the vice chair of the committee or subcommittee, as the
case may be, and shall preside during the absence of the chair from any
meeting. If the chair and vice chair of a committee or
[[Page [577]]]
subcommittee are not present at any meeting of the committee or
subcommittee, the ranking majority member who is present shall preside
at that meeting.
Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) were first adopted on December 8, 1931
(VIII, 2208), were amended on January 3, 1953 (p. 24), and were revised
both by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and
in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). In the 102d
Congress paragraph (d) was amended to provide that the ranking majority
member of each committee and subcommittee be designated as its vice
chair (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). In the 104th Congress paragraph
(d) was amended to permit the chair of a full committee to designate
vice chairs of the committee and its subcommittees (sec. 223(c), H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 477). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected
when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Gender-based references were eliminated in the
111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). In the 113th
Congress paragraph (b) was amended to require the holding of a regular
meeting only if notice thereof is given, and paragraph (c)(2) was
amended to clarify that a special meeting does not require additional
notice under paragraph (g) (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26).
A committee scheduled to meet on stated days, when convened on such
day with a quorum present, may proceed to the transaction of business
regardless of the absence of the chair (VIII, 2213, 2214). These
precedents should be read in light of paragraph (d) and clause 5(c) of
rule X. A committee meeting being adjourned for lack of a quorum, a
majority of the members of the committee may not, without the consent of
the chair, call a meeting of the committee on the same day (VIII, 2213).
In the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House adopted a provision,
effective during a designated public health emergency, to clarify that
remote participation by the chair was not considered ``absence'' for
purposes of this paragraph or clause 5(c) of rule X (sec. 4(c)(1), H.
Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Committee records
(e)(1)(A) <> Each committee shall keep
a complete record of all committee action which shall include--
(i) in the case of a meeting or hearing transcript, a
substantially verbatim account of remarks actually made during the
proceedings, subject only to technical, grammatical, and ty
[[Page [578]]]
pographical corrections authorized by the person making the remarks
involved; and
(ii) a record of the votes on any question on which a record vote
is taken.
(B)(i) <> Except as provided in
item (ii) and subject to paragraph (k)(7), the result of each such
record vote shall be made publicly available in electronic form within
48 hours of such record vote. Information so available shall include a
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition, the
name of each member voting for and each member voting against such
amendment, motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those members
of the committee present but not voting.
(ii) The result of any record vote taken in executive session in the
Committee on Ethics may not be made publicly available without an
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the committee.
(2)(A) <> Except as provided in
subdivision (B), all committee records (including hearings, data,
charts, and files) shall be kept separate and distinct from the
congressional office records of the member serving as its chair. Such
records shall be the property of the House, and each Member, Delegate,
and the Resident Commissioner shall have access thereto.
(B) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, other than members
of the Committee on Ethics, may not have access to the records of
[[Page [579]]]
that committee respecting the conduct of a Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House without the specific
prior permission of that committee.
(3) Each committee shall include in its rules standards for
availability of records of the committee delivered to the Archivist of
the United States under rule VII. Such standards shall specify
procedures for orders of the committee under clause 3(b)(3) and clause
4(b) of rule VII, including a requirement that nonavailability of a
record for a period longer than the period otherwise applicable under
that rule shall be approved by vote of the committee.
(4) Each committee shall make its publications available in electronic
form to the maximum extent feasible.
(5) To the maximum extent practicable, each committee shall--
(A) provide audio and video coverage of each hearing or meeting
for the transaction of business in a manner that allows the public to
easily listen to and view the proceedings; and
(B) maintain the recordings of such coverage in a manner that is
easily accessible to the public.
(6) Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any amendment, or 48
hours after the disposition or withdrawal of any other amendment, to a
measure or matter considered by a committee, the chair of such committee
shall cause the text of each such amendment to be made publicly
available in electronic form.
[[Page [580]]]
The first sentence of paragraph (e)(1) was rewritten entirely in the
104th Congress (sec. 206, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 475). Its
predecessor, requiring a complete record of all committee actions,
including votes on any question on which a roll call was demanded, was
enacted as section 133(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
(60 Stat. 812) and made part of the standing rules on January 3, 1953
(p. 24). The requirement that committee roll calls be subject to public
inspection was added by section 104(b) of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and made a part of the rules in the 92d
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). The qualified exception for
the Committee on Ethics (formerly Standards of Official Conduct) from
the requirement of public availability of record votes was added in the
105th Congress (sec. 8, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19336).
Effective on January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470), the requirement that proxy votes in committee be made available
for public inspection was eliminated from this paragraph because proxies
were prohibited as of that date, but in the 94th Congress clause 2(f) of
rule XI was amended to permit proxies in committee, and this paragraph
was likewise amended to reinsert the requirement of availability for
public inspection (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). When proxy voting
was again eliminated in the 104th Congress, the reference thereto in the
third sentence of paragraph (e)(1) was deleted (sec. 104(b), H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). Paragraph (e)(1) was amended in the 112th
Congress to require that record votes be electronically available within
48 hours (sec. 2(c)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80) and amended in
the 113th Congress to effect a technical correction (sec. 2(f), H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Paragraph (e)(1) was further amended in the
117th Congress to eliminate the requirement that the record be made
available for inspection in committee offices and to effect an
additional technical correction (sec. 2(i), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p.
_). Paragraph (e)(2) derives from section 202(d) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), was made a part of the rules
in the 83d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24), was amended in the
95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70) to restrict the
access of Members to certain records of the Committee on Ethics
(formerly Standards of Official Conduct), and was amended in the 113th
Congress to effect a technical correction (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
2013, p. 26). Paragraph (e)(3) was added in the 101st Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72). Paragraph (e)(4) was added in the 105th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Subparagraphs (5) and (6)
were added in the 112th Congress (secs. 2(c)(6), 2(c)(9), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), and subparagraph (6) was amended in the 117th
Congress to expand the availability requirement to any amendment
disposed of or withdrawn (sec. 2(j), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A
gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). This para
[[Page [581]]]
graph was amended in the 112th Congress to reflect a change in committee
name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80).
Although all Members have access to committee records under this
paragraph, it is not without qualification. Committees may prescribe
regulations to govern the manner of access to their records, such as
requiring examination only in committee rooms. In addition, this
paragraph: (1) does not give a Member the right to make photostatic
copies of such records (Speaker Rayburn, Aug. 14, 1957, pp. 14737-39),
and such records may not be brought into the well of the House if the
committee has not authorized such action (Speaker Rayburn, June 3, 1960,
p. 11820); (2) does not necessarily apply to records within the
possession of the executive branch that the members of the committee
have been allowed to examine under limited conditions at the discretion
of the executive agency in possession of such materials (Speaker
O'Neill, July 31, 1980, p. 20765); (3) does not apply to records (an
executive communication not yet referred to committee) in the possession
of the House (Sept. 9, 1998, p. 19769). In the 105th Congress the House
adopted a resolution restricting Members' access to documents received
from an independent counsel (said to relate to possible grounds for
impeachment of the President) and referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary (H. Res. 525, Sept. 11, 1998, p. 20020).
Testimony or evidence taken in executive sessions of a committee is
under the control and subject to the regulation of the committee and,
under paragraph (k)(7) (Sec. 803, infra), cannot be released without the
consent of the committee (June 26, 1961, p. 11233; see also Deschler,
ch. 17, Sec. 18). Furthermore, such access allows a Member to examine
executive session materials only in committee rooms and does not permit
a Member to copy or to take personal notes from such materials, to keep
such notes or copies in personal office files, or to release such
materials to the public without the consent of the committee or
subcommittee under paragraph (k)(7) (Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 6, 1977, pp.
38470-73). Compare this paragraph with clause 11(g)(3) of rule X, which
only permits access of nonmembers of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence to classified information in the possession of that
committee when authorized by that committee. A resolution directing a
standing committee to release executive-session material referred to it
by special rule of the House was held to propose a change in the rules
and, therefore, not to constitute a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX (Sept. 23, 1998, p. 21562).
Prohibition against proxy voting
(f) <> A vote by a member of a committee
or subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter may not be cast by
proxy.
[[Page [582]]]
The 104th Congress adopted paragraph (f) in this form (sec. 104, H.
Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). An earlier form of the provision was
enacted as section 106(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
(84 Stat. 1140) and made part of the standing rules in the 92d Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Clerical and stylistic changes were
effected when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The original form of this paragraph permitted committees to adopt
written rules permitting proxies in writing, designating the persons to
execute them and specifying the measures or matters to which they
applied. Effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8,
1974, p. 34470), proxies in committee were prohibited, but in the 94th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20), the rule was amended to
permit proxies in committees with additional restrictions requiring an
assertion that the grantor was absent on official business or otherwise
unable to attend, requiring the Member to sign and date the proxy, and
permitting general proxies for procedural matters.
Open meetings and hearings
(g)(1) <> Each meeting for
the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, by a
standing committee or subcommittee thereof (other than the Committee on
Ethics or its subcommittees) shall be open to the public, including to
radio, television, and still photography coverage, except when the
committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present,
determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of the
meeting on that day shall be in executive session because disclosure of
matters to be considered would endanger national security, would
compromise sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to defame,
degrade, or incriminate any person, or otherwise would violate a law or
rule of the House. Persons, other than members of the committee and such
noncommittee Members, Delegates, Resident Commissioner, con
[[Page [583]]]
gressional staff, or departmental representatives as the committee may
authorize, may not be present at a business or markup session that is
held in executive session. This subparagraph does not apply to open
committee hearings, which are governed by clause 4(a)(1) of rule X or by
subparagraph (2).
(2)(A) Each hearing conducted by a committee or subcommittee (other
than the Committee on Ethics or its subcommittees) shall be open to the
public, including to radio, television, and still photography coverage,
except when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a
majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the
remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the public
because disclosure of testimony, evidence, or other matters to be
considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive
law enforcement information, or would violate a law or rule of the
House.
(B) Notwithstanding the requirements of subdivision (A), in the
presence of the number of members required under the rules of the
committee for the purpose of taking testimony, a majority of those
present may--
(i) agree to close the hearing for the sole purpose of discussing
whether testimony or evidence to be received would endanger national
security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or
would violate clause 2(k)(5); or
[[Page [584]]]
(ii) agree to close the hearing as provided in clause 2(k)(5).
(C) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not be excluded
from non-
participatory attendance at a hearing of a committee or subcommittee
(other than the Committee on Ethics or its subcommittees) unless the
House by majority vote authorizes a particular committee or
subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings on a
particular article of legislation or on a particular subject of
investigation, to close its hearings to Members, Delegates, and the
Resident Commissioner by the same procedures specified in this
subparagraph for closing hearings to the public.
(D) The committee or subcommittee may vote by the same procedure
described in this subparagraph to close one subsequent day of hearing,
except that the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed
Services, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, and the subcommittees thereof, may vote by
the same procedure to close up to five additional, consecutive days of
hearings.
(3)(A) The chair of a committee shall announce the date, place, and
subject matter of--
(i) a committee hearing, which may not commence earlier than one
week after such notice; or
(ii) a committee meeting, which may not commence earlier than the
third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holi
[[Page [585]]]
days except when the House is in session on such a day) on which members
have notice thereof.
(B) A hearing or meeting may begin sooner than specified in
subdivision (A) in either of the following circumstances (in which case
the chair shall make the announcement specified in subdivision (A) at
the earliest possible time):
(i) the chair of the committee, with the concurrence of the
ranking minority member, determines that there is good cause; or
(ii) the committee so determines by majority vote in the presence
of the number of members required under the rules of the committee for
the transaction of business.
(C) An announcement made under this subparagraph shall be published
promptly in the Daily Digest and made publicly available in electronic
form.
(D) This subparagraph and subparagraph (4) shall not apply to the
Committee on Rules.
(4) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of a meeting for the
markup of legislation, or at the time of an announcement under
subparagraph (3)(B) made within 24 hours before such meeting, the chair
of the committee shall cause the text of such legislation to be made
publicly available in electronic form.
(5)(A) Each committee shall, to the greatest extent practicable,
require witnesses who appear before it to submit in advance written
statements of proposed testimony and to limit their
[[Page [586]]]
initial presentations to the committee to brief summaries thereof.
(B) In the case of a witness appearing in a non-governmental capacity,
a written statement of proposed testimony shall include--
(i) a curriculum vitae;
(ii) a disclosure of any Federal grants or contracts, or
contracts, grants, or payments originating with a foreign government,
received during the past 36 months by the witness or by an entity
represented by the witness and related to the subject matter of the
hearing; and
(iii) a disclosure of whether the witness is a fiduciary
(including, but not limited to, a director, officer, advisor, or
resident agent) of any organization or entity that has an interest in
the subject matter of the hearing.
(C) The disclosure referred to in subdivision (B)(ii) shall include--
(i) the amount and source of each Federal grant (or subgrant
thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) related to the subject
matter of the hearing; and
(ii) the amount and country of origin of any payment or contract
related to the subject matter of the hearing originating with a foreign
government.
(D) Such statements, with appropriate redactions to protect the
privacy or security of the witness, shall be made publicly available in
electronic form 24 hours before the witness ap
[[Page [587]]]
pears to the extent practicable, but not later than one day after the
witness appears.
(6)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), a point of order does
not lie with respect to a measure reported by a committee on the ground
that hearings on such measure were not conducted in accordance with this
clause.
(B) A point of order on the ground described in subdivision (A) may be
made by a member of the committee that reported the measure if such
point of order was timely made and improperly disposed of in the
committee.
(7) This paragraph does not apply to hearings of the Committee on
Appropriations under clause 4(a)(1) of rule X.
Subparagraphs (1) and (2), relating to open committee meetings and
hearings, were first made part of the rules on March 7, 1973 (H. Res.
259, 93d Cong., pp. 6713-20). They were amended in the 94th Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20), to limit to one day (in the case of a
meeting) or to one day plus one subsequent day (in the case of a
hearing) the period during which a committee may close its session. They
were again amended in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp.
53-70) to require that a majority (rather than a quorum) be present when
a committee or subcommittee votes to close a meeting or hearing and to
provide that a noncommittee Member cannot be excluded from a hearing
except by a vote of the House. However, subparagraph (2) was amended in
the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 8) to permit a majority
of those present under the rules of the committee for the purpose of
taking testimony (not less than two members as provided in clause
2(h)(2) of rule XI) to vote to close a hearing either to discuss whether
the testimony would endanger national security or would violate clause
2(k)(5) of this rule, or to proceed to close the hearing as provided by
clause 2(k)(5). In the 98th Congress subparagraph (2) was amended
further to permit the Committees on Appropriations and Armed Services,
and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and their
subcommittees, when voting in open session with a quorum present, to
close a hearing on that particular day and for up to five additional
days, for a total of not to exceed six days (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p.
34), an authority extended to the Committee on Homeland Security in the
115th Congress (sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). In the 104th
Congress the paragraph was amended to require that meetings
[[Page [588]]]
and hearings open to the public also be open to broadcast and
photographic media; subparagraph (2) was further amended to permit
closed meetings only on specified conditions and to delete an exception
for meetings relating to internal budget or personnel matters and to
specify a new condition (sensitive law enforcement information) for
closing hearings (sec. 105, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). The
paragraph was also amended to conform references to renamed committees
(sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). In the 105th Congress subparagraphs (1) and (2) were again
amended to reflect an amendment to former clause 4(e)(3) of rule X
(currently clause 3 of rule XI) requiring meetings of the Committee on
Ethics to occur in executive session (except for adjudicatory
subcommittee meetings or full committee sanction hearings) unless opened
by an affirmative vote of a majority of members (sec. 5, H. Res. 168,
Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19336). Subparagraphs (3), (5), (6), and (7) derive
from sections 111(b), 113(b), 115(b), and 242(c) respectively of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and became part
of the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144).
Effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470), these provisions were inadvertently omitted from the rules, and
were therefore reinserted in the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14,
1975, p. 20).
Subparagraph (3) was amended as follows: in the 97th Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98-113) to add the requirement of prompt entering
of public notice of committee hearings into the committee scheduling
service of the House Information Resources; in the 104th Congress to
permit the calling of a hearing on less than seven days' notice upon a
determination of good cause either by vote of the committee or
subcommittee or by its chair with the concurrence of its ranking
minority member (H. Res. 43, Jan. 31, 1995, p. 3028); in the 112th
Congress to apply the notice requirement to meetings (sec. 2(c)(3), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80); and in the 116th Congress to exclude
weekends and legal holidays from counting under the meeting notice
requirement (sec. 102(o), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
A new subparagraph (4) was inserted (and subsequent subparagraphs
redesignated) in the 112th Congress to require availability of committee
markup text (sec. 2(c)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). In the 105th
and 106th Congresses subparagraphs (3) and (2) (respectively) were
amended to effect a technical correction (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p.
121; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Subparagraph (5) (then subparagraph (4)) was rewritten in the 105th
Congress to encourage committees to elicit curricula vitae and
disclosures of certain interests from nongovernmental witnesses (H. Res.
5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121), in the 112th Congress to require electronic
availability of such disclosures and enable redactions for witness
privacy (sec. 2(c)(7), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), in the 114th
Congress to require the disclosure of contracts or payments from foreign
governments, to confine the disclosure to the subject matter of the
hearing, and to enable redactions
[[Page [589]]]
for witness security (sec. 2(a)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34), and
in the 117th Congress to require the disclosure of certain fiduciary
interests, to extend the disclosure requirement for certain contracts
and payments from the previous two calendar years to 36 months, to
expand the foreign payments disclosure requirement to include grants,
and to direct committees to make public the required information 24
hours prior to the witness's appearance before the committee (sec. 2(k),
H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec.
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). This paragraph was amended in the
112th Congress to reflect a change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80).
In the 105th Congress the House adopted a resolution restricting
access to meetings and hearings held by the Committee on the Judiciary
on a communication received from an independent counsel relating to
possible grounds for impeachment of the President (H. Res. 525, Sept.
11, 1998, p. 20020).
In the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House adopted provisions,
effective during a designated public health emergency, deeming committee
proceedings conducted remotely in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the chair of the Committee on Rules to: (1) be considered
open to the public; (2) satisfy requirements for non-participatory
attendance under subparagraph (2)(C); and (3) satisfy notice
requirements for ``place'' for purposes of subparagraph (3) (sec. 4, H.
Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Quorum requirements
(h)(1) <> A measure or
recommendation may not be reported by a committee unless a majority of
the committee is actually present.
This subparagraph is from section 133(d) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812) and was made a part of the
rules on January 3, 1953 (p. 24). Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause
2(l)(2)(A) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The point of
order that a bill was reported from a committee without a formal meeting
and a quorum present comes too late if debate has started on a bill in
the House (VIII, 2223; Feb. 24, 1947, p. 1374). No committee report is
valid unless authorized with a quorum of the committee actually present
at the time the vote is taken (IV, 4584; VIII, 2211, 2212, 2221, 2222),
and although Speakers have indicated that committee members may come and
go during the course of the vote if
[[Page [590]]]
the roll call indicates that a quorum was present (VIII, 2222), where it
is admitted that a quorum was not in the room at any time during the
vote and the committee transcript does not show a quorum acting as a
quorum, the Chair will sustain the point of order (VIII, 2212). In the
103d Congress, this provision was amended to provide that responses to
roll calls in committee be deemed contemporaneous and to require that a
point of no quorum with respect to a committee report be timely asserted
in committee or considered waived (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49), but
in the 104th Congress both of those features were deleted from the rule
(sec. 207, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467).
Where the committee transcript was not conclusive and the manager of
the bill gave absolute assurance that a majority of the full committee
was actually present when the bill was ordered reported the Speaker
overruled a point of order made under this provision (Oct. 22, 1987, p.
28807). A point of no quorum pending a committee vote on ordering a
measure reported may provoke a quorum call requiring a majority of the
committee to be present in the committee room. A committee may act only
when together, nothing being the report of the committee except what has
been agreed to in committee actually assembled (see Jefferson's Manual
at Sec. 407, supra).
In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted a provision,
effective during a designated public health emergency, to count for
purposes of establishing a quorum during committee proceedings all
Members participating remotely (sec. 4(a)(4), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020,
p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
(2) <> Each committee may fix the
number of its members to constitute a quorum for taking testimony and
receiving evidence, which may not be less than two.
(3) Each committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations, the
Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on Ways and Means) may fix
the number of its members to constitute a quorum for taking any action
other than one for which the presence of a majority of the committee is
otherwise required, which may not be less than one-third of the members.
Subparagraphs (2) and (3) (formerly subparagraphs (1) and (2)) were
adopted in the 84th Congress and only related to the authority of a
committee to fix a quorum of not less than two for taking testimony (H.
Res. 151, Mar. 23, 1955, pp. 3569, 3585). In the 95th Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan.
[[Page [591]]]
4, 1977, pp. 53-70) subparagraph (3) (formerly subparagraph (2)) was
added to authorize committees to fix a quorum less than a majority for
certain other action. Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, paragraph (h) consisted only of subparagraphs (2) and (3) (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Subparagraph (3) was amended in the 107th
Congress to preserve all requirements for a majority quorum found in
House rules (sec. 2(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
Authority for a committee (other than the Committee on Oversight and
Reform under clause 4(c) of rule X) to conduct depositions or
interrogatories before one member or staff of the committee must be
specifically conferred by the House (see, e.g., Oct. 13, 1988, p. 30467;
H. Res. 167, 105th Cong., June 20, 1997, p. 11677). Such authority was
granted to four committees in the 114th Congress (sec. 3(b), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35), all but two committees in the 115th Congress (sec.
3(b), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _), and all but one committee in the
116th and 117th Congresses (sec. 103(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _;
sec. 3(b), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
(4)(A) <> Each
committee may adopt a rule authorizing the chair of a committee or
subcommittee--
(i) to postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered
on the question of approving a measure or matter or on adopting an
amendment; and
(ii) to resume proceedings on a postponed question at any time
after reasonable notice.
(B) A rule adopted pursuant to this subparagraph shall provide that
when proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any
intervening order for the previous question, an underlying proposition
shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent
as when the question was postponed.
This subparagraph was added in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(g), H. Res.
5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the
111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7).
[[Page [592]]]
Limitation on committee sittings
(i) <> A committee may not sit
during a joint session of the House and Senate or during a recess when a
joint meeting of the House and Senate is in progress.
This prohibition was added in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
1989, p. 72). Other limitations on committee sittings, removed from this
paragraph in the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121), had
their origins in a separate clause in 1794. That clause was omitted from
rule XI in the adoption of rules for the 80th Congress but remained
effective as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the
applicable provisions of which were continued as a part of the Rules of
the House. It prohibited committees from sitting at any time when the
House was in session, but was narrowed to proscribe sittings during the
five-minute rule by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (sec.
117(b); 84 Stat. 1140) and this revision was made part of the standing
rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Effective
January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), the
Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and Rules were exempted; and
in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70), the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct was also exempted. The Committee on
Ways and Means was traditionally permitted to sit during proceedings
under the five-minute rule by unanimous consent granted each Congress
(Jan. 29, 1975, p. 1677) until it was exempted in the 97th Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98-113). A provision that special leave to sit
be granted if ten Members did not object was added in the 95th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70). An exemption for the Committee on
House Administration was added in the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
1989, p. 72). In the 103d Congress the prohibition against sitting
during proceedings under the five-minute rule was stricken altogether
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49), but in the 104th Congress the former
rule was reinstated with exemptions for the Committees on
Appropriations, the Budget, Rules, Standards of Official Conduct, and
Ways and Means, and also with provision for a privileged motion by the
Majority Leader (sec. 208, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467), who
controlled one hour of debate thereon (Jan. 23, 1995, p. 2209). Clerical
and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Calling and questioning of witnesses
(j)(1) <> Whenever a hearing is conducted by a
committee on a measure or matter, the minority members of the com
[[Page [593]]]
mittee shall be entitled, upon request to the chair by a majority of
them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by
the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at
least one day of hearing thereon.
(2)(A) Subject to subdivisions (B) and (C), each committee shall apply
the five-minute rule during the questioning of witnesses in a hearing
until such time as each member of the committee who so desires has had
an opportunity to question each witness.
(B) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting a specified
number of its members to question a witness for longer than five
minutes. The time for extended questioning of a witness under this
subdivision shall be equal for the majority party and the minority party
and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate.
(C) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting committee staff
for its majority and minority party members to question a witness for
equal specified periods. The time for extended questioning of a witness
under this subdivision shall be equal for the majority party and the
minority party and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate.
Paragraph (j)(1) was contained in section 114(b) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and was made a part of the
rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Paragraph
(j)(2) was added to the rules on that latter date. Although a majority
of the minority members of a committee are entitled to call witnesses
selected by the minority for at least one day of hearings, no rule of
the House requires the calling of witnesses on opposing sides of an
issue (Oct. 14, 1987, p. 27921). In the 105th Congress paragraph (j)(2)
was redesignated
[[Page [594]]]
as (2)(A) and two new subparagraphs were added as (2)(B) and (2)(C) to
enable committees to permit extended examinations of witnesses by
designated members or by staff (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). A
technical correction was effected in the 106th Congress to clarify the
procedure to extend questioning, and clerical and stylistic changes were
effected when the House recodified its rules in the same Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-based reference was eliminated in
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). In the
114th Congress a select committee was permitted to increase from five to
ten minutes the time for questioning a witness under subparagraph (2)(A)
(sec. 4(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 37).
Hearing procedures
(k)(1) <> The chair at a hearing shall
announce in an opening statement the subject of the hearing.
(2) A copy of the committee rules and of this clause shall be made
available to each witness on request.
(3) Witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by their own counsel for
the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights.
(4) The chair may punish breaches of order and decorum, and of
professional ethics on the part of counsel, by censure and exclusion
from the hearings; and the committee may cite the offender to the House
for contempt.
(5) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee that the
evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that the evidence
or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing may tend to
defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness--
(A) notwithstanding paragraph (g)(2), such testimony or evidence
shall be presented in ex
[[Page [595]]]
ecutive session if, in the presence of the number of members required
under the rules of the committee for the purpose of taking testimony,
the committee determines by vote of a majority of those present that
such evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate
any person; and
(B) the committee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open
session only if the committee, a majority being present, determines that
such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate any person.
In either case the committee shall afford such person an opportunity
voluntarily to appear as a witness, and receive and dispose of requests
from such person to subpoena additional witnesses.
(6) Except as provided in subparagraph (5), the chair shall receive
and the committee shall dispose of requests to subpoena additional
witnesses.
(7) Evidence or testimony taken in executive session, and proceedings
conducted in executive session, may be released or used in public
sessions only when authorized by the committee, a majority being
present.
(8) In the discretion of the committee, witnesses may submit brief and
pertinent sworn statements in writing for inclusion in the record. The
committee is the sole judge of the pertinence of testimony and evidence
adduced at its hearing.
[[Page [596]]]
(9) A witness may obtain a transcript copy of the testimony of such
witness given at a public session or, if given at an executive session,
when authorized by the committee.
The provisions of paragraph (k) were first incorporated into the rules
in the 84th Congress (H. Res. 151, Mar. 23, 1955, pp. 3569, 3585). The
requirement of subparagraph (2) that a copy of committee rules be
furnished to each witness was added in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
22, 1971, p. 144) and was amended in the 107th Congress to require the
committee to furnish such rules only when the witness so requests (sec.
2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). The former requirement of
subparagraph (9) that a witness pay the cost of a transcript copy of
testimony was eliminated under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974,
effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470). Subparagraph (5) was amended in the 96th Congress to permit a
committee or subcommittee to hear testimony asserted to be defamatory in
executive session upon a determination by a majority of those present
that such testimony is indeed defamatory, degrading, or incriminating
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16), in the 105th Congress to clarify a
majority of those voting (a full quorum being present) may decide to
proceed in open session (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121), and in the
107th Congress to permit such an assertion to be made by the witness
(with respect to that witness) or a member of the committee (with
respect to any person) (sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).
Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
``Investigative'' was removed from the heading and subparagraphs (1),
(3), and (5) in the 107th Congress to conform the rule to House
practice, which is to apply this paragraph to all committee hearings
(sec. 2(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). Gender-based references
were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
2009, p. 7).
The requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2), and of paragraph
(m)(2)(A), that a majority of the committee or subcommittee shall
constitute a quorum for the purposes of closing meetings or hearings or
issuing subpoenas have been construed to require, under paragraph (k)(7)
of this rule, that a majority shall likewise constitute a quorum to
release or make public any evidence or testimony received in any closed
meeting or hearing and any other executive session record of the
committee or subcommittee. See also clauses 11(c) and 11(g) of rule X,
which provide that classified material transmitted by the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence to another committee of the House
becomes the executive session material of the recipient committee by
virtue of the nature of the material and the injunction of clause 11(g)
of rule X, which prohibits disclosure of information provided to
committees or Members of the House except in a secret session. For
[[Page [597]]]
a discussion of questions of the privileges of the House addressing
committee hearing procedure, see Sec. 704, supra.
In the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House adopted a provision,
effective during a designated public health emergency, permitting
witnesses and their counsel to appear remotely at committee proceedings
(sec. 4, H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4,
2021, p. _).
Supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views
(l) <> If at the time of approval of a
measure or matter by a committee (other than the Committee on Rules) a
member of the committee gives notice of intention to file supplemental,
minority, additional, or dissenting views for inclusion in the report to
the House thereon, all members shall be entitled to not less than two
additional calendar days after the day of such notice (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in
session on such a day) to file such written and signed views (including
in electronic form) with the clerk of the committee.
This provision was originally included in section 107 of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and was
incorporated into the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22,
1971, p. 144). In the 104th Congress it was amended to count as a
``calendar day'' any day on which the House is in session (H. Res. 254,
Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077). In the 105th Congress it was amended to reduce
the guaranteed time for composing separate views from three full days to
two full days after the day of notice (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121).
In the 113th Congress it was amended to clarify that notice inures to
all committee members (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). It
was amended in the 114th Congress to include dissenting views (sec.
2(a)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). In the 117th Congress, it was
amended to permit signatures on written and signed views to be filed
with committee clerks in electronic form (sec. 2(l)(1), H. Res. 8, Jan.
4, 2021, p. _), making permanent a temporary provision adopted in the
116th Congress in response to a designated public health emergency (sec.
4(a)(7), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _). Before the House recodified
[[Page [598]]]
its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph (l) consisted of this
paragraph and current clause 2(c) of rule XIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47).
Power to sit and act; subpoena power
(m)(1) <> For
the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under this
rule and rule X (including any matters referred to it under clause 2 of
rule XII), a committee or subcommittee is authorized (subject to
subparagraph (3)(A))--
(A) to sit and act at such times and places within the United
States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned,
and to hold such hearings as it considers necessary; and
(B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records,
correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers
necessary.
(2) The chair of the committee, or a member designated by the chair,
may administer oaths to witnesses.
(3)(A)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (A)(ii), a subpoena may be
authorized and issued by a committee or subcommittee under subparagraph
(1)(B) in the conduct of an investigation or series of investigations or
activities only when authorized by the committee or subcommittee, a
majority being present. The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under
subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to the chair of the committee under
such rules and under such limitations as the committee may prescribe.
Authorized sub
[[Page [599]]]
poenas shall be signed by the chair of the committee or by a member
designated by the committee.
(ii) In the case of a subcommittee of the Committee on Ethics, a
subpoena may be authorized and issued only by an affirmative vote of a
majority of its members.
(B) A subpoena duces tecum may specify terms of return other than at a
meeting or hearing of the committee or subcommittee authorizing the
subpoena.
(C) Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or subcommittee
under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as authorized or directed
by the House.
(D) Subpoenas for documents or testimony may be issued to any person
or entity, whether governmental, public, or private, within the United
States, including, but not limited to, the President, and the Vice
President, whether current or former, in a personal or official
capacity, as well as the White House, the Office of the President, the
Executive Office of the President, and any individual currently or
formerly employed in the White House, Office of the President, or
Executive Office of the President.
Before the adoption of clause 2(m) under the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong.,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), only the Committees on Appropriations, the
Budget, Government Operations, Internal Security, and Standards of
Official Conduct were permitted by the standing rules to perform the
functions as specified in subparagraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B), and other
standing and select committees were given those authorities by separate
resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules each Congress. In the
94th Congress the paragraph was amended to require authorized subpoenas
to be signed by
[[Page [600]]]
the chair of the full committee or any member designated by the
committee (H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20). In the 95th Congress the
paragraph was amended to permit a subcommittee, as well as a full
committee, to authorize subpoenas and to allow a full committee to
delegate such authority to the chair of the full committee (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70). The special rule for authorizing and issuing a
subpoena of a subcommittee of the Committee on Ethics (formerly
Standards of Official Conduct) was adopted in the 105th Congress (sec.
15, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19319). In the 106th Congress
subparagraph (3)(B) was added, and clerical and stylistic changes were
effected when the House recodified its rules in the same Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A clerical correction was effected to
paragraph (m)(1) in the 107th Congress to correct a cross reference
(sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26). Gender-based references
were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
2009, p. 7). This paragraph was amended in the 112th Congress to reflect
a change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p.
80). Subparagraph (3)(D) was added in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(m), H.
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
A subpoena issued under this clause need only be signed by the chair
of the committee or by any member designated by the committee, whereas
when the House issues an order or warrant the Speaker must under clause
4 of rule I issue the summons under the Speaker's hand and seal, and it
must be attested by the Clerk pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule II
(formerly clause 3 of rule III) (III, 1668; see H. Rept. 96-1078, p.
22). During the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House authorized
electronic signature of subpoenas and electronic attestation and
affixation of a seal by the Clerk during the pendency of a designated
public health emergency (sec. 4(f), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _;
sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). A statute empowers the chair
of the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker, chairs of joint, select, or
standing committees, and Members to administer oaths to witnesses (2
U.S.C. 191; III, 1769).
Although under this clause the Committee on Ethics may issue subpoenas
in investigating the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee of the
House (the extent of the committee's jurisdiction under rule X and
functions under clause 3 of rule XI), where the House authorizes an
investigation by that committee of other persons not directly associated
with the House, the committee's jurisdiction is thereby enlarged and a
broader subpoena authority must be conferred on the committee (Mar. 3,
1976, p. 5165). Subparagraph (3)(C) (formerly subparagraph (2)(B)) has
been interpreted to require authorization by the full House before a
subcommittee chair could intervene in a lawsuit in order to gain access
to documents subpoenaed by the subcommittee. In re Beef Industry
Antitrust Litigation, 589 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1979). The authority
conferred in clause 2(m)(1)(B) to require information ``by subpoena or
otherwise'' has not been interpreted to authorize depositions or
interrogatories. Except in the case of the Committee on Oversight and
Reform under clause 4(c) of rule X, such authority
[[Page [601]]]
must be conferred by separate action of the House (see, e.g., Dec. 5,
2007, p. 32250; sec. 3(b), H. Res. 8, Jan. 3, 2021, p. _).
In the 116th and 117th Congresses the House adopted provisions,
effective during a designated public health emergency, to: (1) satisfy
the requirement of a ``place'' for purposes of subparagraph (1); and (2)
permit the administration of the oath to a witness remotely for purposes
of subparagraph (2) (sec. 4, H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s),
H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
In the 117th Congress the House authorized the issuance of subpoenas
by certain committee and subcommittee chairs with respect to specified
investigations prior to the adoption of committee rules for subpoena
issuance (sec. 3(q), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
(n)(1) <> Each standing
committee, or a subcommittee thereof, shall hold at least one hearing
during each 120-day period following the establishment of the committee
on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in Government
programs which that committee may authorize.
(2) A hearing described in subparagraph (1) shall include a focus on
the most egregious instances of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement as
documented by any report the committee has received from a Federal
Office of the Inspector General or the Comptroller General of the United
States.
(o) Each committee, or a subcommittee thereof, shall hold at least one
hearing in any session in which the committee has received disclaimers
of agency financial statements from auditors of any Federal agency that
the committee may authorize to hear testimony on such disclaimers from
representatives of any such agency.
(p) Each standing committee, or a subcommittee thereof, shall hold at
least one hearing on issues raised by reports issued by the
[[Page [602]]]
Comptroller General of the United States indicating that Federal
programs or operations that the committee may authorize are at high risk
for waste, fraud, and mismanagement, known as the ``high-risk list'' or
the ``high-risk series.''
Paragraphs (n), (o), and (p) were added in the 111th Congress (H. Res.
40, Jan. 14, 2009, p. 575). In the 116th Congress, the House required
each standing committee (except the Committee on Ethics) to hold a
hearing for Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner to testify
about legislation within its jurisdiction (sec. 103(j), H. Res. 6, Jan.
3, 2019, p. _), and in the 117th Congress, the House continued such
provision while allowing each subcommittee of a standing committee
(other than a subcommittee on oversight) to satisfy such requirement
(sec. 3(a), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Committee on Ethics
3. (a) The <> Committee on
Ethics has the following functions:
(1) The committee may recommend to the House from time to time
such administrative actions as it may consider appropriate to establish
or enforce standards of official conduct for Members, Delegates, the
Resident Commissioner, officers, and employees of the House. A letter of
reproval or other administrative action of the committee pursuant to an
investigation under subparagraph (2) shall only be issued or implemented
as a part of a report required by such subparagraph.
(2) The committee may investigate, subject to paragraph (b), an
alleged violation by a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer,
or employee of the House of the Code of Official Conduct or of a law,
rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the
[[Page [603]]]
conduct of such Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or
employee in the performance of the duties or the discharge of the
responsibilities of such individual. After notice and hearing (unless
the right to a hearing is waived by the Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee), the committee shall report to the
House its findings of fact and recommendations, if any, for the final
disposition of any such investigation and such action as the committee
may consider appropriate in the circumstances.
(3) The committee may report to the appropriate Federal or State
authorities, either with the approval of the House or by an affirmative
vote of two-thirds of the members of the committee, any substantial
evidence of a violation by a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee of the House, of a law applicable to the
performance of the duties or the discharge of the responsibilities of
such individual that may have been disclosed in a committee
investigation.
(4) The committee may consider the request of a Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House for an advisory
opinion with respect to the general propriety of any current or proposed
conduct of such Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or
employee. With appropriate deletions to ensure the privacy of the person
concerned, the committee may publish such opinion for the guidance of
other Members,
[[Page [604]]]
Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and employees of the
House.
(5) The committee may consider the request of a Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House for a written
waiver in exceptional circumstances with respect to clause 4 of rule
XXIII.
(6)(A) The committee shall offer annual ethics training to each
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, and employee of the
House. Such training shall--
(i) involve the classes of employees for whom the committee
determines such training to be appropriate; and
(ii) include such knowledge of the Code of Official Conduct
and related House rules as may be determined appropriate by the
committee.
(B)(i) A new Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or
employee of the House shall receive training under this paragraph not
later than 60 days after beginning service to the House.
(ii) Not later than January 31 of each year, each Member,
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, and employee of the House
shall file a certification with the committee that the Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee attended ethics training in
the last year as established by this subparagraph.
(b)(1)(A) Unless approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of its
members, the Committee
[[Page [605]]]
on Ethics may not report a resolution, report, recommendation, or
advisory opinion relating to the official conduct of a Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House, or, except as
provided in subparagraph (2), undertake an investigation of such
conduct.
(B)(i) Upon the receipt of information offered as a complaint that is
in compliance with this rule and the rules of the committee, the chair
and ranking minority member jointly may appoint members to serve as an
investigative subcommittee.
(ii) The chair and ranking minority member of the committee jointly
may gather additional information concerning alleged conduct that is the
basis of a complaint or of information offered as a complaint until they
have established an investigative subcommittee or either of them has
placed on the agenda of the committee the issue of whether to establish
an investigative subcommittee.
(2) Except in the case of an investigation undertaken by the committee
on its own initiative, the committee may undertake an investigation
relating to the official conduct of an individual Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House only--
(A) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, in writing
and under oath, from a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner and
transmitted to the committee by such Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner;
[[Page [606]]]
(B) upon receipt of information offered as a complaint, in writing
and under oath, from a person not a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner provided that a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
certifies in writing to the committee that such Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner believes the information is submitted in good
faith and warrants the review and consideration of the committee; or
(C) upon receipt of a report regarding a referral from the board
of the Office of Congressional Ethics.
If a complaint is not disposed of within the applicable periods set
forth in the rules of the Committee on Ethics, the chair and ranking
minority member shall establish jointly an investigative subcommittee
and forward the complaint, or any portion thereof, to that subcommittee
for its consideration. However, if at any time during those periods
either the chair or ranking minority member places on the agenda the
issue of whether to establish an investigative subcommittee, then an
investigative subcommittee may be established only by an affirmative
vote of a majority of the members of the committee.
(3) The committee may not undertake an investigation of an alleged
violation of a law, rule, regulation, or standard of conduct that was
not in effect at the time of the alleged violation. The committee may
not undertake an investigation of such an alleged violation that
occurred before
[[Page [607]]]
the third previous Congress unless the committee determines that the
alleged violation is directly related to an alleged violation that
occurred in a more recent Congress.
(4) A member of the committee shall be ineligible to participate as a
member of the committee in a committee proceeding relating to the
member's official conduct. Whenever a member of the committee is
ineligible to act as a member of the committee under the preceding
sentence, the Speaker shall designate a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner from the same political party as the ineligible member to
act in any proceeding of the committee relating to that conduct.
(5) A member of the committee may seek disqualification from
participating in an investigation of the conduct of a Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House upon the
submission in writing and under oath of an affidavit of disqualification
stating that the member cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision
in the case in which the member seeks to be disqualified. If the
committee approves and accepts such affidavit of disqualification, the
chair shall so notify the Speaker and request the Speaker to designate a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner from the same political party
as the disqualifying member to act in any proceeding of the committee
relating to that case.
(6) Information or testimony received, or the contents of a complaint
or the fact of its filing,
[[Page [608]]]
may not be publicly disclosed by any committee or staff member unless
specifically authorized in each instance by a vote of the full
committee.
(7) The committee shall have the functions designated in titles I and
V of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, in sections 7342, 7351, and
7353 of title 5, United States Code, and in clause 11(g)(4) of rule X.
(8)(A) Except as provided by subdivisions (B), (C), and (D), not later
than 45 calendar days or 5 legislative days, whichever is later, after
receipt of a written report and any findings and supporting
documentation regarding a referral from the board of the Office of
Congressional Ethics or of a referral of the matter from the board
pursuant to a request under paragraph (r), the chair of the Committee on
Ethics shall make public the written report and findings of the board
unless the chair and ranking member, acting jointly, decide or the
committee votes to withhold such information for not more than one
additional period of the same duration, in which case the chair shall--
(i) upon the termination of such additional period, make public
the written report and findings; and
(ii) upon the day of such decision or vote, make a public
statement that the matter, relating to the referral made by the board of
the Office of Congressional Ethics regarding the Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House who is the sub
[[Page [609]]]
ject of the applicable referral, has been extended.
At least one calendar day before the committee makes public any written
report and findings of the board, the chair shall notify such board and
the applicable Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or
employee of that fact and transmit to such individual a copy of the
statement on the committee's disposition of, and any committee report
on, the matter.
(B)(i) Notwithstanding subdivision (A)(i), if the committee votes to
dismiss a matter which is the subject of a referral from the board of
the Office of Congressional Ethics, the committee is not required to
make public the written report and findings described in such
subdivision unless the committee's vote is inconsistent with the
recommendation of the board. For purposes of the previous sentence, a
vote by the committee to dismiss a matter is not inconsistent with a
report from the board respecting the matter as unresolved due to a tie
vote.
(ii) Notwithstanding subdivision (A)(ii), if the board transmits a
report respecting any matter with a recommendation to dismiss or as
unresolved due to a tie vote, and the matter is extended for an
additional period as provided in subdivision (A), the committee is not
required to make a public statement that the matter has been extended.
(iii) Except as provided by subdivision (E), if the committee
establishes an investigative subcommittee respecting any such matter,
then the
[[Page [610]]]
report and findings of the board shall not be made public until the
conclusion of the investigative subcommittee process and the committee
shall issue a public statement of the establishment of an investigative
subcommittee, which statement shall include the name of the applicable
Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee, and shall
set forth the alleged violation. If any such investigative subcommittee
does not conclude its review within one year after the board transmits a
report respecting any matter, then the committee shall make public the
report and upon the expiration of the Congress in which the report is
made public, the committee shall make public any findings.
(C)(i) If, after receipt of a written report and any findings and
supporting documentation regarding a referral from the board of the
Office of Congressional Ethics or of a referral of the matter from the
board pursuant to a request under paragraph (r), the committee agrees to
a request from an appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authority to
defer taking action on the matter--
(I) notwithstanding subdivision (A)(i), the committee is not
required to make public the written report and findings described in
such subdivision, except that if the recommendation of the board with
respect to the report is that the matter requires further review, the
committee shall make public the written report but not the findings; and
[[Page [611]]]
(II) before the end of the first day (excluding Saturdays,
Sundays, and public holidays) after the day that the committee agrees to
the request, the committee shall make a public statement that it is
deferring taking action on the matter at the request of such authority.
(ii) If, upon the expiration of the one-year period that begins on the
date the committee makes the public statement described in item (i)(II),
the committee has not acted on the matter, the committee shall make a
new public statement that it is still deferring taking action on the
matter, and shall make a new statement upon the expiration of each
succeeding one-year period during which the committee has not acted on
the matter.
(D) The committee may not receive any referral from the board of the
Office of Congressional Ethics within 60 days before a Federal, State,
or local election in which the subject of the referral is a candidate.
The committee may delay any reporting requirement under this
subparagraph that falls within that 60-day period until the end of such
period and in that case, for purposes of subdivision (A), days within
the 60-day period shall not be counted.
(E) If, at the close of any applicable period for a reporting
requirement under this subparagraph with respect to a referral from the
board of the Office of Congressional Ethics, the vote of the committee
is a tie or the committee fails to act, the report and the findings of
the board shall be made public by the committee, along
[[Page [612]]]
with a public statement by the chair explaining the status of the
matter.
(c)(1) Notwithstanding clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI, each meeting of the
Committee on Ethics or a subcommittee thereof shall occur in executive
session unless the committee or subcommittee, by an affirmative vote of
a majority of its members, opens the meeting to the public.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI, each hearing of an
adjudicatory subcommittee or sanction hearing of the Committee on Ethics
shall be held in open session unless the committee or subcommittee, in
open session by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, closes
all or part of the remainder of the hearing on that day to the public.
(d) Before a member, officer, or employee of the Committee on Ethics,
including members of a subcommittee of the committee selected under
clause 5(a)(4) of rule X and shared staff, may have access to
information that is confidential under the rules of the committee, the
following oath (or affirmation) shall be executed:
``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose, to any
person or entity outside the Committee on Ethics, any information
received in the course of my service with the committee, except as
authorized by the committee or in accordance with its rules.''
Copies of the executed oath shall be retained by the Clerk as part of
the records of the House. This paragraph establishes a standard of
conduct within the meaning of paragraph (a)(2).
[[Page [613]]]
Breaches of confidentiality shall be investigated by the Committee on
Ethics and appropriate action shall be taken.
(e)(1) If a complaint or information offered as a complaint is deemed
frivolous by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the
Committee on Ethics, the committee may take such action as it, by an
affirmative vote of a majority of its members, considers appropriate in
the circumstances.
(2) Complaints filed before the One Hundred Fifth Congress may not be
deemed frivolous by the Committee on Ethics.
The investigative authority contained in this provision (formerly
clause 4(e) of rule X) was first conferred upon the committee in the
90th Congress (H. Res. 1099, Apr. 3, 1968, p. 8802). Effective January
3, 1975, the former requirement in paragraph (b)(1)(A) (formerly clause
4(e)(2)(A) of rule X) that not less than seven committee members
authorize an investigation was changed to permit a majority of the
committee to provide that authorization (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8,
1974, p. 34470). That provision was further amended in the 105th
Congress to permit the chair and ranking minority member, with respect
to a properly filed complaint, to gather additional information or to
establish an investigative subcommittee (sec. 11, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18,
1997, p. 19318). Paragraph (b)(5) (formerly clause 4(e)(2)(E) of rule X)
was added in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70) to
provide a mechanism for a committee member to seek disqualification from
participating in an investigation, and paragraph (b)(6) (formerly clause
4(e)(2)(F) of rule X) was added in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
15, 1979, p. 8). For an example of a disqualification letter, see
February 17, 2012, p. 2059.
This provision was amended in several particulars by the Ethics Reform
Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-194): (1) paragraph (a)(1) (formerly clause
4(e)(1)(A) of rule X) was amended to enable a letter of reproval or
other administrative action of the committee to be implemented as part
of a report to the House, with no action required of the House; (2)
paragraph (a)(2) (formerly clause 4(e)(1)(B) of rule X) was amended to
require the committee to report to the House its findings of fact and
any recommendations respecting the final disposition of a matter in
which it votes to undertake an investigation; (3) a new paragraph (a)(4)
(formerly clause 4(e)(1)(E) of rule X) was added to empower the
committee to consider requests that the rule restricting the acceptance
of gifts be waived in exceptional circumstances; and (4)
[[Page [614]]]
paragraph (b)(3) (formerly clause 4(e)(2)(C) of rule X) was amended to
set a general limitation on actions for committee consideration of
ethics matters.
In the beginning of the 105th Congress a subparagraph (3) was added at
the end of former clause 4(e) of rule X to establish a Select Committee
on Ethics only to resolve a specific inquiry originally undertaken by
the standing Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the 104th
Congress but not concluded (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). The select
committee filed one report to the House (H. Rept. 105-1, H. Res. 31,
Jan. 21, 1997, p. 393). The current form of paragraph (c) (formerly
clause 4(e)(3) of rule X) was adopted later in the 105th Congress (sec.
5, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19318).
Additional amendments to this provision were adopted in the 105th
Congress as follows: (1) paragraphs (d) and (e) (formerly clauses
4(e)(4) and 4(e)(5)) were adopted (sec. 6 and sec. 19, H. Res. 168,
Sept. 18, 1997, pp. 19318, 19320); (2) paragraph (b)(2) (formerly clause
4(e)(2)(B) of rule X) was amended to address the disposition of a
complaint after expiration of periods set forth in the committee rules
and to specify parameters for the filing of complaints by non-Members
(sec. 11, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19318); and (3) paragraph
(a)(3) (formerly clause 4(e)(1)(C) of rule X) was amended to permit the
committee to report to the appropriate authorities substantial evidence
of a violation of law by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
members of the committee without the approval of the House (sec. 18, H.
Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19320). Paragraph (a)(5) was amended in the
107th Congress to reflect the redesignation of a rule (sec. 2(s), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24). Paragraph (a)(6) was added in the 110th
Congress, effective March 1, 2007 (sec. 211, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p.
19). Paragraphs (b)(2)(C) and (b)(8) were added in the 110th Congress
(H. Res. 895, Mar. 11, 2008, p. 3471). Gender-based references were
eliminated in the 111th Congress, and paragraph (b)(5) was amended to
clarify the disqualification process (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
2009, p. 7). Amendments were effected in the 112th Congress to reflect a
change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80).
Paragraph (b)(8) was amended in the 113th Congress to clarify the
circumstances in which certain public statements are not required to be
made (sec. 2(e)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Paragraph
(a)(6)(B)(i) was amended in the 114th Congress to include new Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
2015, p. 35). Paragraph (a)(6)(B)(ii) was amended in the 116th Congress
(sec. 102(p), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _) and paragraph (b)(8) was
amended in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(n)(2), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p.
_) to include Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner. Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 4(e) of rule X and paragraph (b)(7) was found in former
clause 1(p) of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[[Page [615]]]
In the 110th through 113th Congresses and in the 116th and 117th
Congresses, the House directed the committee to empanel an investigative
subcommittee upon a Member being indicted or otherwise formally charged
with criminal conduct, or to report to the House if it decides not to so
empanel a subcommittee (H. Res. 451, June 5, 2007, p. 14605; sec. 4(e),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7; sec. 4(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p.
80; sec. 4(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 28; sec. 103(k), H. Res. 6,
Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; sec. 3(e), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
In the 110th Congress, the House established an independent Office of
Congressional Ethics to investigate individually-initiated alleged
ethics violations and to report its recommendations to the committee
(Mar. 11, 2008, p. 3741). For subsequent re-establishment of the office,
and certain modifications to its structure and authority, see
Sec. 1125h, infra.
Committee agendas
(f) <> The committee shall
adopt rules providing that the chair shall establish the agenda for
meetings of the committee, but shall not preclude the ranking minority
member from placing any item on the agenda.
Committee staff
(g)(1) The committee shall adopt rules providing that--
(A) the staff be assembled and retained as a professional,
nonpartisan staff;
(B) each member of the staff shall be professional and
demonstrably qualified for the position for which hired;
(C) the staff as a whole and each member of the staff shall
perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner;
(D) no member of the staff shall engage in any partisan political
activity directly affecting any congressional or presidential election;
(E) no member of the staff or outside counsel may accept public
speaking engagements
[[Page [616]]]
or write for publication on any subject that is in any way related to
the employment or duties with the committee of such individual without
specific prior approval from the chair and ranking minority member; and
(F) no member of the staff or outside counsel may make public,
unless approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of
the committee, any information, document, or other material that is
confidential, derived from executive session, or classified and that is
obtained during the course of employment with the committee.
(2) Only subdivisions (C), (E), and (F) of subparagraph (1) shall
apply to shared staff.
(3)(A) All staff members shall be appointed by an affirmative vote of
a majority of the members of the committee. Such vote shall occur at the
first meeting of the membership of the committee during each Congress
and as necessary during the Congress.
(B) Subject to the approval of the Committee on House Administration,
the committee may retain counsel not employed by the House of
Representatives whenever the committee determines, by an affirmative
vote of a majority of the members of the committee, that the retention
of outside counsel is necessary and appropriate.
(C) If the committee determines that it is necessary to retain staff
members for the purpose of a particular investigation or other
proceeding, then such staff shall be retained only for the du
[[Page [617]]]
ration of that particular investigation or proceeding.
(D) Outside counsel may be dismissed before the end of a contract
between the committee and such counsel only by an affirmative vote of a
majority of the members of the committee.
(4) In addition to any other staff provided for by law, rule, or other
authority, with respect to the committee, the chair and ranking minority
member each may appoint one individual as a shared staff member from the
respective personal staff of the chair or ranking minority member to
perform service for the committee. Such shared staff may assist the
chair or ranking minority member on any subcommittee on which the chair
or ranking minority member serves.
Meetings and hearings
(h) The committee shall adopt rules providing that--
(1) all meetings or hearings of the committee or any subcommittee
thereof, other than any hearing held by an adjudicatory subcommittee or
any sanction hearing held by the committee, shall occur in executive
session unless the committee or subcommittee by an affirmative vote of a
majority of its members opens the meeting or hearing to the public; and
(2) any hearing held by an adjudicatory subcommittee or any
sanction hearing held by the committee shall be open to the public
unless
[[Page [618]]]
the committee or subcommittee by an affirmative vote of a majority of
its members closes the hearing to the public.
Public disclosure
(i) The committee shall adopt rules providing that, unless otherwise
determined by a vote of the committee, only the chair or ranking
minority member, after consultation with each other, may make public
statements regarding matters before the committee or any subcommittee
thereof.
Requirements to constitute a complaint
(j) The committee shall adopt rules regarding complaints to provide
that whenever information offered as a complaint is submitted to the
committee, the chair and ranking minority member shall have 14 calendar
days or five legislative days, whichever is sooner, to determine whether
the information meets the requirements of the rules of the committee for
what constitutes a complaint.
Duties of chair and ranking minority member regarding properly filed
complaints
(k)(1) The committee shall adopt rules providing that whenever the
chair and ranking minority member jointly determine that information
submitted to the committee meets the requirements of the rules of the
committee for what constitutes a complaint, they shall have 45 calendar
days or five legislative days, whichever is later, after that
determination (unless the
[[Page [619]]]
committee by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members votes
otherwise) to--
(A) recommend to the committee that it dispose of the complaint,
or any portion thereof, in any manner that does not require action by
the House, which may include dismissal of the complaint or resolution of
the complaint by a letter to the Member, Delegate, Resident
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House against whom the
complaint is made;
(B) establish an investigative subcommittee; or
(C) request that the committee extend the applicable 45-calendar
day or five-legislative day period by one additional 45-calendar day
period when they determine more time is necessary in order to make a
recommendation under subdivision (A).
(2) The committee shall adopt rules providing that if the chair and
ranking minority member jointly determine that information submitted to
the committee meets the requirements of the rules of the committee for
what constitutes a complaint, and the complaint is not disposed of
within the applicable time periods under subparagraph (1), then they
shall establish an investigative subcommittee and forward the complaint,
or any portion thereof, to that subcommittee for its consideration.
However, if, at any time during those periods, either the chair or
ranking minority member places on the agenda the issue of whether to
establish an investigative subcommittee, then an investigative
[[Page [620]]]
subcommittee may be established only by an affirmative vote of a
majority of the members of the committee.
Duties of chair and ranking minority member regarding information not
constituting a complaint
(l) The committee shall adopt rules providing that whenever the chair
and ranking minority member jointly determine that information submitted
to the committee does not meet the requirements of the rules of the
committee for what constitutes a complaint, they may--
(1) return the information to the complainant with a statement
that it fails to meet the requirements of the rules of the committee for
what constitutes a complaint; or
(2) recommend to the committee that it authorize the establishment
of an investigative subcommittee.
Investigative and adjudicatory subcommittees
(m) The committee shall adopt rules providing that--
(1)(A) an investigative subcommittee shall be composed of four
Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner (with equal
representation from the majority and minority parties) whenever such a
subcommittee is established pursuant to the rules of the committee;
(B) an adjudicatory subcommittee shall be composed of the members
of the committee
[[Page [621]]]
who did not serve on the pertinent investigative subcommittee (with
equal representation from the majority and minority parties) whenever
such a subcommittee is established pursuant to the rules of the
committee; and
(C) notwithstanding any other provision of this clause, the chair
and ranking minority member of the committee may consult with an
investigative subcommittee either on their own initiative or on the
initiative of the subcommittee, shall have access to information before
a subcommittee with which they so consult, and shall not thereby be
precluded from serving as full, voting members of any adjudicatory
subcommittee;
(2) at the time of appointment, the chair shall designate one
member of a subcommittee to serve as chair and the ranking minority
member shall designate one member of the subcommittee to serve as the
ranking minority member; and
(3) the chair and ranking minority member of the committee may
serve as members of an investigative subcommittee, but may not serve as
non-voting, ex officio members.
Standard of proof for adoption of statement of alleged violation
(n) The committee shall adopt rules to provide that an investigative
subcommittee may adopt a statement of alleged violation only if it
determines by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the
subcommittee that there is substantial reason to believe that a
violation of the
[[Page [622]]]
Code of Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, regulation, or other
standard of conduct applicable to the performance of official duties or
the discharge of official responsibilities by a Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House of
Representatives, has occurred.
Subcommittee powers
(o)(1) The committee shall adopt rules providing that an investigative
subcommittee or an adjudicatory subcommittee may authorize and issue
subpoenas only when authorized by an affirmative vote of a majority of
the members of the subcommittee.
(2) The committee shall adopt rules providing that an investigative
subcommittee may, upon an affirmative vote of a majority of its members,
expand the scope of its investigation when approved by an affirmative
vote of a majority of the members of the committee.
(3) The committee shall adopt rules to provide that--
(A) an investigative subcommittee may, upon an affirmative vote of
a majority of its members, amend its statement of alleged violation
anytime before the statement of alleged violation is transmitted to the
committee; and
(B) if an investigative subcommittee amends its statement of
alleged violation, the respondent shall be notified in writing and shall
have 30 calendar days from the date of that notifi
[[Page [623]]]
cation to file an answer to the amended statement of alleged violation.
Due process rights of respondents
(p) The committee shall adopt rules to provide that--
(1) not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled vote by an
investigative subcommittee on a statement of alleged violation, the
subcommittee shall provide the respondent with a copy of the statement
of alleged violation it intends to adopt together with all evidence it
intends to use to prove those charges which it intends to adopt,
including documentary evidence, witness testimony, memoranda of witness
interviews, and physical evidence, unless the subcommittee by an
affirmative vote of a majority of its members decides to withhold
certain evidence in order to protect a witness; but if such evidence is
withheld, the subcommittee shall inform the respondent that evidence is
being withheld and of the count to which such evidence relates;
(2) neither the respondent nor the counsel of the respondent
shall, directly or indirectly, contact the subcommittee or any member
thereof during the period of time set forth in paragraph (1) except for
the sole purpose of settlement discussions where counsel for the
respondent and the subcommittee are present;
(3) if, at any time after the issuance of a statement of alleged
violation, the committee or any subcommittee thereof determines that
[[Page [624]]]
it intends to use evidence not provided to a respondent under paragraph
(1) to prove the charges contained in the statement of alleged violation
(or any amendment thereof), such evidence shall be made immediately
available to the respondent, and it may be used in any further
proceeding under the rules of the committee;
(4) evidence provided pursuant to paragraph (1) or (3) shall be
made available to the respondent and the counsel of the respondent only
after each agrees, in writing, that no document, information, or other
materials obtained pursuant to that paragraph shall be made public
until--
(A) such time as a statement of alleged violation is made
public by the committee if the respondent has waived the adjudicatory
hearing; or
(B) the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing if the
respondent has not waived an adjudicatory hearing;
but the failure of respondent and the counsel of the respondent to
so agree in writing, and their consequent failure to receive the
evidence, shall not preclude the issuance of a statement of alleged
violation at the end of the period referred to in paragraph (1);
(5) a respondent shall receive written notice whenever--
(A) the chair and ranking minority member determine that
information the committee has received constitutes a complaint;
[[Page [625]]]
(B) a complaint or allegation is transmitted to an
investigative subcommittee;
(C) an investigative subcommittee votes to authorize its first
subpoena or to take testimony under oath, whichever occurs first;
(D) an investigative subcommittee votes to expand the scope of
its investigation; or
(E) the committee or an investigative subcommittee determines
to take into evidence the trial transcript or exhibits admitted into
evidence at a criminal trial pursuant to subparagraph (9);
(6) whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a statement of
alleged violation and a respondent enters into an agreement with that
subcommittee to settle a complaint on which that statement is based,
that agreement, unless the respondent requests otherwise, shall be in
writing and signed by the respondent and respondent's counsel, the chair
and ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and the outside
counsel, if any;
(7) statements or information derived solely from a respondent or
the counsel of a respondent during any settlement discussions between
the committee or a subcommittee thereof and the respondent shall not be
included in any report of the subcommittee or the committee or otherwise
publicly disclosed without the consent of the respondent;
(8) whenever a motion to establish an investigative subcommittee
does not prevail, the committee shall promptly send a letter to the
[[Page [626]]]
respondent informing the respondent of such vote; and
(9) in any investigation permitted by House or committee rules, in
addition to any other evidence which the committee or an investigative
subcommittee may consider, if the respondent has been convicted by a
court of record for a crime which is related to the subject of the
investigation, the committee or investigative subcommittee may take into
evidence the trial transcript and all exhibits admitted into evidence at
the trial.
Committee reporting requirements
(q) The committee shall adopt rules to provide that--
(1) whenever an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a
statement of alleged violation and transmits a report to that effect to
the committee, the committee may by an affirmative vote of a majority of
its members transmit such report to the House of Representatives;
(2) whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a statement of
alleged violation, the respondent admits to the violations set forth in
such statement, the respondent waives the right to an adjudicatory
hearing, and the respondent's waiver is approved by the committee--
(A) the subcommittee shall prepare a report for transmittal to
the committee, a final draft of which shall be provided to the
respondent not less than 15 calendar days be
[[Page [627]]]
fore the subcommittee votes on whether to adopt the report;
(B) the respondent may submit views in writing regarding the
final draft to the subcommittee within seven calendar days of receipt of
that draft;
(C) the subcommittee shall transmit a report to the committee
regarding the statement of alleged violation together with any views
submitted by the respondent pursuant to subdivision (B), and the
committee shall make the report together with the respondent's views
available to the public before the commencement of any sanction hearing;
and
(D) the committee shall by an affirmative vote of a majority
of its members issue a report and transmit such report to the House of
Representatives, together with the respondent's views previously
submitted pursuant to subdivision (B) and any additional views
respondent may submit for attachment to the final report; and
(3) members of the committee shall have not less than 72 hours to
review any report transmitted to the committee by an investigative
subcommittee before both the commencement of a sanction hearing and the
committee vote on whether to adopt the report.
(r) Upon receipt of any written notification from the board of the
Office of Congressional Ethics that the board is undertaking a review of
any alleged conduct of any Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee of
[[Page [628]]]
the House and if the committee is investigating such matter, the
committee may at any time so notify the board and request that the board
cease its review and refer the matter to the committee for its
consideration. If at the end of the applicable time period (including
any permissible extension) the committee has not reached a final
resolution of the matter or has not referred the matter to the
appropriate Federal or State authorities, the committee shall so notify
the board of the Office of Congressional Ethics in writing. The
committee may not request the same matter from the board more than one
time.
(s) The committee may not take any action that would deny any person
any right or protection provided under the Constitution of the United
States.
In the 105th Congress a 12-member bipartisan task force was informally
appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders to conduct a
comprehensive review of the House ethics process. At the same time an
order of the House was adopted imposing a moratorium on filing or
processing ethics complaints and on raising certain questions of
privilege under rule IX with respect to official conduct. The moratorium
was imposed with the expectation that the recommendations of the task
force would include changes relating to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct (now Ethics) and the process by which the House
enforces standards of official conduct (Feb. 12, 1997, p. 2058). The
moratorium was extended through September 10, 1997 (July 30, 1997, p.
16958). On September 18, 1997, the House adopted the recommendations of
the task force with certain amendments (H. Res. 168, 105th Cong., p.
19340), which included not only changes to the standing rules of the
House but also free-standing directives to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, which were reaffirmed for the 106th Congress (sec.
2(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47) and again for the 107th Congress
with an exception to section 13 (sec. 3(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p.
24). In the 108th Congress the pertinent free-standing provisions were
codified (including the exception to section 13 added in the 107th
Congress) as new paragraphs (f) through (q) of clause 3 (sec. 2(h), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). On the opening day of the 109th Congress,
various changes were made to paragraphs (b), (k), (p), and (q) (sec.
[[Page [629]]]
2(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Later in the 109th Congress,
those changes were redacted and the affected provisions as they existed
at the close of the 108th Congress were reinstated (H. Res. 240, Apr.
27, 2005, p. 8045). Paragraph (r) was added in the 110th Congress (H.
Res. 895, Mar. 11, 2008, p. 3741). Gender-based references were
eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p.
7). A technical amendment to paragraph (o)(2) was effected in the 112th
Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). An erroneous
designation in paragraph (h) was corrected in the 113th Congress (sec.
2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Paragraph (s) was added in the
114th Congress (sec. 2(a)(10), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34).
Paragraph (p) was amended in the 116th Congress to permit the committee
to adopt rules related to the use of certain trial evidence during its
investigations (sec. 102(q), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). Paragraphs
(k), (m), (n), and (r) were amended in the 117th Congress to clarify the
inclusion of Delegates and the Resident Commissioner (sec. 2(n)(2), H.
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Section 803 of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (2 U.S.C. 4711) contains
several free-standing provisions, which are carried in this annotation.
The requirement that the respective party caucuses nominate seven
majority and seven minority members should be read in light of clause 5
of rule X, setting the composition of the committee at 10, five from the
majority and five from the minority. The requirement that the committee
adopt rules establishing investigative and adjudicative subcommittees
should be read in light of clause 3(m), which constitutes the same
requirement. The references to clause 5(d) of rule XI applied to a
former rule regarding minority staffing requirements, which was
eliminated in the 104th Congress (sec. 101(c)(5), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 462).
__________
``Sec. 803. Reforms Respecting the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct.--
* * *
``(b) committee composition.--The respective party caucus or
conference of the House of Representatives shall each nominate to the
House of Representatives at the beginning of each Congress 7 members to
serve on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
``(c) investigative subcommittees.--The Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing--
``(1) for the establishment of a 4 or 6-member investigative
subcommittee (with equal representation from the majority and
minority parties) whenever the committee votes to undertake any
investigation;
``(2) that the senior majority and minority members on an
investigative subcommittee shall serve as the chairman and
ranking minority member of the subcommittee; and
[[Page [630]]]
``(3) that the chairman and ranking minority member of the
full committee may only serve as non-voting, ex officio members
on an investigative subcommittee.
``Clause 5(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives
shall not apply to any investigative subcommittee.
``(d) adjudicatory subcommittees.--The Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct shall adopt rules providing--
``(1) that upon the completion of an investigation, an
investigative subcommittee shall report its findings and
recommendations to the committee;
``(2) that, if an investigative subcommittee by majority vote
of its membership adopts a statement of alleged violation, the
remaining members of the committee shall comprise an
adjudicatory subcommittee to hold a disciplinary hearing on the
violation alleged in the statement;
``(3) that any statement of alleged violation and any written
response thereto shall be made public at the first meeting or
hearing on the matter which is open to the public after the
respondent has been given full opportunity to respond to the
statement in accordance with committee rules, but, if no public
hearing or meeting is held on the matter, the statement of
alleged violation and any written response thereto shall be
included in the committee's final report to the House of
Representatives as required by clause 4(e)(1)(B) of rule X of
the Rules of the House of Representatives;
``(4) that a quorum for an adjudicatory subcommittee for the
purpose of taking testimony and conducting any business shall
consist of a majority of the membership of the subcommittee plus
one; and
``(5) that an adjudicatory subcommittee shall determine, after
receiving evidence, whether the counts in the statement have
been proved and shall report its findings to the committee.
``Clause 5(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives
shall not apply to any adjudicatory subcommittee.
* * *
``(i) advice and education.--(1) The Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct shall establish within the Committee an Office on
Advice and Education (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the
`Office') under the supervision of the chairman.
``(2) The Office shall be headed by a director who shall be
appointed by the chairman, in consultation with the ranking
minority member, and shall be comprised of such staff as the
chairman determines is necessary to carry out the
responsibilities of the Office.
``(3) The primary responsibilities of the Office shall
include:
``(A) Providing information and guidance to Members,
officers and employees of the House regarding any laws,
rules, regulations, and other standards of conduct
applicable to such individ
[[Page [631]]]
uals in their official capacities, and any
interpretations and advisory opinions of the committee.
``(B) Submitting to the chairman and ranking minority
member of the committee any written request from any
such Member, officer or employee for an interpretation
of applicable laws, rules, regulations, or other
standards of conduct, together with any recommendations
thereon.
``(C) Recommending to the committee for its
consideration formal advisory opinions of general
applicability.
``(D) Developing and carrying out, subject to the
approval of the chairman, periodic educational briefings
for Members, officers and employees of the House on
those laws, rules, regulations, or other standards of
conduct applicable to them.
``(4) No information provided to the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct by a Member, officer or employee of the House
of Representatives when seeking advice regarding prospective
conduct of such Member, officer or employee may be used as the
basis for initiating an investigation under clause 4(e)(1)(B) of
rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, if such
Member, officer or employee acts in accordance with the written
advice of the committee.''.
__________
On occasions in which the House has directed the committee to conduct
specific investigations by separate resolution, it has authorized the
committee to take depositions with one member present, notwithstanding
clause 2(h), to serve subpoenas, to participate by special counsel in
relevant judicial proceedings (see H. Res. 252, 95th Cong., Feb. 9,
1977, pp. 3966-75; H. Res. 608, Mar. 27, 1980, pp. 6995-98; H. Res. 254,
June 30, 1983, p. 18279), and to investigate persons other than Members,
officers and employees with expanded subpoena authority (see H. Res.
1054, 94th Cong., Mar. 3, 1976, pp. 5165-68). By unanimous consent the
committee was authorized to receive evidence and take testimony before a
quorum of one of its members for the remainder of the second session of
the 100th Congress (Oct. 13, 1988, p. 30467). By resolutions considered
as questions of the privileges of the House, the committee has been
directed to investigate illegal solicitation of political contributions
in the House Office Building by unnamed sitting Members (July 10, 1985,
p. 18397); to review GAO audits of the operations of the ``bank'' in the
Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (Oct. 3, 1991, p. 25435), to disclose the
names and pertinent account information of Members and former Members
found to have abused the privileges of that entity (Mar. 12, 1992, p.
5519), and to disclose further account information respecting Members
and former Members having checks held by that entity (Mar. 12, 1992, p.
5534); and to investigate violations of confidentiality by staff engaged
in the investigation of the operation and management of the Office of
the Postmaster (July 22, 1992, p. 18786). In compliance with one such
direction of the House, the acting
[[Page [632]]]
chair of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics)
inserted in the Record names and pertinent account information of
Members and former Members found to have abused the privileges of the
``bank'' in the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (Precedents (Wickham),
ch. 5, Sec. 22.20). In the 106th Congress the chair of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct inserted in the Record an explanation of
the committee's amendment to committee rule 20(f) to reflect that the
full committee retains discretion whether to report to the House that an
investigative subcommittee has not adopted a statement of alleged
violation (Apr. 13, 2000, p. 5631).
Under clause 3(b)(4) (formerly clause 4(e)(2)(D) of rule X), a member
of the Committee on Ethics is ineligible to participate in a committee
proceeding relating to that member's official conduct. Upon notification
to the Speaker of such ineligibility, the Speaker designates another
Member of the same political party as the ineligible member to serve on
the committee during proceedings relating to that conduct (Speaker
O'Neill, Feb. 5, 1980, p. 1908; July 23, 1996, p. 18596). Under clause
3(b)(5) (formerly clause 4(e)(2)(E) of rule X), a member of the
committee may be recused from serving on the committee during
proceedings relating to a pending investigation by submitting an
affidavit of disqualification to the committee stating that the member
cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision relating to that
investigation. If the committee accepts the affidavit, the chair
notifies the Speaker and requests the Speaker to designate another
Member from the same political party as the disqualified member to serve
on the committee during proceedings relating to that investigation
(Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 18, 1980, p. 5752; Feb. 17, 2012, p. 2059).
The committee has compiled statutory and rule-based ethical standards
in the House Ethics Manual (110th Cong., 2d Sess.). In the Manual, the
committee incorporates its advisory opinions issued under clause 3(a)(4)
(formerly clause 4(e)(1)(D) of rule X), together with advisory opinions
issued by the former Select Committee on Ethics, in its discussions of
various ethical issues, including gifts, outside income, financial
disclosure, staff rights and duties, official allowances and franking,
casework considerations, campaign financing and practices, and
involvement with official and unofficial organizations. The committee is
required to issue interpretive guidance regarding the prohibition on use
of nonpublic information for private profit (sec. 3, P.L. 112-105).
Audio and visual coverage of committee proceedings
4. <> (a) The purpose
of this clause is to provide a means, in conformity with acceptable
standards of dignity, propriety, and decorum, by which committee
[[Page [633]]]
hearings or committee meetings that are open to the public may be
covered by audio and visual means--
(1) for the education, enlightenment, and information of the
general public, on the basis of accurate and impartial news coverage,
regarding the operations, procedures, and practices of the House as a
legislative and representative body, and regarding the measures, public
issues, and other matters before the House and its committees, the
consideration thereof, and the action taken thereon; and
(2) for the development of the perspective and understanding of
the general public with respect to the role and function of the House
under the Constitution as an institution of the Federal Government.
(b) In addition, it is the intent of this clause that audio and video
recordings of any coverage under this clause may not be used for any
partisan political campaign purpose or be made available for such use.
(c) It is, <> further, the intent of
this clause that the general conduct of each meeting (whether of a
hearing or otherwise) covered under authority of this clause by audio or
visual means, and the personal behavior of the committee members and
staff, other Government officials and personnel, witnesses, television,
radio, and press media personnel, and the general public at the hearing
or other meeting, shall be in strict conformity with and observance of
the acceptable standards of dignity,
[[Page [634]]]
propriety, courtesy, and decorum traditionally observed by the House in
its operations, and may not be such as to--
(1) distort the objects and purposes of the hearing or other
meeting or the activities of committee members in connection with that
hearing or meeting or in connection with the general work of the
committee or of the House; or
(2) cast discredit or dishonor on the House, the committee, or a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner or bring the House, the
committee, or a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner into
disrepute.
(d) The coverage of committee hearings and meetings by audio and
visual means shall be permitted and conducted only in strict conformity
with the purposes, provisions, and requirements of this clause.
(e) Whenever <> a hearing or meeting
conducted by a committee or subcommittee is open to the public, those
proceedings shall be open to coverage by audio and visual means. A
committee or subcommittee chair may not limit the number of television
or still cameras to fewer than two representatives from each medium
(except for legitimate space or safety considerations, in which case
pool coverage shall be authorized).
(f) Written <> rules adopted by each
committee pursuant to clause 2(a)(1)(D) shall contain provisions to the
following effect:
[[Page [635]]]
(1) If audio or visual coverage of the hearing or meeting is to be
presented to the public as live coverage, that coverage shall be
conducted and presented without commercial sponsorship.
(2) The allocation among the television media of the positions or
the number of television cameras permitted by a committee or
subcommittee chair in a hearing or meeting room shall be in accordance
with fair and equitable procedures devised by the Executive Committee of
the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries.
(3) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to obstruct in
any way the space between a witness giving evidence or testimony and any
member of the committee or the visibility of that witness and that
member to each other.
(4) Television cameras shall operate from fixed positions but may
not be placed in positions that obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of
the hearing or meeting by the other media.
(5) Equipment necessary for coverage by the television and radio
media may not be installed in, or removed from, the hearing or meeting
room while the committee is in session.
(6)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), floodlights,
spotlights, strobelights, and flash-
guns may not be used in providing any method of coverage of the hearing
or meeting.
[[Page [636]]]
(B) The television media may install additional lighting in a
hearing or meeting room, without cost to the Government, in order to
raise the ambient lighting level in a hearing or meeting room to the
lowest level necessary to provide adequate television coverage of a
hearing or meeting at the current state of the art of television
coverage.
(7) If requests are made by more of the media than will be
permitted by a committee or subcommittee chair for coverage of a hearing
or meeting by still photography, that coverage shall be permitted on the
basis of a fair and equitable pool arrangement devised by the Standing
Committee of Press Photographers.
(8) <> Photographers may not
position themselves between the witness table and the members of the
committee at any time during the course of a hearing or meeting.
(9) Photographers may not place themselves in positions that
obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing by the other media.
(10) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio
media shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television
Correspondents' Galleries.
(11) <> Personnel providing
coverage by still photography shall be currently accredited to the Press
Photographers' Gallery.
(12) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio
media and by still photog
[[Page [637]]]
raphy shall conduct themselves and their coverage activities in an
orderly and unobtrusive manner.
The rule permitting broadcasting of committee hearings was contained
in section 116(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84
Stat. 1140) and became part of the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). In the 93d Congress, the rule was amended to
permit committees to adopt rules allowing coverage of committee meetings
as well as hearings (H. Res. 1107, July 22, 1974, p. 24447). Paragraphs
(e), (f)(3), (f)(5), and (f)(8) of this clause were amended in the 99th
Congress to remove the limit on the number of television cameras
(previously four) and press photographers (previously five) covering
committee proceedings, and to provide the committee or subcommittee
chair with the discretion to determine the appropriate number (H. Res.
7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393). At the beginning of the 104th Congress
paragraph (d) was amended to delete the former characterization of
broadcast and photographic coverage of committee meetings and hearings
as ``a privilege made available by the House,'' and paragraph (e) was
amended to eliminate the requirement that a committee vote to permit
broadcast and photographic coverage of open hearings and meetings and to
prohibit chairs from limiting coverage to less than two representatives
from each medium, except if space or safety considerations warrant pool
coverage (sec. 105, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463). Later in the 104th
Congress this clause was again amended to make conforming changes in its
heading and in paragraph (f) (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077).
Former clause 4(f)(2), permitting a witness to terminate audio and
visual (including photographic) coverage, was eliminated in the 105th
Congress (H. Res. 301, Nov. 12, 1997, p. 26041). Gender-based references
were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
2009, p. 7). Paragraph (f)(7) was amended in the 112th Congress to
remove obsolete references to news organizations (sec. 2(e)(3), H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). The requirement that committees adopt rules
implementing this clause was transferred from clause 4(f) to clause
2(a)(1) in the 114th Congress (sec. 2(a)(6), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p.
34). Paragraph (b) was amended in the 114th Congress to conform the
restriction on use of coverage to clause 2(c)(1) of rule V (sec.
2(a)(7), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34), and was further amended in the
117th Congress to modernize the types of coverage subject to such
restriction (sec. 2(o), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 3 of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
In the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House adopted provisions,
effective during a designated public health emergency, deeming remote
proceedings to satisfy all requirements under this clause for
broadcasting and audio and visual coverage (sec. 4(e)(3), H. Res. 965,
May 15, 2020, p. _; sec. 3(s), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
[[Page [638]]]
Pay of witnesses
5. <> Witnesses appearing before the House or any of its
committees shall be paid the same per diem rate as established,
authorized, and regulated by the Committee on House Administration for
Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, and employees of the
House, plus actual expenses of travel to or from the place of
examination. Such per diem may not be paid when a witness has been
summoned at the place of examination.
This clause (formerly rule XXXV) was adopted in 1872, with amendments
in 1880 (III, 1825), 1930 (VI, 393), and on April 19, 1955 (p. 4722),
August 12, 1969 (H. Res. 495, 91st Cong., p. 23355), and July 28, 1975
(H. Res. 517, 94th Cong. p. 25258). The last amendment eliminated the
specific per diem and travel rate of reimbursement and allowed actual
travel costs and per diem for witnesses requested or subpoenaed to
appear at the same rate as established by the Committee on House
Administration for Members and employees. In the 104th and 106th
Congresses it was amended to conform references to a renamed committee
(sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former rule XXXV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999,
p. 47). For further provisions relating to witnesses, see clauses 2(j)
and (k) of rule XI (Sec. Sec. 802-803, supra).
Regulations of the Committee on House Administration do not permit per
diem reimbursement for witnesses. Regulations for reimbursement of
actual travel costs may be found in the Committees' Congressional
Handbook, Committee on House Administration, under the section entitled
``Hearings and Meetings.''
Unfinished business of the session
6. All business <> of the House at the end of one session shall be resumed at
the commencement of the next session of the same Congress in the same
manner as if no adjournment had taken place.
[[Page [639]]]
At first the Congress attempted to follow the rule of the English
Parliament that business unfinished in one session should begin anew at
the next; but in 1818, after an investigation of a joint committee in
1816, a rule was adopted that House bills remaining undetermined in the
House should be continued at the next session after six days. This rule
did not reach House bills sent to the Senate; but in 1848 the two Houses
remedied this omission by a joint rule. Business referred to committees
of the House was still subject to the old rule of Parliament; but in
1860 the present rule was adopted as a supplement to the rule of 1818.
In 1890, desiring to do away with the limitation of the six days and
apparently overlooking the main purpose of the rule of 1818, the House
rescinded that limitation. Also, in 1876 the joint rules were abrogated,
leaving no provision, except the headline of the rule, for the
continuance of business not before committees. The practice, however,
had become so well established that no question has ever been raised (V,
6727). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former rule XXVI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47).
The business of conferences between the two Houses is not interrupted
by an adjournment of a session that does not terminate the Congress (V,
6260-6262), and if one House asks a conference at one session the other
may agree to it in the next session (V, 6286). Where bills were enrolled
and signed by the presiding officers of the two Houses at the close of
one session they were sent to the President and approved at the
beginning of the next session (IV, 3486-3488).
Rule XII
receipt and referral of measures and matters
Messages
1. <> Messages received from the Senate, or from the President,
shall be entered on the Journal and published in the Congressional
Record of the proceedings of that day.
This provision was adopted in 1867 and amended in 1880 (V, 6593). It
was renumbered January 3, 1953 (p. 24). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule
XXXIX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The House may receive a message from the Senate when the Senate is not
in session (VIII, 3338).
[[Page [640]]]
Referral
2. <> (a) The Speaker shall refer
each bill, resolution, or other matter that relates to a subject listed
under a standing committee named in clause 1 of rule X in accordance
with the provisions of this clause.
(b) The Speaker shall refer matters under paragraph (a) in such manner
as to ensure to the maximum extent feasible that each committee that has
jurisdiction under clause 1 of rule X over the subject matter of a
provision thereof may consider such provision and report to the House
thereon. Precedents, rulings, or procedures in effect before the Ninety-
Fourth Congress shall be applied to referrals under this clause only to
the extent that they will contribute to the achievement of the
objectives of this clause.
(c) In carrying out paragraphs (a) and (b) with respect to the
referral of a matter, the Speaker--
(1) shall designate a committee of primary jurisdiction (except
where the Speaker determines that extraordinary circumstances justify
review by more than one committee as though primary);
(2) may refer the matter to one or more additional committees for
consideration in sequence, either initially or after the matter has been
reported by the committee of primary jurisdiction;
[[Page [641]]]
(3) may refer portions of the matter reflecting different subjects
and jurisdictions to one or more additional committees;
(4) may refer the matter to a special, ad hoc committee appointed
by the Speaker with the approval of the House, and including members of
the committees of jurisdiction, for the specific purpose of considering
that matter and reporting to the House thereon;
(5) may subject a referral to appropriate time limitations; and
(6) may make such other provision as may be considered
appropriate.
This provision became effective as part of the rules on January 3,
1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Before that time
a bill or resolution could not be divided for reference among two or
more committees, although it contained matter properly within the
jurisdiction of several committees (IV, 4361). Paragraph (c) was amended
on January 4, 1977 (H. Res. 5, pp. 53-70) to authorize the Speaker to
place an appropriate time limit for consideration by the first committee
or committees to which referred. In the 104th Congress paragraph (c) was
again amended to require the Speaker to initially designate a committee
of primary jurisdiction in each referral of a measure to more than one
committee (sec. 205, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467). In the 108th
Congress the parenthetical exception in paragraph (c)(1) was added (sec.
2(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). A paragraph (e) was added to the
clause on January 4, 1977 (H. Res. 5, pp. 53-70) to abolish the
legislative jurisdiction in the House of the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy. The legislative jurisdiction of the Joint Committee was divided
among the Committees on Armed Services (military applications of nuclear
energy), Interior and Insular Affairs (now Natural Resources)
(regulation of the domestic nuclear energy industry, since transferred
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the 104th Congress), Foreign
Affairs (nonproliferation of nuclear energy and international nuclear
export agreements), Interstate and Foreign Commerce (now Energy and
Commerce) (the same jurisdiction over nuclear energy as exercised over
other energy), and Science, Space, and Technology (nondefense nuclear
research and development). In addition, the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce (now Energy and Commerce) was given oversight
jurisdiction over all laws, programs, and government activities
affecting nuclear energy. Paragraph (e) was deleted entirely in the 97th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98). At the same time the House
[[Page [642]]]
deleted former paragraph (d), which required the Congressional Research
Service of the Library of Congress to prepare factual descriptions of
each bill or resolution introduced in the House to be published in the
Congressional Record. A gender-based reference was eliminated in the
111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
found in former clause 5 of rule X (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
An order of the House precluding or limiting the potential for
organizational or legislative business on certain days was considered
not to deprive Members of the privilege of introducing bills and
resolutions during pro forma sessions on those days, such measures being
numbered on the day introduced but not noted in the Record or referred
to committee until the day on which business was resumed (H. Con. Res.
260, Nov. 26, 1991, p. 35840, extended by unanimous consent on Jan. 22,
1992, p. 149, and Jan. 28, 1992, p. 745; H. Res. 619, Dec. 16, 2005, p.
29054, amended by H. Res. 640, Dec. 18, 2005, p. 30378; H. Res. 877,
Dec. 18, 2007, p. 35825).
Under clause 2(c), the Speaker may (1) refer a bill to more than one
committee for their respective consideration of such provisions of the
bill as fall within their jurisdiction (Speaker Albert, Feb. 25, 1976,
p. 4315), (2) divide a matter for initial referral to committees
(Speaker Albert, Feb. 4, 1975, p. 2253; Speaker Hastert, Apr. 26, 1999,
p. 7354), or (3) refer designated portions of a bill to one committee
while referring the entire bill to another committee (Speaker O'Neill,
Mar. 3, 1982, p. 3155). The Speaker also may set appropriate time
limitations on the initial referral to each committee (Speaker O'Neill,
Feb. 16, 1977, p. 4532; Speaker O'Neill, May 2, 1977, p. 13184). For
example, the Speaker may refer a bill to two committees, with a time
limit on one of the committees ending within a certain period after the
other committee reports to the House (Speaker O'Neill, Jan. 27, 1983, p.
937; Speaker O'Neill, Feb. 2, 1983, p. 1492; Speaker Wright, Apr. 9,
1987, p. 8665) or with a time limit on one committee ending with a date
certain (Speaker O'Neill, July 31, 1985, p. 21936; Speaker Hastert, Mar.
13, 2001, p. 3448; Speaker Hastert, July 26, 2002, p. 15146). The
Speaker may discharge a committee from further consideration of a bill
not reported by it within the time for which the bill was referred and
place the bill on the appropriate calendar (Speaker O'Neill, May 8,
1978, p. 12924).
Before paragraph (c) was amended in the 104th Congress to require the
Speaker to designate a committee of primary jurisdiction, the Speaker
announced at the convening of the 98th Congress that he would exercise
his authority, in situations that warranted it, to designate a primary
committee among those to which a bill was jointly referred, and to
impose time limits on committees having a secondary interest following
the report of the primary committee under a joint referral (Speaker
O'Neill, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 54; reiterated by Speaker Foley, Jan. 5, 1993,
p. 105). The Speaker may refer a bill primarily to one committee while
also referring it initially to additional committees for time periods to
be subsequently determined
[[Page [643]]]
when the primary committee reports, in each case for consideration of
matters within their respective jurisdictions (Speaker Gingrich, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 564).
Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIV (formerly clause 2 of rule XXIV),
relating to messages from the Senate, the Speaker has discretionary
authority to refer from the Speaker's table to standing committees
Senate amendments to House-passed bills, under any conditions permitted
under this provision for introduced bills. The Speaker may for example
impose a time limitation for consideration only of a portion of the
Senate amendment, not germane to the original House bill, by the
standing committee with subject-matter jurisdiction, without referring
the remainder of the Senate amendment to the House committee with
jurisdiction over the original House bill (Speaker O'Neill, H.R. 31,
Mar. 26, 1981, p. 5397). Beginning with the 98th Congress, the Speaker
announced a policy of referring nongermane Senate amendments under
certain conditions (Speaker O'Neill, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 54; Speaker Foley,
Jan. 5, 1993, p. 105). In modern practice, the Speaker does not refer
Senate amendments.
Under <> clause
2(c), the Speaker has authority to sequentially refer a bill reported
from a committee to other committees for a time certain for
consideration of such portions of the bill as fall within their
respective jurisdictions (Speaker Albert, Apr. 9, 1976, p. 10265;
Speaker Albert, May 17, 1976, p. 14093). Under that authority, the
Speaker may limit a sequential referral to matters having a direct
effect on subjects within the committee's jurisdiction (Speaker O'Neill,
Apr. 5, 1982, p. 6580; Speaker O'Neill, June 7, 1983, p. 14699; Speaker
Wright, Sept. 9, 1987, p. 23648). For example, the Speaker sequentially
referred a bill reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce to the
Committee on the Judiciary for a specified time for consideration of
``such provisions of the bill and amendment recommended by the Committee
on Energy and Commerce as propose to narrow the purview of the Attorney
General under section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934'' (Speaker
Hastert, May 24, 2001, p. 9384). The Speaker exercised authority under
this clause to sequentially refer a joint resolution making continuing
appropriations, reported as privileged by the Committee on
Appropriations, to the committee having legislative jurisdiction over a
legislative provision in the resolution, without a time limitation on
the sequential referral (Speaker O'Neill, Sept. 22, 1983, p. 25523).
The Speaker has sometimes announced the application of the authority
on sequential referrals at the outset of a Congress. For example, in the
97th Congress, the Speaker announced that the sequential referral of a
measure would be based on the subject matter of any amendment
recommended by the reporting committee, as well as upon the original
text of the measure (Speaker O'Neill, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 115, 116). In
the 100th Congress, the Speaker announced that, in certain cases, a
sequential referral would be based only upon the text of a reported
substitute amendment in lieu of original text (Speaker Wright, Jan. 6,
1987, p. 22). The Speaker
[[Page [644]]]
has sequentially referred: (1) a bill for consideration of the bill and
amendment of the previous committee (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 13, 1977, p.
33716); (2) a bill to two committees for different periods of time,
solely for consideration of designated sections of the first committee's
recommended amendment (Speaker O'Neill, May 18, 1982, p. 10418; Speaker
O'Neill, Aug. 1, 1985, p. 22681); (3) a bill for consideration by a
third committee of a portion of an amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by one of the committees to which the bill had
been initially referred (Speaker O'Neill, May 22, 1985, p. 13126); (4) a
bill back to the first-reporting committee when it was reported from the
second-reporting committee with a nongermane amendment within the
jurisdiction of the first committee and not within the bounds of the
initial referral (Speaker Wright, Oct. 4, 1988, p. 28242). The Speaker
also may base a sequential referral only on the text of the bill as
introduced, even if a bill is reported by the primary committee with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute (Speaker Gingrich, Sept. 12,
1995, p. 24791). For example, the Speaker sequentially referred a bill
where the amendment recommended by the primary committee would delete
portions of the bill within the jurisdiction of the sequential committee
(Speaker Hastert, May 10, 1999, p. 8690).
In the 96th Congress, the Speaker followed a more restrictive policy,
permitting a sequential committee to review (1) those portions of
introduced text within its jurisdiction and (2) those portions of an
amendment within its jurisdiction when the introduced version also
warranted a sequential referral to the committee (Speaker O'Neill, Apr.
15, 1980, p. 7760). The Speaker first exercised the authority to base
referrals on committee amendments by sequentially referring a bill
reported from the Committee on Public Works and Transportation (now
Transportation and Infrastructure), relating only to Corps of Engineers'
water projects as introduced but amended in committee to address general
water resource policy affecting irrigation and reclamation projects and
soil conservation programs, to the Committees on Agriculture and
Interior and Insular Affairs (now Natural Resources) for consideration
of provisions of the committee amendment within their jurisdiction
(Speaker O'Neill, May 20, 1981, p. 10361).
The Speaker may: (1) discharge a measure from the Union Calendar and
sequentially refer it to another committee (Speaker O'Neill, Apr. 27,
1978, p. 11742; Speaker O'Neill, May 21, 1982, p. 11169; Speaker
O'Neill, June 19, 1986, p. 14741; Speaker Foley, June 12, 1990, p.
13670; Speaker Hastert, Nov. 30, 2001, p. 23681); (2) sequentially refer
a bill that has been initially referred to several committees but
reported only by one, for consideration of the reporting committee's
amendment (Speaker O'Neill, June 17, 1982, p. 14069; Speaker Foley,
Sept. 5, 1990, p. 23477); and (3) sequentially refer a bill referred to
more than one committee when the first committee reports, for a period
ending a number of days after the next committee reports (Speaker
O'Neill, Aug. 1, 1985, p. 22681), or after all committees report
(Speaker Wright, June 10, 1988, p. 14079).
[[Page [645]]]
The Speaker may: (1) extend the time of a sequentially referred bill
and may refer the bill to yet another committee under the same
sequential referral conditions (Speaker Albert, June 1, 1976, p. 16588);
(2) delimit the period for sequential consideration of a bill in terms
of legislative days (Speaker Wright, June 30, 1988, p. 16597); or (3)
sequentially refer a bill without day (Speaker Wright, Sept. 27, 1988,
p. 25827). On the last day of an expiring sequential referral, a
committee has until midnight to file its report with the Clerk (Oct. 9,
1991, p. 26045).
Resolutions <> authorizing the Speaker to establish an ad hoc committee
for the consideration of a particular bill under paragraph (c), and
extending the reporting date for such a committee, are privileged when
offered from the floor at the Speaker's request (Speaker Albert, Apr.
22, 1975, p. 11261; Speaker Albert, Jan. 26, 1976, p. 876; Speaker
O'Neill, Jan. 11, 1977, pp. 894-98; Speaker O'Neill, Apr. 21, 1977, pp.
11550-56).
Pursuant to the authority under paragraph (c)(4), the Speaker may
refer a bill to a special ad hoc committee appointed by the Speaker with
the approval of the House (from the members of the committees with
legislative jurisdiction) for consideration and report on that
particular bill (Speaker Albert, Apr. 22, 1975, p. 11261) or may jointly
refer a report of a select committee filed with the Clerk to standing
committees of the House for their study (Speaker Albert, Feb. 16, 1976,
p. 3158).
The Speaker may refer to an ad hoc committee, established with the
approval of the House, bills, resolutions, and other matters (including
messages and communications) for the purpose of considering such matters
and reporting to the House thereon, and the resolution creating such a
committee may specify whether referrals to such a committee shall be by
initial or sequential reference or by any of the other methods provided
by this clause (H. Res. 508, Apr. 21, 1977, pp. 11550-56; Speaker
O'Neill, July 11, 1977, p. 22183; Speaker O'Neill, July 20, 1977, p.
24167). For a discussion of Speaker's referrals to the former Select
Committees on Homeland Security, see Sec. 723b, supra.
Clause 7 provides the mechanism for changes of referrals erroneously
made.
The parliamentary <> law provides that the House may commit a portion of a bill,
or a part thereof to one committee and another part thereof to another
(V, 5558), yet under the practice of the House until January 3, 1975, a
bill or joint resolution could not be divided for reference even if it
contained matters properly within the jurisdiction of several committees
(IV, 4372, 4376). On that date, the Speaker was given authority over
referral of bills as prescribed in clause 2 of this rule (formerly
clause 5 of rule X). In the 106th Congress the Speaker referred a bill
by title to two committees (H.R. 1554, Apr. 26, 1999, p. 7355).
[[Page [646]]]
(d) <> A bill
for the payment or adjudication of a private claim against the
Government may not be referred to a committee other than the Committee
on Foreign Affairs or the Committee on the Judiciary, except by
unanimous consent.
The present form of this paragraph was made effective January 2, 1947,
as a part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812).
It was amended several times to conform references to renamed committees
(H. Res. 163, Mar. 19, 1975, p. 7343; H. Res. 89, Feb. 5, 1979, p. 1848;
sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467; sec. 213(d), H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19). The old rule, adopted in 1885 and amended May 29,
1936, provided that private claims bills be referred to a Committee on
Invalid Pensions, Claims, War Claims, Public Lands, and Accounts, in
addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and the Judiciary. Certain
private bills, resolutions and amendments are barred (see Sec. 822,
infra). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
this provision was found in former clause 4 of rule XXI (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47).
Under this paragraph unanimous consent is required for the reference
of a bill for the payment of a private claim to a committee other than
the Committee on the Judiciary or the Committee on Foreign Affairs (May
4, 1978, p. 12615). The Committee on the Judiciary, and not the
Committee on Ways and Means, has jurisdiction over a private bill
specifying that a certain annuity fund is exempt from taxation under
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (Deschler, ch. 17, Sec. 43.22).
Petitions, memorials, and private bills
3. If a <> Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner has a petition, memorial, or private bill to present, the
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall sign it, deliver it to
the Clerk, and may specify the reference or disposition to be made
thereof. Such petition, memorial, or private bill (except when judged by
the Speaker to be obscene or insulting) shall be entered on the Journal
with the name of the Member, Delegate,
[[Page [647]]]
or Resident Commissioner presenting it and shall be printed in the
Congressional Record.
At the first organization of the House in 1789 the rules then adopted
provided for the presentation of petitions to the House by the Speaker
and Members, and for the introduction of bills by motion for leave. In
1842 it was found necessary, in order to save time, to provide that
petitions and memorials should be filed with the Clerk. In 1870, 1879,
and 1887 the practice as to petitions was extended to private bills, at
first as to certain classes and later so that all should be filed with
the Clerk (IV, 3312, 3365; VII, 1024). A gender-based reference was
eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p.
7). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 1 of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47).
Petitions, memorials, <> and other papers addressed to the House may
be presented by the Speaker as well as by a Member (IV, 3312). Petitions
from the country at large are presented by the Speaker in the manner
prescribed by the rule (III, 2030; IV, 3318; VII, 1025). A Member may
present a petition from the people of another State (IV, 3315, 3316).
The House itself may refer one portion of a petition to one committee
and another portion to another committee (IV, 3359, 3360), but
ordinarily the reference of a petition does not come before the House
itself. A committee may receive a petition only through the House (IV,
4557). The House in the 114th through 116th Congresses required that
petitions from state legislatures purporting to call for constitutional
conventions or to rescind such calls be made publicly available (sec.
3(c), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35; sec. 3(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
2017, p. _; sec. 103(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; sec. 3(m), H.
Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
4. A <> private
bill or private resolution (including an omnibus claim or pension bill),
or amendment thereto, may not be received or considered in the House if
it authorizes or directs--
(a) the payment of money for property damages, for personal
injuries or death for which suit may be instituted under the Tort Claims
Procedure provided in title 28, United States Code, or for a pension
(other than to carry out a provision of law or treaty stipulation);
[[Page [648]]]
(b) the construction of a bridge across a navigable stream; or
(c) the correction of a military or naval record.
This paragraph derives from section 131 of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812) and was made a part of the
standing rules January 3, 1953 (p. 24). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause
2(a) of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The prohibition
relating to correction of a military record does not apply to a private
bill that changes the computation of retired pay for a former member of
the armed services (after exhaustion of administrative remedies) but
does not directly correct the military record (Sept. 18, 1984, p.
25824).
Prohibition on commemorations
5. (a) <> A bill or
resolution, or an amendment thereto, may not be introduced or considered
in the House if it establishes or expresses a commemoration.
(b) In this clause the term ``commemoration'' means a remembrance,
celebration, or recognition for any purpose through the designation of a
specified period of time.
The 104th Congress added the prohibition against commemorative
legislation and directed the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight (now Oversight and Reform) to consider alternative means for
establishing commemorations, including the creation of an independent or
executive branch commission for such purpose, and to report to the House
any recommendations thereon (sec. 216, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468).
No recommendations were reported. Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 2(b) of
rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The House has waived the
prohibition against introduction of commemorative legislation by
unanimous consent (Oct. 24, 2001, p. 20545) and has waived the
prohibition against consideration thereof by special order of business
(H. Res. 179, Mar. 1, 2021, p. _).
[[Page [649]]]
Excluded matters
6. A <> petition, memorial, bill, or resolution excluded under
this rule shall be returned to the Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner from whom it was received. A petition or private bill that
has been inappropriately referred may, by direction of the committee
having possession of it, be properly referred in the manner originally
presented. An erroneous reference of a petition or private bill under
this clause does not confer jurisdiction on a committee to consider or
report it.
This clause of the rule was first adopted in 1880, although the
portion relating to the return of certain petitions and bills was
adapted from an older rule of 1842 (IV, 3312, 3365). In the 104th
Congress it was amended to conform to the new prohibition against
commemorative legislation (sec. 216, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468).
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 3 of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47).
Errors in reference of petitions, memorials, or private bills are
corrected at the Clerk's table, without action by the House, at the
suggestion of the committee holding possession (IV, 4379). As provided
in the rule, the erroneous reference of a private House bill does not
confer jurisdiction, and a point of order is good when the bill comes up
for consideration either in the House or in the Committee of the Whole
(IV, 4382-4389). But in cases where the House itself refers a private
House or Senate bill a point of order may not be raised as to
jurisdiction (IV, 4390, 4391; VII, 2131). The Speaker may correct the
erroneous referral of a bill as private by referring it to the
appropriate (Union) calendar as a public bill when reported (June 1,
1988, p. 13184).
Sponsorship
7. (a) Bills, <> memorials,
petitions, and resolutions, endorsed with the names of Members,
Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner introducing them, may be
delivered to the
[[Page [650]]]
Speaker to be referred. The titles and references of all bills,
memorials, petitions, resolutions, and other documents referred under
this rule shall be entered on the Journal and printed in the
Congressional Record. An erroneous reference may be corrected by the
House in accordance with rule X on any day immediately after the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag by unanimous consent or motion. Such a motion
shall be privileged if offered by direction of a committee to which the
bill has been erroneously referred or by direction of a committee
claiming jurisdiction and shall be decided without debate.
(b)(1) The sponsor of a public bill or public resolution may name
cosponsors. The name of a cosponsor added after the initial printing of
a bill or resolution shall appear in the next printing of the bill or
resolution on the written request of the sponsor. Such a request may be
submitted to the Speaker at any time until the last committee authorized
to consider and report the bill or resolution reports it to the House or
is discharged from its consideration.
(2) The name of a cosponsor of a bill or resolution may be deleted
only by a demand from the floor made by the Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner whose name is to be deleted, or by a unanimous-
consent request from the sponsor. The Speaker may only entertain such a
demand or request until the last committee authorized to consider and
report the bill or resolution reports it to the House or is discharged
from its consideration. The Speaker may not enter
[[Page [651]]]
tain a request to delete the name of the sponsor of a bill or
resolution. A deletion shall be indicated by date in the next printing
of the bill or resolution.
(3) The addition or deletion of the name of a cosponsor of a bill or
resolution shall be entered on the Journal and printed in the
Congressional Record of that day.
(4) A bill or resolution shall be reprinted on the written request of
the sponsor. Such a request may be submitted to the Speaker only when 20
or more cosponsors have been added since the last printing of the bill
or resolution.
The rule of 1789 provided that all bills should be introduced on
report of a committee or by motion for leave. By various modifications
it was first provided that all classes of private bills should be
introduced by filing them with the Clerk, and in 1890 this system was by
this rule extended to all public bills (IV, 3365). In the 105th and
107th Congresses paragraph (a) was amended, and in the 112th Congress
paragraph (b) was amended, to effect technical corrections (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121; sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26; sec.
2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 4
of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
At its organization for the 106th Congress the House adopted an order
of the House that the first 10 bill numbers be reserved for assignment
by the Speaker during a specified period (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). In the 107th and 108th Congresses the House adopted the
same order, but extended the applicable time to the entire first session
(sec. 3(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 24; sec. 3(c), H. Res. 5, Jan.
7, 2003, p. 7). In the 108th Congress, the House by unanimous consent
extended such authority through the remainder of the Congress (Oct. 4,
2004, p. 20566). In the 109th through 111th Congresses the House adopted
the same initial order but for the entire Congress (sec. 3(c), H. Res.
5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 44; sec. 217, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19; sec.
3(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 9) and the House in the 112th through
117th Congresses expanded it to reserve the second 10 bill numbers for
assignment by the Minority Leader (sec. 3(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011,
p. 80; sec. 3(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; sec. 3(l), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 37; sec. 3(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _; sec.
103(e), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; sec. 3(r), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4,
2021, p. _).
[[Page [652]]]
The motion for a change of reference and subsidiary motions take
precedence over motions to go into the Committee of the Whole for the
consideration of appropriation bills and the consideration of conference
reports (VII, 2124), and may not be debated (VII, 2126-2128). But the
motion is not in order on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 2117), and is not
privileged under the rule if the original reference was not erroneous
(VII, 2125). The motion may be amended, but the amendment, like the
original motion, is subject to the requirement that it be authorized by
the committee (VII, 2127). The motion must apply to a single bill and
not to a class of bills (VII, 2125).
According to the later practice the erroneous reference of a public
bill, if it remain uncorrected, in effect gives jurisdiction to the
committee receiving it (IV, 4365-4371; VII, 1489, 2108-2113; VIII,
2312). It is too late to move a change of reference after such committee
has reported the bill (VII, 2110; VIII, 2312), but the Speaker may,
pursuant to authority granted by clause 2 (formerly clause 5 of rule X)
effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470), refer a bill sequentially to other committees. All bills and
resolutions must be signed by the sponsor thereof (Speaker Albert, Feb.
3, 1972, p. 2521), and such signature may be in electronic form (Speaker
Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
Joint sponsorship of public bills by not more than 25 Members was
authorized in the 90th Congress (H. Res. 42, Apr. 25, 1967, p. 10712).
Prior thereto a special committee had reported against this practice and
the report had been adopted by the House (VII, 1029). Effective January
3, 1979 (H. Res. 86, 95th Cong., Oct. 10, 1978, p. 34929), paragraph (b)
was added to allow unlimited cosponsorship and to provide a mechanism
for Members to add their names as cosponsors to bills or resolutions
that have already been introduced, up until the bill is finally reported
from committee, and on January 15, 1979, the Speaker announced his
directive for the processing of lists of cosponsors pursuant to the new
clause (Speaker O'Neill, Jan. 15, 1979, p. 19).
Although paragraph (b)(2), before the 106th Congress, permitted only a
cosponsoring Member to request unanimous consent to be deleted as a
cosponsor, the sponsor of a measure was permitted to request unanimous
consent to remove a cosponsor inadvertently or erroneously listed (Feb.
9, 1982). In the 106th Congress, paragraph (b)(2) codified that such
requests could be made by either the sponsor or the cosponsor (H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 117th Congress, paragraph (b)(2) was
amended to permit the cosponsor to remove themself as a matter of right
(sec. 2(p), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Requests to delete Members'
names as cosponsors are not entertained after the last committee of
referral has reported to the House (or has been discharged from further
consideration) (Oct. 8, 1985, p. 26668; Feb. 10, 2000, p. 982), and the
Speaker has vacated unanimous-consent orders of the House to delete
cosponsors when advised that the bill had already been reported (Aug. 5,
1987, p. 22458; June 17, 2013, p. 9275). A Member may request to be
deleted as a cosponsor of
[[Page [653]]]
an unreported bill during its consideration under suspension of the
rules and before a final vote thereon is taken (June 9, 1986, pp. 12976,
12979; July 14, 2015, pp. 11458-60).
By unanimous consent a Member may be added as a cosponsor of an
unreported bill if the sponsor is no longer a Member of the House (Aug.
4, 1983, p. 23188; Oct. 3, 2008, p. 24009), and a designated Member may
be authorized to sign and submit lists of additional cosponsors if the
actual sponsor is no longer a Member (e.g., June 23, 1989, p. 13271;
Apr. 5, 2000, p. 4487; June 20, 2001, p. 11196; Sept. 21, 2004, p.
18827), but the Chair will not otherwise entertain a unanimous-consent
request to add cosponsors (Mar. 5, 1991, p. 5026; July 24, 2000, p.
15878), whether such request includes only the Member making the request
(Oct. 25, 1995, p. 29352), includes all Members (Dec. 18, 1985, p.
37765), or includes a specified additional sponsor (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 10.2; May 23, 1985, p. 13421). Such requests must
be made by the sponsor through the hopper not later than the last day on
which any committee is authorized to consider and report the measure to
the House (Nov. 4, 1997, p. 24413).
The Chair does not entertain a unanimous-consent request to add a co-
offeror of an amendment (May 20, 2004, p. 10631; Sept. 14, 2004, p.
18429; Apr. 29, 2015, pp. 5861-3) or to change the offeror of a pending
amendment (Apr. 29, 2015, pp. 5861-3; July 11, 2016, p. _).
In the 116th Congress, the House amended the standing rules to
establish a Consensus Calendar for consideration of measures
accumulating 290 cosponsors (sec. 102(r), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _;
see Sec. Sec. 830a, 901a, infra).
In the 117th Congress the House directed the Clerk to establish a
process for Members to indicate support for Senate measures received by
the House, and provided that the process must at a minimum include a
publicly available list of House supporters for each such Senate measure
(sec. 3(x), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
At its organization for the 104th Congress the House resolved that
each of the first 20 bills and each of the first two joint resolutions
introduced in the House in that Congress could have more than one Member
reflected as a sponsor (sec. 223(g), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 469);
and the Speaker stated that all signatures of such ``primary'' sponsors
would be required on the bills (Speaker Gingrich, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551).
A Member was subsequently added as such a ``primary'' sponsor by
unanimous consent (Jan. 18, 1995, p. 1447).
The fraudulent <> introduction of a measure involves a question of privilege, and
a measure so introduced has been ordered stricken from the files (IV,
3388). As the result of the unauthorized introduction of several bills
without the knowledge of the Members listed as sponsors, the Speaker
directed that all bills and resolutions must be signed by the sponsor
thereof in order to be accepted for introduction (Speaker Albert, Feb.
3, 1972, p. 2521), and in the 117th Congress the Speaker announced that
such signatures may be in electronic
[[Page [654]]]
form (Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _), which expanded upon an
earlier electronic signature policy from the 116th Congress that applied
during the pendency of a designated public health emergency (Speaker
Pelosi, Apr. 7, 2020, p. _).
(5) <> When a bill or resolution is introduced ``by request,''
those words shall be entered on the Journal and printed in the
Congressional Record.
This provision was adopted in 1888 (IV, 3366). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, it was found in former
clause 6 of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It has never
been the practice of the House to permit the names of the persons
requesting the introduction of the bill to be printed in the Record.
(c)(1) <> A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless
the sponsor submits for printing in the Congressional Record a statement
citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to
Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution. The
statement shall appear in a portion of the Record designated for that
purpose and be made publicly available in electronic form by the Clerk.
(2) Before consideration of a Senate bill or joint resolution, the
chair of a committee of jurisdiction may submit the statement required
under subparagraph (1) as though the chair were the sponsor of the
Senate bill or joint resolution.
Paragraph (c) was added in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(a)(1), H. Res.
5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). A point of order under this paragraph is not
timely when the relevant measure is not pending (May 16, 2013, pp. 7050,
7051).
The <> House in the
113th through 117th Congresses required, to the extent practicable, an
applicable United States Code citation in the case of an amendatory
instruction in a bill or joint resolution proposing to repeal or amend a
law not codified (sec. 3(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; sec. 3(m),
H. Res. 5, Jan.
[[Page [655]]]
6, 2015, p. 37; sec. 3(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _; sec. 103(f),
H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _; sec. 3(l), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p.
_).
Executive communications
8. Estimates <> of appropriations and all other
communications from the executive departments intended for the
consideration of any committees of the House shall be addressed to the
Speaker for referral as provided in clause 2 of rule XIV.
This rule was adopted in 1867 and amended in 1880 (V, 6593). It was
renumbered January 3, 1953 (p. 24). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule XL
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Formerly estimates of appropriations
were transmitted through the Secretary of the Treasury (IV, 3573-3576,
4045), but under 31 U.S.C. 1105 they are now included in the budget
submitted by the President.
Rule XIII
calendars and committee reports
Calendars
1. (a) <> All
business reported by committees shall be referred to one of the
following three calendars:
(1) A Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union, to which shall be referred public bills and public
resolutions raising revenue, involving a tax or charge on the people,
directly or indirectly making appropriations of money or property or
requiring such appropriations to be made, authorizing payments out of
appropriations already made, or releasing any liability to the United
States for money or property.
[[Page [656]]]
(2) A House Calendar, to which shall be referred all public bills
and public resolutions not requiring referral to the Calendar of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
(3) A Private Calendar as provided in clause 5 of rule XV, to
which shall be referred all private bills and private resolutions.
This provision was adopted in 1880 and amended in 1911 (VI, 742); but
as early as 1820 a rule was adopted creating calendars for the
Committees of the Whole. Clerical and stylistic changes were effected
when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47), including a change in subparagraph (3) from the
``Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House'' to the ``Private
Calendar.'' Subparagraph (1) was amended in the 115th Congress to
exclude measures referring a claim to the Court of Claims (sec. 2(n), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). Bills not requiring consideration in the
Committee of the Whole were considered when reported, but in 1880 the
House Calendar was created to remedy delays caused by such consideration
(IV, 3115). Reference of a bill to a calendar is governed by the text of
the bill as referred to committee, and amendments reported by committees
are not considered (VIII, 2392).
A motion to correct an error in referring a bill to the proper
calendar presents a question of privilege (III, 2614, 2615); but a mere
clerical error in the calendar does not give rise to such question (III,
2616). A bill improperly reported is not entitled to a place on the
calendar (IV, 3117).
A bill on the wrong calendar may be transferred to the proper calendar
as of the date of original reference by direction of the Speaker (VI,
744-748; VII, 859, 2406; Dec. 7, 1950, p. 16307; Apr. 26, 1984, p.
10242; Sept. 10, 1990, p. 23677). But the Speaker has no authority to
change calendar reference made by the House (VI, 749; VII, 859). Reports
from the Court of Claims did not remain on the calendar from Congress to
Congress, even when a law seemed so to provide (IV, 3298-3302). In
determining whether a bill should be placed on the House or Union
Calendar, clause 3 of rule XVIII should be consulted. The Speaker may
correct the erroneous referral of a bill as private by referring it to
the appropriate (Union) calendar as a public bill when reported (June 1,
1988, p. 13184).
Although the Speaker has no general authority to remove a reported
bill from the Union Calendar (other than to correct the erroneous
reference of a reported bill between calendars), the Speaker may
discharge a bill therefrom for reference to another committee when
required (1) by section 401(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
permitting 15-day referral to the Committee on Appropriations of
reported bills providing new entitlement authority in excess of that
allocated to the reporting committee in
[[Page [657]]]
connection with the most recently agreed-to concurrent resolution on the
budget (Speaker O'Neill, Sept. 8, 1977, p. 28153), or (2) by clause 2 of
rule XII (formerly clause 5 of rule X), authorizing and directing the
Speaker to assure that each committee has responsibility to consider
legislation within its jurisdiction by fashioning sequential referrals
when appropriate (Speaker O'Neill, Apr. 27, 1978, p. 11742; June 19,
1986, p. 14741).
(b) <> There is established a
Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees as provided in clause 2 of
rule XV.
From the 106th Congress through the 108th Congress, paragraph (b) was
occupied by a cross reference to the Corrections Calendar. The provision
was added when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47) and was stricken when the Corrections
Calendar was abolished in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan.
4, 2005, p. 43). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, the current paragraph (b) was found in former clause 5 of rule
XIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(c) <> There is established a
Consensus Calendar as provided in clause 7 of rule XV.
This paragraph was added in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(r), H. Res.
6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
Filing and printing of reports
2. (a)(1) <> Except as
provided in subparagraphs (2) and (3), all reports of committees (other
than those filed from the floor) shall be delivered to the Clerk for
printing and reference to the proper calendar under the direction of the
Speaker in accordance with clause 1. The title or subject of each report
shall be entered on the Journal and printed in the Congressional Record.
(2) <> A bill or resolution reported
adversely (other than those filed as privileged) shall be laid on the
table unless a committee to which the bill or resolution
[[Page [658]]]
was referred requests at the time of the report its referral to an
appropriate calendar under clause 1 or unless, within three days
thereafter, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner makes such a
request.
(3) <> All reports of committees
may be delivered to the Clerk in electronic form.
A technical amendment was effected by the 93d Congress (H. Res. 988,
Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected
when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47), but the 111th Congress reversed an inadvertent
change to paragraph (a)(2) to restore its application to nonprivileged
reports only (sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 9) (contrast the
1999 codification with its predecessor in form; VI, 411). Subparagraph
(3) was added in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(l)(2), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4,
2021, p. _).
When <> the House codified its rules in the 106th
Congress, it deleted the portion of clause 2 of rule XVIII that required
the printing of reports. That provision was redundant because this
provision carries the same requirement (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Former clause 2 of rule XVIII was adopted in 1880 (V, 5647).
The House insists on its requirement that all reports be in writing
(IV, 4655) and does not receive verbal reports as to bills (IV, 4654).
But the sufficiency of a report is passed on by the House and not by the
Speaker (II, 1339; IV, 4653). A report is not necessarily signed by all
those concurring (II, 1274) or even by any of those concurring, but
minority, supplemental, additional, and dissenting views are signed by
those submitting them (IV, 4671; VIII, 2229; see clause 2(l) of rule
XI). Under this rule, the printing requirement is not a condition
precedent to consideration of the matter reported (VIII, 2307-2309).
However, for various availability and layover requirements in the rules,
see clause 6 of rule X (Sec. 764, supra), clauses 4, 5 and 6 of rule
XIII (Sec. 850, Sec. 851, Sec. 853, Sec. 857, infra, respectively),
clause 11 of rule XXI (Sec. 1068j, infra), and clause 8 of rule XXII
(Sec. 1082, infra). See also clause 3(a)(2) of rule XIII (Sec. 838,
infra), which excepts from the availability requirements of clauses 4
and 6 supplemental reports to correct a technical error in the depiction
of record votes in a committee report. As a precursor to subparagraph
(3), the House during the 116th Congress authorized the electronic
submission of written reports during the pendency of a designated public
health emergency (sec. 4(a), H. Res. 965, May 15, 2020, p. _).
[[Page [659]]]
Unless filed with a report pursuant to clause 2(c), minority,
supplemental, additional, or dissenting views may be presented only with
the consent of the House (IV, 4600; VIII, 2231, 2248).
It has been held that the fact that a report was not printed by the
Director of the Government Publishing Office as originally made to the
House does not prevent the consideration of the matter reported (VIII,
2307). A committee may not file its report on a bill after the House has
passed the bill (Sept. 30, 1985, p. 25270).
(b)(1) <> It shall be the duty of the
chair of each committee to report or cause to be reported promptly to
the House a measure or matter approved by the committee and to take or
cause to be taken steps necessary to bring the measure or matter to a
vote.
(2) <> In any event,
the report of a committee on a measure that has been approved by the
committee shall be filed within seven calendar days (exclusive of days
on which the House is not in session) after the day on which a written
request for the filing of the report, signed by a majority of the
members of the committee, has been filed with the clerk of the
committee. The clerk of the committee shall immediately notify the chair
of the filing of such a request. This subparagraph does not apply to a
report of the Committee on Rules with respect to a rule, joint rule, or
order of business of the House, or to the reporting of a resolution of
inquiry addressed to the head of an executive department.
Subparagraph (1) (formerly clause 2(l)(1)(A) of rule XI) is derived
from section 133(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60
Stat. 812) and was made a part of the standing rules on January 3, 1953
(p. 24). It is sufficient authority for the chair to call up a bill on
Calendar Wednesday (Speaker Rayburn, Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2162).
Subparagraph (2) (formerly clause 2(l)(1)(B) of rule XI) is derived from
section 105 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat.
1140) and was made part of the rules
[[Page [660]]]
in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Former clause
2(l)(1)(C) of rule XI was added by the Committee Reform Amendments of
1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470), to incorporate section 307 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (88 Stat. 313), requiring the Committee on Appropriations to strive
to complete committee action on all regular appropriation bills before
reporting any of them to the House, and to submit a report comparing
specified spending levels, but was repealed by section 232(e) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177).
An obsolete reference in former subdivision (B) to the former
subdivision (C) was deleted in the 104th Congress (sec. 223(f), H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 469). Gender-based references were eliminated in the
111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
found in former clause 2(l)(1) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47).
Absent a special order of the House (e.g., Mar. 30, 2012, p. 4686),
committee reports must be submitted while the House is in session,
except as permitted under paragraph (c) (Sec. 836, infra). A motion to
permit a committee to file while the House is not in session is not
available (Dec. 17, 1982, p. 31951).
(c) <> All supplemental,
minority, additional, or dissenting views filed under clause 2(l) of
rule XI by one or more members of a committee shall be included in, and
shall be a part of, the report filed by the committee with respect to a
measure or matter. When time guaranteed by clause 2(l) of rule XI has
expired (or, if sooner, when all separate views have been received), the
committee may arrange to file its report with the Clerk not later than
one hour after the expiration of such time. This clause and provisions
of clause 2(l) of rule XI do not preclude the immediate filing or
printing of a committee report in the absence of a timely request for
the opportunity to file supplemental, minority, additional, or
dissenting views as provided in clause 2(l) of rule XI.
The first sentence of this paragraph was originally included in
section 107 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat.
1140) and was
[[Page [661]]]
made a part of the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971,
p. 144). The remainder of the paragraph (establishing standing authority
for committees to file reports with the Clerk after honoring the
guarantee of the rule) was adopted in the 105th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). The paragraph was amended in the 114th Congress
to include dissenting views to mirror an amendment to clause 2(l) of
rule XI (sec. 2(a)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Content of reports
3. (a)(1) <> Except as provided in
subparagraph (2), the report of a committee on a measure or matter shall
be printed in a single volume that--
(A) shall include all supplemental, minority, additional, or
dissenting views that have been submitted by the time of the filing of
the report; and
(B) shall bear on its cover a recital that any such supplemental,
minority, additional, or dissenting views (and any material submitted
under paragraph (c)(3)) are included as part of the report.
(2) <> A committee may file a
supplemental report for the correction of a technical error in its
previous report on a measure or matter. A supplemental report only
correcting errors in the depiction of record votes under paragraph (b)
may be filed under this subparagraph and shall not be subject to the
requirement in clause 4 or clause 6 concerning the availability of
reports.
Clause 3 (formerly clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI) was originally included
in section 107 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat.
1140) and was incorporated into the rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res.
5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Before the House recodified its rules in the
106th Con
[[Page [662]]]
gress, this provision was found in former clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI, and
the former companion provision of clause 2(l)(5) of rule XI entitling
members to supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views was
transferred to new clause 2(l) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). The last sentence of subparagraph (2) was added in the 107th
Congress (sec. 2(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). A technical
correction to subparagraph (1)(B) was effected in the 108th Congress
(sec. 2(u), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 7). Subparagraphs (1)(A) and
(1)(B) were amended in the 114th Congress to include dissenting views to
mirror an amendment to clause 2(l) of rule XI (sec. 2(a)(5), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34).
Except as provided in subparagraph (2), a supplemental report is
subject to the availability requirements of clause 4 (Deschler, ch. 17,
Sec. 64.1). A committee may file a supplemental report pursuant to
subparagraph (2) to correct a technical error in the depiction of a bill
number in the portion of the report regarding congressional earmarks,
targeted tax benefits, and targeted tariff benefits under clause 9 of
rule XXI (July 30, 2010, p. 14834).
(b) <> With respect to each record
vote on a motion to report a measure or matter of a public nature, and
on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, the total number of
votes cast for and against, and the names of members voting for and
against, shall be included in the committee report. The preceding
sentence does not apply to votes taken in executive session by the
Committee on Ethics, and applies only to the maximum extent practicable
to a report by the Committee on Rules on a rule, joint rule, or the
order of business.
The requirement of subparagraph (b) (formerly clause 2(l)(2)(B) of
rule XI) was contained in section 104(b) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140), was incorporated into the
rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144), and was
expanded in the 104th Congress to require that reports also reflect the
total number of votes cast for and against any public measure or matter
and any amendment thereto and the names of those voting for and against
(sec. 209, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). An exception for the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics) was adopted in
the 105th Congress (sec. 8, H. Res. 168, Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19318). An
exception for certain reports by the Committee on Rules was adopted in
the 110th Congress (sec. 503, H. Res.
[[Page [663]]]
6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007), repealed in the 112th
Congress (sec. 2(c)(10), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), and partially
reinstated in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(s), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019,
p. _). This paragraph was amended in the 112th Congress to reflect a
change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80).
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). If the accompanying report erroneously reflects
information required by this paragraph, a bill would be subject to a
point of order against its consideration, unless corrected pursuant to
clause 3(a)(2) by a supplemental report; however, a point of order would
not lie if the error was introduced by the Government Publishing Office
(Jan. 19, 1995, p. 1613). A question alleging that a committee report
contained descriptions of recorded votes (as required by this clause)
that deliberately mischaracterized certain amendments and directing the
chair of the committee to file a supplemental report to change those
descriptions was held to constitute a question of the privileges of the
House (May 3, 2005, pp. 8417, 8418).
(c) <> The report of a committee
on a measure that has been approved by the committee shall include,
separately set out and clearly identified, the following:
(1) Oversight findings and recommendations under clause 2(b)(1) of
rule X.
(2) The statement required by section 308(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, except that an estimate of new budget authority
shall include, when practicable, a comparison of the total estimated
funding level for the relevant programs to the appropriate levels under
current law.
(3) An estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 if timely submitted to the committee before the
filing of the report.
(4) A statement of general performance goals and objectives,
including outcome-related
[[Page [664]]]
goals and objectives, for which the measure authorizes funding.
(5) On a bill or joint resolution that establishes or reauthorizes
a Federal program, a statement indicating whether any such program is
known to be duplicative of another such program, including at a minimum
an explanation of whether any such program was included in a report to
Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or whether the
most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (published pursuant
to section 6104 of title 31, United States Code) identified other
programs related to the program established or reauthorized by the
measure.
(6)(A) On a bill or joint resolution to be considered pursuant to
a special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules--
(i) a list of related committee and subcommittee hearings; and
(ii) a designation of at least one committee or subcommittee
hearing that was used to develop or consider such bill or joint
resolution.
(B) Subdivision (A) shall not apply to a bill or joint
resolution--
(i) continuing appropriations for a fiscal year; or
(ii) containing an emergency designation under section
251(b)(2) or section 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
[[Page [665]]]
This provision (formerly clause 2(l)(3) of rule XI) became effective
January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). It was
amended in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70), to
correct a cross-reference, and in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
1993, p. 49) to correct the typographical transposition of a phrase.
Subparagraphs (2) and (3) (formerly clauses 2(l)(3)(B) and 2(l)(3)(C) of
rule XI) are requirements of sections 308(a) and 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 297). Subparagraph (2)
(formerly clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI) was amended in the 99th Congress
by section 232(f) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177) to include new entitlement and credit
authority in conformity with section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, as amended by that law. It was again amended in the
104th Congress to require estimates of new budget authority, when
practicable, to compare the total estimated funding for the program to
the appropriate level under current law (sec. 102(a), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 462). In the 104th and 106th Congresses, it was amended to
conform references to a renamed committee (sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 467; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This provision was
amended in the 105th Congress to reflect the repeal of the collective
definition of ``new spending authority'' and the revision of various
remaining parts and to effect a technical and conforming change (Budget
Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10116, P.L. 105-33)). Subparagraph (4) was
amended to replace a requirement that committees include in their
reports oversight findings and recommendations by the Committee on
Government Reform (now Oversight and Reform) with a requirement that
they include a statement of performance goals and objectives (sec. 2(l),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). Subparagraph (5) was added in the 115th
Congress (sec. 2(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _), codifying part of a
separate order adopted by the House in the 113th and 114th Congresses
(sec. 3(j), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; sec. 3(g), H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 2015, p. 36). Subparagraph (6) was added in the 117th Congress (sec.
2(r)(1), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _), codifying part of a separate
order adopted by the House in the 116th Congress (sec. 103(i), H. Res.
6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
The <> House in the
113th and 114th Congresses required each report accompanying a bill or
joint resolution to include a statement estimating the number of
directed rule makings required by the measure (sec. 3(k), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2013, p. 27; sec. 3(i), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 36), and the
115th Congress required instead a list of such rule makings (sec. 3(i),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _).
(d) <> Each report of a committee
on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following:
[[Page [666]]]
(1)(A) An estimate by the committee of the costs that would be
incurred in carrying out the bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year
in which it is reported and in each of the five fiscal years following
that fiscal year (or for the authorized duration of any program
authorized by the bill or joint resolution if less than five years);
(B) a comparison of the estimate of costs described in subdivision
(A) made by the committee with any estimate of such costs made by a
Government agency and submitted to such committee; and
(C) when practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding
level for the relevant programs with the appropriate levels under
current law.
(2)(A) In subparagraph (1) the term ``Government agency'' includes
any department, agency, establishment, wholly owned Government
corporation, or instrumentality of the Federal Government or the
government of the District of Columbia.
(B) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on House Administration, the Committee on
Rules, or the Committee on Ethics, and does not apply when a cost
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
has been included in the report under paragraph (c)(3).
[[Page [667]]]
This provision was adopted in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22,
1971, p. 144) as part of the implementation of section 252(b) of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and was amended
in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70) to remove
references to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Subparagraph (2)(B)
(formerly clause 7(d)) was amended in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
5, 1981, pp. 98-113) to render committee cost estimates optional if an
estimate by the Congressional Budget Office is included in the report.
It was amended by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 900 note)
to require five-year estimates of revenue changes in legislative
reports. In the 104th Congress it was amended to require estimates of
new budget authority, when practicable, to compare the total estimated
funding for the program to the appropriate level under current law (sec.
102(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 462). In the 104th and 106th
Congresses subparagraph (2)(B) (formerly clause 7(d)) was amended to
reflect a change in committee name (sec. 202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 467; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In the 105th Congress it
was amended to effect a technical change (Budget Enforcement Act of 1997
(sec. 10116, P.L. 105-33)). In the 112th Congress subparagraphs (2) and
(3) were redesignated when a former subparagraph (1) was repealed (sec.
2(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80) and subparagraph (2)(B) was
amended to reflect a change in committee name (sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 7 of this rule (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
A committee cost estimate identifying certain spending authority as
recurring annually and indefinitely was held necessarily to address the
five-year period required by section 308 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 (Nov. 20, 1993, p. 31354).
Under <> the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, each report
accompanying a bill or joint resolution relating to terms and conditions
of employment or access to public services or accommodations must
describe the manner in which the provisions apply to the legislative
branch or a statement of the reasons the provisions do not apply; and
any Member may raise a point of order against the consideration of a
bill or joint resolution not complying with this requirement, which may
be waived in the House by majority vote (sec. 102(b)(3), P.L. 104-1; 109
Stat. 6).
The <> Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48) added a new part B to title IV of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658-658g) that imposes
several requirements on committees with respect to measures effecting
``Federal mandates'' (secs. 423-424; 2 U.S.C. 658b-c) and establishes
points of order to permit separate votes on whether to enforce those
requirements (sec. 425; 2 U.S.C. 658d). See Sec. 1127, infra.
[[Page [668]]]
Former <> clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI, which
became a part of the rules under the Committee Reform Amendments of
1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974,
p. 34470), required an analytical statement of inflationary impact. It
was converted in the 105th Congress to require a statement of
constitutional authority (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121) and was
repealed in the 112th Congress in conjunction with the establishment of
clause 7(c) of rule XII (sec. 2(a)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80).
If a point of order were sustained under this subparagraph, the measure
would be ``recommitted'' to await possible return to the Calendar by the
filing of a supplemental report pursuant to clause 3(a)(2) correcting
the technical error (Feb. 13, 1995, p. 4591).
(e)(1) <> Whenever a committee
reports a bill or joint resolution proposing to repeal or amend a
statute or part thereof, it shall include in its report or in an
accompanying document (showing by appropriate typographical devices the
omissions and insertions proposed)--
(A) the entire text of each section of a statute that is proposed
to be repealed; and
(B) a comparative print of each amendment to the entire text of a
section of a statute that the bill or joint resolution proposes to make.
(2) If a committee reports a bill or joint resolution proposing to
repeal or amend a statute or part thereof with a recommendation that the
bill or joint resolution be amended, the comparative print required by
subparagraph (1) shall reflect the changes in existing law proposed to
be made by the bill or joint resolution as proposed to be amended.
The first part of this paragraph (formerly clause 3) was adopted
January 28, 1929 (VIII, 2234), was redesignated January 3, 1953 (p. 24),
and subparagraph (2) (formerly a proviso in clause 3(2)) was added
September 22, 1961 (p. 20823). Subparagraph (1)(B) was amended in the
113th Congress to promote the inclusion of adjacent provisions (sec.
2(d), H. Res.
[[Page [669]]]
5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Subparagraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) were amended in
the 114th Congress to require the inclusion of the entire text of a
section proposed to be repealed or amended in addition to the existing
requirement for a comparative print (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015,
p. 35), but the 115th Congress provided that the material required by
both subparagraphs was to be included in a single comparative print
(sec. 2(o), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). Before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former
clause 3 of this rule (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). For a former
separate requirement for a comparative print prior to consideration, see
clause 12 of rule XXI (Sec. 1068l, infra).
Technical failure of a committee report to comply with the
``Ramseyer'' rule may be remedied by a supplemental report (VIII, 2247).
Although the filing of such a corrective report formerly required the
consent of the House (VIII, 2248), it may now be filed with the Clerk
pursuant to clause 3(a)(2). Reports held to violate the rule because
they are not susceptible to correction by the filing of a supplemental
report under clause 3(a)(2), as in the case of a substantial violation,
are automatically recommitted to the respective committees reporting
them (VIII, 2237, 2245, 2250). When a bill is so recommitted, further
proceedings are de novo and the bill is considered again and reported by
the committee as if no previous report had been made (VIII, 2249).
In order to fall within the purview of the rule the bill must seek to
repeal or amend specifically an existing law (VIII, 2235, 2239, 2240).
Although a bill proposes but one minor and obvious change in existing
law, the failure of the report to indicate the change is in violation of
the rule (VIII, 2236). The statute proposed to be amended must be quoted
in the report and it is not sufficient that it is incorporated in the
bill (VIII, 2238). The rule applies to appropriation bills that include
legislative provisions (VIII, 2241) and reports on appropriation bills
are also subject to the requirements of paragraph (f), regarding direct
or indirect changes in the application of existing law.
Special orders providing for consideration of bills, unless
specifically waiving points of order, do not preclude the point of order
that reports on such bills fail to indicate proposed changes in existing
law (VIII, 2245). The point of order that a report fails to comply with
the rule is properly made when the bill is called up in the House and
comes too late after the House has resolved into the Committee of the
Whole for its consideration (VIII, 2243-2245).
Where the comparative print contained certain errors in punctuation
and capitalization and utilized abbreviations not appearing in existing
provisions of law, the Speaker held that the committee report was in
substantial compliance with the rule and overruled a point of order
against the report (Deschler, ch. 17, Sec. Sec. 60.13, 60.14).
[[Page [670]]]
(f)(1) <> A report of the Committee on Appropriations on a general
appropriation bill shall include--
(A) a concise statement describing the effect of any provision of
the accompanying bill that directly or indirectly changes the
application of existing law; and
(B) a list of all appropriations contained in the bill for
expenditures not currently authorized by law for the period concerned
(excepting classified intelligence or national security programs,
projects, or activities), along with a statement of the last year for
which such expenditures were authorized, the level of expenditures
authorized for that year, the actual level of expenditures for that
year, and the level of appropriations in the bill for such expenditures.
This provision (formerly clause 3 of rule XXI) became a part of the
rules under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January
3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). This provision
was amended on January 14, 1975 (H. Res. 5, 94th Cong., p. 32) to
confine its applicability to general appropriation bills, and again in
the 104th Congress to add subparagraph (1)(B) concerning unauthorized
items (sec. 215(d), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Subparagraph
(1)(B) was amended in the 107th Congress to require more detail on the
status of unauthorized appropriations (sec. 2(m), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
2001, p. 25). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 3 of rule XXI (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(2) Whenever the Committee on Appropriations reports a bill or joint
resolution including matter specified in clause 1(b)(2) or (3) of rule
X, it shall include--
[[Page [671]]]
(A) in the bill or joint resolution, separate headings for
``Rescissions'' and ``Transfers of Unexpended Balances''; and
(B) in the report of the committee, a separate section listing
such rescissions and transfers.
This provision (formerly clause 1(b) of rule X) was added by the
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8,
1974, p. 34470). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 1(b) of rule X (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
(g) <> Whenever the Committee on Rules reports a resolution proposing
to repeal or amend a standing rule of the House, it shall include in its
report or in an accompanying document--
(1) the text of any rule or part thereof that is proposed to be
repealed; and
(2) a comparative print of any part of the resolution proposing to
amend the rule and of the rule or part thereof proposed to be amended,
showing by appropriate typographical devices the omissions and
insertions proposed.
This provision (formerly clause 4(d) of rule XI) was added to the
rules under the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January
3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), and is similar
to the ``Ramseyer'' rule requirements of paragraph (e) relating to bills
and joint resolutions repealing or amending existing law. Before the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
found in former clause 4(d) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
This clause is applicable to resolutions reported from the Committee on
Rules that propose direct permanent repeal or amendment of a rule of the
House, but does not apply to resolutions providing temporary waivers of
rules during the consideration of particular legislative business
(Speaker Albert, Mar. 20, 1975, p. 7676; Mar. 24, 1975, p. 8418), or to
a special order of business resolution that does not itself repeal or
amend any rule but rather provides for consideration of a bill with
textual modifications that would
[[Page [672]]]
effect certain changes in House rules on enactment of the bill into law
(May 27, 1993, p. 11597).
(h) <> It shall not be in
order to consider a bill or joint resolution reported by the Committee
on Ways and Means that proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 unless--
(1) the report includes a tax complexity analysis prepared by the
Joint Committee on Taxation in accordance with section 4022(b) of the
Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998; or
(2) the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means causes such a tax
complexity analysis to be printed in the Congressional Record before
consideration of the bill or joint resolution.
This provision was added by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998 as a new clause 2(l)(8) of rule XI, effective
January 1, 1999 (sec. 4022, P.L. 105-206). It was transferred to this
paragraph as a former subparagraph (1) when the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A gender-
based reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). In the 114th Congress, designations were changed
when a former subparagraph (2) was repealed (see Sec. 849a, infra) and
an archaic reference to the name of the joint committee was updated
(sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35).
A requirement <> that macroeconomic analysis be included
in the committee report for certain tax measures was repealed in the
114th Congress (sec. 2(c)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 35). For its
text and history, and the history of a former provision on dynamic
scoring, see Sec. 849 of the House Rules and Manual for the 113th
Congress (H. Doc. 112-161). For another former provision on
macroeconomic analysis, see Sec. 868a, infra.
[[Page [673]]]
Availability of reports
4. (a)(1) <> Except as specified in subparagraph
(2), it shall not be in order to consider in the House a measure or
matter reported by a committee until the proposed text of each report
(except views referred to in clause 2(l) of rule XI) of a committee on
that measure or matter has been available to Members, Delegates, and the
Resident Commissioner for 72 hours.
(2) Subparagraph (1) does not apply to--
(A) a resolution providing a rule, joint rule, or order of
business reported by the Committee on Rules considered under clause 6;
(B) a resolution providing amounts from the applicable accounts
described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X reported by the Committee on House
Administration considered under clause 6 of rule X;
(C) a resolution presenting a question of the privileges of the
House reported by any committee;
(D) a measure for the declaration of war, or the declaration of a
national emergency, by Congress; and
(E) a measure providing for the disapproval of a decision,
determination, or action by a Government agency that would become, or
continue to be, effective unless disapproved or otherwise invalidated by
one or both Houses of Congress. In this subdivision the term
``Government agency'' includes any department, agency, establishment,
wholly owned Govern
[[Page [674]]]
ment corporation, or instrumentality of the Federal Government or of the
government of the District of Columbia.
(b) A committee that reports a measure or matter shall make every
reasonable effort to have its hearings thereon (if any) printed and
available for distribution to Members, Delegates, and the Resident
Commissioner before the consideration of the measure or matter in the
House.
This provision (formerly clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI) was originally
contained in section 108 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
(84 Stat. 1140) and was incorporated into the rules in the 92d Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). It was amended in the 94th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20), in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan.
4, 1977, pp. 53-70), and in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979,
p. 8). In the 102d Congress it was amended to clarify the availability
requirements for reported measures, including concurrent resolutions on
the budget (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). It was amended in the 104th
Congress to count as a ``calendar day'' any day on which the House is in
session (H. Res. 254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077), and again in the 105th
Congress to achieve like treatment in the case of a concurrent
resolution on the budget (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). The rule was
later amended in the 105th Congress to conform to a change in the
layover requirement for a concurrent resolution on the budget (Budget
Enforcement Act of 1997 (sec. 10109, P.L. 105-33)). In the 106th
Congress two technical and conforming corrections were effected. The
106th Congress also recodified the rules, transferring this provision
from former clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI, which consisted of this provision
and current clause 6(a)(2) of this rule (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47). Subparagraph (2)(C) was added in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(n), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). In the 109th Congress a subdivision was
deleted as obsolete upon the repeal of the Corrections Calendar and in
that Congress and in the 112th conforming changes to subparagraph (2)(B)
were effected (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 42; sec. 2(e)(8),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). In the 116th Congress, paragraph (a)(1)
was amended to require availability for 72 hours and to allow proposed
report text to count for availability purposes (sec. 102(t)(1), H. Res.
6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
This availability requirement is not applicable to privileged reports
from the Committee on Rules or to bills before the House that have not
been reported from committee (Speaker Albert, Aug. 10, 1976, p. 26793;
but see clause 11 of rule XXI for availability requirements for
unreported meas
[[Page [675]]]
ures). The Committee on Rules has the authority under clause 5(a)
(formerly clause 4(a) of rule XI) to report a special order making in
order the text of an introduced bill as a substitute original text for a
reported bill, and no point of order lies that such introduced text has
not been available as required by this rule, which only applies to the
consideration of reported measures themselves (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29973).
The exceptions from the layover requirement were expanded in the 97th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98) to include resolutions called
up pursuant to legislative veto provisions in laws having the effect of
approving or invalidating the actions of any government agency (and not
just agencies of the executive branch). That exception allows the
consideration of a measure disapproving an executive branch decision
pursuant to statute within three days of the expiration of the
congressional review period, notwithstanding the availability
requirement (concurrent resolution disapproving a regulation of the
Federal Trade Commission pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission
Improvements Act, P.L. 96-252) (May 26, 1982, pp. 12027-30). A report
from a committee raising a question of the privileges of the House, such
as a report relating to the contemptuous conduct of a witness before the
committee, may be considered notwithstanding the availability
requirements of this clause (Speaker Albert, July 13, 1971, pp. 24720-
23; see also VI, 48; Deschler, ch. 14, Sec. 7.4, fn. 10, and Oct. 8,
1998, p. 24680, with respect to impeachment reports; and Feb. 12, 1998,
p. 1323, with respect to a resolution dismissing an election contest
reported as privileged under clause 5(a)(3) of rule XIII). Clause
3(a)(2) of rule XIII was amended in the 107th Congress to except from
the layover requirement a supplemental report only correcting errors in
the depiction of record votes under clause 3(b) (sec. 2(k), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25).-
A committee <> expense resolution
reported by the Committee on House Administration pursuant to clause 5
need only be available for one day. However, other resolutions reported
from that committee that are privileged (such as a resolution
authorizing the printing of material as a House document), but that do
not constitute questions of the privileges of the House, are subject to
this clause (Speaker Albert, Mar. 6, 1975, p. 5537).
A former <> paragraph (c), prohibiting consideration of
general appropriation bills until the third calendar day on which
printed hearings had been available, was repealed in the 114th Congress
(sec. 2(a)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2015, p. 34). For its text and
history, see Sec. 852 of the House Rules and Manual for the 113th
Congress (H. Doc. 112-161).
[[Page [676]]]
Privileged reports, generally
5. (a) <> The following committees
shall have leave to report at any time on the following matters,
respectively:
(1) The Committee on Appropriations, on general appropriation
bills and on joint resolutions continuing appropriations for a fiscal
year after September 15 in the preceding fiscal year.
(2) The Committee on the Budget, on the matters required to be
reported by such committee under titles III and IV of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
(3) The Committee on House Administration, on enrolled bills, on
contested elections, on matters referred to it concerning printing for
the use of the House or the two Houses, on expenditure of the applicable
accounts of the House described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X, and on
matters relating to preservation and availability of noncurrent records
of the House under rule VII.
(4) The Committee on Rules, on rules, joint rules, and the order
of business.
(5) The Committee on Ethics, on resolutions recommending action by
the House with respect to a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee of the House as a result of an investigation by the
committee relating to the official conduct of such Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee.
[[Page [677]]]
(b) A report filed from the floor, pursuant to clause 2(a)(3), or
pursuant to clause 2(c), as privileged under paragraph (a) may be called
up as a privileged question by direction of the reporting committee,
subject to any requirement concerning its availability to Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner under clause 4 or concerning
the timing of its consideration under clause 6.
The origins of this provision appear as early as 1812, but it was in
1886 that the various provisions were consolidated in one rule. The rule
was amended by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat.
812), again on February 2, 1951 (p. 883), and yet again by the Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). On the latter date the privileges given
to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (now Natural Resources)
on bills for the forfeiture of land grants to railroad and other
corporations, preventing speculation in the public lands and reserving
public lands for the benefit of actual and bona fide settlers, and for
the admission of new States, to the Committee on Public Works (now
Transportation and Infrastructure) on bills authorizing the improvement
of rivers and harbors, to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on general
pension bills, and to the Committee on Ways and Means on bills raising
revenue, were eliminated from the rule. In the 94th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 14, 1975, p. 20), the rule was further amended to reinsert
``contested elections'' under the authority of the Committee on House
Administration, a matter inadvertently omitted by the 93d Congress (H.
Res. 988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). The rule was amended in the 97th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98-113) to permit joint
resolutions continuing appropriations to be privileged if reported after
a certain date. In the 101st Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72),
the rule was amended to include under the authority of the Committee on
House Administration all matters relating to preservation and
availability of noncurrent House records. In the 104th, 106th, and 112th
Congresses, it was amended to reflect a change in committee name (sec.
202(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 467; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47;
sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). In the 105th Congress it
was amended to update an archaic reference to the ``contingent fund''
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). Before the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 4 of
rule XI; as part of that recodification, former clause 9 of rule XVI
(restating the privilege of general appropriation bills) was deleted as
obsolete (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Conforming changes to
paragraph (a)(3) were effected in
[[Page [678]]]
the 109th and 112th Congresses (sec. 2(a) H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p.
42; sec. 2(e)(8), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Paragraph (b) was
amended in the 117th Congress to account for privileged reports
submitted in electronic form pursuant to clause 2(a)(3) of this rule or
filed with the Clerk pursuant to clause 2(c) of this rule (sec. 2(l)(3),
H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
At the time these privileges originated all reports were made on the
floor, and often with great difficulty because of the pressure of
business (IV, 4621), and by giving this privilege the most important
matters of business were greatly expedited. In 1890 a rule was adopted
providing that reports should be made by filing with the Clerk, but
privileged reports must still be made from the floor (IV, 3146; VIII,
2230), and in the 117th Congress the rule was amended to exempt
privileged reports filed in electronic form or pursuant to clause 2(c)
of this rule from the requirement that privileged reports must be made
from the floor (sec. 2(l)(3), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). A
privileged report may be filed at any time when the House is in session,
including during special-order speeches (Oct. 14, 1986, p. 30861).
Before the original adoption of the provisions contained in former
clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI in the 92d Congress (current clause 4 of this
rule) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144), the right of reporting at any
time was held to give the right of immediate consideration by the House
(IV, 3131, 3132, 3142-3147; VIII, 2291, 2312). However, from that date
until the effective date of the provision of former clause 2(l)(6) of
rule XI (current clause 4 of this rule) on January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988,
93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), only the Committees on House
Administration, Rules (subject to the two-thirds vote requirement of
clause 6 of this rule), and Standards of Official Conduct (now Ethics)
could call up a matter in the House for immediate consideration as soon
as the report was filed. Today: (1) reports from the Committee on Rules
on rules, joint rules, and the order of business under clause 6 of this
rule; (2) reports from the Committee on House Administration on
committee expense resolutions under clause 5(a) of this rule; (3)
reports constituting questions of privilege (see generally Deschler, ch.
14, Sec. 7.4, fn. 10, discussing ruling of Speaker Albert, July 13,
1971, on a reported contempt); and (4) reports on the official conduct
of a Member (e.g., H. Res. 31, Jan. 21, 1997, p. 393), are exempt from
the requirements of clause 4 of this rule (former clause 2(l)(6) of rule
XI) (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). Other committees
enumerated in this clause may still utilize the privilege after the
report on the bill or resolution has met the availability requirements
of clause 4 of this rule. Once called up for consideration, the matter
so reported remains privileged until disposed of (IV, 3145). The House
proceeds to the consideration of privileged questions only on motion
directed to be made by the several committees reporting such questions
(VIII, 2310). Privileged questions reported adversely have the same
status so far as their privilege is concerned as those reported
favorably (VI, 413; VIII, 2310).
[[Page [679]]]
The <> matters reported
under the provisions of this clause are denominated ``privileged
reports'' or ``privileged questions,'' and because the privilege relates
merely to the order of business under the rules, they must be
distinguished from ``questions of privilege'' that relate to the safety
or dignity of the House itself defined in rule IX (III, 2718).
Therefore, ``questions of privilege'' take precedence over these matters
that are privileged under the rules (III, 2426-2530; V, 6454; VIII,
3465).
Privileged questions interrupt the regular order of business as
established by former rule XXIV (current rule XIV), but when they are
disposed of the regular order continues on from the point of
interruption (IV, 3070, 3071). The Speaker has declined to allow a call
of committees to be interrupted by a privileged report (IV, 3132). The
presence of nonprivileged matter destroys the privileged character of a
bill (IV, 4622, 4624, 4633, 4640, 4643; VIII, 2289; Speaker Rayburn, May
21, 1958, pp. 9212-16), or resolution (VIII, 2300), and when the text of
a bill contains nonprivileged matter, privilege may not be created by a
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute not containing the
nonprivileged matter (IV, 4623).
The <> privilege given by this clause to the Committee on Rules is
confined to ``action touching rules, joint rules, and order of
business'' and this committee may not report as privileged a concurrent
resolution providing for a Senate investigating committee (VIII, 2255),
or provide for the appointment of a clerk (VIII, 2256); but the
privilege has been held to include the right to report special orders
for the consideration of individual bills or classes of bills (V, 6774),
or the consideration of a specified amendment to a bill and prescribing
a mode of considering such amendment (VIII, 2258). A special rule
providing for the consideration of a bill is not invalidated by the fact
that at the time the rule was reported, the bill was not on the calendar
(VIII, 2259; Speaker McCormack, Aug. 19, 1964, p. 20212). The authority
to report special orders of business includes authority to recommend
consideration of measures and amendments thereto the subject of which
might be separately pending before a standing committee (Apr. 15, 1986,
p. 7531); to make in order the consideration of the text of an
introduced bill as original text in a reported bill (Oct. 9, 1986, p.
29973); to permit consideration of a previously unnumbered and
unsponsored measure that comes into existence by virtue of adoption by
the House of the special order (Speaker O'Neill, Apr. 16, 1986, p.
7610); to recommend a ``hereby'' resolution, for example, that a
concurrent resolution correcting the enrollment of a bill be considered
as adopted by the House upon the adoption of the special order (Speaker
Wright, May 4, 1988, p. 9865), or that a Senate amendment pending at the
Speaker's table and otherwise requiring consideration in the Committee
of the Whole under clause 3 of rule XXII (formerly clause 1 of rule XX)
be ``hereby'' considered as adopted upon adoption of the special order
(Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 16.11; Feb. 4, 1993, p. 2500); to provide that
an amendment containing an appropriation in
[[Page [680]]]
violation of clause 4 of rule XXI (formerly clause 5(a)) be considered
as adopted in the House when the reported bill is under consideration
(Feb. 24, 1993, p. 3542); to provide that an amendment containing an
appropriation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI be considered as
adopted in the House when the reported bill is under consideration (July
27, 1993, p. 17129); and to provide that a nongermane amendment
otherwise in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI be considered as adopted
in the House when the bill is under consideration (Feb. 24, 1993, p.
3542; July 27, 1993, p. 17129). The Committee on Rules also has reported
as privileged a joint resolution repealing a statutory joint rule
(mandatory July adjournment, sec. 132 of the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1946) (July 27, 1990, p. 20178). The Committee on Rules has
reported as privileged a special order of business nearly identical to
one previously rejected by the House, but held not to constitute
``another of the same substance'' within the meaning of the provisions
in Jefferson's Manual on reconsideration (Sec. 513, supra) because it
provided a different scheme for general debate (July 27, 1993, p.
17115).
A resolution consisting solely of privileged matter, albeit in two
separate jurisdictions empowered to report at any time under clause
4(a), has been referred to a committee, reported therefrom as
privileged, referred sequentially, and reported as privileged from the
sequential committee as well (H. Res. 258, 102d Cong., Nov. 8, 1991, p.
30979; Nov. 19, 1991, p. 32903).
The right of the Committee on Appropriations to report at any time is
confined strictly to general appropriation bills (IV, 4629-4632; VIII,
2282-2284) and does not include appropriations for specific purposes
(VIII, 2285). Before privilege was extended to continuing appropriation
bills (in 1981), the rule was construed not to apply to resolutions
extending appropriations (VIII, 2282-2284).
Reports from the Committee on House Administration authorizing
appropriations from the Treasury directly for compensation of employees
(IV, 4645) or fixing the salaries of employees are not privileged (VIII,
2302).
<> As early as 1835 the
necessity of giving appropriation bills precedence became apparent, and
in 1837 former clause 9 of rule XVI was adopted to establish that
principle. Although bills raising revenue were given equal precedence by
that rule (IV, 3075, 3076), the authority for the Committee on Ways and
Means to report such bills as privileged under former clause 4(a) of
rule XI was eliminated by the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974,
effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p.
34470), and the obsolete corresponding reference to revenue bills was
deleted from former clause 9 of rule XVI in the 104th Congress (H. Res.
254, Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35077) (see Sec. 853, supra). Although the
authority for the Committee on Appropriations to report as privileged
general appropriation bills remains in clause 5 of rule XIII, the
corresponding privileged motion in former clause 9 of
[[Page [681]]]
rule XVI was deleted in recodification as redundant to this rule (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The motion may designate the particular appropriation bill to be
considered (IV, 3074). The motion is privileged at any time after the
approval of the Journal (subject to relevant report and hearing
availability requirements), but only if offered at the direction of the
committee (July 23, 1993, p. 16820). The motion is in order on District
Mondays (VI, 716-718; VII, 876, 1123) and takes precedence over the
motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole House to consider the
Private Calendar (IV, 3082-3085; VI, 719, 720). The motion could be made
on a ``suspension day'' as on other days (IV, 3080); and on consent days
the call of the former Consent Calendar (abolished in the 104th
Congress) took precedence of the motion (VII, 986). It may not be
amended (VI, 52, 723), debated (VI, 716), laid on the table, or
indefinitely postponed (VI, 726), and the previous question may not be
demanded on it (IV, 3077-3079). Although highly privileged, it may not
take precedence over a motion to reconsider (IV, 3087), or a motion to
change the reference of a bill (VII, 2124). The motion is less highly
privileged than the motion to discharge a committee from further
consideration of a bill under former clause 3 of rule XXVII (current
clause 2 of rule XV) (VII, 1011, 1016).
Privileged reports by the Committee on Rules
6. (a) <> A report by
the Committee on Rules on a rule, joint rule, or the order of business
may not be called up for consideration on the same day it is presented
to the House except--
(1) when so determined by a vote of two-thirds of the Members
voting, a quorum being present;
(2) in the case of a resolution proposing only to waive a
requirement of clause 4 or of clause 8 of rule XXII concerning the
availability of reports; or
(3) during the last three days of a session of Congress.
(b) Pending the consideration of a report by the Committee on Rules on
a rule, joint rule, or
[[Page [682]]]
the order of business, the Speaker may entertain one motion that the
House adjourn but may not entertain any other dilatory motion until the
report shall have been disposed of.
(c) The Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order that would
prevent the motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution from being
made as provided in clause 2(b) of rule XIX, if offered by the Minority
Leader or a designee, except with respect to a Senate bill or joint
resolution for which the text of a House-passed measure has been
substituted.
The Committee on Rules, ``by uniform practice of the House,''
exercised the privilege of reporting at any time as early as 1888. The
right to report at any time is confined to privileged matters (VIII,
2255). This was probably the survival of a practice that existed as
early as 1853 of giving the privilege of reporting at any time to this
committee for a session (IV, 4650). In 1890 the committee was included
among the committees whose reports were privileged by rule. The present
rule (formerly clause 4(b) of rule XI) was adopted in 1892 (IV, 4621)
and was amended on March 15, 1909. Clause 6(a)(1) (former matter found
in parentheses in clause 4(b) of rule XI) was adopted January 18, 1924
(pp. 1139, 1141), and the rule was further amended by the Committee
Reform Amendments of 1974, effective January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, 93d
Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), to limit its application to reports from
the Committee on Rules on rules, joint rules, and orders of business. In
the 94th Congress it was amended to permit the immediate consideration
of a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules waiving the two-
hour layover requirement (H. Res. 868, Feb. 26, 1976, p. 4625). In the
104th Congress the provision was amended to prohibit the Committee on
Rules from recommending a rule or order that would prevent a motion by
the Minority Leader or a designee to recommit a bill or joint resolution
with instructions to report back an amendment otherwise in order except
in the case of a Senate bill or resolution for which the text of a
House-passed measure is being substituted (sec. 210, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4,
1995, p. 468). In the 111th Congress paragraph (c) was amended to remove
a restriction on the authority of the committee with regard to Calendar
Wednesday business under clause 6 of rule XV (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 2009, p. 7), and in the 117th Congress paragraph (c) was amended to
eliminate the requirement that the Committee on Rules provide for a
motion to recommit with instructions, to conform to the elimination of
the motion to recommit with instructions in rule XIX (sec. 2(s)(1),
[[Page [683]]]
H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Before the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 4(b) of
rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A conforming change to
paragraph (c) was effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43), a technical change to paragraph (b) was effected
in the 110th Congress (sec. 505(b), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19
(adopted Jan. 5, 2007)), and a technical change to paragraph (c) was
effected in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p.
80). For rulings under the earlier form of the rule, see Sec. 859,
infra.
A privileged report from the Committee on Rules, other than one filed
during the last three days of a session (Dec. 31, 1970, p. 44292; Jan.
1, 2013, pp. 18581, 18582), may be considered on the same legislative
day only by a two-thirds vote, but a report properly filed by the
committee at any time before the convening of the House on the next
legislative day may be called up for immediate consideration without the
two-thirds vote requirement (Speaker Albert, July 31, 1975, p. 26243),
including a report filed during special-order speeches after legislative
business on that prior legislative day (Oct. 14, 1986, p. 30861), and if
the House continues in session into a second calendar day and then meets
again that day, or convenes for two legislative days on the same
calendar day, any report filed on the first legislative day may be
called up on the second without the question of consideration being
raised (Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 16, 1985, p. 36755; Speaker Wright, Oct.
29, 1987, p. 29937). This clause does not require that a privileged
resolution, and the report thereon, from the Committee on Rules be
printed before it is called up for consideration (Speaker O'Neill, Feb.
2, 1977, p. 3344).
In the case of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on
Rules, the two-thirds vote requirement for consideration on the same day
reported does not apply. This clause provides for the immediate
consideration of a resolution from the Committee on Rules waiving the
availability requirement under clause 4 of this rule, and waiving the
requirement that copies of conference reports or amendments reported
from conference in disagreement be available for two hours before their
consideration (see Aug. 10, 1984, p. 23978).
Although highly privileged, a report from the Committee on Rules
yields to questions of privilege (VIII, 3491; Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403),
and is not in order after the House has voted to go into Committee of
the Whole (V, 6781). Also a conference report has precedence over it,
even when the previous question and the yeas and nays have been ordered
(V, 6449). Formerly if a report from the Committee on Rules contained
substantive propositions, a separate vote could be had on each
proposition (VIII, 2271, 2272, 2274, 3167); but these decisions were
nullified by the adoption of the prohibition against divisibility in
clause 5(b)(2) of rule XVI (formerly clause 6). A report from the
Committee on Rules takes precedence over a motion to consider a measure
that is ``highly privileged'' pursuant to a statute enacted as an
exercise in the rulemaking authority of the House,
[[Page [684]]]
acknowledging the constitutional authority of the House to change its
rules at any time (Speaker Wright, Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403). Before the
House adopts rules, the Speaker may recognize a Member to offer for
immediate consideration a special order providing for the consideration
of a resolution adopting the rules (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1,
Sec. 6.10; H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 7; H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2019, p.
_).
The Committee on Rules may report and call up as privileged
resolutions temporarily waiving or altering any rule of the House,
including statutory provisions enacted as an exercise of the House's
rulemaking authority that would otherwise prohibit the consideration of
a bill being made in order by the resolution (Speaker Albert, Mar. 20,
1975, p. 7676; Mar. 24, 1975, p. 8418), or that would otherwise
establish an exclusive procedure for consideration of a particular type
of measure (Speaker O'Neill, Apr. 16, 1986, p. 7610; Speaker Wright,
Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403). No rule of the House precludes the Committee on
Rules from reporting a special order making in order specified
amendments that have not been preprinted as otherwise required by an
announced policy of that committee (Oct. 23, 1991, p. 28097). No point
of order lies against a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules
that waives points of order against a measure or provides special
procedures for its consideration, if no law constituting a rule of the
House prohibits consideration of such a resolution (resolution providing
for consideration of a budget resolution, where a statute (P.L. 96-389)
reaffirmed congressional commitment to balanced Federal budgets but did
not dictate what legislation could be considered or otherwise constitute
a rule of the House) (June 10, 1982, p. 13353).
For a discussion of the Speaker's announced policy with respect to
entertaining unanimous-consent requests in the House to alter a special
order of business previously adopted by the House, see Sec. 956, infra.
For a discussion of the unanimous-consent requests that may not be
entertained in the Committee of the Whole if their effect is to
materially modify procedures required by a special order of business
adopted by the House, see Sec. 993a, infra.
In <> the later
practice it has been held that the question of consideration may not be
raised against a report from the Committee on Rules (V, 4961-4963; VIII,
2440, 2441). The clause forbidding dilatory motions has been construed
strictly (V, 5740-5742), and in the later practice the following have
been excluded: (1) the motion to commit after the ordering of the
previous question (V, 5593-5601; VIII, 2270, 2750; Feb. 22, 1984, p.
2965); (2) the motion to postpone to a day certain (Oct. 9, 1986, p.
29972); and (3) an appeal from the Chair's decision not to entertain the
question of consideration or a motion to lay the pending resolution on
the table (V, 5739) or a motion to postpone to a day certain (July 12,
2016, p. _). A motion to reconsider the vote on ordering the previous
question has been held not dilatory (V, 5739). Before debate has begun
on a report from the Committee on Rules, a question of the privileges of
the House takes precedence (VIII, 3491;
[[Page [685]]]
Mar. 11, 1987, p. 5403). In the event that the previous question is
rejected on a privileged resolution from the Committee on Rules, the
provisions of clause 6(b) prohibiting ``dilatory'' motions no longer
strictly apply; the resolution is subject to proper amendment, further
debate, or a motion to table or refer, and the Member who led the
opposition to the previous question is accorded priority in recognition
(Oct. 19, 1966, pp. 27713, 27725-29; May 29, 1980, pp. 12667-78),
subject to being preempted by a preferential motion offered by another
Member (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78). The Chair will not respond
to a parliamentary inquiry to prejudge who would be recognized as the
leader of opposition to the previous question in the event it were
rejected (Oct. 26, 2015, p. 16531). The member of the Committee on Rules
calling up a privileged resolution on behalf of the committee may offer
an amendment thereto without specific authorization from the committee
(Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575). A motion to table such a pending amendment
is dilatory and not in order under this provision, but the motion to
reconsider the vote on ordering the previous question on the rule and
amendment thereto is not (see V, 5739; Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575), and
may be laid on the table without carrying with it the resolution itself
(Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575). Only one motion to adjourn is admissible
during the consideration of a report from the Committee on Rules (July
23, 1997, pp. 15366, 15374; Mar. 11, 2008, p. 3740) and may be offered
immediately after the reading of the resolution (Mar. 20, 2002, pp.
3671, 3672; June 24, 2009, pp. 16078, 16079) but may not be made when
another Member has the floor (Sept. 27, 1993, p. 22608). If the House
adjourns during the consideration of a report from the Committee on
Rules, further consideration of the report becomes the unfinished
business on the following day, and debate resumes from the point where
interrupted (Sept. 27, 1993, p. 22609; Sept. 28, 1993, p. 22719). The
Chair has held that a virtually consecutive invocation of former rule
XXX (current clause 6 of rule XVII), resulting in a second pair of votes
on use of a chart and on reconsideration thereof, was not dilatory under
this clause (or former clause 10 of rule XVI (current clause 1 of rule
XVI)) (July 31, 1996, p. 20693). In the 107th Congress clause 6 of rule
XVII was amended to render the Chair's recognition for a motion on the
use of charts completely discretionary (see Sec. 963, infra).
A motion to recommit a special rule from the Committee on Rules is not
in order (VIII, 2270, 2753).
From <> 1934 until the amendment to this provision in the 104th
Congress (sec. 210, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468), it was
consistently held that the Committee on Rules could recommend a special
order that limited, but did not totally prohibit, a motion to recommit
pending passage of a bill or joint resolution, as by precluding the
motion from containing instructions relating to specified amendments
(Speaker Rainey, Jan. 11, 1934, pp. 479-83 (sustained on appeal)); or by
omitting to preserve the availability of amendatory instructions in the
case that the bill is entirely rewrit
[[Page [686]]]
ten by the adoption of a substitute made in order as original text
(Speaker Foley, June 4, 1991, p. 13170; Speaker Foley, Nov. 25, 1991, p.
34460); or by expressly allowing only a simple (``straight'') motion to
recommit (without instructions) (Oct. 16, 1990, p. 29657 (sustained by
tabling of appeal); Feb. 26, 1992, p. 3441 (sustained by tabling of
appeal); May 7, 1992, p. 10586 (sustained by tabling of appeal); June
16, 1992, p. 14973 (sustained by tabling of appeal); Nov. 21, 1993, p.
31544; Nov. 22, 1993, p. 31815). In the 117th Congress, the requirement
that the Committee on Rules provide for a motion to recommit with
instructions was eliminated, along with the motion to recommit with
instructions itself. For the changes to the motion to recommit impacting
the precedents in this section, see See Sec. 1001, infra. A special
order providing for consideration of a bill under suspension of the
rules does not prevent a motion to recommit from being made ``as
provided in clause 4 of rule XVI,'' i.e., after the previous question is
ordered on passage, a procedure not applicable to a motion to suspend
the rules (VIII, 2267; Speaker Foley, June 21, 1990, p. 15229). See
Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 26.11; see generally Deschler, ch. 23, Sec. 25.
The caveat against including in a special order matter privileged to
be reported by another committee (Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 17.13) does not
extend to a ``hereby'' resolution (e.g., a special order providing that
a concurrent resolution correcting the enrollment of a bill within the
jurisdiction of another committee be considered as adopted by the House
upon the adoption of the special order), so long as not precluding the
motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution (Speaker Wright, May 4,
1988, p. 9865).
The Committee on Rules has reported special rules to dispose of Senate
amendments that have ordered the previous question to adoption without
intervening motion. At this stage the special order need not preserve
(under clause 6(c) of rule XIII) the motion to recommit (as provided in
clause 2(b) of rule XIX) because the bill is not at the stage of initial
passage. For an exchange of correspondence between the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules regarding this practice, see
January 24, 1996, pp. 1228, 1229.
A special order of business reported by the Committee on Rules
directing the Clerk to refrain from certifying an enrollment pending the
resolution of a given contingency does not violate clause 2(d)(2) of
rule II (Apr. 13, 2011, p. 5873).
The <> Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat.
48) added a new part B to title IV of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (2 U.S.C. 658-658g) that imposes several requirements on committees
with respect to ``Federal mandates'' (secs. 423, 424; 2 U.S.C. 658b,
658c), establishes points of order to permit separate votes on whether
to enforce those requirements (sec. 425; 2 U.S.C. 658d), and permits a
vote on the consideration of a rule or order waiving such points of
order (sec. 426(a); 2 U.S.C. 658e(a)). See Sec. 1127, infra.
[[Page [687]]]
Clause 9 of rule XXI establishes a point of order against
consideration of certain measures for failure to disclose (or disclaim
the presence of) certain earmarks, tax benefits, and tariff benefits
(paragraphs (a) and (b)), and permits a vote on the question of
consideration of a rule or order waiving such points of order (paragraph
(c)). See Sec. 1068d, infra.
(d) <> The Committee on Rules shall
present to the House reports concerning rules, joint rules, and the
order of business, within three legislative days of the time when they
are ordered. If such a report is not considered immediately, it shall be
referred to the calendar. If such a report on the calendar is not called
up by the member of the committee who filed the report within seven
legislative days, any member of the committee may call it up as a
privileged question on the day after the calendar day on which the
member announces to the House intention to do so. The Speaker shall
recognize a member of the committee who seeks recognition for that
purpose.
(e) An adverse report by the Committee on Rules on a resolution
proposing a special order of business for the consideration of a public
bill or public joint resolution may be called up as a privileged
question by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner on the second
and fourth Mondays of a month.
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in one paragraph, former paragraph (c) of clause 4
of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). What is now paragraph (d)
was initially adopted January 18, 1924, and was amended on January 6,
1987 (H. Res. 5, p. 6) (requiring one calendar day's notice before
calling up a special order eligible under the rule). A gender-based
reference was eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). What is now paragraph (e) was amended December 8,
1931 (VIII, 2268), January 3, 1949 (p. 16) (establishing the so-called
``21-day rule''), January 3, 1951 (p. 18) (abolishing the ``21-day
rule''), January 4, 1965 (p. 24) (reestab
[[Page [688]]]
lishing the ``21-day rule''), January 10, 1967 (H. Res. 7, p. 28)
(abolishing the ``21-day rule''). Technical changes to this provision
were effected on January 3, 1975 (H. Res. 988, Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470),
a mobility-based reference was eliminated in the 115th Congress (sec.
2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _), and a conforming change to
paragraph (e) was made in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(v)(2), H. Res. 6,
Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). A special order reported from the Committee on
Rules and not called up within seven legislative days may be called up
by any member of that committee, including a minority member (Nov. 13,
1979, p. 32185; Sept. 25, 1980, p. 27418; May 6, 1982, p. 8905).
(f) <> If the House has adopted a
resolution making in order a motion to consider a bill or resolution,
and such a motion has not been offered within seven calendar days
thereafter, such a motion shall be privileged if offered by direction of
all reporting committees having initial jurisdiction of the bill or
resolution.
This provision was contained in section 109 of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) and became part of the rules
in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 2(l)(7) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). In
modern practice, this subparagraph is normally inapplicable in light of
clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, which provides for the House resolving into
the Committee of the Whole by declaration of the Speaker pursuant to a
special order of business rather than by adoption of a motion.
(g) <> Whenever the Committee on
Rules reports a resolution providing for the consideration of a measure,
it shall to the maximum extent possible specify in the accompanying
report any waiver of a point of order against the measure or against its
consideration.
This provision was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 211, H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). It was amended in the 113th Congress to shift the
specification of any waiver from the resolution to the accompanying
report (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 4(e) of rule XI (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[[Page [689]]]
Resolutions of inquiry
7. A <> report on a resolution of
inquiry addressed to the head of an executive department may be filed
from the floor as privileged. If such a resolution is not reported to
the House within 14 legislative days after its introduction, a motion to
discharge a committee from its consideration shall be privileged.
The House has exercised the right, from its earliest days, to call on
the President and heads of departments for information. The first rule
on the subject was adopted in 1820 for the purpose of securing greater
care and deliberation in the making of requests. The present form of the
rule, in its essential features, dates from 1879 (III, 1856), although
the time period for a committee to report was extended from one week to
14 legislative days in the 98th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p.
34). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 5 of rule XXII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47).
Resolutions of <> inquiry are usually simple rather than concurrent in
form (III, 1875), and are never joint resolutions (III, 1860). A
resolution authorizing a committee to request information has been
treated as a resolution of inquiry (III, 1860). It has been considered
proper to use the word ``request'' in asking for information from the
President and ``direct'' in addressing the heads of departments (III,
1856, footnote, 1895). It is usual for the House in calling on the
President for information, especially with relation to foreign affairs,
to use the qualifying clause ``if not incompatible with the public
interest'' (II, 1547; III, 1896-1901; V, 5759; VI, 436). But in some
instances the House has made its inquiries of the President without
condition, and has even made the inquiry imperative (III, 1896-1901).
Resolutions of inquiry are delivered under direction of the Clerk (III,
1879) and are answered by subordinate officers of the Government either
directly or through the President (III, 1908-1910).
The practice of <> the House gives to resolutions of inquiry a privileged
status. Thus, they are privileged for report and consideration at any
time after their reference to a committee (III, 1870; VI, 413, 414), but
not before (III, 1857), and are in order for consideration only on
motion directed to be made by the committee reporting the same (VI, 413;
VIII, 2310). They are privileged for consideration on ``suspension
days'' (except on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 896-898)) and took precedence
of the former Consent Calendar (VI, 409) before its abolishment in the
104th Congress (H.
[[Page [690]]]
Res. 168, June 20, 1995, p. 16574). Only resolutions addressed to the
President and the heads of the executive departments have the privilege
(III, 1861-1864; VI, 406). To enjoy the privilege a resolution should
call for facts rather than opinions (III, 1872, 1873; VI, 413, 418-432;
July 7, 1971, pp. 23810-11), should not require investigations (III,
1872-1874; VI, 422, 427, 429, 432), and should not present a preamble
(III, 1877, 1878; VI, 422, 427); but if a resolution on its face calls
for facts, the Chair will not investigate the probability of the
existence of the facts called for (VI, 422). However, a resolution
inquiring for such facts as would inevitably require the statement of an
opinion to answer such inquiry is not privileged (Speaker Longworth,
Feb. 11, 1926, p. 3805).
Questions of privilege (as distinguished from privileged questions)
have sometimes arisen in cases wherein the head of a department has
declined to respond to an inquiry and the House has desired to demand a
further answer (III, 1891; VI, 435); but a demand for a more complete
reply (III, 1892) or a proposition to investigate as to whether or not
there has been a failure to respond may not be presented as involving
the privileges of the House (III, 1893).
Committees are <> required to report resolutions of inquiry back
to the House within a prescribed timeframe (formerly one week, now 14
legislative days) (VIII, 3368; Speaker Rayburn, Feb. 9, 1950, p. 1755)
exclusive of the day of introduction and the day of discharge (III,
1858, 1859). If a committee refuses or neglects to report the resolution
back, the House may reach the resolution only by a motion to discharge
the committee (III, 1865). The ordinary motion to discharge a committee
is not privileged (VIII, 2316); but the practice of the House has given
privilege to the motion in cases of resolutions of inquiry (III, 1866-
1870). And this motion to discharge is privileged at the end of the time
period, though the resolution may have been delayed in reaching the
committee (III, 1871). The motion to discharge is not debatable (III,
1868; VI, 415). However, if the motion is agreed to, the resolution is
debatable under the hour rule unless the previous question is ordered
(VI, 416, 417). If a committee reports a privileged resolution of
inquiry (favorably or adversely), it may then be called up only by an
authorized member of the reporting committee and not by another Member
of the House (VI, 413; VIII, 2310). The Member calling up a privileged
resolution of inquiry reported from committee is recognized to control
one hour of debate and may move to lay the resolution on the table
before or after that time (July 7, 1971, pp. 23807-10; Oct. 20, 1971,
pp. 37055-57).
The President <> having failed to respond to a resolution of inquiry,
the House respectfully reminded him of the fact (III, 1890). In 1796 the
House declared that its constitutional requests of the Executive for
information need not be accompanied by a statement of purposes (II,
1509). As to the kind of information that may be required, especially as
to the papers
[[Page [691]]]
that may be demanded, there has been much discussion (III, 1700, 1738,
1888, 1902, 1903; VI, 402, 435). There have been several conflicts with
the Executive (II, 1534, 1561; III, 1884, 1885-1889, 1894) over demands
for papers and information, especially when the resolutions have called
for papers relating to foreign affairs (II, 1509-1513, 1518, 1519).
<> A former
clause requiring a macroeconomic analysis of certain measures was
repealed in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(u), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p.
_). For its text and history, see Sec. 868a of the House Rules and
Manual for the 115th Congress (H. Doc. 114-192). For another former
provision on macroeconomic analysis, see Sec. 849a, supra.
Rule XIV
order and priority of business
1. The daily order of business (unless varied by the application of
other rules and except for the disposition of matters of higher
precedence) shall be as follows:
<>
First. Prayer by the Chaplain. l Second. Reading and approval of the
Journal, unless postponed under clause 8 of rule XX.
Third. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Fourth. Correction of reference of public bills.
Fifth. Disposal of business on the Speaker's table as provided in
clause 2.
Sixth. Unfinished business as provided in clause 3.
Seventh. The morning hour for the consideration of bills called up by
committees as provided in clause 4.
Eighth. Motions that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union subject to clause 5.
Ninth. Orders of the day.
[[Page [692]]]
Originally the House had no rule prescribing an order of business, but
certain simple usages were gradually established by practice before the
first rule on the subject was adopted in 1811. The rule was amended
frequently to arrange the business to give the House as much freedom as
possible in selecting for consideration and completing the consideration
of the bills that it deems most important. The basic form of the rule
has been in place since 1890 (IV, 3056). The 98th Congress made a
conforming change to the second order of business relating to the
postponement of the vote on approval of the Journal (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
1983, p. 34). The 104th Congress added the present third order of
business respecting the Pledge of Allegiance (sec. 218, H. Res. 6, Jan.
4, 1995, p. 468). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 1 of rule XXIV (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A correction to a cross reference was
effected in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p.
26).
The Speaker does not entertain a point of no quorum before the prayer
is offered (VI, 663). Under clause 7 of rule XX, a point of no quorum
may not be entertained unless a question is pending (see Sec. 1027,
infra).
In response to serial parliamentary inquiries regarding the pledge of
allegiance to the flag, the Chair advised that: (1) under clause 1 of
rule XIV, the third element of the daily order of business is the Pledge
of Allegiance; (2) section 4 of title 4, United States Code, prescribes
the text of the pledge; (3) when the pledge is delivered as the third
element of the daily order of business, the Record reflects the pledge
in its statutory form; and (4) the statute prescribes the manner of
delivery of the pledge (Apr. 27, 2004, pp. 7588, 7600).
This rule <> does not bind the House to a daily routine
because the system of making certain important subjects privileged (see
clause 5 of rule XIII and rule XXII) permits the interruption of the
order of business by matters that, in fact, often supplant it entirely
for days at a time. In the 106th Congress the recodification
acknowledged in the parenthetical of this clause that the prescribed
daily order of business could be superseded by operation of other rules
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). But when the order of business is
interrupted by a privileged matter, the business in order proceeds from
the place of interruption (IV, 3070, 3071) unless the House adjourns, in
which case it starts anew with the prayer. Although privileged matters
may interrupt the order of business, they may do so only with the
consent of a majority of the House, expressed as to appropriation bills
by the vote on resolving into the Committee of the Whole to consider
such bills, and as to matters like conference reports, questions of
privilege, etc., by raising and voting on the question of consideration.
The only exception to the principle that a majority may prevent
interruption is contained in clause 5 of rule XV, providing for a call
of the Private Calendar. By this combination of an order of business
with privileged interruptions the House gives precedence to its most
important business without
[[Page [693]]]
at the same time losing the power by majority vote to go to any other
bills on its calendars.
<> The privileged matters that may interrupt the order of
business include: l (1) General appropriation bills (clause 5 of rule
XIII; IV, 3072). l (2) Conference reports (clause 7(a) of rule XXII; V,
6443) and motions to discharge or instruct conferees (clause 7(c) of
rule XXII).
(3) Special orders reported by the Committee on Rules for
consideration by the House (clause 5 of rule XIII; IV, 3070-3076, 4621).
(4) Consideration of amendments between the Houses after the stage of
disagreement (IV, 3149, 3150).
(5) Questions of privilege (rule IX; III, 2521).
(6) Privileged bills reported under the right to report at any time
(clauses 5 and 7 of rule XIII; IV, 3142-3144, 4621).
(7) Call of committees on Wednesdays for bills on House and Union
Calendars (clause 6 of rule XV).
(8) Private business (clause 5 of rule XV).
(9) Motions to discharge committees on public bills and resolutions
(clause 2 of rule XV).
(10) Motions to suspend the rules and pass bills out of the regular
order (clause 1 of rule XV; V, 6790).
(11) Bills coming over from a previous day with the previous question
ordered (V, 5510-5517).
(12) Bills returned with the objections of the President (IV, 3534-
3536).
(13) Motions to send a bill to conference (under clause 1 of rule
XXII; Aug. 1, 1972, p. 26153).
In addition to these matters, the House by practice permits its order
of business to be interrupted, at the discretion of the Speaker, for the
reception of messages (V, 6602). Before the 104th Congress, addressing
the House out of order by unanimous consent, the Speaker announced that
on at least two subsequent days he would recognize designated Members
after approval of the Journal to lead the House in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag (Speaker Wright, Sept. 9, 1988, p. 23310).
Requests of Members for leaves of absence are in practice put before the
House at the time of adjournment (IV, 3151).
When the <> House has no rule establishing
an order of business, as at the beginning of a session before the
adoption of rules, it is in order for any Member who is recognized by
the Chair to offer a proposition relating to the order of business
without asking consent of the House (IV, 3060). But after the adoption
of the rule for the order of business, interruptions are confined to
matters privileged to interrupt or to cases wherein the House gives
unanimous consent for an interruption. A request for unanimous consent
to consider a bill is in effect a request to suspend the order of
business temporarily (IV, 3059). Therefore any Mem
[[Page [694]]]
ber, including the Chair, may object, or reserve the right to object and
inquire, for example, about the reasons for the request, or demand the
``regular order'' (IV, 3058). Debate under a reservation of objection
proceeds at the sufferance of the House and may not continue after a
demand for the regular order (see, e.g., Speaker Foley, Nov. 14, 1991,
p. 32129; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37142; Nov. 7, 2009, p. 27190) or in the
face of an objection to the request (May 28, 2019, p. _). A Member
objecting to a unanimous-consent request or demanding the regular order
when another has reserved the right to object must identify himself or
herself to be observed by the Chair (Nov. 7, 1991, p. 30633; June 23,
1992, p. 15703). The Speaker, however, usually signifies objection by
declining to put the request of the Member, thus saving the time of the
House. The Speaker's guidelines for recognition for unanimous-consent
requests for consideration of unreported measures are issued pursuant to
clause 2 of rule XVII and are discussed in Sec. 956, infra. The request
for unanimous consent began to be used about 1832 when the House first
felt a pressure of business and the necessity of adhering to a fixed
order (IV, 3155-3159). In 1909, by the adoption of former clause 4 of
rule XIII, a Consent Calendar was established, which was abolished in
the 104th Congress (H. Res. 168, June 20, 1995, p. 16574). For
discussion of unanimous-consent requests and reservations of objections,
see Sec. 956, infra. Unanimous consent for the immediate consideration
of a measure in the House does not preclude a demand for a record vote
when the Chair puts the question on final passage, because it merely
permits consideration of a matter not otherwise privileged (Dec. 16,
1987, p. 35816).
2. Business on the Speaker's table <> shall be disposed of as follows:
(a) Messages from the President shall be referred to the
appropriate committees without debate.
(b) Communications addressed to the House, including reports and
communications from heads of departments and bills, resolutions, and
messages from the Senate, may be referred to the appropriate committees
in the same manner and with the same right of correction as public bills
and public resolutions presented by Members, Delegates, or the Resident
Commissioner.
[[Page [695]]]
(c) Motions to dispose of Senate amendments on the Speaker's table
may be entertained as provided in clauses 1, 2, and 4 of rule XXII.
(d) Senate bills and resolutions substantially the same as House
measures already favorably reported and not required to be considered in
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union may be
disposed of by motion. Such a motion shall be privileged if offered by
direction of all reporting committees having initial jurisdiction of the
House measure.
A rule to govern disposition of business on the Speaker's table (to be
distinguished from the table of the House, which is the Clerk's table)
was adopted in 1832. In 1880 and 1885 efforts were made to modify the
rule so as to prevent delays in business on the Speaker's table, but it
was not until 1890 that the present rule was adopted (IV, 3089). Before
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision and
clause 2 of rule XXII occupied a single clause (formerly clause 2 of
rule XXIV) (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Such <> portions of messages from the Senate as
require action by the House, messages from the President except those
transmitting objections to bills (IV, 3534-3536), and communications and
reports from the heads of departments go to the Speaker's table when
received, to be disposed of under this rule. Simple resolutions of the
Senate that do not require any action by the House are not referred
(VII, 1048). Messages from the President are referred. Such portions of
Senate messages (House bills with Senate amendments) that do not require
consideration in the Committee of the Whole may be laid before the House
for action. Communications from the President, other than messages; all
portions of Senate messages requiring consideration in the Committee of
the Whole (IV, 3101); and Senate bills of all kinds (with the exception
noted in the rule) may be referred to the appropriate standing
committees under direction of the Speaker without action by the House
(IV, 3107, 3111; VI, 727). Under clause 2 of former rule XXIV (current
rule XIV), the Speaker may temporarily retain custody of an executive
communication addressed to the Speaker (or may pursuant to former clause
1 of rule IV (current clause 3(a) of rule II) order the Sergeant-at-Arms
to assume custody) pending House disposition of a special order reported
from the Committee on Rules
[[Page [696]]]
relating to a referral of the communication to committee (Sept. 9, 1998,
p. 19769).
A House bill returned with Senate amendments involving a new matter of
appropriation, whether with or without a request for a conference, may
be referred directly to a standing committee under clause 2 of rule XII
(VI, 731), and on being reported therefrom is referred directly to the
Committee of the Whole (IV, 3094, 3095, 3108-3110). However, the usual
practice is to take the bill from the Speaker's table and concur, concur
with an amendment, or send to conference by unanimous consent, special
rule, or suspension of the rules (VI, 732) (although a motion to send to
conference may be privileged under clause 1 of rule XXII). The Speaker
may impose a time limitation for consideration only of a portion of the
Senate amendment, not germane to the original House bill, by the
standing committee with subject-matter jurisdiction, without referring
the remainder of the Senate amendment to the House committee with
jurisdiction over the original House bill (Speaker O'Neill, H.R. 31,
Mar. 26, 1981, p. 5397). The Speaker announced his policy regarding
referral of nongermane Senate amendments to committee (Jan. 3, 1983, p.
54; Jan. 6, 1987, p. 21); and his policy regarding recognition for
unanimous-consent requests to dispose of Senate amendments at the
Speaker's table (Apr. 26, 1984, p. 10194; Feb. 4, 1987, p. 2676)
discussed in Sec. 956, infra. A Senate bill to come before the House
directly from the table must conform to the conditions prescribed by the
rule (IV, 3098, 3099; VI, 727, 734, 737), and must have come to the
House after and not before the House bill ``substantially the same'' and
not involving an expenditure (IV, 3103) has been placed on the House
Calendar (IV, 3096; VI, 727, 736, 738) or Private Calendar (IV, 3102).
In the event the House bill has passed before the Senate bill is
received, the Senate bill may nevertheless be disposed of on motion
directed by the committee (VI, 734, 735). The House bill must be
correctly on the House Calendar (VI, 736). In determining whether the
House bill is substantially the same as the Senate bill, amendments
recommended by the House committee must be considered (VI, 734, 736).
The rule applies to private as well as to public Senate bills (IV,
3101), and to concurrent resolutions as well as to bills (IV, 3097).
Although a committee must authorize the calling up of the Senate bill
(VI, 739), the actual motion need not be made by a member of the
committee (IV, 3100). The authority of a committee to call up a bill
must be given at a formal meeting of the committee (VIII, 2211, 2212,
2222).
A <> message of the President on the Speaker's table is
regularly laid before the House only at the time prescribed by the order
of business (V, 6635-6638). Although it is always read in full and
entered on the Journal and the Congressional Record (V, 6963), the
accompanying documents are not read on demand of a Member or entered in
the Journal or Record (V, 5267-5271; VII, 1108). The annual message of
the President is usually referred to the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of
[[Page [697]]]
the Union by the House on motion (V, 6631). In the earlier practice it
was distributed to appropriate standing committees by resolutions
reported from the Committee on Ways and Means (V, 6621, 6622) but since
the first session of the 64th Congress the practice has been
discontinued (VIII, 3350). A portion of the annual message has been
referred directly to a select committee (V, 6628). A message other than
an annual message is usually referred directly to a standing committee
by direction of the Speaker (IV, 4053; VIII, 3346), but may be referred
by the House itself on motion by a Member (V, 6631; VIII, 3348), and
such motion is privileged (VIII, 3348). The referral may be to a select
as well as to a standing committee (V, 6633, 6634).
3. <> Consideration of
unfinished business in which the House may have been engaged at an
adjournment, except business in the morning hour and proceedings
postponed under clause 8 of rule XX, shall be resumed as soon as the
business on the Speaker's table is finished, and at the same time each
day thereafter until disposed of. The consideration of all other
unfinished business shall be resumed whenever the class of business to
which it belongs shall be in order under the rules.
The first rule relating to unfinished business was adopted in 1794.
Changes were made in 1860 and 1880, but the rule finally became
unsatisfactory, because of delays caused by it, and in 1890 the present
form was adopted (IV, 3112). Before the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 3 of rule
XXIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A clerical correction to a cross
reference was effected in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan.
3, 2001, p. 26).
This <> clause should be understood in light of clause 8 of rule XX,
which permits the Chair to postpone record votes on certain questions to
a designated time within two legislative days (see Sec. 1030, infra).
The ``business in which the House may be engaged at an adjournment''
means, literally, business in the House, as distinguished from the
Committee of the Whole; and it further means business in which the House
is engaged in its general legislative time, as distinguished from the
special periods set aside for classes of business, like the morning hour
for calls of committee, the first Tuesday for private bills, etc. In
general, all business unfinished in the general legislative time goes
over as unfinished business under the rule, but there are a few
exceptions. Thus, a motion relating to the order
[[Page [698]]]
of business does not recur as unfinished business on a succeeding day,
even though the yeas and nays may have been ordered on it (IV, 3114).
The question of consideration, also, when not disposed of at an
adjournment, does not recur as unfinished business on a succeeding day
(V, 4947, 4948), but may be again raised on a subsequent day when the
matter is again called up as unfinished business (VIII, 2438). If the
House adjourns during the consideration of a report from the Committee
on Rules, further consideration of the report becomes the unfinished
business on the following day, and debate resumes from the point where
interrupted (Sept. 27, 1993, p. 22609; Sept. 28, 1993, p. 22719). When
the House adjourns on the second legislative day after postponement of a
question under clause 8 of rule XX without resuming proceedings thereon,
the question remains unfinished business on the next legislative day
(Oct. 1, 1997, p. 20922; Oct. 2, 1997, p. 20991). When the House
adjourns while a motion to instruct under clause 7(c) of rule XXII is
pending, the motion to instruct becomes unfinished business on the next
day and does not need to be renoticed (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
Sec. 12.7).
When the <> House
adjourns before voting on a proposition on which the previous question
has been ordered, either directly or by the terms of a special order
(IV, 3185), the matter comes up the next day as unfinished business (V,
5510-5517; VIII, 2691; Aug. 2, 1989, p. 18187). If several bills come
over in this situation, they have precedence in the order in which the
several motions for the previous question were made (V, 5518). When the
previous question is ordered on a bill undisposed of at adjournment on
Friday, the bill comes up for disposition on the next legislative day
(VIII, 2694). A bill going over from Calendar Wednesday with the
previous question ordered on it should be disposed of on the next
legislative day (VII, 967). A bill coming over from a preceding day with
the previous question ordered was of equal privilege with business on
the former Consent Calendar (VII, 990).
The rule <> excepts by its terms certain classes of
business that are considered in periods set apart for classes of
business, viz: l (a) Bills considered in the morning hour and on
Calendar Wednesday for the call of committees. l (b) Bills in Committee
of the Whole.
(c) Private bills.
(d) Bills brought up under the rule setting apart days for motions to
suspend the rules and bills under consideration after a committee has
been discharged.
A bill brought up in the morning hour and undisposed of when the call
ceases for the day remains as unfinished business in the morning hour
(IV, 3113, 3120), i.e., it is considered when the House next goes to a
call of committees. Business unfinished when the Committee of the Whole
rises remains unfinished, to be considered first in order when the House
next
[[Page [699]]]
goes into Committee of the Whole to consider that business (IV, 4735,
4736).
On former District of Columbia day business unfinished on the
preceding District day was in order for consideration, but could not
come before the House unless called up (IV, 3307; VII, 879). Unless
postponed under clause 8 of rule XX, a motion to suspend the rules that
is undisposed of on one suspension day goes over as unfinished business
to the next suspension day (V, 6814-6816; VIII, 3411, 3412; Mar. 15,
2017, p. _ (see Mar. 8, 2017, p. _)).
4. After the <> unfinished business has been disposed of, the Speaker
shall call each standing committee in regular order and then select
committees. Each committee when named may call up for consideration a
bill or resolution reported by it on a previous day and on the House
Calendar. If the Speaker does not complete the call of the committees
before the House passes to other business, the next call shall resume at
the point it left off, giving preference to the last bill or resolution
under consideration. A committee that has occupied the call for two days
may not call up another bill or resolution until the other committees
have been called in their turn.
The morning hour is one of the oldest devices of the rules for
devoting an early portion of the session to a specific class of
business. Until 1885 it was the hour for the reception of reports from
committees. In 1890 it was provided that reports should be filed with
the Clerk, and the morning hour was by this rule devoted to a call of
committees for the consideration of House Calendar bills (IV, 3181).
Since the adoption of the Calendar Wednesday rule (clause 6 of rule XV),
the morning hour has been used but rarely. Before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former
clause 4 of rule XXIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Originally the <> morning hour was a fixed period of 60 minutes (IV, 3118); but
under the present rule it does not terminate until the call is exhausted
or until the House adjourns (IV, 3119), unless the House on motion made
at the end of 60 minutes votes to go into Committee of the Whole House
on the state
[[Page [700]]]
of the Union (clause 5 of rule XIV; IV, 3134), or unless other
privileged matter intervenes (IV, 3131, 3132). Before the expiration of
the 60 minutes the Speaker has declined to permit the call to be
interrupted by a privileged report (IV, 3132) or by unanimous consent
(IV, 3130). Where the business for which the call was interrupted is
concluded, the call is resumed unless there be other interrupting
business or the House adjourns (IV, 3133). A bill once brought up on the
call continues before the House in that order of business until disposed
of (IV, 3120), unless withdrawn by authority of the committee before
action that puts it in possession of the House (IV, 3129); and may not
be made a special order for a future day by a motion to postpone to a
day certain (IV, 3164). In order to be called up in this order a bill
must properly be on the House Calendar (IV, 3122-3126), and a bill on
the Union Calendar may not be brought up on call of committees under
this clause (VI, 753). If the authority of the committee to call up a
bill is disputed, the Chair does not consider it a duty to decide the
question (IV, 3127) but may base the decision on statements from the
chair and other members of the committee (IV, 3128).
5. After <> consideration of bills or resolutions under clause 4 for one
hour, it shall be in order, pending consideration thereof, to entertain
a motion that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union or, when authorized by a committee, that the
House resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union to consider a particular bill. Such a motion shall be subject to
only one amendment designating another bill. If such a motion is decided
in the negative, another such motion may not be considered until the
matter that was pending when such motion was offered is disposed of.
This portion of the rule was adopted in 1890 as part of the plan for
enabling the House at will to go at any time to any public bill on its
calendars (IV, 3134). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5 of rule XXIV (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[[Page [701]]]
The phrase <> ``one hour'' has been
interpreted to include a shorter time in the case that the call of
committees shall have exhausted itself before the expiration of one hour
(IV, 3135); but not otherwise (IV, 3141). After the House has been in
the Committee of the Whole under this order and has risen and reported,
and the report has been acted on by the House, other motions to go into
Committee to consider other bills are in order (IV, 3136). The motion to
go into Committee generally may be made by the individual Member (IV,
3138), but when it is proposed to designate a particular bill the Member
must have the authority of a committee (IV, 3138). The amendment to the
motion to consider a particular bill must refer to a bill on the Union
Calendar (IV, 3139). This order of business is used entirely for
nonprivileged bills and is not used in the House for consideration of
bills in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union if
otherwise privileged under clause 5 of rule XIII.
6. <> All questions relating to the priority of business
shall be decided by a majority without debate.
This provision was adopted in 1803 to prevent obstructive debate (IV,
3061). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former rule XXV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The question of consideration under clause 3 of rule XVI and the motion
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole are not
debatable (VIII, 2447; IV, 3062, 3063).
This rule may not be invoked to establish an order of business or to
inhibit the Speaker's power of recognition (Speaker Albert, July 31,
1975, p. 26249). It has been held that appeals from decisions of the
Chair as to priority of business are not debatable under this rule (V,
6952).
Rule XV
business in order on special days
Suspensions
1. (a) <> A rule may not be
suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum
being present. The Speaker may not entertain a motion that the House
suspend the rules except on Mondays,
[[Page [702]]]
Tuesdays, and Wednesdays and during the last six days of a session of
Congress.
This provision (formerly clause 1 of rule XXVII) developed from a rule
adopted in 1794, which provided that no rule should be rescinded without
one day's notice. In 1822 a paragraph was added that no rule should be
suspended except by a two-thirds vote. In 1828 it was amended to provide
that the order of business, as established by the rules, should not be
changed except by a two-thirds vote. Originally contemplating motions to
suspend the rules on any day, the rule was amended in 1847 to restrict
the motion to Mondays of each week, and, in 1880, to the first and third
Mondays of each month. In 1874 the old limit of 10 days at the end of
the session was reduced to six days. In the 93d Congress, the rule was
amended to permit motions to suspend the rules on the first and third
Mondays and on the Tuesdays immediately following those days and to
eliminate the distinction between days on which committees and
individuals had preference (H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 1973, pp. 26, 27). In the
95th Congress, the rule was amended to permit such motions on every
Monday and Tuesday (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, 95th Cong., pp. 53-70).
During the first session of the 108th Congress, the House authorized the
Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules on
Wednesdays through the second Wednesday in April as though under this
clause (sec. 3(d), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. 11). That authority was
extended by unanimous consent through the last Wednesday in June (Apr.
30, 2003, p. 10063) and by resolution through the entire 108th Congress
(H. Res. 297, June 26, 2003, p. 16275). In the 109th Congress, the House
amended the rule to permit motions to suspend the rules every Wednesday
(sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former
clause 1 of rule XXVII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Originally, <> when the House was operating under the older rules for the
order of business, the motion was used to establish a special order of
business for the consideration of a particular measure (IV, 3152, 3162;
V, 6852). In 1890, the House adopted rules for the order of business
that enabled the House on any day to consider public bills on its
calendars. About the same time, the House perfected the process of
establishing a special order of business by a majority vote through a
report from the Committee on Rules (IV, 3169). As a result of these
changes, the use of the motion to suspend gradually changed from one
that established a special order of business to one that passes or
adopts a measure (V, 6790, 6846, 6847). The latter motion suspends all
rules inconsistent with its purposes, including a rule requiring that a
recess be taken (V, 5752) or that a quorum be present when a bill is
reported from committee (Sept. 22, 1992, p. 26932). The motion is not
available in the Committee of the Whole (May 28, 2014, p. 9122).
[[Page [703]]]
Although the normal use of the motion is to pass or adopt a
noncontroversial measure, the motion may also be used to change or
suspend a rule or order that is susceptible to suspension or to suspend
the parliamentary law of Jefferson's Manual (V, 6796, 6862). The rules
forbid the Speaker to entertain a motion to suspend the rules relating
to the privilege of the floor (clause 2(b) of rule IV; V, 7283; VIII,
3634), the use of the Hall of the House (clause 2(b) of rule IV; V,
7270), or the introduction of persons in the galleries (clause 7 of rule
XVII; VI, 197).
The motion to suspend may include a series of actions, such as the
discharge of a committee from consideration of a bill and the passage of
it (V, 6850), the reconsideration of the vote passing a bill, amendment
of it, and passage again (V, 6849), the permission for a committee to
report several bills (V, 6857), an order to the Clerk to incorporate in
the engrossment of a general appropriation bill a provision not
otherwise in order (IV, 3845), an authorization to the House to
entertain a specified motion to suspend the rules on a future day not a
suspension day (IV, 3845), a motion to take a bill (V, 6288; VIII, 3425)
or a motion to reconsider, from the table (V, 5640). A motion to suspend
may provide for agreeing to a conference report that has been ruled out
of order by the Speaker (Dec. 20, 1974, p. 41860) or may provide for
passage of a bill that consists of the text of two bills previously
passed by the House (Sept. 19, 2000, p. 18510). One motion to suspend
the rules having been rejected, the Speaker may recognize for a similar
motion (Dec. 21, 1973, pp. 43270-81).
A motion to suspend the rules may provide for the passage of a bill
regardless of whether it has been reported by committee, referred to a
calendar, or even previously introduced (VIII, 3421; July 16, 1996, p.
17228). It may include an amendment without the formality of committee
approval (June 22, 1992, p. 15617). Copies of reports on bills
considered under suspension are not required to be available in advance.
No advance notice to Members of bills to be called up under suspension
of the rules is required (Mar. 20, 1978, p. 7535; Jan. 22, 2007, p.
1895) including to the sponsor (July 30, 2010, p. 14822). However, if a
special rule requires that the object of a motion to suspend the rules
be announced on the floor at least one hour before the Chair's
entertaining the motion, unanimous consent is required to permit the
Chair to entertain the motion before that time (Sept. 28, 1996, p.
25765, 25774).
The <> motion that the House ``suspend the rules and pass [or adopt]''
a measure is not subject to the demand for a division of the question,
either as to the two branches of the motion or as to distinct
substantive propositions in the subject of the motion (V, 6141-6143).
The motion may not be amended (V, 5322, 5405, 6858; Deschler, ch. 21,
Sec. 14.6; Apr. 11, 2000, p. 5206; July 30, 2011, p. 12544), and the
power to withdraw and modify the motion rests with its proponent (May
10, 2006, p. 7807). The motion may not be postponed (V, 5322) or laid on
the table (V, 5405). The motion to reconsider may be applied to an
affirmative (Sept. 28, 1996,
[[Page [704]]]
p. 25796) but not a negative vote on the motion (V, 5645, 5646; VIII,
2781; Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25797). The motion to refer may not be applied
to the bill that it is proposed to pass under suspension of the rules
(V, 6860).
Some older precedents indicate that the right of a Member to have read
the paper on which the Member is called to vote is not changed by the
fact that the procedure is by suspension of the rules (V, 5277; VIII,
3400), and in earlier instances the separate motion to suspend the rules
and dispense with reading of pending measures was held in order (V,
5278-84). However, under the modern practice, only the motion to suspend
the rules is itself read. The Clerk reports the title of the bill and a
motion that the measure be read in full is not in order (July 30, 2010,
p. 14815). Amendments included in the motion are not reported
separately. Where a motion to suspend the rules and agree to a
resolution that provided for concurring in a Senate amendment with an
amendment consisting of the text of a bill introduced in the House, the
Speaker ruled that the reading of the resolution itself was sufficient
and that it could be re-read to the House only by unanimous consent
(Dec. 21, 1973, pp. 43251-63).
For a discussion of debate on the motion and the Chair's recognition
of a Member to control time in opposition to the motion, see Sec. 891,
infra.
In the <> early practice, when the motion to suspend the rules was used
to enable a matter to be taken up for consideration out of order, it was
not admitted when a subject was already before the House (V, 5278, 6836,
6837, 6852, 6853). However, a motion to suspend the rules was in order
to dispense with the reading of a pending measure (V, 5278). A bill
taken up under this early practice might be amended by the House (V,
6842, 6856) or withdrawn by the mover, in which case another Member
might not present it (V, 6854, 6855).
In the later practice, if the motion includes both suspension of the
rules and action on the subject, it is admitted even though another
matter is pending (V, 6834), the yeas and nays are demanded on another
privileged motion (V, 6835), or the previous question has been ordered
or moved on another matter (V, 6827, 6831-6833; VIII, 3418; Sept. 17,
1990, p. 24695). Earlier rulings did not permit a motion to suspend the
rules to permit a vote to be taken en gros on a series of pending Senate
amendments (V, 6828, 6830). The motion to suspend the rules has been
ruled out of order when the House is considering a bill under a special
order (V, 6838) or when a question of privilege under rule IX is before
the House (V, 6825, 6826; VI, 553, 565), and yields to such questions of
privilege (III, 2553; VI, 565). The motion to suspend the rules has been
held of equal privilege with the motion to instruct conferees under
former clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII (current clause 7(c) of rule XXII),
which is of the highest privilege (Mar. 1, 1988, pp. 2749, 2751, 2754).
A motion to suspend the rules and approve the Journal was held in order,
although the Journal had not been read and the highly privileged motion
to fix the day to which the House should adjourn was pending (IV, 2758).
Moreover, in the absence of a mo
[[Page [705]]]
tion to suspend, the ordinary motions relating to business of the House
may be made on suspension days as on other days (IV, 3080).
The motion to suspend the rules may be made on days other than
suspension days by unanimous consent (V, 6795) or by adoption of a
resolution reported by the Committee on Rules. On suspension days the
motion to suspend the rules has been admitted at the discretion of the
Speaker since 1881 (V, 6791-6794, 6845; VIII, 3402-3404; Nov. 2, 2009,
p. 26393), and no appeal may be taken from the Speaker's denial of
recognition (II, 1425).
<> Authorization by a committee is not required for the Speaker to
recognize for a motion to suspend the rules (VIII, 3410), including a
motion to suspend the rules and pass a measure ``as amended'' (June 22,
1992, p. 15617).
Before the 93d Congress, the rule gave to individuals preference on
the first Monday of the month for making motions to suspend the rules,
and preference on the third Mondays for committees to make the motion
(V, 6790). If on a committee day an individual motion was made and
seconded, it was then too late to make a point of order (V, 6809). In
rare instances, under earlier House practice, the Speaker called the
committees in regular order for motions to suspend the rules, but this
method was not required (V, 6810, 6811). The earlier practice also
required a motion to be formally and specifically authorized by a
committee (V, 6805-6807), including specific authorization to include an
amendment (V, 6812); but after the motion was seconded and debate had
begun it was too late to raise a question as to the authorization (V,
6808). The committee could not present a bill that had not been referred
to it (V, 6813) or was not within its jurisdiction (V, 6848).
For the <> history of a former provision of this rule requiring certain
motions to suspend the rules to be seconded, if demanded, by a majority
of tellers, see Sec. 889 of the House Rules and Manual for the 115th
Congress (H. Doc. 114-192).
A <> motion to suspend the
rules may be withdrawn at any time before the Chair puts the question
and a voice vote is taken thereon (V, 6840, 6844; VIII, 3405, 3419; June
5, 2012, p. 8302; Oct. 25, 2017, p. _; Sept. 23, 2020, p. _). The motion
may be withdrawn by unanimous consent, even after the Speaker has put
the question on its adoption and postponed further proceedings
(Deschler, ch 21 Sec. 13.23; Dec. 5, 2012, p. 16257).
(b) <> Pending a motion that the House suspend the rules, the Speaker
may entertain one motion that the House adjourn but may not entertain
any other motion until the vote is taken on the suspension.
[[Page [706]]]
This provision (formerly clause 8 of rule XVI) was adopted in 1868 (V,
5743), and amended in 1911 (VIII, 2823). A technical change was effected
in the 110th Congress (sec. 505(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19
(adopted Jan. 5, 2007)). A motion for a recess (V, 5748-5751) and for a
call of the House when there was no doubt of the presence of a quorum
(V, 5747) were held to be dilatory motions within the meaning of the
rule. But where a motion to suspend the rules has been made and, after
one motion to adjourn has been acted on, a quorum has failed, another
motion to adjourn has been admitted (V, 5744-5746).
(c) <> A motion that the House suspend the rules is debatable for
40 minutes, one-half in favor of the motion and one-half in opposition
thereto.
This provision (formerly clause 2 of rule XXVII) was adopted in 1880
(V, 6821). It was amended and redesignated from clause 3 to clause 2 of
rule XXVII in the 102d Congress to conform to the repeal of the former
clause 2, relating to the requirement of a second (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
1991, p. 39). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XXVII.
Former clause 2 consisted of paragraph (b) and another provision
currently found in clause 1(a) of rule XIX permitting 40 minutes debate
on an otherwise debatable question on which the previous question has
been ordered without debate (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Before the
adoption of this provision in 1880 (V, 6821) the motion to suspend the
rules was not debatable (V, 5405, 6820). The 40 minutes of debate is
divided between the mover and a Member opposed to the bill, unless it
develops that the mover is opposed to the bill, in which event some
Member in favor is recognized for debate (VIII, 3416; Oct. 5, 2004, pp.
20850-52, 20862). When the mover and the opponent divide their time with
others, the practice as to alternation of recognition is not insisted on
so rigidly as in other debate (II, 1442). Debate should be confined to
the object of the motion and may not range to the merits of a bill not
scheduled for suspension on that day (Nov. 23, 1991, p. 34189).
Where recognition for the 20 minutes in opposition is contested, the
Speaker will accord priority first on the basis of true opposition, then
on the basis of committee membership, and only then on the basis of
party affiliation, the latter preference inuring to the minority party
(VIII, 3415; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 11.2). The Chair will not
examine the degree of opposition to the motion by a member of the
committee who seeks the time in opposition (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19275). Any
challenge to the Member recognized to control the time in opposition to
the motion must be made when the time is allocated by the Chair (May 15,
1984, p. 12215; Speaker Wright, June 2, 1987, p. 14223).
[[Page [707]]]
This paragraph formerly included a provision dealing with the
Speaker's authority to postpone further proceedings on motions to
suspend the rules. It was added in the 93d Congress (H. Res. 998, Apr.
9, 1974, pp. 10195-99), amended in the 95th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4,
1977, pp. 53-70), and amended further in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16). It was deleted entirely in the 97th Congress
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, pp. 98-113) when all of the Speaker's
postponing authorities were consolidated into clause 5 of rule I
(current clause 8 of rule XX).
Discharge motions
2. (a)(1) <> A Member
may present to the Clerk a motion in writing to discharge--
(A) a committee from consideration of a public bill or public
resolution that has been referred to it for 30 legislative days; or
(B) the Committee on Rules from consideration of a resolution that
has been referred to it for seven legislative days and that proposes a
special order of business for the consideration of a public bill or
public resolution that has been reported by a committee or has been
referred to a committee for 30 legislative days.
(2) Only one motion may be presented for a bill or resolution. A
Member may not file a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from
consideration of a resolution providing for the consideration of more
than one public bill or public resolution or admitting or effecting a
nongermane amendment to a public bill or public resolution.
(b) A motion presented under paragraph (a) shall be placed in the
custody of the Clerk, who shall arrange a convenient place for the
signatures of Members. A signature may be with
[[Page [708]]]
drawn by a Member in writing at any time before a motion is entered on
the Journal. The Clerk shall make the signatories a matter of public
record, causing the names of the Members who have signed a discharge
motion during a week to be published in a portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose on the last legislative day of the
week and making cumulative lists of such names available each day for
public inspection in an appropriate office of the House. The Clerk shall
devise a means for making such lists available to offices of the House
and to the public in electronic form. When a majority of the total
membership of the House shall have signed the motion, it shall be
entered on the Journal, published with the signatories thereto in the
Record, and referred to the Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees.
(c)(1) A motion to discharge that has been on the calendar for at
least seven legislative days (except during the last six days of a
session of Congress) shall be privileged only at a time or place,
designated by the Speaker, in the legislative schedule within two
legislative days after the day on which a Member whose signature appears
thereon announces to the House an intention to offer the motion. When
such a motion is called up, the House shall proceed to its consideration
under this paragraph without intervening motion except one motion to
adjourn. Privileged motions to discharge shall have precedence in the
order of their entry on the Journal.
[[Page [709]]]
(2) When a motion to discharge is called up, the bill or resolution to
which it relates shall be read by title only. The motion is debatable
for 20 minutes, one-half in favor of the motion and one-half in
opposition thereto.
(d)(1) If a motion prevails to discharge the Committee on Rules from
consideration of a resolution, the House shall immediately consider the
resolution, pending which the Speaker may entertain one motion that the
House adjourn but may not entertain any other dilatory motion until the
resolution has been disposed of. If the resolution is adopted, the House
shall immediately proceed to its execution.
(2) If a motion prevails to discharge a committee from consideration
of a public bill or public resolution, a motion that the House proceed
to the immediate consideration of such bill or resolution shall be
privileged if offered by a Member whose signature appeared on the motion
to discharge. The motion to proceed is not debatable. If the motion to
proceed is adopted, the bill or resolution shall be considered
immediately under the general rules of the House. If unfinished before
adjournment of the day on which it is called up, the bill or resolution
shall remain the unfinished business until it is disposed of. If the
motion to proceed is rejected, the bill or resolution shall be referred
to the appropriate calendar, where it shall have the same status as if
the committee from which it was discharged had duly reported it to the
House.
[[Page [710]]]
(e)(1) When a motion to discharge originated under this clause has
once been acted on by the House, it shall not be in order to entertain
during the same session of Congress--
(A) a motion to discharge a committee from consideration of that
bill or resolution or of any other bill or resolution that, by relating
in substance to or dealing with the same subject matter, is
substantially the same; or
(B) a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from
consideration of a resolution providing a special order of business for
the consideration of that bill or resolution or of any other bill or
resolution that, by relating in substance to or dealing with the same
subject matter, is substantially the same.
(2) A motion to discharge on the Calendar of Motions to Discharge
Committees that is rendered out of order under subparagraph (1) shall be
stricken from that calendar.
This clause (formerly clause 3 of rule XXVII) was adopted December 8,
1931, and amended January 3, 1935 (VII, 1007). It displaced a rule
providing for a motion to instruct a committee to report a public bill
or resolution. The first discharge rule was adopted in the 61st Congress
(June 17, 1910, pp. 8439, 8445). It was amended during the 62d Congress
(Apr. 4-5, 1911, pp. 18, 80). It was further amended in the 62d Congress
(H. Res. 407, Feb. 3, 1912, p. 1685), the 68th Congress (H. Res. 146,
Jan. 18, 1924, p. 1143), and the 69th Congress (H. Res. 6, Dec. 7, 1925,
p. 383). This provision was redesignated from clause 4 to clause 3 in
the 102d Congress to conform to the repeal of the former clause 2 of
rule XXVII, relating to the requirement of a second; it was at the same
time amended to enable debate on a resolution discharged from the
Committee on Rules (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991, p. 39). Under the previous
form of the rule, where the Committee on Rules was discharged from
further consideration of a resolution the House immediately voted on
adoption of the resolution (Speaker Rayburn, Jan. 24, 1944, p. 631), but
under the current form of the rule, the proponent of the motion to
discharge is recognized to debate the resolution under the hour rule
(Oct. 26, 2015, p. 16530).
[[Page [711]]]
In the 103d Congress, after a successful petition under this clause
placed on the calendar a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from
further consideration of a resolution to require publication of the
names of Members who had signed pending discharge petitions, the clause
was so amended (H. Res. 134, Sept. 28, 1993, p. 22698). In the 104th
Congress the clause was amended to ensure the periodic publication of
such names (sec. 219, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before the 103d
Congress signatures on a motion to discharge a committee were not made
public until the requisite number had signed the motion (VII, 1008; Apr.
12, 1934, p. 6489). In the 105th Congress the clause was amended to
clarify that, to be a proper object of a discharge petition, a
resolution providing a special rule must address the consideration of
only one measure and must not propose to admit or effect a nongermane
amendment (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p. 121). A clerical correction was
effected in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(x), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p.
26) and a technical correction was effected in the 110th Congress (sec.
505(d), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 2007, p. 19 (adopted Jan. 5, 2007)). The
112th Congress clarified that paragraph (c) does not require the
disclosure of actual signatures (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p.
80). The 113th Congress removed several references to a ``standing''
committee (sec. 2(f), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26).
In the 116th Congress, the rule was amended to provide that a motion
to discharge is privileged a time or place designated by the Speaker
within two legislative days after a signatory Member provides notice of
an intention to offer the motion (sec. 102(v), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019,
p. _). Under the previous form of the rule, the motion was only
privileged on the second and fourth Mondays of a month and the offering
Member was not required to provide notice. For its text, and for a
thorough treatment of the privilege of the motion on the second and
fourth Mondays of a month, see Sec. 892 of the House Rules and Manual
for the 115th Congress (H. Doc. 114-192).
The phrase ``a majority of the total membership of the House'' was
construed to mean 218 Members (Speaker Byrns, Apr. 15, 1936, p. 5509),
not including Delegates or the Resident Commissioner; and a Delegate or
the Resident Commissioner may not sign a discharge petition even by
unanimous consent (Oct. 1, 2003, p. 23853). The rule does not authorize
signature of discharge motions by proxy (VII, 1014). When a Member
withdraws a signature from a discharge petition at any time before it
garners 218 signatures and is entered on the Journal, the withdrawal is
printed in the Record (Apr. 23, 1998, p. 6590). The death or resignation
of a Member who has signed a motion does not invalidate the signature
(May 31, 1934, p. 10159), but it may be withdrawn by the Member's
successor (Dec. 7, 1943, p. 10388; Jan. 17, 1946, p. 96; Mar. 5, 1946,
p. 1968; July 30, 1946, pp. 10464, 10491; Mar. 2, 1948, pp. 1993, 2001;
Jan. 16, 1950, p. 436). Under Jefferson's Manual (Sec. 364, supra) a
line of Members waiting to sign a discharge petition should proceed to
the rostrum from the far right-hand aisle and should not form between
the Chair and Members engaging in debate (Oct. 24, 1997, p. 23293).
[[Page [712]]]
The seven days that the motion must be on the calendar before it may
be called up begin to run as of the day the motion is placed on the
calendar (Dec. 14, 1937, p. 1517). The rule does not apply to a bill
that has been reported by a committee during the interval between the
placing of a motion to discharge on the calendar and the day when such
motion is called up for action in the House (Apr. 23, 1934, p. 7156).
The Committee on Rules may not be discharged from further consideration
of a resolution providing for an investigating committee (Apr. 23, 1934,
p. 7161).
The right to close debate on a motion to discharge a committee is
reserved to the proponent of the motion (VII, 1010a); and the chair of
the committee being discharged, if opposed to the motion, has been
recognized to control the 10 minutes in opposition (Aug. 10, 1970, p.
27999).
Where a measure not requiring consideration in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union is brought before the House by a
successful motion to discharge, the Member moving its consideration is
recognized in the House under the hour rule (Aug. 10, 1970, p. 28004).
In the case of a special order of business successfully discharged from
the Committee on Rules, the Chair advised that if the previous question
were to be rejected, the provisions of paragraph (e)(1) prohibiting
dilatory motions would no longer strictly apply such that the resolution
would be subject to potential further debate or amendment (Oct. 26,
2015, p. 16531).
The point of order provided in clause 4 of rule XXI (formerly clause
5(a) of rule XXI) does not apply to an appropriation in a bill taken
away from a committee by the motion to discharge (VII, 1019a).
Where the Chair postponed proceedings pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX
on a measure successfully discharged under this clause, the House may
complete consideration of the measure on a non-discharge day (Oct. 27,
2015, p. 16573).
A discharge petition in the 102d Congress received the requisite
number of signatures on the same day it was filed (May 20, 1992, p.
12222), and subsequently by unanimous consent the House dispensed with
the motion to discharge and agreed to consider the object of the
petition (a special order of business resolution) on a date certain
under the same terms as if discharged by motion (June 4, 1992, p.
13618). In the 103d Congress a petition also received the requisite
number of signatures on the same day it was filed (Feb. 24, 1994, p.
2999). In the 103d Congress a petition received the requisite number of
signatures to enable a motion to discharge a resolution amending this
clause to require publication of Members signing a discharge petition
(Sept. 8, 1993, p. 20361). In the 114th Congress a petition received the
requisite number of signatures on the same day it was filed (Oct. 9,
2015, pp. 16031, 16032), and the motion was subsequently adopted (Oct.
26, 2015, p. 16530).
[[Page [713]]]
Adverse report by the Committee on Rules, second and fourth Mondays
3. An <> adverse
report by the Committee on Rules on a resolution proposing a special
order of business for the consideration of a public bill or public joint
resolution may be called up under clause 6(e) of rule XIII as a
privileged question by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner on
the second and fourth Mondays of a month.
This provision was initially adopted January 18, 1924, amended
December 8, 1931 (VIII, 2268), January 3, 1949 (p. 16), January 3, 1951
(p. 18), January 4, 1965 (p. 24) (inserting the so-called ``21-day
rule''), January 10, 1967 (H. Res. 7, p. 28) (deleting the ``21-day
rule'' in effect in the 89th Congress), and January 3, 1975 (H. Res.
988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470). A conforming change was made in
the 116th Congress (sec. 102(v)(3), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _).
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found only in former clause 4(c) of rule XI. It is
currently found in both this provision and clause 6(e) of rule XIII (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
4. (Reserved.)
<> A former
clause allocating fixed days for District of Columbia business was
repealed in the 117th Congress (sec. 2(t), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p.
_). For its text and history, see Sec. 894 of the House Rules and Manual
for the 116th Congress (H. Doc. 115-177).
Private Calendar
5. (a) <> On the
first Tuesday of a month, the Speaker shall direct the Clerk to call the
bills and resolutions on the Private Calendar after disposal of such
business on the Speaker's table as requires reference only. If two or
more Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner object to the
consideration of a bill or resolution so called, it shall be
[[Page [714]]]
recommitted to the committee that reported it. No other business shall
be in order before completion of the call of the Private Calendar on
this day unless two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being
present, agree to a motion that the House dispense with the call.
(b)(1) On any day, after the disposal of such business on the
Speaker's table as requires reference only, the Speaker may direct the
Clerk to call any bill or resolution that has been on the Private
Calendar for at least seven days, but only on the second legislative day
after the legislative day on which the Speaker or a designee announces
to the House an intention to do so. Preference shall be given to omnibus
bills containing the texts of bills or resolutions that have previously
been objected to on a call of the Private Calendar. If two or more
Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner object to the
consideration of a bill or resolution so called (other than an omnibus
bill), it shall be recommitted to the committee that reported it. Two-
thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present, may adopt a motion
that the House dispense with the call on this day.
(2) Omnibus bills shall be read for amendment by paragraph. No
amendment shall be in order except to strike or to reduce amounts of
money or to provide limitations. An item or matter stricken from an
omnibus bill may not thereafter during the same session of Congress be
included in an omnibus bill. Upon passage such an omnibus bill shall be
resolved into the several bills
[[Page [715]]]
and resolutions of which it is composed. The several bills and
resolutions, with any amendments adopted by the House, shall be
engrossed, when necessary, and otherwise considered as passed severally
by the House as distinct bills and resolutions.
(c) The Speaker may not entertain a reservation of the right to object
to the consideration of a bill or resolution under this clause. A bill
or resolution considered under this clause shall be considered in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole. A motion to dispense with the
call of the Private Calendar under this clause shall be privileged.
Debate on such a motion shall be limited to five minutes in support and
five minutes in opposition.
This <> provision
(formerly clause 6 of rule XXIV) was adopted in the 62d Congress in lieu
of special orders under which pension and private business formerly had
been considered. The rule was amended on April 23, 1932 (VII, 846) and
was adopted in its present form on March 27, 1935 (pp. 4480-89, 4538).
When the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was transferred from former clause 6 of rule XXIV and the
archaic reference to the ``Calendar of the Committee of the Whole
House'' was changed to the ``Private Calendar'' (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). In the 116th Congress, the discretionary call of the
Private Calendar was expanded from the third Tuesday of a month to any
day, with certain layover and notice requirements (sec. 102(w), H. Res.
6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). A Member serving as an ``official objector'' for
the Private Calendar has periodically included in the Record an
explanation of how bills on the Private Calendar are considered (see,
e.g., Dec. 5, 1995, p. 35354; June 17, 1997, p. 11015; Nov. 17, 2003, p.
29279). Clause 4 of rule XII prohibits consideration of certain private
bills. Under former clause 6(e)(2) of rule XV (current clause 7(b) of
rule XX), the Speaker has discretion to recognize a Member to move a
call of the House before the call of the Private Calendar (July 8, 1987,
p. 18972). Unanimous consent is required to place the call at another
time during the day (July 16, 1996, p. 17224; Apr. 21, 1998, p. 6184),
including after one-minute speeches (Dec. 18, 2012, p. 17289).
[[Page [716]]]
During the <> consideration of omnibus bills the Chair declines to recognize
Members for unanimous-consent requests to address the House (May 7,
1935, p. 7100); motions to strike the last word are not in order, and
requests for extension of time under the five-minute rule are not
entertained (Speaker Byrns, Mar. 17, 1936, pp. 3890, 3894).
An omnibus private bill is normally passed over by the Clerk when the
Private Calendar is called on the first Tuesday of the month, but the
House may prescribe, by special order, that such omnibus bills shall be
passed over (June 27, 1968, p. 19106). During the consideration of the
First Omnibus Bill of 1968, seven roll calls occurred and seven of the
15 bills carried therein were stricken by motion (Sept. 17, 1968, pp.
27165-84). Amendments to the bill were strictly limited by the rule to
those striking or reducing amounts of money carried in the bill or to
provide limitations, and debate on those permissible motions was under
the five-minute rule. After the passage of an omnibus bill, it is
resolved into the various private bills of which it is composed and each
is engrossed and messaged to the Senate as if individually passed; thus
it is possible, after passage of the omnibus bill, to lay on the table a
private House or Senate bill that was included therein (by unanimous
consent) (Sept. 17, 1968, p. 27184).
On any day except the first Tuesday of a month, the calendar is not
called unless the Speaker so directs (Oct. 16, 1990, p. 29646); and in
those cases, omnibus bills on the Calendar are called before individual
bills thereon (Feb. 17, 1970, pp. 3605-13), and a motion to dispense
with the call of the Private Calendar noticed pursuant to paragraph
(b)(1) is likewise in order (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770 (sustained by
tabling of appeal)).
For the <> former
Corrections Calendar rule, see Sec. 898 of the House Rules and Manual
for the 111th Congress (H. Doc. 110-162).
For the <> former Consent
Calendar rule, see Sec. 899 of the House Rules and Manual for the 111th
Congress (H. Doc. 110-162).
Calendar Call of Committees, Wednesdays
6. (a) <> On Wednesday of
each week, business shall not be in order before completion of the call
of those committees (except as provided by clause 4 of rule XIV) whose
chair, or other member authorized by the committee, has announced to the
House a request for such call on the preceding legislative day.
[[Page [717]]]
(b) A bill or resolution on either the House or the Union Calendar,
except bills or resolutions that are privileged under the Rules of the
House, may be called under this clause. A bill or resolution called up
from the Union Calendar shall be considered in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union without motion, subject to clause
3 of rule XVI. General debate on a measure considered under this clause
shall be confined to the measure and may not exceed two hours equally
divided between a proponent and an opponent.
(c) This clause does not apply during the last two weeks of a session
of Congress.
(d) Precedents, rulings, or procedures in effect before the One
Hundred Eleventh Congress regarding the priority of business and the
availability of other business on Wednesday shall be applied only to the
extent consistent with this clause.
This clause (formerly clause 7 of rule XXIV), was adopted March 1,
1909, and amended March 15, 1909. The last sentence of paragraph (b)
(first proviso of former clause 7 of rule XXIV) was adopted January 18,
1916. The clause was rewritten in the 111th Congress to provide for
Calendar Wednesday business from a committee only upon its request (sec.
2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). For a history of the clause as it
existed before that Congress, and related precedents, see Sec. Sec. 900,
901 of the House Rules and Manual for the 110th Congress (H. Doc. 109-
157). Paragraph (d) was added in the 113th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 26).
The rule <> applies
to unprivileged bills only, and when a bill otherwise unprivileged is
given a privileged status by unanimous consent or by rule it is
automatically rendered ineligible for consideration on Calendar
Wednesday (VII, 932-935). The rule does not apply to amendments between
the Houses, unreported bills, or Senate bills being held at the
Speaker's desk (Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3854). House Calendar bills have no
preference over Union Calendar bills (VII, 938).
[[Page [718]]]
When a bill on the Union Calendar is called up on Calendar Wednesday
the House automatically resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union (VII, 939; Jan. 25, 1984, p. 358), and
when a Union Calendar bill is the unfinished business the Speaker
declares the House in the Committee of the Whole without motion (VII,
940, 942).
The question of consideration may be raised on a bill on the House
Calendar on Calendar Wednesday, even after one Wednesday has been
devoted to its consideration (VIII, 2447), and the question of
consideration is properly raised on Union Calendar bills before
automatically resolving into Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union (VII, 952).
During the 61st and 62d Congresses it was held that the call of
committees rested where the call left off on the preceding day, whether
the last call was on a Wednesday or during the morning hour on another
day, thus making but one committee call under the two rules. But under
the later practice there have been two distinct calls of committees, one
under clause 4 of rule XIV (formerly clause 4 of rule XXIV), the morning
hour, and another under Calendar Wednesday (VII, 944) when committees
are called twice (VII, 924; Mar. 12, 2008, p. 3853).
The same rule of debate applies to House Calendar bills called up on
Calendar Wednesday as on other days, and the Member in charge of the
bill may move the previous question at any time (VII, 955).
The previous question having been ordered on a bill on Calendar
Wednesday, the bill becomes the unfinished business on Thursday (VII,
895, 967).
It is in order to consider a vetoed bill on Calendar Wednesday,
because such a question is privileged under the Constitution (VII, 912),
but a bill privileged by reason of the Rules of the House cannot be
called up on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 932); for example, a general
appropriation bill (VII, 904), or a bill under consideration by reason
of a special order, unless the special order expressly sets aside
Calendar Wednesday (VII, 773), or a conference report (VII, 899). A
motion to reconsider an action taken on a bill on Tuesday may be
entered, but may not be considered on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 905).
Privileged bills may be reported but not considered on Calendar
Wednesday (VII, 907), except by unanimous consent (Jan. 25, 1984, p.
357). The Speaker has entertained a unanimous-consent request for
business (to send a bill to conference) (Mar. 28, 1984, p. 6869) and for
one-minute speeches (Mar. 21, 1984, pp. 6187, 6188; May 7, 2008, p.
7993) before the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday. Under a
former rule, District of Columbia business was eligible for
consideration on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 937). A motion to adjourn (May
7, 2008, pp. 7996, 8000) and the administration of the oath (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 2, Sec. 3.22; VI, 22) may interrupt the call of
committees. Once Calendar Wednesday proceedings are completed, other
business may be conducted (VII, 921).
It has been held that if no Member opposed to the bill desires to
claim the hour specified in the rule for general debate against the
bill, the time
[[Page [719]]]
may be claimed by a Member who is in favor of the bill (VII, 962), but
this principle has been questioned (VII, 961).
Clause 2(b) of rule XIII (formerly clause 2(l)(1) of rule XI),
requiring the chair of each committee to report or cause to be reported
promptly measures approved by the committee and to take such necessary
steps to bring the matter to a vote, is sufficient authority for the
chair to call up a properly-noticed bill on Calendar Wednesday, but any
other committee member must obtain specific authority of the committee
to call up a reported bill on Calendar Wednesday (VII, 928, 929; Feb.
22, 1950, p. 2162; Feb. 1, 1984, p. 1193; Sept. 12, 1984, p. 25100; Apr.
18, 2007, p. 9201). Before the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
and the subsequent adoption of former clause 2(l)(1)(A) of rule XI,
authority to call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday must have been given
to its chair by a committee (IV, 3127).
Consensus Calendar
7. (a)(1) <> At least once during
any week in which the House convenes, the House shall consider a measure
on the Consensus Calendar as designated by the Speaker.
(2) This paragraph does not apply before March 1 of an odd-numbered
year or after September 30 of an even-numbered year.
(b)(1) The sponsor of a measure that has accumulated 290 cosponsors
and has not been reported by the committee of primary jurisdiction may
present to the Clerk a motion in writing to place that measure on the
Consensus Calendar.
(2) A proper motion presented under subparagraph (1) shall be placed
in the custody of the Clerk, and shall appear in a portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose. The Clerk shall
maintain a cumulative list of such motions, and shall make such list
publicly available in electronic form.
[[Page [720]]]
(3) A motion presented under subparagraph (1) shall be considered as
withdrawn if the measure is reported by the committee of primary
jurisdiction prior to its placement on the Consensus Calendar.
(c) After a measure has maintained at least 290 cosponsors for a
cumulative period of 25 legislative days after the presentation of a
motion under paragraph (b)(1), the measure shall be placed on the
Consensus Calendar. Such measure shall remain on the Consensus Calendar
until it is--
(1) considered in the House; or
(2) reported by the committee of primary jurisdiction.
This paragraph was added in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(r), H. Res.
6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). The Chair announces the Speaker's designation of
a measure pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) prior to its consideration in the
House (July 17, 2019, p. _). The House has adopted a special order of
business rendering paragraph (a)(1) inapplicable with respect to a
specified measure (sec. 5, H. Res. 476, July 10, 2019, p. _).
Rule XVI
motions and amendments
Motions
1. <> Every motion entertained by the Speaker shall be reduced to
writing on the demand of a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
and, unless it is withdrawn the same day, shall be entered on the
Journal with the name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
offering it.
[[Page [721]]]
A dilatory motion may not be entertained by the Speaker.
In 1880 the first sentence of this clause was composed of language
adopted in 1789 and 1806 (V, 5300). The last sentence of this clause
(formerly clause 10 of rule XVI) was adopted in 1890 (V, 5706) to make
permanent a principle already enunciated in a ruling of the Speaker, who
had declared that the ``object of a parliamentary body is action, and
not stoppage of action'' (V, 5713). When the House recodified its rules,
it consolidated clause 1 and former clause 10 of rule XVI under this
clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Because of this provision it has been held not in order to amend or
strike a Journal entry setting forth a motion exactly as made (IV, 2783,
2789). A motion not entertained is not entered on the Journal (IV, 2813,
2844-2846). See Sec. 71, supra, for discussion of Journal entries. Any
Member may demand that a motion, including the motion to adjourn, be
reduced to writing and in the proper form (Mar. 30, 1993, p. 6791; Sept.
27, 1993, p. 22608; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 509), and the demand may be
initiated by the Chair (July 24, 1986, p. 17641). Consistent with this
clause, the chair of the Committee of the Whole requires that each
amendment be reduced to writing (July 22, 1994, p. 17617). Although a
motion to recommit is properly presented in writing, no rule requires
that the proponent distribute copies on the floor (June 28, 2000, p.
12749).
The <> Speaker has declined to
entertain debate or appeal on a question as to the dilatoriness of a
motion, because doing so would nullify the rule (V, 5731); but has
recognized that the authority conferred by the rule should not be
exercised until the object of the dilatory motion ``becomes apparent to
the House'' (V, 5713, 5714). For example, the Chair has held that a
virtually consecutive invocation of former rule XXX (current clause 6 of
rule XVII), resulting in a second pair of votes on use of a chart and on
reconsideration thereof, was not dilatory under this provision (or
former clause 4(b) of rule XI (current clause 6(b) of rule XIII)) (July
31, 1996, p. 20700). Usually, but not always, the Speaker awaits a point
of order from the floor before acting (V, 5715-5722). The rule has been
applied to the motions to adjourn (V, 5721, 5731-5733; VIII, 2796,
2813), to reconsider (V, 5735; VIII, 2797, 2815, 2822), to fix the time
of five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole (V, 5734; VIII,
2817), and to lay on the table (VIII, 2816), and to the question of
consideration (V, 5731-5733). The point of no quorum also has been ruled
out (V, 5724-5730; VIII, 2801, 2808), and former clause 6 of rule XV
(current clause 7 of rule XX) as adopted in the 93d Congress and as
amended in the 95th Congress prevents the making of a point of no quorum
under certain circumstances. A demand for tellers has been held dilatory
(V, 5735, 5736; VIII, 2436, 2818-2821), but the constitutional right of
the Member to demand the yeas and nays may not be overruled (V, 5737;
VIII, 3107). For a ruling by Speaker Gillett construing dilatory
[[Page [722]]]
motions, see VIII, 2804. For discussion of dilatory motions pending
consideration of a report from the Committee on Rules, see
Sec. Sec. 857-858, supra.
Withdrawal
2. <> When a motion
is entertained, the Speaker shall state it or cause it to be read aloud
by the Clerk before it is debated. The motion then shall be in the
possession of the House but may be withdrawn at any time before a
decision or amendment thereon.
The provisions of this clause were adopted first in 1789. At that time
a second was required for every motion, but in practice this requirement
became obsolete very early, and it was dropped from the rule in 1880 (V,
5304). Clerical and stylistic changes were effected when the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47).
The House always insists that the motion be stated or read before
debate shall begin (V, 4937, 4983) and the Clerk's reading may be
dispensed with only by unanimous consent (Dec. 15, 1975, p. 40671; see
also Sec. 432, supra). It is the duty of the Speaker to put the question
on a motion in order under the rules and practice without passing on its
constitutional effect (IV, 3550; VIII, 2225, 3031, 3071, 3427). In a
case wherein a clerk presiding during organization of the House declined
to put a question, a Member-elect put the question from the floor (I,
67).
Under certain circumstances (such as the practice of extinguishing
reconsideration by laying a motion to reconsider on the table), a Member
may offer a double motion (V, 5637).
A motion <> may
be withdrawn at any time before a decision thereon, including a motion
to instruct conferees (Oct. 31, 2000, p. 25737) and a contempt
resolution (Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200). Unanimous consent is not required
to withdraw a pending unanimous-consent request (Dec. 16, 1985, p.
36575).
While the House was dividing on a second of the previous question
(this second is no longer required) on a motion to refer a resolution,
the proponent was permitted to withdraw the resolution (V, 5350). A
motion was withdrawn after the previous question had been ordered on an
appeal from a decision on a point of order as to the motion (V, 5356).
A motion to suspend the rules could be withdrawn at any time before a
second was ordered (a second is no longer required) (V, 6844; VIII,
3405, 3419), even on another suspension day (V, 6844). However, the
motion could not be withdrawn if a second were ordered, except by
unanimous consent (VIII, 3420). In the modern practice, in which a
second is not re
[[Page [723]]]
quired on a motion to suspend the rules, the motion may be withdrawn at
any time before action is taken thereon (July 27, 1981, p. 17563)
including pending the resumption of postponed proceedings de novo
pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX (Sept. 29, 2010, pp. 17119, 17120).
A motion may be withdrawn although an amendment has been offered and
is pending (V, 5347; VI, 373; VIII, 2639). In the House an amendment,
whether simple or in the nature of a substitute, may be withdrawn at any
time before an amendment is adopted thereto or a decision is had thereon
(VI, 587; VIII, 2332, 2764). The same right to withdraw an amendment
exists ``in the House as in Committee of the Whole'' (IV, 4935; June 26,
1973, p. 21315) and in standing committees where general procedures of
the House as in the Committee of the Whole apply (Sec. 427, supra).
However, unanimous consent to withdraw an amendment is required in the
Committee of the Whole (V, 5221, 5753; VI, 570; VIII, 2465, 2859, 3405),
unless withdrawal authority has been conferred by the House (July 22,
1999, p. 17291; Apr. 3, 2003, pp. 8490, 8491; Nov. 7, 2007, p. 30353).
An amendment disposed of in the Committee of the Whole by voice vote
(June 17, 2004, pp. 12944, 12945) or ruled out of order (May 18, 2016,
p. _; May 25, 2016, p. _) may not be withdrawn. During a designated
public health emergency in the 116th and 117th Congresses, the House by
special order of business conferred withdrawal authority for amendments
in the House on which the previous question had been ordered at any time
before the question was put thereon (e.g., H. Res. 1053, July 20, 2020,
p. _).
A motion may be withdrawn after the affirmative side has been taken on
a division (V, 5348). Withdrawal of a pending resolution is not in order
when the absence of a quorum has been announced by the Chair (Oct. 14,
1970, pp. 36665-69). A motion that the House resolve into the Committee
of the Whole for the consideration of a bill may be withdrawn pending a
point of order against consideration of the bill. If the motion is
withdrawn, the Chair is not obligated to rule on the point of order
(VIII, 3405; Dec. 3, 1979, p. 34385).
A decision that prevents withdrawal may consist of the following: (1)
the ordering of the yeas and nays (V, 5353), either directly on the
motion or on a motion to lay it on the table (V, 5354); (2) the ordering
of the previous question (V, 5355; June 29, 1995, p. 17967), or the
demand therefor (V, 5489), or (3) the refusal to lay on the table (V,
5351, 5352; VIII, 2640). A motion on which the previous question has
been ordered by a special order of business may be withdrawn by
unanimous consent (V, 5355; Sept. 30, 1993, p. 23151; Apr. 4, 2017, p.
_).
If the Speaker has put the question on adoption of a resolution to a
voice vote without the ordering of the previous question, and the yeas
and nays have not been ordered (V, 5349; Feb. 26, 1985, p. 3501) or if a
voice vote (and the record vote on the associated motion for the
previous question) has been vacated (Sept. 25, 2008, pp. 21820, 21821),
the resolution may be withdrawn. A privileged resolution called up in
the House is debated under the hour rule; and the Member calling up such
a resolution
[[Page [724]]]
is recognized for an hour notwithstanding the fact that the resolution
has been previously considered, debated, and then withdrawn before
action thereon (Apr. 8, 1964, pp. 7303-08).
Where proceedings are postponed on a motion for the previous question
pending a point of no quorum against a voice vote thereon (pursuant to
former clause 5 of rule I (current clause 8 of rule XX)), the manager
may withdraw such motion when it is again before the House as unfinished
business (July 24, 1989, p. 15818).
A Member having the right to withdraw a motion before a decision
thereon has the resulting power to modify the motion (V, 5358; Oct. 23,
1990, p. 32667), and a Member having the right to withdraw a motion to
instruct conferees before a decision thereon has the resulting power to
modify the motion by offering a different motion at the same stage of
proceedings (July 14, 1993, p. 15661). A motion being withdrawn, all
proceedings on an appeal arising from a point of order related to it
fell thereby (V, 5356).
Question of consideration
3. <> When a motion or
proposition is entertained, the question, ``Will the House now consider
it?'' may not be put unless demanded by a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner.
The question of consideration is an outgrowth of the practice of the
House, and was in use as early as 1808. The rule was adopted in 1817 in
order to limit its use. Clerical and stylistic changes were effected
when the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It is the means by which the House protects itself
from business that it does not wish to consider (V, 4936; VIII, 2436).
The refusal to consider does not amount to the rejection of a bill or
prevent its being brought before the House again (V, 4940), and an
affirmative vote does not prevent the question of consideration from
being raised on a subsequent day when the bill is again called up as
unfinished business (VIII, 2438). It has once been held that a question
of privilege that the House has refused to consider may be brought up
again on the same day (V, 4942). The question of consideration is not
debatable (VIII, 2447), and thus not subject to the motion to lay on the
table (Oct. 4, 1994, p. 27643). See also clause 6 of rule XIV (Sec. 884,
supra), which provides that questions relating to the priority of
business are not debatable.
A <> Member
may demand the question of consideration, although the Member in charge
of the bill may claim the floor for debate (V, 4944, 4945; VI, 404); but
after debate has begun the demand may not be made (V, 4937-4939). It has
been admitted, however, after the offering of a motion to lay on the
table but before its disposition (V, 4943). The demand
[[Page [725]]]
for the question of consideration may not be prevented by a motion for
the previous question (V, 5478), but after the previous question is
ordered it may not be demanded (V, 4965, 4966), even on another day,
unless other business has intervened (V, 4967, 4968). The question of
consideration pending, a motion to refer is not in order (V, 5554).
The intervention of an adjournment does not destroy the right to raise
the question of consideration (V, 4946), but this right did not hold
true in a case in which the yeas and nays had been ordered and the House
had adjourned pending the failure of a quorum on the roll call (V,
4949). A question of consideration undisposed of at an adjournment does
not recur as unfinished business on a succeeding day (V, 4947, 4948). It
is not in order to reconsider the vote whereby the House refuses to
consider a bill (V, 5626, 5627), although it is in order to reconsider
an affirmative vote on the question of consideration (Oct. 4, 1994, p.
27644).
The <> question of consideration may be demanded against a
matter of the highest privilege, such as the right of a Member to a seat
(V, 4941), a question involving the privilege of the House (VI, 560),
against the motion to reconsider (VIII, 2437), but not against a bill
returned with the President's objection (V, 4960, 4970). It may not be
raised against a proposition before the House merely for reference, as a
petition (V, 4964). It may not be demanded against a class of business
in order under a special order or rule, but may be demanded against each
bill individually (IV, 3308, 3309; V, 4958, 4959). It may be raised
against a measure the consideration of which has been provided by a
special order of business (IV, 3175; V, 4953-4957; June 22, 2006, p.
12280; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 6.11; Jan. 31, 2007, p. 2736),
unless the order provides for immediate consideration (V, 4960) or
provides for the Speaker's declaration that the House resolve into the
Committee of the Whole under clause 2 of rule XVIII. The question may be
raised against a bill on the Union Calendar on Calendar Wednesday before
resolving into the Committee of the Whole even after one Wednesday has
been devoted to it (VIII, 2447); but it may not be raised against a
report from the Committee on Rules relating to the order of considering
individual bills (V, 4961-4963; VIII, 2440, 2441, see Sec. 858, supra).
The question of consideration may not be raised on a motion relating
to the order of business (V, 4971-4976; VIII, 2442; May 21, 1958, p.
9216); to a motion to discharge a committee (V, 4977); or against a
motion to take from the Speaker's table Senate bills substantially the
same as House bills already favorably reported and on the House Calendar
(VIII, 2443). On a motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider
a bill the House expresses its wish as to consideration by its vote on
this motion (V, 4973-4976; VI, 51; VIII, 2442; May 21, 1958, p. 9216),
and the question of consideration is not available after the House has
resolved into the Committee of the Whole (May 10, 2007, p. 12191).
[[Page [726]]]
A <> point of order against consideration of a bill should be made
and decided before the question of consideration is put (V, 4950, 4951;
VII, 2439), but if the point relates merely to the manner of
considering, it should be passed on afterwards (V, 4950). In general,
after the House has decided to consider, a point of order raised with
the object of preventing consideration, in whole or part, comes too late
(IV, 4598; V, 4952, 6912-6914), but on a conference report the question
of consideration may be demanded before points of order are raised
against the substance of the report (VIII, 2439; Speaker Albert, Sept.
28, 1976, p. 33019).
The <> Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48)
added a new part B to title IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
(2 U.S.C. 658-658g) that imposes several requirements on committees with
respect to ``Federal mandates'' (secs. 423-424; 2 U.S.C. 658b-c),
establishes points of order to permit votes on whether to enforce those
requirements (sec. 425; 2 U.S.C. 658d), and permits a vote on the
question of consideration of a rule or order waiving such points of
order in the House (sec. 426(a); 2 U.S.C. 658e(a)). The latter provision
also prescribes that such points of order be disposed of by the question
of consideration with respect to the proposition against which they are
lodged (after 20 minutes of debate) (sec. 426(b); 2 U.S.C. 658e(b)). See
Sec. 1127, infra.
Clause 9 of rule XXI establishes a point of order against
consideration of certain measures for failure to disclose (or disclaim
the presence of) certain earmarks, tax benefits, and tariff benefits
(paragraphs (a) and (b)), and permits a vote on the question of
consideration of a rule or order waiving such points of order (paragraph
(c)). Certain cognizability thresholds are established for points of
order under the rule (paragraph (d)). See Sec. 1068d, infra.
Both points of order may be raised against the same special order of
business (May 14, 2008, pp. 9050, 9052; Jan. 28, 2014, pp. 2107, 2109;
May 21, 2014, pp. 8827, 8831).
Clause 10(c)(3) of rule XXI requires the Chair to put the question of
consideration with regard to measures that include an emergency
designation for pay-as-you-go principles. See Sec. 1068f, infra.
The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (tit. I, P.L. 111-139)
requires the Chair to put the question of consideration with regard to
measures that include a pay-as-you-go emergency designation:
Sec. 4. Paygo Estimates and Paygo Scorecards.
* * *
(g) Emergency Legislation.--
(1) Designation in Statute.--If a provision of direct spending
or revenue legislation in a PAYGO Act is enacted as an emergency
re
[[Page [727]]]
quirement that the Congress so designates in statute pursuant to
this section, the amounts of new budget authority, outlays, and
revenue in all fiscal years resulting from that provision shall
be treated as an emergency requirement for the purposes of this
Act.
(2) Designation in the House of Representatives.--If a PAYGO
Act includes a provision expressly designated as an emergency
for the purposes of this title, the Chair shall put the question
of consideration with respect thereto.
The question of consideration applies to an emergency designation
contained in an amendment between the Houses (in addition to a bill or
joint resolution) (e.g., May 28, 2010, p. 9882; July 22, 2010, p. 13735)
but not to a measure considered under suspension of the rules (e.g.,
Feb. 25, 2010, p. 1924; July 30, 2014, p. 13654). Failure of the Chair
to put the question of consideration of a measure under this provision
may be overtaken by subsequent action of the House on the measure (July
1, 2010, p. 12558). When a bill is considered pursuant to a unanimous-
consent request, the Chair does not put the question of consideration
thereon (Sept. 11, 2017, p. _). Where a measure contained an emergency
designation under section 4(g)(1) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of
2010 and an emergency designation for purposes of pay-as-you-go
principles under clause 10(c) of rule XXI, the Chair put a single
question of consideration with respect thereto pending consideration of
the measure (e.g., May 28, 2010, p. 9882).
Precedence of motions
4. <> (a) When a
question is under debate, only the following motions may be entertained
(which shall have precedence in the following order):
(1) To adjourn.
(2) To lay on the table.
(3) For the previous question.
(4) To postpone to a day certain.
(5) To refer.
(6) To amend.
(7) To postpone indefinitely.
(b) A motion to adjourn, to lay on the table, or for the previous
question shall be decided without debate. A motion to postpone to a day
certain, to refer, or to postpone indefinitely, being
[[Page [728]]]
decided, may not be allowed again on the same day at the same stage of
the question.
(c)(1) It shall be in order at any time for the Speaker, in the
discretion of the Speaker, to entertain a motion--
(A) that the Speaker be authorized to declare a recess; or
(B) that when the House adjourns it stand adjourned to a day and
time certain.
(2) Either motion shall be of equal privilege with the motion to
adjourn and shall be decided without debate.
The first form of this clause appeared in 1789, but amendments have
been made at various times (V, 5301; VIII, 2757). Paragraph (c) (former
final two sentences of the clause) was added in the 93d Congress to
enable a privileged, nondebatable motion to fix the adjournment (H. Res.
6, Jan. 3, 1973, pp. 26-27), and amended in the 102d Congress to enable
a privileged, nondebatable motion for recess authority (H. Res. 5, Jan.
3, 1991, p. 39). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). When the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, the provision of this clause
addressing the motion for the previous question was transferred to
clause 2 of rule XIX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The application of the first sentence of the clause is confined to
cases wherein a question is ``under debate'' (V, 5379). It has been held
that a question ceases to be ``under debate'' after the previous
question has been ordered (V, 5415). For a discussion of the motion for
the previous question, see Sec. Sec. 994-1000, infra.
The <> motion to adjourn not
only has the highest precedence when a question is under debate, but,
with certain restrictions, it has the highest privilege under all other
conditions. Even the following yield to it: (1) a question of privilege
(III, 2521), including a resolution considered to be a ``question of
high constitutional privilege'' such as one declaring the Office of
Speaker vacant and to direct the House to proceed at once to the
election of a new Speaker (VIII, 2641); (2) the filing of a privileged
report pursuant to former clause 4(a) of rule XI (current clause 5 of
rule XIII) (Apr. 29, 1985, p. 9699); (3) a motion to suspend the rules
(Aug. 11, 1992, p. 23086); (4) a motion to reconsider (V, 5605; see also
clause 3 of rule XIX); (5) in the absence of a quorum, the motion for a
call of the House (VIII, 2642); (6) a motion to dispense with further
proceedings under the call (VIII, 2643); (7) a mo
[[Page [729]]]
tion directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest absentees during a call of
the House (June 6, 1973, p. 18403). A conference report may defer it
only until the report is before the House (V, 6451-6453).
Pursuant to clause 6(b) of rule XIII or clause 1(b) of rule XV, only
one motion to adjourn is in order pending consideration of a privileged
report from the Committee on Rules or a motion that the House suspend
the rules, respectively. The motion may be made: (1) after the yeas and
nays are ordered and before the roll call has begun (V, 5366); (2)
before the reading of the Journal (IV, 2757) or the Speaker's approval
thereof (Speaker Wright, Nov. 2, 1987, p. 30386); (3) pending a motion
to reconsider (Sept. 20, 1979, p. 25512); (4) after the House rejects a
motion to table a motion to instruct conferees and before the vote
occurs on the motion to instruct (May 29, 1980, pp. 12717-19); (5) when
the Speaker is absent and the Clerk is presiding (I, 228). The motion to
adjourn may not interrupt a Member who has the floor (V, 5369, 5370;
VIII, 2646; Mar. 25, 1993, p. 6373; Oct. 1, 1997, p. 20902) including,
for example, by virtue of unanimous-consent permission to announce to
the House the legislative program (Dec. 14, 1982, p. 30549). It may not:
(1) interrupt a call of the yeas and nays (V, 6053) or the actual act of
voting by other means (V, 5360); (2) be made after the House has voted
to go into Committee of the Whole (IV, 4728; V, 5367, 5368); (3) defer
the right of a Member to take the oath (I, 622); (4) be repeated in the
absence of intervening business (Speaker Albert, July 31, 1975, p.
26243). When no question is under debate it may not displace a motion to
fix the day to which the House shall adjourn (V, 5381). The motion to
adjourn is not available when the previous question has been ordered by
special rule to final passage without intervening motion (IV, 3211-3213,
June 14, 2001, p. 10725; Apr. 18, 2002, p. 4969). A Member's mere
revelation that the Member seeks to offer a motion to adjourn does not
suffice to make that motion ``pending,'' and thus the Chair remains able
to declare a recess under clause 12(a) of rule I (Oct. 28, 1997, p.
23524; June 25, 2003, p. 16241; July 13, 2009, p. 17493). Where a Member
prefaced a motion to adjourn with remarks in the nature of debate, the
Chair advised that the Member had not been recognized for debate and
queried for a motion (Dec. 8, 2015, p. 19606).
When the House has fixed the hour of daily meeting, the simple motion
to adjourn may not be amended (V, 5754), whether by specifying a
particular day (V, 5360) or hour (V, 5364) (but see Sec. 913, infra, for
a discussion of the equally privileged motion to fix the day and time to
which the House shall adjourn); or by stating the purposes of
adjournment (V, 5371, 5372; VIII, 2647). However, when the hour of daily
meeting is not fixed, the motion to adjourn may fix it (V, 5362, 5363).
A motion to adjourn is in order in simple form only (VIII, 2647), is not
debatable (V, 5359; Feb. 13, 2002, p. 1291), may not be laid on the
table (Aug. 3, 1990, p. 22195), is not in order in the Committee of the
Whole (IV, 4716), and is not entertained when the Committee of the Whole
rises to report proceedings incident to securing a quorum (VI, 673;
VIII, 2436). After the motion is made
[[Page [730]]]
neither another motion nor an appeal may intervene before the taking of
the vote (V, 5361). When the House adopts the motion to adjourn, it must
adjourn immediately; and a unanimous-consent request that the House
proceed to the calling of special-order speeches is not in order (Sept.
27, 1993, p. 22608).
The <> motion to fix the day and time to which the House shall
adjourn, in its present form, was included in this clause and given
privileged status in the 93d Congress (H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 1973, p. 26).
At several times during the 19th century, the motion to fix the day to
which the House should adjourn was included within the rule as to the
precedence of motions but was dropped because of its use in obstructive
tactics (V, 5301, 5379). The following precedent relates to the use of
the motion in its earlier form: No question being under debate, a motion
to fix the day to which the House should adjourn, already made, was held
not to give way to a motion to adjourn (V, 5381). But if the motion to
adjourn be made first, the motion to fix the day or for a recess is not
entertained (V, 5302). The motion to fix the day is not debatable (V,
5379, 5380; VIII, 2648, 3367), requires a quorum for adoption (IV, 2954;
June 19, 1975, p. 19789; June 22, 1976, p. 19755), and is only in order
if offered on the day on which the adjournment applies (Sept. 23, 1976,
p. 32104). The House may convene and adjourn twice on the same calendar
day pursuant to a motion under this clause that when the House adjourn
it adjourn to a time certain later in the day, thereby meeting for two
legislative days on the same calendar day (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27771;
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 1, Sec. 9.1). When the Speaker exercises
discretion to entertain at any time a motion that when the House adjourn
it stand adjourned to a day and time certain, the motion is of equal
privilege with the simple motion to adjourn and takes precedence over a
pending question on which the vote has been objected to for lack of a
quorum (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770). The motion is not subject to the
motion to lay on the table because it is not debatable and the
precedence conferred on the motion to table only applies to a question
that is ``under debate'' (Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770).
Under the express terms of clause 4, the motion to authorize the
Speaker to declare a recess is nondebatable and has equal privilege with
the motion to adjourn. The House (without the consent of the Senate) may
authorize the Speaker to declare a recess for up to three days (Dec. 15,
1995, p. 37102).
The <> motion to lay on
the table is used in the House for a final, adverse disposition of a
matter without debate (V, 5389), and is in order before the Member
entitled to prior recognition for debate has begun remarks (V, 5391-
5395; VIII, 2649, 2650). Under the explicit terms of this clause, the
motion is not debatable (Oct. 17, 1991, p. 26754). The motion is
applicable to a motion to reconsider (VIII, 2652, 2659), a motion to
postpone to a day certain (VIII, 2654, 2657), a resolution presenting a
question of privilege (VI, 560),
[[Page [731]]]
a privileged resolution offered at the direction of a party caucus
electing Members to committees (Feb. 5, 1997, p. 1541), an appeal from a
decision of the Chair (VIII, 3453; June 22, 2006, p. 12299), a motion to
discharge a committee from a resolution of inquiry (VI, 415), a proposal
to investigate with a view to impeachment (VI, 541), a concurrent
resolution to adjourn sine die (Mar. 27, 1936, p. 4512), a Senate
amendment in disagreement (Mar. 3, 2015, pp. 3114, 3115), and a
resolution to expel a Member (Oct. 1, 1976, p. 35111). But a question of
privilege (affecting the right of a Member to a seat) that has been laid
on the table may be taken therefrom on motion made and agreed to by the
House (V, 5438). The motion to lay on the table has the precedence given
it by the rule, but may not be made after the previous question is
ordered (V, 5415-5422; VIII, 2655), or even after the yeas and nays have
been ordered on the demand for the previous question (V, 5408); but
pending the demand for the previous question on a motion that is under
debate, the motion to lay the primary motion on the table is
preferential and is voted on first (Speaker Albert, Sept. 22, 1976, pp.
31876-82; Speaker O'Neill, July 10, 1985, pp. 18397-18400). The previous
question having been ordered on a bill to final passage, the motion to
lay the bill on the table may not then be offered pending a motion to
reconsider the vote whereby the bill had been passed or rejected (Sept.
20, 1979, p. 25512).
When a bill is laid on the table, pending motions connected therewith
go to the table also (V, 5426, 5427); and when a proposed amendment is
laid on the table the pending bill goes there also (V, 5423; VIII,
2656), and if a pending amendment to a special order reported from the
Committee on Rules were tabled, it would carry the resolution with it
and is thus considered dilatory under former clause 4(b) of rule XI
(current clause 6(b) of rule XIII) (Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575). This rule
holds true as to a House bill with Senate amendments (V, 5424, 6201-
6203; Sept. 28, 1978, p. 32334), but laying on the table the motion to
postpone consideration of Senate amendments was held not to carry to the
table pending motions for their disposition (VIII, 2657). The Journal
does not accompany a proposed amendment to the table (V, 5435, 5436);
the original question does not accompany an appeal (V, 5434); a
resolution does not accompany a preamble or another resolution with
which it is connected (V, 5428, 5430); a petition does not accompany the
motion to receive it when the latter is laid on the table (V, 5431-
5433); and a bill does not accompany a motion to instruct conferees that
is laid on the table (VIII, 2658).
A motion to lay on the table a motion to reconsider the vote by which
an amendment to a resolution had been agreed to would not carry the
resolution to the table (VIII, 2652).
The motion is not in order in the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4719,
4720; VIII, 2330, 2556a, 3455; Mar. 16, 1995, p. 8112; July 21, 1999, p.
17054) and does not apply to motions to resolve into the Committee of
the Whole (VI, 726). It may not be amended (V, 5754), for example, to
operate for a specified time (Oct. 17, 1991, p. 26754).
[[Page [732]]]
The motion to lay on the table generally is not applicable to motions
that are neither debatable nor amendable. As such, it is not applicable
to the following motions: (1) to adjourn (Aug. 3, 1990, p. 22195); (2)
that when the House adjourn it stand adjourned to a day and time certain
(Nov. 17, 1981, p. 27770); (3) to dispense with further proceedings
under a call of the House (Speaker McCormack, Aug. 27, 1962, pp. 17651-
54); (4) to order the previous question (V, 5410, 5411; Oct. 4, 1994, p.
27649). Furthermore, the motion may not be applied to: (1) a motion to
suspend the rules (V, 5405); (2) a motion to commit after the previous
question is ordered (V, 5412-5414; VIII, 2653, 2655); (3) any motion
relating to the order of business (V, 5403, 5404). It may not be applied
to a motion to discharge a committee under former clause 3 of rule XXVII
(current clause 2 of rule XV) (June 11, 1945, p. 5892) but may be
applied to the motion to discharge a committee from consideration of a
resolution of inquiry (V, 5407).
The motion to lay on the table is applicable to debatable secondary or
privileged motions for disposal of another matter; thus a motion to
refer (V, 5433; Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78) or a motion to
recede and concur in a Senate amendment in disagreement may be laid on
the table (Speaker O'Neill, Feb. 22, 1978, p. 4072) without carrying the
pending matter to the table. The motion is not applicable to a
conference report (V, 6540).
<> The
precedents relating to the motion for the previous question are
annotated in Sec. Sec. 994-1000.
As <> indicated in the rule,
the motions to postpone are two in number and distinct. The first one is
to postpone to a day certain, and the second one is to postpone
indefinitely. Each must apply to the whole and not a part of the pending
proposition (V, 5306). Neither may be entertained after the previous
question is ordered (V, 5319-5321; VIII, 2616, 2617), or be applied to a
special order providing for the consideration of a class of bills (V,
4958); but when a bill comes before the House under the terms of a
special order that assigns a day merely, a motion to postpone may be
applied to the bill (IV, 3177-3182). Business postponed to a day certain
is in order on that day immediately after the approval of the Journal
and disposition of business on the Speaker's table, unless displaced by
more highly privileged business (VIII, 2614). If consideration of a
measure postponed to a day certain resumes as unfinished business in the
House, recognition for debate does not begin anew but recommences from
the point where it was interrupted (June 10, 1980, p. 13801). It is not
in order to move to postpone pending business to Calendar Wednesday
(VIII, 2614), but if so postponed by consent, when consideration is
concluded on that Wednesday, proceedings under the Calendar Wednesday
rule are in order (VII, 970). The motion is not available in the
Committee of the Whole (July 14, 1998, p. 15305), but a motion that a
bill be reported with the
[[Page [733]]]
recommendation that it be postponed is in order in the Committee of the
Whole proceeding under the general rules of the House (IV, 4765; VIII,
2372), is debatable (VIII, 2372), and is a preferential motion (VIII,
2372, 2615), but debate is confined to the advisability of postponement
only (VIII, 2372). The House has postponed, along with the underlying
matter, an appeal from a decision of the Chair thereon (VIII, 2613). A
bill under consideration in the morning hour may not be made a special
order by a motion to postpone to a day certain (IV, 3164).
The motion to postpone to a day certain may not specify the hour (V,
5307). The motion may be amended (V, 5754; VIII, 2824). It is debatable
only within narrow limits (V, 5309, 5310), the merits of the bill to
which it is applied not being within those limits (V, 5311-5315; VIII,
2372, 2616, 2640).
The motion to postpone indefinitely opens to debate all the merits of
the proposition to which it is applied (V, 5316). It may not be applied
to the motion to refer (V, 5317), the motion to suspend the rules (V,
5322), or the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole (VI,
726), and it is reasonable to infer that it is equally inapplicable to
the other motions enumerated in the rule and to motions relating to the
order of business. However, the motion to postpone indefinitely may be
applied to the motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole pursuant to the provisions of a statute, enacted under the
rulemaking power of the House of Representatives, that specifically
allows such a motion in the consideration of a resolution disapproving a
certain executive action (Mar. 10, 1977, p. 7021; Aug. 3, 1977, p.
26528).
The <> parliamentary motion to
refer is explicitly recognized and given status in three different
situations under House rules: the ordinary motion provided for in this
clause; the motion to recommit (or commit, as the case may be), without
instructions, pending the motion for or after ordering of the previous
question as provided in clause 2 of rule XIX (V, 5569); and the motion
to refer, with or without instructions, pending a vote in the House to
strike the enacting clause as provided in clause 9 of rule XVIII. The
terms ``refer,'' ``commit,'' and ``recommit'' are sometimes used
interchangeably (V, 5521; VIII, 2736), but when used in the precise
manner and situation contemplated in each rule reflect certain
differences based upon whether the question to which applied is ``under
debate,'' whether the motion itself is debatable, whether a minority
Member or a Member opposed to the question to which the motion is
applied is entitled to a priority of recognition, and whether the
prohibition against a special order reported from the Committee on Rules
denying a motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution pending final
passage is applicable. For a discussion of the motion to recommit, see
the annotations under clause 2 of rule XIX. The motion may not be used
in direct form in the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4721; VIII, 2326); and
if a bill is being considered under the provisions of a resolution
stating that ``at the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for
amend
[[Page [734]]]
ment under the five-minute rule the Committee shall rise and report the
bill back to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted,''
a motion that the Committee rise and report to the House with the
recommendation that the bill be recommitted to the legislative committee
reporting it is not in order (Aug. 10, 1950, p. 12219). It may be made
after the engrossment and third reading of a bill, even though the
previous question may not have been ordered (V, 5562, 5563).
If the previous question is rejected on a preferential motion to
dispose of Senate amendments in disagreement, the preferential motion
remains ``under debate'' and the motion to refer may be offered under
this clause (Speaker Albert, Sept. 16, 1976, p. 30887). Where a motion
for the previous question on a resolution has preempted a pending motion
to refer such resolution, the motion to refer remains pending and
debatable under the hour rule upon rejection of the motion for the
previous question (Apr. 22, 2010, p. 6084). A motion to refer takes
precedence over a motion to amend when a question is under debate (such
as where the previous question has been rejected), and the Chair
recognizes the Member seeking to offer the preferential motion before
the less preferential motion is read (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-
78).
The simple motion to refer under the first sentence of this clause is
debatable within narrow limits (V, 5054) and may be offered by any
Member (who need not qualify as being in opposition to the pending
question) when that question is ``under debate,'' i.e., when the
previous question has not been moved or ordered, but the merits of the
proposition sought to be referred may not be brought into the debate (V,
5564-5568; VI, 65, 549; VIII, 2740). The motion to refer with
instructions is also debatable (V, 5561); but the previous question is
preferential (Mar. 22, 1990, p. 4997).
The <> motion
to refer may specify that the reference shall be to a select as well as
a standing committee (IV, 4401) without regard for rules of jurisdiction
(IV, 4375; V, 5527) and may provide for reference to another committee
than that reporting the bill (VIII, 2696, 2736), or to the Committee of
the Whole (V, 5552, 5553), and even that the committee be endowed with
power to send for persons and papers (IV, 4402). Unless the previous
question is ordered the motion may be amended (VIII, 2712, 2738) in part
(V, 5754); by substitute (VIII, 2698, 2738, 2759); or by adding
instructions (V, 5521, 5570, 5582-5584; VIII, 2695, 2762; Aug. 13, 1982,
pp. 20969, 20975-78).
The <> rule specifies that the
motions to postpone and refer shall not be repeated on the same day at
the same stage of the question (V, 5301, 5591; VIII, 2738, 2760). As a
matter of practice, a motion to adjourn may be repeated only after
intervening business (V, 5373; VIII, 2814), debate (V, 5374), the
ordering of the yeas and nays (V, 5376, 5377), decision of the Chair on
a question of order (V, 5378), or reception of a message (V, 5375). The
motion to lay on the table may also be repeated after intervening
business (V, 5398-
[[Page [735]]]
5400); but the ordering of the previous question (V, 5709), a call of
the House (V, 5401), or decision of a question of order have been held
not to be such intervening business, it being essential that the pending
matter be carried to a new stage in order to permit a repetition of the
motion (V, 5709).
Divisibility
5. <> (a) Except as provided in
paragraph (b), a question shall be divided on the demand of a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner before the question is put if it
includes propositions so distinct in substance that, one being taken
away, a substantive proposition remains.
(b)(1) A motion or resolution to elect members to a standing committee
of the House, or to a joint standing committee, is not divisible.
(2) A resolution or order reported by the Committee on Rules providing
a special order of business is not divisible.
(c) <> A
motion to strike and insert is not divisible, but rejection of a motion
to strike does not preclude another motion to amend.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) (former clause 6) were first adopted in 1789,
and were amended in 1837 (V, 6107). Paragraph (b)(1) (first part of the
former proviso) was adopted April 2, 1917 (VIII, 2175), and paragraph
(b)(2) (last part of the former proviso) was adopted May 3, 1933 (VIII,
3164). Paragraph (c) (first part of former clause 7) was adopted in
1811, and amended in 1822 (V, 5767). When the House recodified its rules
in the 106th Congress, former clause 5 of this rule (requiring time of
adjournment to be entered on the Journal) was transferred to clause
2(c)(2) of rule II, paragraphs (a) and (b) were found in former clause
6, and paragraph (c) was found in the first part of former clause 7 (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The House may by adoption of a resolution reported from the Committee
on Rules suspend the rule providing for the division of a question (VII,
775).
[[Page [736]]]
The <> principle that there must be at least two substantive
propositions in order to justify division is insisted on rigidly (V,
6108-6113), because failure to do so produces difficulties (III, 1725).
The question may not be divided after it has been put (V, 6162), or
after the yeas and nays have been ordered (V, 6160, 6161); but division
of the question may be demanded after the previous question is ordered
(V, 5468, 6149; VIII, 3173). In passing on a demand for division the
Chair considers only substantive propositions and not the merits of the
question presented (V, 6122). It seems to be most proper, also, that the
division should depend on grammatical structure rather than on the
legislative propositions involved (I, 394; V, 6119), but a question
presenting two propositions grammatically is not divisible if either
does not constitute a substantive proposition when considered alone
(VII, 3165). Thus a resolution censuring a Member and adopting a report
of a committee thereon, which recommends censure on the basis of the
committee's findings, is not divisible because those questions are
substantially equivalent (Speaker O'Neill, Oct. 13, 1978, p. 37016); and
an adjournment resolution that also authorizes the receipt of veto
messages from the President during the adjournment is not subject to a
division of the question, because the receipt authority would be
nonsensical standing alone (June 30, 1976, p. 21702). However, a
concurrent resolution on the budget is subject to a demand for a
division of the question if, for example, the resolution grammatically
and substantively relates to different fiscal years (May 7, 1980, pp.
10185-87), or includes a separate, hortatory section having its own
grammatical and substantive meaning (Speaker Foley, Mar. 5, 1992, p.
4657).
Decisions have been made that a resolution affecting two individuals
may be divided, although such division may involve a reconstruction of
the text (I, 623; V, 6119-6121). The better practice seems to be,
however, that this reconstruction of the text should be made by the
adoption of a substitute amendment of two branches, rather than by
interpretation of the Chair (II, 1621). But merely formal words, such as
``resolved,'' may be supplied by interpretation of the Chair (V, 6114-
6118). A resolution with two resolving clauses separately certifying the
contemptuous conduct of two individuals is divisible (Feb. 27, 1986, p.
3040); as is a resolution with one resolving clause certifying
contemptuous conduct of several individuals (Oct. 27, 2000, p. 25200;
contrast, Deschler-Brown, ch. 30, Sec. 49.1). A measure containing a
series of simple resolutions (V, 6149), and a resolution confirming
several nominations (Speaker Albert, Mar. 19, 1975, p. 7344) may be
divided. A resolution of impeachment presenting discrete articles may be
divided (VI, 545; Dec. 18, 1998, p. 11064; June 19, 2009, pp. 15754,
15759-61; Mar. 11, 2010, p. 3153; Dec. 18, 2019, p. _).
Except on resolutions to elect Members to committees or on resolutions
reported from the Committee on Rules providing a special order of
business, where division of the question is prohibited by this clause, a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules may be divided if
otherwise appro
[[Page [737]]]
priate. Thus a resolution reported from that committee establishing
several select committees in grammatically divisible titles, not being a
special order of business, is subject to a demand for a division of the
question (Jan. 8, 1987, p. 1036). However, it is not in order to demand
a division of a subject incorporated by reference in the pending text,
as when a resolution to adopt a series of rules, not made a part of the
resolution, was before the House, it was held not in order to demand a
separate vote on each rule (V, 6159).
The question on engrossment and third reading under former clause 1 of
rule XXI (current clause 8(c) of rule XVI) is not divisible (Speaker
Foley, Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18544); and in voting on the engrossment or
passage of a bill or joint resolution, a separate vote may not be
demanded on the various portions (V, 6144-6146; VIII, 3172), or on the
preamble (V, 6147).
Where an amendment is offered to an appropriation bill providing that
no part of the appropriation may be paid to named individuals, the
amendment may be divided for a separate vote on each name (Feb. 5, 1943,
p. 645). An amendment (to a joint resolution making continuing
appropriations) containing separate paragraphs appropriating funds for
different programs may be substantively and grammatically divisible
although preceded by the same prefatory language applicable to all the
paragraphs, and the Clerk will read each paragraph as including the
prefatory language before the Chair puts the question thereon (Nov. 8,
1983, p. 31495). A division may be demanded on an amendment to strike
various unrelated phrases (VIII, 3166; Mar. 28, 1984, p. 6898). An
amendment proposing to change a figure in one paragraph of an
appropriation bill and also to insert a new (``fetch-back'') paragraph
at another point in the bill is divisible (July 15, 1993, p. 15843).
Absent a contrary order, the question may be divided on amendments en
bloc comprising discrete instructions to amend, even though unanimous
consent has just been granted for the en bloc consideration (July 25,
1990, p. 19174; July 18, 1991, p. 18851).
A division of the question may not be demanded on a motion to strike
and insert (V, 5767, 6123; VIII, 3169), including substitutes for
pending amendments (V, 6127; VIII, 3168; Aug. 17, 1972, pp. 28887-90;
July 2, 1980, pp. 18288-92), although an amendment comprising two
discrete instructions to strike and insert may be divided (June 4, 1998,
p. 5418) and a perfecting amendment to an amendment may be divided if
not in the form of a motion to strike and insert (V, 6131). When it is
proposed to strike and insert not one but several connected matters, it
is not in order to demand a separate vote on each of those matters (V,
6124, 6125), as when an amendment in the nature of a substitute
containing several resolutions is proposed; but after this amendment has
been agreed to, it is in order to demand a division of the original
resolution as amended (V, 6127, 6128). When, however, an amendment
simply adding or inserting is proposed, it is in order to divide the
amendment (V, 6129-6133). To a motion to strike certain words and insert
others, a simple motion to strike the words may not be offered as a
substitute, because it would have
[[Page [738]]]
the effect of dividing the motion to strike and insert (June 29, 1939,
pp. 8282, 8284; June 19, 1979, pp. 15566-68).
A division may be demanded on the motion to recede from disagreement
to a Senate amendment and concur therein (see Sec. 525, supra; V, 6209;
VIII, 3197-3199, 3203), but may not be demanded on Senate amendments
when sending to conference (V, 6151-6156; VIII, 3175). A division of the
question may not be demanded, with respect to a motion to concur in a
Senate amendment with an amendment, between concurring and amending
(VIII, 3176), and may not be demanded on separate parts of the proposed
amendment if it is not properly divisible under the same tests that
apply to any other amendment (Aug. 3, 1973, pp. 28124-26; Oct. 11, 1984,
p. 32188). Thus a proposed amendment to a Senate amendment is not
divisible if in the form of a motion to strike and insert (Oct. 15,
1986, p. 32135). Each Senate amendment must be voted on as a whole
(VIII, 3175) but the Committee of the Whole having reported a Senate
amendment with the recommendation that it be agreed to with an
amendment, a separate vote was had on the amendment to the Senate
amendment (VIII, 2420). When Senate amendments to a House bill are
considered in the House, a separate vote may be had on each amendment
(VIII, 2383, 2400, 3191), and separate votes may be had on nongermane
portions of Senate amendments as provided in clause 10 of rule XXII.
It is not in order to divide a motion to lay several connected
propositions on the table (V, 6138-6140). Similarly, it is not in order
to divide a motion for the previous question on two related
propositions, as on a special order reported from the Committee on Rules
and a pending amendment thereto (Sept. 25, 1990, p. 25575). An appeal
from a decision of the Speaker involving two distinct questions may be
divided (V, 6157).
On a motion to commit with instructions it was not in order to demand
a separate vote on the instructions or various branches thereof (V,
6134-6137; VIII, 2737, 3170; Speaker Rayburn, Apr. 11, 1956, p. 6157;
June 29, 1993, p. 14618). However, an amendment reported forthwith
pursuant to instructions contained in a successful motion to recommit
was divided on the question of its adoption when composed of
substantively and grammatically distinct propositions (June 29, 1993, p.
14618; May 28, 2010, p. 9946). A motion to recommit a bill to conference
with various instructions was not divisible (Sept. 29, 1994, p. 27681).
However, a motion to instruct conferees under clause 7(c) of rule XXII
(when multiple motions are in order) may be divided (Speaker Byrns, May
26, 1936, p. 7951; Sept. 20, 2000, p. 18622), provided that separate
substantive propositions are presented (Speaker Rayburn, May 9, 1946, p.
4750). A conference report is considered as a whole (Oct. 8, 2009, p.
24376).
A division of the question may not be demanded on bills or joint
resolutions for reference (IV, 4376) or change of reference (VII, 2125),
a motion to elect Members to committees of the House (VIII, 2175, 3164),
a question against which a point of order is pending (VIII, 3432), or a
proposition under a motion to suspend the rules (V, 6141-6143; VIII,
3171). A propo
[[Page [739]]]
sition reported from the Committee of the Whole as an entire and
distinct amendment may not be divided (IV, 4883-4892). A separate vote
may not be demanded in the House on an amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to an amendment (VIII, 2422, 2426, 2427).
After the vote on the first portion of the question, the second is
open to debate and amendment, unless the previous question is ordered
(see Sec. 482, supra). If a motion to concur in a Senate amendment is
divided pursuant to a special rule, the Chair puts the question first on
the first portion of the Senate amendment, and then on the remaining
portion (Mar. 4, 1993, p. 4163), and even if one portion of a Senate
amendment is rejected, the Chair puts the question on any remaining
portion (where the special rule provides that rejection of any portion
marks no disposition of the question) (June 12, 2015, p. 9533). If a
division of the question is demanded on a portion of an amendment, the
Chair puts the question first on the remaining portions of the
amendment, and that portion on which the division is demanded remains
open for further debate and amendment (Oct. 21, 1981, pp. 24785-89).
However, if no further debate or amendment is in order on the divided
portion, the Chair may put the question first on the divided portion(s)
and then immediately on the remaining portion (Aug. 17, 1972, Deschler,
ch. 27, Sec. 22.14; June 8, 1995, p. 15302). If a division of the
question is demanded on more than one portion of an amendment, the Chair
may put the question first on the remaining portions of the amendment
(if any), then (after further debate) on the first part on which a
division is demanded, and then (after further debate) on the last part
on which a division is demanded (Oct. 21, 1981, pp. 24785-89). If the
question on adopting an amendment is divided by special rule (rather
than on demand from the floor), the Chair puts the question on each
divided portion of the amendment in the order in which it appears (May
23, 1996, p. 12316).
A demand for a division of the question on a separate portion of an
amendment may be withdrawn before the question is put on the first
portion thereof (July 15, 1993, p. 15843), but once the Chair has put
the question on the first portion of the amendment, a demand for a
division may be withdrawn only by unanimous consent (Sept. 9, 1976, pp.
29538-40).
Amendments
6. <> When an amendable
proposition is under consideration, a motion to amend and a motion to
amend that amendment shall be in order, and it also shall be in order to
offer a further amendment by way of substitute for the original motion
to amend, to which one amendment may be offered but which
[[Page [740]]]
may not be voted on until the original amendment is perfected. An
amendment may be withdrawn in the House at any time before a decision or
amendment thereon. An amendment to the title of a bill or resolution
shall not be in order until after its passage or adoption, shall be in
order only if offered by the Majority Leader or a designee, and shall be
decided without debate.
This provision (formerly rule XIX) was adopted in 1880, with an
amendment adding the portion in relation to the title in 1893. The rule
of 1880, however, merely stated in form of rule what had been the
practice of the House for many years (V, 5753). In the 117th Congress,
this provision was amended to restrict the ability to offer an amendment
to the title of a measure to the Majority Leader or a designee (sec.
2(u), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former rule XIX
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). For further discussion see Deschler,
ch. 27, Sec. Sec. 15-19.
It <> is not in
order to offer more than one motion to amend of the same nature at a
time (V, 5755; VIII, 2831), but the four motions specified by the rule
may be pending at the same time (V, 5793; VIII, 2883, 2887). Where,
pursuant to a special rule, a committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute is being read as original text for purpose of amendment,
there may be pending to that text the four stages of amendment permitted
by this rule (Apr. 23, 1969, p. 10066). When a request for a recorded
vote in the Committee of the Whole is postponed under authority of a
special order of the House (such authority now found in clause 6(g) of
rule XVIII), the amendment becomes unfinished business and is no longer
pending, thereby permitting the offering of another amendment (May 10,
2000, p. 7513). An amendment in the third degree is not specified by the
rule and is not permissible (V, 5754; VIII, 2580, 2888, 2891), even when
the third degree is in the nature of a substitute for an amendment to a
substitute (V, 5791; VIII, 2889).
An amendment must contain instructions to the Clerk as to the portion
of the bill it seeks to amend and is subject to a point of order if not
in proper form (Oct. 3, 1985, p. 25970). An amendment may not propose to
change portions of a measure not yet read for amendment (Mar. 24, 1999,
p. 5418; Apr. 29, 2015, p. 5849). Under a ``modified-closed'' rule
permitting only amendments printed in the report accompanying the rule,
the Chair will permit an amendment to be offered in the form actually
submitted for printing rather than requiring that it be offered in the
erroneous form printed (Mar. 10, 1994, p. 4405). The Chair does not
entertain a unanimous-consent request to add a co-offeror of an
amendment (May 20, 2004,
[[Page [741]]]
p. 10631; Sept. 14, 2004, p. 18429; Apr. 29, 2015, pp. 5861-63) or to
change the offeror of a pending amendment (Apr. 29, 2015, pp. 5861-63).
A Member may not amend or modify his or her own amendment except by
unanimous consent (Oct. 1, 1985, p. 25453); and if the Chair recognizes
the proponent of an amendment to propound such a unanimous-consent
request before commencing debate, the Chair does not charge time
consumed under a reservation of objection against the proponent's time
for debate on the amendment (Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1978; May 27, 1993, p.
11849). Under the five-minute rule, the proponent of an amendment may
not yield to another to offer an amendment to the amendment; rather an
amendment to the amendment may be offered after the proponent of the
pending amendment has explained it (Sept. 7, 1995, p. 24071).
Two independent amendments may be voted on at once only by unanimous
consent of the House (V, 5979). Amendments en bloc, once pending, are
open to perfecting amendment at any point (June 12, 1991, p. 14337). If
a point of order is sustained against a discrete portion of an en bloc
amendment, the entire en bloc amendment may not be considered; however,
each constituent amendment may be offered separately if otherwise in
order (Sept. 16, 1981, pp. 20735-38). An amendment considered with
others en bloc and rejected may be offered separately at a subsequent
time (Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 35.15; Nov. 4, 1991, p. 29932).
The substitute provided for in this rule has been construed as a
substitute for the amendment and not as a substitute for the original
text (VIII, 2883). A substitute amendment may be amended by striking all
after its first word and inserting a new text (V, 5793, 5794). Although
this is in effect a substitute, it is not technically so. A substitute
always proposes to replace all the words of a pending amendment. The
amendatory instructions contained in a substitute direct changes to be
made in the original language rather than to the pending amendment.
Although a substitute may change parts of a bill not changed by the
pending amendment, the substitute must be germane to the pending
amendment (VIII, 2879, 2880; Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 18.6). A substitute
may result in similar language to the original text proposed to be
changed by the pending amendment, but may not result in identical
language (Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 18.15). To an amendment adding a new
section, an amendment making perfecting changes in the bill rather than
in the amendment is not a proper perfecting amendment, but may, if
germane, be offered as a substitute for the amendment (Deschler, ch. 27,
Sec. 18.7). The Chair will not look behind the form of the amendment in
determining whether it is perfecting or a substitute (June 13, 1994, p.
12731). Once a perfecting amendment to an amendment is disposed of, the
original amendment, as amended or not, remains open to further
perfecting amendment (June 20, 1991, p. 15610); and all such amendments
are disposed of before voting on substitutes for the original amendment
and amendments thereto (July 26, 1984, p. 21253).
An amendment offered as a substitute and rejected may again be offered
as an original amendment without presenting an equivalent question. In
[[Page [742]]]
the first case the question is the relationship between the substitute
and the amendment to which offered, and in the second case the question
is the relationship between the original amendment and the text of the
bill (V, 5797; VIII, 2843). An amendment that is adopted as amended by a
substitute may not be reoffered in its original form if it would
directly change the amended portion of the bill. However, it may be
reoffered if the original amendment amends a different part of the bill
(as in the case in which the amendatory instructions of the substitute
displace the language of the original amendment). In such a case the
vote on the amendment as amended by the substitute is not equivalent to
a direct vote on the original amendment (June 25, 1987, p. 17416). An
amendment considered with others en bloc and rejected may be offered
separately at a subsequent time (Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 35.15; Nov. 4,
1991, p. 29932).
An amendment in the nature of a substitute always proposes to strike
all after the enacting or resolving words in order to insert a new text
(V, 5785, footnote). An amendment in the nature of a substitute may be
proposed before amendments to the pending portion of original text have
been acted on, but may not be voted on until such amendments have been
disposed of (V, 5787). When a bill is considered by sections or
paragraphs an amendment in the nature of a substitute is properly
offered after the reading for amendment is concluded (V, 5788). However,
when it is proposed to offer a single substitute for several paragraphs
of a bill that is being considered by paragraph, the substitute may be
moved to the first paragraph, with notice that, if agreed to, motions
will be made to strike the remaining paragraphs (V, 5795; VIII, 2898,
2900-2903; July 29, 1969, p. 21218). An amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as well as the original proposition, may be perfected by
amendments before the vote on it is taken (V, 5786). If there is pending
an amendment in the nature of a substitute, it is in order to offer a
perfecting amendment to the pending portion of original text (VIII,
2861; Apr. 27, 1976, p. 11411; see also Deschler, ch. 27, Sec. 5.34). An
amendment in the nature of a substitute having been agreed to, the vote
is then taken on the original proposition as amended (II, 983; V, 5799,
5800), and no further amendment is in order (Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 26,
1985, p. 6274). If a perfecting amendment to an amendment in the nature
of a substitute, striking all after the short title and inserting a new
text, is agreed to, further amendments to the text so perfected are not
in order, but amendments are in order to add new language at the end of
the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended (May 16, 1979, p.
11420).
Except <> as provided in clauses 4 and 5(a) of rule XXI, a point of order
against an amendment is timely if made or reserved before formal
recognition of the proponent to commence debate thereon (July 16, 1991,
p. 18391; July 15, 1997, pp. 14492, 14493), but thereafter comes too
late (V, 6894, 6898-6899) unless the Member was actively seeking
recognition for that purpose at the time the amendment was offered (July
28, 1995, p.
[[Page [743]]]
20897; May 25, 2006, p. 9823). To preclude a point of order, debate
should be on the merits of the proposition (V, 6901). The mere making of
a unanimous-consent request to dispense with the reading of an amendment
and to revise and extend remarks thereon is not such intervening
business as would render a point of order untimely under this clause, if
the Member making the point of order is actively seeking recognition
(July 16, 1991, p. 18391; see Deschler-Brown, ch. 31, Sec. Sec. 6.39,
6.41). When enough of an amendment has been read to show that it is out
of order, a point of order may be raised without waiting for the reading
to be completed (V, 6886-6887; VIII, 2912, 3437; July 9, 2009, p.
17310), though the Chair may decline to rule until the entire
proposition has been read (Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41716-18). A timely
reservation of a point of order by one Member inures to the benefit of
any other Member who desires to raise a point of order (V, 6906; July
18, 1990, p. 17930).
Although <> the
rule provides that either an ordinary or substitute amendment may be
withdrawn in the House (V, 5753) or ``in the House as in Committee of
the Whole'' (IV, 4935; June 26, 1973, p. 21315), it may not be withdrawn
or modified in the Committee of the Whole except by unanimous consent
(clause 5 of rule XVIII; V, 5221; VIII, 2564, 2859) unless withdrawal
authority has been conferred by the House (July 22, 1999, p. 17291; Apr.
3, 2003, pp. 8490, 8491; Nov. 7, 2007, p. 30353). An amendment that has
been ruled out of order may not thereafter be withdrawn (May 18, 2016,
p. _; May 25, 2016, p. _).
Pursuant <> to
clause 4 of rule XVI, the motion for the previous question takes
precedence over a motion to amend (Nov. 8, 1971, p. 39944); and if the
previous question is not ordered, the motion to refer also has
precedence over the motion to amend (V, 5555; VI, 373). Amendments
reported by a committee are acted on before those offered from the floor
(V, 5773; VIII, 2862, 2863), but a floor amendment to the text of a
pending section is considered before a committee amendment adding a new
section at the end of the pending section (Oct. 4, 1972, pp. 33779-82),
and there is a question as to the extent to which the chair of the
committee reporting a bill should be recognized preferentially to offer
amendments to perfect it over other Members (II, 1450). Amendments may
not be offered by proxy (VIII, 2830) or when another Member has the
floor (May 18, 2016, p. _). The motion to strike the enacting clause has
precedence over the motion to amend, and may be offered while an
amendment is pending (V, 5328-5331; VIII, 2622-2624); but, except as
provided in clause 2(d) of rule XXI, the motion to amend takes
precedence over a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report
the bill with the recommendation that it pass (July 27, 1937, p. 7699).
[[Page [744]]]
With <> some exceptions an amendment may attach itself to secondary
or privileged motions (V, 5754). Thus, the motions to postpone, refer,
amend, for a recess, and to fix the day to which the House shall adjourn
may be amended (V, 5754; VIII, 2824). But the motions for the previous
question, to lay on the table, to adjourn (V, 5754) and to go into
Committee of the Whole to consider a privileged bill may not be amended
(IV, 3078, 3079; VI, 723-725).
An amendment to the title of a bill is not in order in the Committee
of the Whole (Jan. 29, 1986, p. 682).
Germaneness
7. <> No motion or proposition on a
subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under
color of amendment.
This clause was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1822 (V, 5767, 5825).
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this clause
and clause 5(c) occupied a single former clause 7 (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47).
It introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary
law (V, 5825), but of high value in the procedure of the House (V,
5866). Before the adoption of rules, when the House is operating under
general parliamentary law, as modified by the usage and practice of the
House, an amendment may be subject to the point of order that it is not
germane to the proposition to which offered (Jan. 3, 1969, p. 23). The
principle of the rule applies to a proposition by which it is proposed
to modify the pending bill, and not to a portion of the bill itself (V,
6929); thus a point of order will not lie that an appropriation in a
general appropriation bill is not germane to the rest of the bill (Dec.
16, 1963, p. 24753). In general, an amendment simply striking words
already in a bill may not be ruled out as not germane (V, 5805; VIII,
2918) unless such action would expand the scope and meaning of the text
(VIII, 2917-2921; Mar. 23, 1960, p. 6381); and a pro forma amendment
``to strike the last word'' has been considered germane (July 28, 1965,
p. 18639). Although a committee may report a bill or resolution
embracing different subjects, it is not in order during consideration in
the House to introduce a new subject by way of amendment (V, 5825). The
rule that amendments should be germane applies to amendments reported by
committees (V, 5806), but a resolution providing for consideration of
the bill with committee amendments may waive points of order (Oct. 10,
1967, p. 28406), and the point of order under this rule does not apply
to a special order reported from the Committee on Rules ``self-
executing'' the adoption in the House of a nongermane amendment to a
bill, because the amendment is not separately before the
[[Page [745]]]
House during consideration of the special order (Feb. 24, 1993, p. 3542;
July 27, 1993, p. 17117). A resolution reported from the Committee on
Rules providing for the consideration of a bill relating to a certain
subject may be amended neither by an amendment that would substitute the
consideration of a different proposition (V, 5834-5836; VIII, 2956;
Sept. 14, 1950, p. 14844) nor by an amendment that would permit the
additional consideration of a nongermane amendment to the bill (May 29,
1980, pp. 12667-73; Aug. 13, 1982, p. 20972). The Chair will not
interpret as a point of order under a specific rule of the House an
objection to a substitute as narrowing the scope of a pending amendment,
absent some stated or necessarily implied reference to germaneness or
other rule (June 25, 1987, p. 17415). The burden of proof is on the
proponent of an amendment to establish its germaneness (VIII, 2995; July
10, 2000, p. 13605), and if an amendment is equally susceptible to more
than one interpretation, one of which will render it not germane, the
Chair will rule it out of order (June 20, 1975, p. 19967). The Chair
will not render an advisory opinion on whether a pending amendment is
germane, there being no occasion for a ruling (Apr. 6, 2011, p. 5321).
Under <> the later practice an amendment should be germane to the
particular paragraph or section to which it is offered (V, 5811-5820;
VIII, 2922, 2936; Oct. 14, 1971, pp. 36194, 36211; Sept. 19, 1986, p.
24729), without reference to subject matter of other titles not yet read
(July 31, 1990, p. 20824), and an amendment inserting an additional
section should be germane to the portion of the bill to which it is
offered (V, 5822; VIII, 2927, 2931; July 14, 1970, pp. 24033-35), though
it may be germane to more than one portion of a bill (Mar. 27, 1974, p.
8508), and when offered as a separate paragraph is not required to be
germane to the paragraph immediately preceding or following it (VII,
1162; VIII, 2932-2935).
The test of germaneness in the case of a motion to recommit with
instructions was the relationship of the instructions to the bill taken
as a whole (and not merely to the separate portion of the bill
specifically proposed to be amended in the instructions) (Mar. 28, 1996,
p. 6932). A special order of business directing that certain matter be
added to the engrossment of a bill does not operate until passage of
that bill (Mar. 5, 2008, p. 3296).
Subject to clause 2(c) of rule XXI (requiring that limitation
amendments to general appropriation bills be offered at the end of the
reading of the bill for amendment), an amendment limiting the use of
funds by a particular agency funded in a general appropriation bill may
be germane to the paragraph carrying the funds, or to any general
provisions portion of the bill affecting that agency or all agencies
funded by the bill (July 16, 1979, p. 18807). However, to a paragraph
containing funds for an agency but not transferring funds to that
account from other paragraphs in the bill, an amendment increasing that
amount by transfer from an account in another paragraph is not germane,
because affecting budget authority for a different agency not the
subject of the pending paragraph (July 17,
[[Page [746]]]
1985, p. 19436). Similarly, an amendment to a general appropriation bill
in the form of a limitation on funds therein but extending to activities
prescribed by laws unrelated to the functions of departments and
agencies addressed by the bill is not germane (July 10, 2000, p. 13605).
In passing on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair considers the
relationship between the amendment and the bill as modified by the
Committee of the Whole (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11545; July 8, 1987, p.
19013).
An amendment adding a new section to a bill being read by titles must
be germane to the pending title (Sept. 17, 1975, p. 28925), but if a
bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point, an
amendment must be germane to the bill as a whole and not to a particular
section (Sept. 29, 1975, p. 30761; Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1052). If a title
of a bill is open to amendment at any point, the germaneness of an
amendment perfecting one section therein depends on its relationship to
the title as a whole and not merely on its relationship to the one
section (June 25, 1991, p. 16152). An amendment in the form of a new
title, when offered at the end of a bill containing several diverse
titles on a general subject, need not be germane to the portion of the
bill to which offered, it being sufficient that the amendment be germane
to the bill as a whole in its modified form (Nov. 4, 1971, p. 39267;
July 2, 1974, p. 22029; Sept. 18, 1975, p. 29322; July 11, 1985, p.
18601; Oct. 8, 1985, pp. 26548-51). Although the heading of the final
title of a bill as ``miscellaneous'' does not thereby permit amendments
to that title that are not germane thereto, the inclusion of
sufficiently diverse provisions in such title affecting various
provisions in the bill may permit further amendments that need only be
germane to the bill as a whole (Apr. 10, 1979, pp. 8034-37).
Under clause 10 of rule XXII, a portion of a conference report
incorporating part of a Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute
to a House bill, or incorporating part of a Senate bill that the House
has amended, must be germane to the bill in the form passed by the
House; thus where a House-passed bill contained several sections and
titles amending diverse portions of the Internal Revenue Code relating
to tax credits, a modified Senate provision adding a new section dealing
with another tax credit was held germane to the House-passed measure as
a whole (Speaker Albert, Mar. 26, 1975, p. 8900); but a Senate provision
in a conference report on a Senate bill with a House amendment in the
nature of a substitute which authorized appointment of a special
prosecutor for any criminal offenses committed by certain Federal
officials was held not germane to the House-passed bill, which related
to offenses directly related to official duties and responsibilities of
Federal officials (Oct. 12, 1978, pp. 36459-61).
The test of germaneness of an amendment to or a substitute for an
amendment in the nature of a substitute is its relationship to the
substitute and not its relationship to the bill to which the amendment
in the nature of a substitute has been offered (July 19, 1973, p. 24958;
July 22, 1975, p. 23990; June 1, 1976, pp. 16051-56; July 28, 1982, pp.
18355-58, 18361),
[[Page [747]]]
and an amendment to a substitute is not required to affect the same page
and line numbers as the substitute in order to be germane, it being
sufficient that the amendment is germane to the subject matter of the
substitute (Aug. 1, 1979, pp. 21944-47). When an amendment in the nature
of a substitute is offered at the end of the first section of a bill,
the test of germaneness is the relationship between the amendment and
the entire bill, and the germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for a bill is not necessarily determined by an incidental
portion of the amendment that, if offered separately, might not be
germane to the portion of the bill to which offered (July 8, 1975, p.
21633).
The test of germaneness of an amendment offered as a substitute for a
pending amendment is its relationship to the pending amendment and not
its relationship to the underlying bill (Feb. 14, 1995, p. 4714).
An amendment germane to the bill as a whole, but hardly germane to any
one section, may be offered at an appropriate place with notice of
motions to strike the following sections that it would supersede (V,
5823; July 29, 1969, p. 21221). If a perfecting amendment to the text is
offered pending a vote on a motion to strike the same text, the
perfecting amendment must be germane to the text to which offered, not
to the motion to strike (Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28454).
The <> rule that amendments must be germane applies to amendments to
the instructions in a motion to instruct conferees (VIII, 3230, 3235),
and the test of germaneness of an amendment to a motion to instruct
conferees, in addition to the measurement of scope of conference, is the
relationship of the amendment to the subject matter of the House or
Senate version of the bill (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 28.2). The rule
of germaneness similarly applied to the instructions in a motion to
recommit a bill to a committee of the House under the former version of
clause 2 of rule XIX, because it was not in order to propose as part of
a motion to recommit any proposition that would not have been germane if
proposed as an amendment to the bill in the House (V, 5529-5541; VIII,
2708-2712; Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5155), and the instructions had to be
germane to the bill as perfected in the House (Nov. 19, 1993, p. 30513),
even if the instructions did not propose a direct amendment to the bill
but merely directed the committee to pursue an unrelated approach
(Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 2, 1978, p. 5272; July 16, 1991, p. 18397) or
directed the committee not to report the bill back to the House until an
unrelated contingency occurred (VIII, 2704). Under the same rationale as
amendments to a motion to instruct conferees, amendments to a motion to
recommit to a standing committee with instructions had to be germane to
the subject matter of the bill (see V, 6888; VIII, 2711).
The fact that an amendment is offered in conjunction with a motion to
recommit a bill with instructions to a standing committee did not affect
the requirement that the subject matter of the amendment be germane
[[Page [748]]]
and within the jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Mar. 2,
1967, p. 5155; July 16, 1991, p. 18397).
In <> the consideration of Senate amendments to a House
bill an amendment must be germane to the particular Senate amendment to
which it is offered (V, 6188-6191; VIII, 2936; May 14, 1963, p. 8506;
Dec. 13, 1980, p. 34097), and it is not sufficient that an amendment to
a Senate amendment is germane to the original House bill if it is not
germane to the subject matter of a Senate amendment that merely inserts
new matter and does not strike House provisions (V, 6188; VIII, 2936).
But if a Senate amendment proposes to strike language in a House bill,
the test of the germaneness of a motion to recede and concur with an
amendment is the relationship between the language in the motion and the
provisions in the House bill proposed to be stricken, as well as those
to be inserted, by the Senate amendment (June 8, 1943, p. 5511; June 15,
1943, p. 5899; Dec. 12, 1974, p. 39272). The test of the germaneness of
an amendment to a motion to concur in a Senate amendment with an
amendment is the relationship between the amendment and the motion, and
not between the amendment and the Senate amendment to which the motion
has been offered (Aug. 3, 1973, Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 27.6).
Formerly, a Senate amendment was not subject to the point of order that
it was not germane to the House bill (VIII, 3425), but under changes in
the rules points of order may be made and separate votes demanded on
portions of Senate amendments and conference reports containing language
that would not have been germane if offered in the House. Clause 10 of
rule XXII permits points of order against language in a conference
report that was originally in the Senate bill or amendment and that
would not have been germane if offered to the House-passed version, and
permits a separate motion to reject such portion of the conference
report if found nongermane (Oct. 15, 1986, p. 31498). For purposes of
that rule, the House-passed version, against which Senate provisions are
compared, is that finally committed to conference, taking into
consideration all amendments adopted by the House, including House
amendments to Senate amendments (July 28, 1983, p. 21401). Clause 10 of
rule XXII permits points of order against motions to concur or concur
with amendment in nongermane Senate amendments, the stage of
disagreement having been reached, and, if such points of order are
sustained, permits separate motions to reject such nongermane matter.
Clause 10 of rule XXII is not applicable to a provision contained in a
motion to recede and concur with an amendment (the stage of disagreement
having been reached) that is not contained in any form in the Senate
version, the only requirement in such circumstances being that the
motion as a whole be germane to the Senate amendment as a whole under
clause 7 of rule XVI (Oct. 4, 1978, pp. 33502-06; June 30, 1987, p.
18294).
[[Page [749]]]
An <> amendment must relate to the subject matter under
consideration. Thus, the following are not germane: to a bill seeking to
eliminate wage discrimination based on the sex of the employee, an
amendment to make the provisions of the bill applicable to
discrimination based on race (July 25, 1962, p. 14778); to a bill
establishing an office in the Department of the Interior to manage
biological information, an amendment addressing socioeconomic matters
(Oct. 26, 1993, p. 26082); to a bill authorizing military assistance to
Israel and funds for the United Nations emergency force in the Middle
East, an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the President
conduct negotiations to obtain a peace treaty in the Middle East and the
resumption of diplomatic and trade relations between Arab nations and
the United States and Israel (Dec. 11, 1973, p. 40842); to a concurrent
resolution expressing congressional concern over certain domestic
policies of a foreign government and urging that government to improve
those internal problems in order to enhance better relations with the
United States, amendments expressing the necessity for United States
diplomatic initiatives as a consequence of that foreign government's
policies (July 12, 1978, pp. 20500-05); to a resolution amending several
clauses of a rule of the House but confined in its scope to the issue of
access to committee hearings and meetings, an amendment to another
clause of that rule relating to committee staffing (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 6.20); to a title of a bill that only addresses
the administrative structure of a new department and not its authority
to carry out transferred programs, an amendment prohibiting the
department from withholding funds to carry out certain objectives (June
12, 1979, p. 14485); to an amendment authorizing the use of funds for a
specific study, an amendment naming any program established in the bill
for an unrelated purpose for a specified Senator (Aug. 15, 1986, p.
22075); to one of two reconciliation bills reported by the Committee on
the Budget, an amendment making a prospective indirect change to the
other reconciliation bill not then pending before the House (June 25,
1997, p. 12488); to a joint resolution continuing appropriations for the
current fiscal year, a motion to recommit with instructions to revise
the reconciliation instructions in the concurrent resolution on the
budget (Sept. 29, 2005, p. 21795); to a general appropriation bill, an
amendment in the form of a limitation on funds therein for activities
unrelated to the functions of departments and agencies addressed by the
bill (July 10, 2000, p. 13605); to a bill reauthorizing the National Sea
Grant College Program, a proposal to amend existing law to provide for
automatic continuation of appropriations in the absence of timely
enactment of a regular appropriation bill (June 18, 1997, p. 11333); to
a bill regulating immigration, an amendment reaffirming an agreement
with Japan (VIII, 3050); to a bill opposing concessional loans to a
country and outlining principles governing the conduct of industrial
cooperation projects of U.S. nationals in that country, an amendment
waiving provisions of other law by requiring changes in tariff schedules
to achieve overall trade reciprocity
[[Page [750]]]
between that country and the United States (Nov. 6, 1997, p. 24824); to
a resolution authorizing the deployment of troops to implement a peace
agreement, an amendment expressing support for the armed forces in
carrying out that and other missions (Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4301); to a bill
addressing enforcement of State liquor laws, an amendment addressing
enforcement of State firearm laws (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19213); to a bill
addressing taxation under the Internal Revenue Code, a motion to
recommit with instructions extending unemployment insurance benefits
(May 9, 2003, p. 11110 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill
reauthorizing the National Transportation Safety Board, an amendment
extending unemployment insurance benefits (May 15, 2003, p. 11955
(sustained on appeal)); to an immigration bill addressing (1) issues of
admissibility, detention, removal, and deportation of various classes of
aliens (Sept. 21, 2006, pp. 18860-62 (sustained by tabling of appeal))
or (2) improvements in enforcement and judicial proceedings (Sept. 21,
2006, pp. 18876-78), a motion to recommit with instructions proposing an
increase in the number of U.S. Marshals; to a bill confined to housing-
related matters, an amendment providing funding for various
infrastructure projects (May 17, 2007, pp. 13224, 13225); to a bill
settling land claims of two tribal communities in a state, a motion to
recommit with instructions broaching fuel procurement by Federal
agencies (June 25, 2008, pp. 13754, 13755 (sustained by tabling of
appeal)); to a bill addressing economic stabilization and assistance
funds and housing matters, a motion to recommit with instructions
addressing the solvency of various Social Security trust funds (Jan. 21,
2009, pp. 1212, 1213 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill
addressing small business investment programs, a motion to recommit with
instructions expressing the sense of the House on the consideration of
appropriation bills (July 8, 2009, p. 17083 (sustained by tabling of
appeal)); to a bill addressing water recycling projects in one
geographic area, a motion to recommit with instructions addressing water
availability under a project in a different geographic area (Oct. 15,
2009, pp. 25006, 25007 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill
confined to one mortgage refinancing program, an amendment (1) adding
findings regarding mortgages more broadly (Mar. 10, 2011, pp. 3756,
3757), (2) establishing a new mortgage refinancing program (Mar. 10,
2011, pp. 3762, 3763), (3) requiring a study of mortgages more broadly
(Mar. 10, 2011, pp. 3764, 3765), (4) addressing foreclosure generally
(Mar. 10, 2011, pp. 3765, 3766), and (5) addressing compensation within
the financial services industry (Mar. 10, 2011, pp. 3767, 3768); to a
joint resolution disapproving a Federal Communications Commission
regulation, a motion to recommit with instructions further continuing
appropriations for the current fiscal year (Apr. 8, 2011, pp. 5689-91
(sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill proposing a bicameral order
in the form of a joint rule, a motion to recommit with instructions
proposing a special order of business of the House (Oct. 8, 2013, pp.
15423, 15424 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill extending the
authority to offer certain health insurance coverage, a motion to
recommit with instructions address
[[Page [751]]]
ing health insurance generally (Nov. 15, 2013, p. 17194 (sustained by
tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing property issues related to the
boundary between two states formed by a river, a motion to recommit with
instructions addressing firearms regulation generally (Dec. 9, 2015, pp.
19892-96 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing
standards for workplace violence prevention and Medicare eligibility
based on such standards, a motion to recommit with instructions
addressing the prioritization of an eclectic group of legislative items
(Nov. 21, 2019, p. _).
An amendment that is germane, not being ``on a subject different from
that under consideration,'' belongs to a class illustrated by the
following: to a bill providing for an interoceanic canal by one route,
an amendment providing for a different route (V, 5909); to a bill
providing for the reorganization of the Army, an amendment providing for
the encouragement of marksmanship by enlisted personnel (V, 5910); to a
proposition to create a board of inquiry, an amendment specifying when
it shall report (V, 5915); to a bill relating to ``oleomargarine and
other imitation dairy products,'' an amendment on the subject of
``renovated butter'' (V, 5919); to a resolution rescinding an order for
final adjournment, an amendment fixing a new date therefor (V, 5920); to
a proposition directing a feasibility investigation, an amendment
requiring the submission of legislation to implement that investigation
(Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41747); and to a section of a bill prescribing the
functions of a new Federal Energy Administration by conferring wide
discretionary powers upon the Administrator, an amendment directing the
Administrator to issue preliminary summer guidelines for citizen fuel
use (as a further delineation of those functions) (Mar. 6, 1974, p.
5436).
A bill comprehensively addressing a subject requires careful analysis
to determine whether an amendment addresses a different subject. For
example, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute comprehensively
amending several sections of the Clean Air Act with respect to the
impact of shortages of energy resources on standards imposed under that
Act, an amendment to another section of the Act suspending temporarily
the authority of the Administrator of the EPA to control automobile
emissions was held germane (Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41688). On the other hand,
to a bill comprehensively restructuring the production and distribution
of food, a motion to recommit with instructions providing nutrition
assistance, including food stamps and soup kitchen programs, was held
not germane (Feb. 29, 1996, p. 3257).
The <> fundamental purpose of an amendment must be germane to
the fundamental purpose of the bill (VIII, 2911). The Chair discerns the
fundamental purpose of a bill by examining the text of the bill and its
report language (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 5.6; Aug. 3, 1999, p.
19213), rather than the motives that circumstances may suggest (V, 5783,
5803; Dec. 13, 1973, pp. 41267-69; Aug. 15, 1974, p. 28438). To a bill
that comprehen
[[Page [752]]]
sively addresses a subject, an amendment that relates to that subject
matter may not be ruled out as nongermane merely because the amendment
may be characterized as private legislation benefitting certain
individuals offered to a public bill (May 30, 1984, p. 14495).
Similarly, to a bill proposing to accomplish a result by methods
comprehensive in scope, an amendment in the nature of a substitute
seeking to achieve the same result was held germane where it was shown
that additional provisions not contained in the original bill were
merely incidental conditions or exceptions that were related to the
fundamental purpose of the bill (Aug. 2, 1973, pp. 27673-75; July 8,
1975, p. 21633; Sept. 29, 1980, pp. 27832-52). On the other hand, an
amendment may relate to the same subject matter yet still stray from
adherence to a common fundamental purpose. For example, an amendment
singling out one constituent element of a larger subject for specific
and unrelated scrutiny is not germane. Thus, to a bill authorizing a
State attorney general to bring a civil action in Federal court against
a person who has violated a State law regulating intoxicating liquor, an
amendment singling out certain violations of liquor laws on the basis of
their regard for any and all firearms issues is not germane (Aug. 3,
1999, p. 19213). Similarly, to a bill appropriating for only one fiscal
year (and containing no provisions extending beyond that fiscal year),
an amendment to extend an appropriation to another fiscal year is not
germane (June 20, 2001, pp. 11233, 11234).
In order to be germane, an amendment must not only have the same end
as the matter sought to be amended, but must contemplate a method of
achieving that end that is closely allied to the method encompassed in
the bill or other matter sought to be amended (Aug. 11, 1970, p. 28165).
Thus the following are germane: to a bill raising revenue by several
methods of taxation, an amendment proposing a tax on undistributed
profits (the Committee of the Whole overruling the Chair) (VII, 3042);
to a proposition to accomplish a result through regulation by a
governmental agency, an amendment to accomplish the same fundamental
purpose through regulation by another governmental agency (Dec. 15,
1937, pp. 1572-89; June 9, 1941, p. 4905; Dec. 19, 1973, p. 42618); to a
bill to achieve a certain purpose by conferring discretionary authority
to set fair labor standards upon an independent agency, an amendment in
the nature of a substitute to attain that purpose by a more inflexible
method (prescribing fair labor standards) (Dec. 15, 1937, pp. 1590-94;
Oct. 14, 1987, p. 27885); to a proposition to accomplish the broad
purpose of settling land claims of Alaska natives by a method general in
scope, an amendment accomplishing the same purpose by a method more
detailed in its provisions (Oct. 20, 1971, p. 37079); to an amendment
comprehensively amending the Natural Gas Act to deregulate interstate
sales of new natural gas and regulate aspects of intrastate gas use, a
substitute providing regulatory authority for interstate and intrastate
gas sales of large producers (Feb. 4, 1976, p. 2387); to a bill
providing a temporary extension of existing authority, an amendment
achieving the same purpose by providing a nominally permanent
[[Page [753]]]
authority was held germane where both the bill and the amendment were
based on reported economic projections under which either would achieve
the same, necessarily temporary result by method of direct or indirect
amendment to the same existing law (May 13, 1987, p. 12344); to a bill
subjecting employers who fail to apprise their workers of health risks
to penalties under other laws and regulations, a substitute subjecting
such employers to penalties prescribed in the substitute itself (Oct.
14, 1987, p. 27885); to an amendment freezing the obligation of funds
for fiscal year 1996 for missile defense until the Secretary of Defense
rendered a specified readiness certification, an amendment permitting an
increase in the obligation of such funds on the basis of legislative
findings concerning readiness, because each proposition addressed the
relationship between 1996 funding levels for missile defense and
readiness (Feb. 15, 1995, p. 5026); to a bill improving food safety
through a myriad of methods including the tracing of food origins,
recalls of food, and quarantine of food, a motion to recommit with
instructions allowing the preemptive purchase of food related to
activities in the bill (July 30, 2009, pp. 20201, 20202).
However, an amendment to accomplish a similar purpose by an unrelated
method not contemplated by the bill is not germane. Thus, the following
are not germane: to a bill providing relief to foreign countries through
government agencies, an amendment providing for relief to be made
through the International Red Cross (Dec. 10, 1947, pp. 11242-44); to a
bill to aid in the control of crime through research and training, an
amendment to accomplish that result through regulation of the sale of
firearms (Aug. 8, 1967, pp. 21846-50); to a bill providing assistance to
Vietnam war victims, amendments containing foreign policy declarations
as to culpability in the war (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11510); to a bill
conserving energy by civil penalties on manufacturers of autos with low
gas mileage, an amendment conserving energy by tax rebates to purchasers
of high-mileage autos (June 12, 1975, p. 18695); to a proposition whose
fundamental purpose was registration and public disclosure by, but not
regulation of the activities of, lobbyists, amendments prohibiting
lobbying in certain places, restricting monetary contributions by
lobbyists, and providing civil penalties for violating Rules of the
House in relation to floor privileges (Sept. 28, 1976, p. 33070) (but to
a similar bill, an amendment requiring disclosure of any lobbying
communication made on the floor of the House or Senate or in adjoining
rooms, but not regulating such conduct, was held germane (Apr. 26, 1978,
p. 11641)); to a bill seeking to accomplish a purpose by one method
(creation of an executive branch agency), an amendment accomplishing
that result by a method not contemplated in the bill (creation of office
within legislative branch as function of committee oversight) (Nov. 5,
1975, p. 35041); to a bill authorizing foreign military assistance
programs, an amendment authorizing contributions to an international
agency for nuclear missile inspections (Mar. 3, 1976, p. 5226); to a
joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment for representation
of the District of Columbia in Congress, a motion to recommit with
instructions
[[Page [754]]]
that the Committee on the Judiciary consider a resolution retroceding
populated portions of the District to Maryland (Speaker O'Neill, Mar. 2,
1978, p. 5272, implicitly overruling V, 5582); to a bill prohibiting
poll taxes, a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that the
committee report it back in the form of a joint resolution amending the
Constitution to accomplish the purpose of the bill (Deschler-Brown, ch.
28, Sec. 23.8); to an amendment to achieve a national production goal
for synthetic fuels for national defense needs by loans and grants and
development of demonstration synthetic fuel plants, a substitute to
require by regulation that any fuel sold in commerce require a certain
percentage of synthetic fuels (also broader in scope) (June 26, 1979,
pp. 16663-74); to a bill to provide financial assistance to domestic
agriculture through price support payments, an amendment to protect
domestic agriculture by restricting imports in competition therewith
(also within the jurisdiction of another committee) (Oct. 14, 1981, p.
23899); to a bill authorizing financial assistance to unemployed
individuals for employment opportunities, an amendment providing instead
for tax incentives to stimulate employment (also within the jurisdiction
of a different committee) (Sept. 21, 1983, p. 25145); to a bill relating
to one government agency, an amendment having as its fundamental purpose
a change in the law relating to another agency, even though it
contemplated a consultative role for the agency covered by the bill
(July 8, 1987, p. 19014); to a proposition changing congressional budget
procedures to require consideration of balanced budgets, an amendment
changing concurrent resolutions on the budget to joint resolutions,
thereby bringing executive enforcement mechanisms into play (July 18,
1990, p. 17920); to a bill to promote technological advancement by
fostering Federal research and development, and amendment exhorting to
do so by changes in tax and antitrust laws (July 16, 1991, p. 18397); to
a bill extending unemployment compensation benefits during a period of
economic recession, an amendment to stimulate economic growth by tax
incentives and regulatory reform (Sept. 17, 1991, p. 23156); to a bill
providing new budget authority, a motion to recommit with instructions
to change a direct appropriation of new budget authority from the
general fund into a reappropriation (in effect a rescission) of funds
previously appropriated for an entirely different purpose in a special
reserve account (Feb. 28, 1985, p. 4146); to a bill addressing substance
abuse through prevention and treatment, an amendment imposing civil
penalties on drug dealers (Sept. 16, 1998, p. 20587); to a resolution
impeaching the President, an amendment censuring the President (Dec. 19,
1998, p. 28107); to a bill authorizing a State attorney general to bring
a civil action in Federal court against a person who has violated a
State law regulating intoxicating liquor, an amendment creating new
Federal laws to regulate intoxicating liquor (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19216);
to a bill addressing persons convicted of sex offenses against children
with criminal punishment, an amendment addressing such perpetrators by
treatment and rehabilitation (Mar. 14, 2002, p. 3203).
[[Page [755]]]
An <> amendment when considered as a whole should be within the
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Jan. 29, 1976, p.
1582; July 25, 1979, pp. 20601-03; June 27, 1985, pp. 17417-19),
although committee jurisdiction over the subject of an amendment and of
the original bill is not the exclusive test of germaneness (Aug. 2,
1973, pp. 27673-75), and the Chair relates the amendment to the bill in
its perfected form (Aug. 17, 1972, p. 28913). Thus, the following are
not germane: to a bill reported from the Committee on Agriculture
providing price support programs for various agricultural commodities,
an amendment repealing price control authority for all commodities under
an act reported from the Committee on Banking and Currency (July 19,
1973, p. 24950); to a bill reported from the Committee on Ways and Means
providing for a temporary increase in the public debt ceiling for the
current fiscal year (not directly amending the Second Liberty Bond Act),
an amendment proposing permanent changes in that Act and also affecting
budget and appropriation procedures (matters within the jurisdiction of
other House committees) (Nov. 7, 1973, p. 36240); to a bill relating to
intelligence activities of the executive branch, an amendment effecting
a change in the Rules of the House by directing a committee to impose an
oath of secrecy on its members and staff (May 1, 1991, p. 9669); to a
bill reported by the Committee on Government Operations creating an
executive agency to protect consumers, an amendment conferring on
congressional committees with oversight over consumer protection the
authority to intervene in judicial or administrative proceedings (a
rulemaking provision within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules)
(Nov. 6, 1975, p. 35373); to a proposition reported from the Committee
on Public Works and Transportation authorizing funds for local public
works employment, an amendment to mandate expenditure of already
appropriated funds (as a purported disapproval of deferral of such funds
under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974) and to set discount rates for
reclamation and public works projects, subjects within the jurisdictions
of the Committees on Appropriations and Interior and Insular Affairs
(May 3, 1977, p. 13242); to a bill reported from the Committee on Armed
Services authorizing military procurement and personnel strengths for
one fiscal year, an amendment imposing permanent prohibitions and
conditions on troop withdrawals from the Republic of Korea because
including statements of policy within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Foreign Affairs (May 24, 1978, pp. 15293-95); to a bill reported from
the Committee on Government Operations creating a new department,
transferring the administration of existing laws to it, and authorizing
appropriations to carry out the Act subject to provisions in existing
law, an amendment prohibiting the use of funds so authorized to carry
out a designated funding program transferred to the department, where
the purpose of the authorization is to allow appropriations in general
appropriation bills for the department to carry out its functions but
where changes in the laws to be administered by the department remain
within the jurisdiction of other committees of
[[Page [756]]]
the House (June 19, 1979, p. 15570); to a bill reported by the Committee
on Public Works authorizing funds for highway construction and mass
transportation systems using motor vehicles, an amendment relating to
urban mass transit (then within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Banking and Currency) and the railroad industry (then within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce) (Oct.
5, 1972, p. 34115); to a bill reported from the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs designating certain areas in a State as wilderness,
an amendment providing unemployment benefits to workers displaced by the
designation (Mar. 21, 1983, p. 6347); to a bill reported from the
Committee on Science and Technology authorizing environmental research
and development activities of an agency, an amendment expressing the
sense of Congress with respect to that agency's regulatory and
enforcement authority, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce (Feb. 9, 1984, p. 2423); to a bill authorizing
environmental research and development activities of an agency for two
years, an amendment adding permanent regulatory authority for that
agency by amending a law not within the jurisdiction of the committee
reporting the bill (June 4, 1987, p. 14757); to a bill reported from the
Committee on Education and Labor dealing with education, an amendment
regulating telephone communications (a matter within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce) (Apr. 19, 1988, p. 7355); to a
bill addressing various research programs and authorities, an amendment
addressing matters of fiscal and economic policy and regulation (July
16, 1991, p. 18391; Sept. 22, 1992, pp. 26734, 26741); to a bill
reported from the Committee on Ways and Means addressing unemployment
compensation, an amendment addressing stimuli for economic growth
involving the jurisdictions of the Committees on Banking, Finance, and
Urban Affairs and the Judiciary (Sept. 17, 1991, p. 23177); to a bill
reported from the Committee on Armed Services amending several laws
within that committee's jurisdiction on military procurement and policy,
an amendment to the Renegotiation Act, a matter within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and not solely
related to military contracts (June 26, 1985, pp. 17417-19) and an
amendment requiring reports on Soviet Union compliance with arms control
commitments, a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. 4.26); to a
bill reported from the Committee on Energy and Commerce relating to
mentally ill individuals, an amendment prohibiting the use of general
revenue sharing funds (within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Government Operations) (Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1053); to a bill reported from
the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries authorizing various
activities of the Coast Guard, an amendment urging the Secretary of
State in consultation with the Coast Guard to elicit cooperation from
other nations concerning certain Coast Guard and military operations (a
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs)
(July 8, 1987, p. 19013); to a bill reported by the Committee on
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs dealing with hous
[[Page [757]]]
ing and community development grant and credit programs, an amendment
expressing the sense of Congress on tax policy (the deductibility of
mortgage interest), a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Ways and Means (Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21256); to a bill reported from the
Committee on Education and Labor authorizing a variety of civilian
national service programs, an amendment establishing a contingent
military service obligation (a matter within the selective service
jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services) (July 28, 1993, p.
17398); to a bill reauthorizing programs administered by two agencies
within one committee's jurisdiction, an amendment more general in scope
affecting agencies within the jurisdiction of other committees (May 12,
1994, p. 10024); to a bill reported by the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure reforming and privatizing Amtrak, an amendment
rescinding previously appropriated funds for certain administrative
expenses, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Appropriations (Nov. 30, 1995, p. 35071); to a measure expressing a
sense of Congress with respect to the availability of public funds for
expenses incurred in the evaluation of a problem, an amendment
addressing legislative responses to that problem, within the
jurisdiction of other committees (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 794); to a bill
reported from Government Reform and Oversight proposing to alter
responsibilities of executive branch agencies under an existing law, an
amendment proposing to extend the application of that law to entities of
the legislative branch, a matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on House Administration (Mar. 12, 1998, p. 3389); to a
resolution authorizing the deployment of troops to implement a peace
agreement within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
an amendment expressing support for the armed forces carrying such
mission within the jurisdiction of both the Committees on Armed Services
and Foreign Affairs (Mar. 11, 1999, p. 4301); to a bill addressing
certain diplomatic efforts to curb alleged price-fixing in the global
oil market within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
an amendment proposing to suspend oil exportation through changes to the
Mineral Leasing Act within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural
Resources and an amendment proposing to change the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act to reauthorize Presidential authority to draw down the
strategic petroleum reserve, a matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce (Mar. 22, 2000, p. 3281); to several
individual bills on various topics within the jurisdiction of various
other committees, an amendment addressing the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, a matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence (July 12, 2007, pp. 18843, 18844; Feb. 26, 2008, p. 2482;
Feb. 27, 2008, pp. 2627, 2637, 2638; Mar. 5, 2008, pp. 3295, 3296; Mar.
6, 2008, pp. 3402, 3403 (in each case sustained by tabling of appeal);
Apr. 16, 2008, pp. 6208, 6219 (sustained on appeal)); to a bill
addressing a mortgage refinancing program within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Financial Services, an amendment modifying an income tax
deduction within the jurisdiction of the Com
[[Page [758]]]
mittee on Ways and Means (Mar. 10, 2011, p. 3767); to a bill addressing
administrative matters in the executive branch within the jurisdictions
of the Committees on the Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform,
an amendment addressing adjudication of veterans under title 38, United
States Code, a matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs (July 6, 2016, p. _ (sustained by tabling appeal)).
Committee jurisdiction is not the sole test of germaneness where: (1)
the proposition to which the amendment is offered is so comprehensive
(overlapping several committees' jurisdictions) as to diminish the
pertinency of that test; (2) the amendment does not demonstrably affect
a law within another committee's jurisdiction (July 21, 1976, p. 23167;
Oct. 8, 1985, pp. 26548-51); (3) the portion of the bill also contains
language, related to the amendment, not within the jurisdiction of the
committee reporting the bill (Apr. 2, 1976, p. 9254; Aug. 10, 1984, p.
23975); or (4) the bill has been amended to include matter within the
jurisdiction of another committee thus rendering further similar
amendments germane (July 11, 1985, p. 18601; Sept. 19, 1986, p. 24769).
Thus, to a bill reported from the Committee on Agriculture relating to
the food stamp program, an amendment requiring the Secretary of the
Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to
collect from certain recipients the monetary value of food stamps
received was held germane because the performance of new duties by the
Secretary of the Treasury and by the Internal Revenue Service not
affecting the application of the Internal Revenue Code is not a matter
solely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means (July
27, 1977, pp. 25249-52). On the other hand, to a comprehensive farm bill
authorizing a variety of programs within the jurisdiction of the
Committees on Agriculture and Foreign Affairs, and amended to include
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
(but not amending laws within the jurisdiction of other committees), an
amendment proposing to alter an existing interstate dairy compact and
grant consent to additional compacts, matters within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on the Judiciary, is not germane (Oct. 4, 2001, pp. 18797,
18809).
To a bill amending an existing law to grant to merchant mariners
benefits substantially equivalent to those granted to veterans in a
separate law in the jurisdiction of another committee, an amendment
directly changing the separate law to extend its benefits to merchant
mariners was held not germane (Sept. 9, 1992, p. 23951); but if the
pending bill incorporates by reference provisions of a law from another
committee and conditions the bill's effectiveness upon actions taken
pursuant to a section of that law, an amendment to alter that section of
the law may be germane (Apr. 8, 1974, pp. 10108-10).
The test of the germaneness of an amendment in the nature of a
substitute for a bill is its relationship to the bill as a whole, and is
not necessarily determined by the content of an incidental portion of
the amendment that, if considered separately, might be within the
jurisdiction of
[[Page [759]]]
another committee (Aug. 2, 1973, p. 27673; June 1, 1976, pp. 16021-25).
However, the House may by adopting a special rule allow a point of order
that a section of a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
would not have been germane if offered separately to the bill as
introduced (May 23, 1978, pp. 15094-96; May 24, 1978, pp. 15293-95; Aug.
11, 1978, p. 25705).
The fact that an amendment was offered in conjunction with a motion to
recommit a bill with instructions did not affect the requirement that
the subject matter of the amendment be germane and within the
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill (Mar. 2, 1967, p.
5155). Thus the following are not germane: to a bill reported from the
Committee on Foreign Affairs addressing U.S. claims against Iraq, a
motion to recommit with instructions to prohibit the admission of former
members of Iraq's armed forces to the United States as refugees (a
matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary) (Apr.
28, 1994, p. 8803); to a bill amending a law reported by the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services opposing concessional loans to a
country and outlining principles governing the conduct of industrial
cooperation projects of U.S. nationals in that country, a motion to
recommit with instructions to waive provisions of other law by requiring
changes in tariff schedules to achieve overall trade reciprocity between
that country and the United States (a subject within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Ways and Means) (Nov. 6, 1997, p. 24824); to a joint
resolution continuing appropriations for the current fiscal year, a
motion to recommit with instructions to revise the reconciliation
instructions in the concurrent resolution on the budget (Sept. 29, 2005,
p. 21795); to a bill confined to tax issues within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Ways and Means, a motion to recommit with instructions
to report an amendment addressing the minimum wage, a matter within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce (June 22,
2006, p. 12298 (sustained by tabling of appeal)), or vice versa (Jan.
10, 2007, p. 787 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill studying
two rivers under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and issues related
thereto, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources,
a motion to recommit with instructions addressing comprehensive energy
legislation touching several other committees' jurisdictions (Sept. 10,
2008, pp. 18416, 18417 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill
confined to taxation issues within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Ways and Means, a motion to recommit with instructions addressing laws
within the jurisdiction of the Committees on Agriculture, Natural
Resources, and Education and Labor (Sept. 26, 2008, pp. 22060, 22061
(sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a bill addressing payments to
physicians under the Medicare program and confined to the jurisdiction
of the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, a motion to
recommit with instructions addressing medical malpractice reform within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary (Nov. 19, 2009, p.
28243 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a defense authorization bill
addressing subjects in the jurisdiction of the Committee
[[Page [760]]]
on Armed Services and several other committees, a motion to recommit
with instructions broaching benefits of legislative branch employees
within the jurisdiction of another committee (the Committee on House
Administration) (May 28, 2010, pp. 9952, 9953 (sustained by tabling of
appeal)); to a bill addressing various benefits in the jurisdiction of
committees other than the Committee on Appropriations, a motion to
recommit with instructions to rescind appropriations carried in a prior
appropriation Act (July 1, 2010, pp. 12556, 12557 (sustained by tabling
of appeal)).
A motion to recommit with instructions proposing a special order of
business within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules is not
germane to: various joint resolutions and a bill continuing
appropriations for specified government entities and programs within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations (Oct. 2, 2013, pp.
14997-98; Oct. 3, 2013, pp. 15078-79, pp. 15087-89; Oct. 4, 2013, pp.
15196-97, pp. 15206-07; Oct. 7, 2013, p. 15345-46; Oct. 8, 2013, p.
15423-24; Oct. 9, 2013, p. 15507-08; Oct. 10, 2013, p. 15628-29; Oct.
11, 2013, p. 15704-05; Oct. 14, 2013, p. 15854-55 (each sustained by
tabling of appeal)); or bills addressing financial institutions within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services (Apr. 14, 2016,
p. 4342; Apr. 14, 2016, p. 4343 (each sustained by tabling of appeal));
or a bill addressing telecommunications within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce (Apr. 15, 2016, p. _).
The <> standards by which the germaneness of an amendment may be
measured, as set forth in Sec. Sec. 932-934, supra, are not exclusive;
an amendment and the matter to which offered may be related to some
degree under the tests of subject matter, purpose, and jurisdiction, and
still not be considered germane under the precedents. Thus, the
following have been held not to be germane: to a proposition relating to
terms of Senators, an amendment changing the manner of their election
(V, 5882); to a bill relating to commerce between the States, an
amendment relating to commerce within the several States (V, 5841); to a
proposition to relieve destitute citizens of the United States in Cuba,
a proposition declaring a state of war in Cuba and proclaiming
neutrality (V, 5897); to a proposition for the appointment of a select
committee to investigate a certain subject, an amendment proposing an
inquiry of the executive on that subject (V, 5891); to a bill granting a
right of way to a railroad, an amendment providing for the purchase of
the railroad by the Government (V, 5887); to a provision for the
erection of a building for a mint, an amendment to change the coinage
laws (V, 5884); to a resolution proposing expulsion, an amendment
proposing censure (VI, 236); to a resolution authorizing the
administration of the oath to a Member-elect, an amendment authorizing
such oath administration but adding several conditions of punishment
predicated on acts committed in a prior Congress (Jan. 3, 1969, pp. 23-
25); to a general tariff bill, an amendment creating a tariff board (May
6, 1913, p. 1234; Speaker Clark, May 8, 1913, p. 1381); to a proposition
[[Page [761]]]
to sell two battleships and build a new battleship with the proceeds, a
proposition to devote the proceeds to building wagon roads (VIII, 2973);
to a bill authorizing a State attorney general to bring a civil action
in Federal court against a person who has violated a State law
regulating intoxicating liquor, an amendment singling out certain
violations of liquor laws on the basis of their regard for any and all
firearms issues (Aug. 3, 1999, p. 19213).
One <> individual proposition may not be amended by another
individual proposition even though the two belong to the same class
(VIII, 2951-2953, 2963-2966, 3047; Jan. 29, 1986, p. 684; Oct. 22, 1990,
p. 32346; Oct. 24, 1991, p. 28561). Thus, the following are not germane:
to a bill proposing the admission of one territory into the Union, an
amendment for admission of another territory (V, 5529); to a bill
amending a law in one particular, amending the law in another particular
(VIII, 2949); to a proposition to appropriate or to authorize
appropriations for only one year (and containing no provisions extending
beyond that year), an amendment to extend the authorization or
appropriation to another year (VIII, 2913; Nov. 13, 1980, pp. 29523-28;
see also May 2, 1979, p. 9564; Oct. 12, 1979, pp. 28097-99; June 20,
2001, pp. 11233, 11234); to a measure continuing appropriations for the
current fiscal year for a specified period, a motion to recommit with
instructions making certain funds available beyond such time (Dec. 13,
2007, p. 34138 (sustained by tabling of appeal)); to a measure
earmarking funds in an appropriation bill, an amendment authorizing the
program for which the appropriation is made (Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29019);
to a bill for the relief of one individual, an amendment proposing
similar relief for another (V, 5826-5829); to a resolution providing a
special order for one bill, an amendment to include another bill (V,
5834-5836); to a provision for extermination of the cotton-boll weevil,
an amendment including the gypsy moth (V, 5832); to a provision for a
clerk for one committee, an amendment for a clerk to another committee
(V, 5833); to a Senate amendment dealing with use of its contingent fund
for art restoration in that body, a proposed House amendment for use of
the House contingent fund for a similar but broader purpose (May 24,
1990, p. 12203); to a bill prohibiting transportation of messages
relative to dealing in cotton futures, an amendment adding wheat, corn,
etc. (VIII, 3001); to a bill prohibiting cotton futures, an amendment
prohibiting wheat futures (VIII, 3001); to a bill for the relief of
certain aliens, an amendment for the relief of other persons who are not
aliens (May 14, 1975, p. 14360); to a bill providing relief for
agricultural producers, an amendment extending such relief to commercial
fishermen (also in the jurisdiction of another committee) (Apr. 24,
1978, p. 11080); to a bill governing the political activities of Federal
civilian employees, an amendment to cover members of the uniformed
services (June 7, 1977, p. 17713); to a bill covering the civil service
system for Federal civilian employees, an amendment bringing other
classes of employees (postal and District of Columbia employees) within
the scope
[[Page [762]]]
of the bill (Sept. 7, 1978, pp. 28437-39; Oct. 9, 1985, pp. 26951-54);
to a portion of an appropriation bill containing funds for a certain
purpose to be expended by one agency, an amendment containing funds for
another agency for the same purpose (July 24, 1981, p. 17226); to an
amendment exempting national defense budget authority from the reach of
a proposed Presidential rescission authority, an amendment exempting
social security (Feb. 2, 1995, p. 5501); to a Senate amendment striking
an earmark from an appropriation bill, a House amendment reinserting
part of the amount but adding other earmarks for unrelated programs
(Nov. 15, 1989, p. 29019); to a Senate amendment relating to a
feasibility study of a land transfer in one State, a House amendment
requiring an environmental study of land in another State (Nov. 15,
1989, p. 29035); to a bill prohibiting certain uses of polygraphy in the
private sector, an amendment applying the terms of the bill to the
Congress (Nov. 4, 1987, p. 30870); to a bill to determine the
equitability of Federal pay practices under statutory systems applicable
to agencies of the executive branch, an amendment to extend the scope of
the determination to pay practices in the legislative branch (ruling
sustained by Committee of the Whole, Sept. 28, 1988, p. 26422); to a
special appropriation bill providing funds and authority for
agricultural credit programs but containing no transfers of funds,
reappropriations, or rescissions, an amendment (contained in a motion to
recommit) deriving funds for the bill by transfer of unobligated
balances in the Energy Security Reserve and thus decreasing and
transferring funds provided for a program unrelated to the subject
matter or method of funding provided in the bill (Feb. 28, 1985, p.
4146); to a bill prohibiting importation of goods made in whole or in
part by convict, pauper, or detained labor, or made in whole or in part
from materials that have been made in whole or in part in any manner
manipulated by convict or prison labor, an amendment prohibiting
importation of goods produced by child labor, a second discrete class
(VIII, 2963); similarly, to an amendment authorizing grants to States
for purchase of one class of equipment (photographic and fingerprint
equipment) for law enforcement purposes, an amendment including
assistance for the purchase of a different class of equipment
(bulletproof vests) (Oct. 12, 1979, pp. 28121-24); to a bill repealing
section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act and making conforming
changes in two related sections of labor law, all pertaining solely to
the so-called ``right-to-work'' issue, an amendment excluding from the
applicability of certain labor-management agreements members of
religious groups (July 28, 1965, p. 18633); to a bill relating to the
design of certain coin currency, an amendment specifying the metal
content of other coin currency (Sept. 12, 1973, p. 29376); to a
proposition to accomplish a single purpose without amending a certain
law, an amendment to accomplish another purpose by amending that law
(Dec. 14, 1973, pp. 41723-25); to a bill regulating poll closing time in
Presidential general elections, an amendment extending its provisions to
Presidential primary elections (Jan. 29, 1986, p. 684); to a bill
authorizing grants to private entities furnishing health care to
underserved
[[Page [763]]]
populations, an amendment authorizing grants to States to control a
public health hazard (a different category of recipient) (Mar. 5, 1986,
p. 3604); to a bill siting a certain type of repository for a specified
kind of nuclear waste, an amendment prohibiting the construction at
another site of another type of repository for another kind of nuclear
waste (July 21, 1992, p. 18718); to a bill addressing violent crimes, an
amendment addressing nonviolent crimes, such as crimes of fraud and
deception or crimes against the environment (May 7, 1996, pp. 10342,
10343); to a bill naming a facility after a specific person, an
amendment proposing to substitute the name of a different person (VIII,
2955) where it could not be shown that the amendment intended a return
to the facility's existing designation (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 792); to a
joint resolution addressing whether public funds should be available for
specified endeavors of one group, an amendment addressing the same
question for unrelated endeavors of another group (Feb. 4, 1998, p.
819); to a bill proposing to alter responsibilities of executive branch
agencies under an existing law, an amendment proposing to extend the
application of that law to entities of the legislative branch (Mar. 12,
1998, p. 3389); to a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution authorizing Congress to prohibit physical desecration of
the flag, a motion to recommit with instructions proposing an amendment
to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget (June 22, 2005, pp.
13539, 13540 (sustained by tabling of appeal)) or requiring that Social
Security receipts and outlays be counted as receipts or outlays of the
United States (June 22, 2005, pp. 13540, 13541 (sustained by tabling of
appeal)); to a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution to afford equal rights on the basis of sex, an amendment to
add ``race, creed, or color'' (Oct. 12, 1971, pp. 35813, 35814).
A <> specific subject may not be amended by a provision general in
nature, even when of the class of the specific subject (V, 5843-5846;
VIII, 2997, 2998; July 31, 1985, pp. 21832-34; see also Deschler-Brown,
ch. 28, Sec. 9). Thus the following are not germane: to a bill for the
admission of one territory into the Union, an amendment providing for
the admission of several other territories (V, 5837); to a bill relating
to all corporations engaged in interstate commerce, an amendment
relating to all corporations (V, 5842); to a bill proscribing certain
picketing in the District of Columbia, an amendment making the
provisions thereof applicable throughout the United States (Aug. 22,
1966, p. 20113); to a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution prohibiting the United States or any State from denying
persons 18 years of age or older the right to vote, an amendment
requiring the United States and all States to treat persons 18 years and
older as having reached the age of majority for all purposes under the
law (Mar. 23, 1971, p. 7567); to a bill dealing with enforcement of
United Nations sanctions against one country in relation to a specific
trade commodity, an amendment imposing United States sanctions against
all countries for all commodities and communications (Mar. 14, 1977, p.
[[Page [764]]]
7446); to a bill to enable a department to investigate and prosecute
fraud and abuse in medicare and medicaid health programs, an amendment
to prohibit any officer or employee from disclosing any identifiable
medical record absent patient approval (Sept. 23, 1977, pp. 30534-35);
to an amendment to a budget resolution changing one functional category
only, an amendment changing several other categories and covering an
additional fiscal year (May 2, 1979, pp. 9556-64); to a bill authorizing
funds for radio broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment to include
broadcasting to all dictatorships in the Caribbean Basin (Aug. 10, 1982,
p. 20256); to a bill relating to aircraft altitude over units of the
National Park System, an amendment relating to aircraft collision
avoidance generally (Sept. 18, 1986, p. 24084); to a proposition
prohibiting the use of funds appropriated for a fiscal year for a
specified purpose, an amendment prohibiting the use of funds
appropriated for that or any prior fiscal year for an unrelated purpose
(June 30, 1987, p. 18294); to a proposition providing for a training
vessel for one state maritime academy, an amendment relating to training
vessels for all state maritime academies (June 30, 1987, p. 18296); to a
proposition waiving a requirement in existing law that an authorizing
law be enacted before the obligation of certain funds, an amendment
affirmatively enacting bills containing not only that authorization but
also other policy matters (Sept. 28, 1988, p. 26108); to a proposition
pertaining only to a certain appropriation account in a bill, an
amendment relating not only to that account but also to funds in other
acts (Sept. 30, 1988, p. 27148); to a proposition raising an employment
ceiling for one year, an amendment addressing in permanent law a hiring
preference system for such employees (Oct. 11, 1989, p. 24089); to an
omnibus farm bill with myriad programs to improve agricultural economy,
an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act not limited to agricultural
pursuits (Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21573); to a bill authorizing Federal funding
for qualifying State national service programs, an amendment
conditioning a portion of such funding on the enactment of State laws
immunizing volunteers in nonprofit or public programs, generally, from
certain legal liabilities (July 28, 1993, p. 17401); to an amendment
addressing particular educational requirements imposed on educational
agencies by the underlying bill, an amendment addressing any
requirements imposed on educational agencies by the underlying bill
(Mar. 21, 1994, p. 5771); to a bill reauthorizing programs administered
by the Economic Development Administration and the Appalachian Regional
Commission, an amendment providing for the waiver of any Federal
regulation that would interfere with economic development (May 12, 1994,
p. 10024); to a bill prohibiting a certain class of abortion procedures,
an amendment prohibiting any or all abortion procedures (Mar. 20, 1997,
p. 4425); to a bill addressing one class of imported goods (those
produced by forced labor), an amendment addressing all imported goods
from a specified country (Nov. 5, 1997, p. 24643); to a bill confined to
a single national historic trail designation, a motion to recommit with
instructions extending
[[Page [765]]]
to all trails addressed by the National Trails System Act (July 10,
2008, pp. 14583, 14584).
To a bill limited in its applicability to certain departments and
agencies of government, an amendment applicable to all departments and
agencies is not germane (Sept. 27, 1967, p. 26957). Thus, the following
are not germane: to a bill establishing an office without regulatory
authority in the Department of the Interior to manage biological
information, an amendment addressing requirements of compensation for
constitutional takings by other regulatory agencies (Oct. 26, 1993, p.
26076); to a bill amending an authority of an agency under an existing
law, an amendment independently expressing the sense of Congress on
regulatory agencies generally (May 14, 1992, p. 11287); to a proposition
authorizing activities of certain government agencies for a temporary
period, an amendment permanently changing existing law to cover a
broader range of government activities (May 5, 1988, p. 9938); and to a
joint resolution continuing funding within one executive department, an
amendment addressing funding for other departments as well as one
addressing the compensation of Federal employees on a government-wide
basis (Dec. 20, 1995, pp. 37886, 37888).
To a bill modifying an existing law as to one specific particular, an
amendment relating to the terms of the law other than those dealt with
by the bill is not germane (V, 5806-5808). Thus, the following are not
germane: to a bill amending the war-time prohibition act in one
particular, an amendment repealing that act (VIII, 2949); to a
proposition temporarily suspending certain requirements of the Clean Air
Act, an amendment temporarily suspending other requirements of all other
environmental protection laws (Dec. 14, 1973, p. 41751); to an amendment
striking from a bill one activity from those covered by the law being
amended, a substitute striking the entire subsection of the bill,
thereby eliminating the applicability of existing law to a number of
activities (Sept. 23, 1982, p. 24963); to a bill amending an existing
law to authorize a program, an amendment restricting authorizations
under that or any other act (Dec. 10, 1987, pp. 34675, 34676); to a bill
proposing a temporary change in law, an amendment making permanent
changes in that law (Nov. 19, 1991, p. 32893); and to a bill amending an
existing law in one particular, an amendment amending other laws and
more comprehensive in scope (Nov. 19, 1993, pp. 30513, 30515, 30517).
A bill dealing with an individual proposition but rendered general in
its scope by amendment is then subject to further amendment by
propositions of the same class (VIII, 3003). Although a specific
proposition covering a defined class may not be amended by a proposition
more general in scope, the Chair may consider all pending provisions
being read for amendment in determining the generality of the class
covered by that proposition (Jan. 30, 1986, p. 1051).
[[Page [766]]]
A <> general subject may be amended by specific propositions
of the same class (VIII, 3002, 3009, 3012; see also Deschler-Brown, ch.
28, Sec. 11). Thus, the following have been held to be germane: to a
bill admitting several territories into the Union, an amendment adding
another territory (V, 5838); to a bill providing for the construction of
buildings in each of two cities, an amendment providing for similar
buildings in several other cities (V, 5840); to a resolution embodying
two distinct phases of international relationship, an amendment
embodying a third (V, 5839); to an amendment prohibiting indirect
assistance to several countries, an amendment to include additional
countries within that prohibition (Aug. 3, 1978, p. 24244); to a portion
of a bill providing two categories of economic assistance to foreign
countries, an amendment adding a further specific category (Apr. 9,
1979, pp. 7755-57); to a bill bringing two new categories within the
coverage of existing law, an amendment to include a third category of
the same class (Nov. 27, 1967, p. 33769); to a proposition providing for
prepayment of loans by those within a certain class of borrowers who
meet a specified criterion, a proposed House amendment eliminating the
criterion to broaden the applicability of the Senate amendment to
additional borrowers within the same class (June 30, 1987, p. 18308); to
an amendment addressing a range of criminal prohibitions, an amendment
addressing another criminal prohibition within that range (Oct. 17,
1991, pp. 26767, 26772); to a bill addressing violent crimes, an
amendment addressing violent crimes involving the environment (May 7,
1996, p. 10344).
Where a bill seeks to accomplish a general purpose (support of arts
and humanities) by diverse methods, an amendment that adds a specific
method to accomplish that result (artist employment through the National
Endowment for the Arts) may be germane (Apr. 26, 1976, p. 11101; see
also June 12, 1979, p. 14460). However, to a resolution authorizing a
class of employees in the service of the House, an amendment providing
for the employment of a specified individual was held not to be germane
(V, 5848-5849). Other examples of amendments that have been held to be
germane under this theory include: to a proposition relating in many
diverse respects to the political rights of the people of the District
of Columbia, an amendment conferring upon that electorate the additional
right of electing a nonvoting Delegate to the Senate (Oct. 10, 1973, p.
33656); to a bill containing definitions of several of the terms used
therein, an amendment modifying one of the definitions and adding
another (Sept. 26, 1967, p. 26878); to a bill authorizing a broad
program of research and development, an amendment directing specific
emphasis in the administration of the program (Dec. 19, 1973, p. 42607);
to a bill providing for investigation of relationships between
environmental pollution and cancer, an amendment to investigate the
impact of personal health habits, such as cigarette smoking, on that
relationship (Sept. 15, 1976, pp. 30496-98); to a supplemental
appropriation bill containing funds for several departments and
agencies, an amend
[[Page [767]]]
ment in the form of a new chapter providing funds for capital outlays
for subway construction in the District of Columbia (May 11, 1971, p.
14437); to a proposal authorizing military procurement, including
purchase of food supplies, an amendment authorizing establishment that
fiscal year of a military preparedness grain reserve (July 20, 1982, pp.
17073, 17074, 17092, 17093).
To <> a
bill amending a general law on a specific point an amendment relating to
the terms of the law rather than to those of the bill was ruled not to
be germane (V, 5808; VIII, 2707, 2708). Thus a bill amending several
sections of one title of the United States Code does not necessarily
bring the entire title under consideration so as to permit an amendment
to any portion thereof (Oct. 11, 1967, p. 28649), and if a bill amends
existing law in one narrow particular, an amendment proposing to modify
such existing law in other particulars will generally be ruled out as
not germane (Aug. 16, 1967, p. 22768; July 25, 1975, p. 24841; May 12,
1976, p. 13532). To a bill narrowly amending an anti-discrimination
provision in the Education Amendments of 1972 only to clarify the
definition of a discriminating entity subject to denial of Federal
funding, amendments re-defining a class of discrimination (sex),
expanding the definition of persons who are the subject of
discrimination (to include the unborn), and deeming a new entity
(Congress) to be a recipient of Federal assistance (a class not
necessarily included in the class covered by the bill), were ruled not
to be germane (June 26, 1984, pp. 18847, 18857, 18861). But to the same
bill, an amendment merely defining a word used in the bill was held
germane (June 26, 1984, p. 18865). Unless a bill so extensively amends
existing law as to open up the entire law to amendment, the germaneness
of an amendment to the bill depends on its relationship to the subject
of the bill and not to the entire law being amended (Oct. 28, 1975, p.
34031). But a bill amending several sections of an existing law may be
sufficiently broad to permit amendments to other sections of that law
not mentioned in the bill (Feb. 19, 1975, p. 3596; Sept. 14, 1978, p.
29487). To a bill continuing and re-enacting an existing law, amendments
germane to the existing act sought to be continued have been held
germane to the pending bill (VIII, 2940, 2941, 2950, 3028; Oct. 31,
1963, p. 20728; June 1, 1976, p. 16045); but if a bill merely extends an
official's authority under existing law, an amendment permanently
amending that law has been held not in order (Sept. 29, 1969, pp. 27341-
43). Thus where a bill authorized appropriations to an agency for one
year but did not amend the organic law by extending the existence of
that agency, an amendment extending the life of another entity mentioned
in the organic law was held not germane (May 20, 1976, p. 14912). An
amendment making permanent changes in the law relating to organization
of an agency is not germane to a title of a bill only authorizing
appropriations for such agency for one fiscal year (Nov. 29, 1979, p.
34090). To a general appropriation bill providing funds for one fiscal
year, an amendment changing a permanent appropriation in existing law
[[Page [768]]]
and changing congressional procedures for consideration of that general
appropriation bill in future years is more general in scope (and in part
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules) and therefore is not
germane (June 29, 1987, p. 18083); and to a temporary authorization bill
prescribing the use of an agency's funds for two years but not amending
permanent law, an amendment permanently changing the organic law
governing that agency's operations is not germane (Dec. 2, 1982, p.
28537, concerning Sept. 28, 1982, p. 25465; Feb. 13, 2008, pp. 2115,
2116 (sustained by tabling of appeal)). However, to a bill authorizing
appropriations for a department for one fiscal year, where the effect of
the department's activities pursuant to that authorization may extend
beyond such year, an amendment directing a specific use of those funds
to perform an activity that may not be completed within the fiscal year
was nevertheless germane, because limited to funds in the bill (Oct. 18,
1979, p. 28763). Similarly, to a one-year authorization bill containing
diverse limitations and directions to the agency in question during such
year, an amendment further directing the agency to obtain information
from the private sector, and to make such information public during such
year, was held germane (Oct. 18, 1979, pp. 28815-17). Although an
amendment making a permanent change in existing law has been held not
germane to a bill proposing a temporary change in that law, if it is
apparent that the fundamental purpose of the amendment is to have only
temporary effect and to accomplish the same result as the bill, it may
be germane. Thus to a bill providing a temporary extension of existing
authority, an amendment achieving the same purpose by providing a
nominally permanent authority was held germane where both the bill and
the amendment were based on reported economic projections under which
either would achieve the same, necessarily temporary result by method of
direct or indirect amendment to the same existing law (May 13, 1987, p.
12344). However, to a proposal continuing the availability of
appropriated funds and imposing diverse legislative conditions upon the
availability of appropriations, an amendment directly and permanently
changing existing law as to the eligibility of recipients of funds was
held to be nongermane (Dec. 10, 1981, pp. 30536-38). To a bill extending
an existing law in modified form, an amendment proposing further
modification of that law may be germane (Apr. 23, 1969, p. 10067; Feb.
19, 1975, p. 3596). But to a bill amending a law in one particular, an
amendment repealing the law is not germane (Jan. 14, 1964, p. 423). To a
bill amending a general law in several particulars, an amendment
providing for the repeal of the whole law may be germane (V, 5824), but
the bill amending the law must so vitally affect the whole law as to
bring the entire act under consideration before the Chair will hold an
amendment repealing the law or amending any section of the law germane
to the bill (VIII, 2944; Apr. 2, 1924, p. 5437). If a bill repeals a
provision of law, an amendment modifying that provision rather than
repealing it may be germane (Oct. 30, 1969, p. 32466); but the
modification must relate to the provision of law being repealed (July
28, 1965, p. 18636). Generally
[[Page [769]]]
to a bill amending one law, an amendment changing the provisions of
another law or prohibiting assistance under any other law is not germane
(May 11, 1976, p. 13419; Aug. 12, 1992, p. 23238). To a bill amending
the Bretton Woods Act in relation to the International Monetary Fund, an
amendment prohibiting the alienation of gold to the IMF or to any other
international organization or its agents was held not germane (July 27,
1976, p. 24040). However, to a bill comprehensively amending several
laws within the same class, an amendment further amending one of those
laws on a subject within that class is germane (May 12, 1976, p. 13530);
and to a bill authorizing funding for the intelligence community for one
fiscal year and making diverse changes in permanent laws relating
thereto, an amendment changing another permanent law to address
accountability for intelligence activities was held germane (Oct. 17,
1990, p. 30171). To a title of a bill dealing with a number of unrelated
authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture, an amendment amending
another act within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture to
require the adoption of a minimum standard for the contents of ice cream
was held germane, because it was restricted to the authority of the
Secretary of Agriculture (July 22, 1977, pp. 24558-70). But to a section
of a bill amending a section of the National Labor Relations Act dealing
with procedural rules governing labor elections and organizations, an
amendment changing the same section of law to require promulgation of
rules defining certain conduct as an unfair labor practice was held not
germane, where neither the pending section nor the bill itself addressed
the subject of unfair labor practices dealt with in another section of
the law (Oct. 5, 1977, p. 32507). To a bill narrowly amending one
subsection of existing law dealing with one specific criminal activity,
an amendment postponing the effective date of the entire section,
affecting other criminal provisions and classes of persons as well as
the one amended by the bill, or an amendment to another subsection of
the law dealing with a related but separate prohibition, was held not
germane (May 16, 1979, pp. 11470-72), but to an amendment adding sundry
punitive sections to the Federal criminal code, an amendment creating an
exception to the prohibition of another such section was held germane
(Oct. 17, 1991, pp. 26767, 26772).
Restrictions, <> qualifications, and limitations
sought to be added by way of amendment must be germane to the provisions
of the bill. Conditioning the availability of funds may be germane if
the condition is related to the general purpose and within the scope of
the pending proposition (Deschler-Brown, ch. 28, Sec. Sec. 29-34). Thus,
the following are germane: to a bill authorizing the funding of a
variety of programs that satisfy several stated requirements in order to
accomplish a general purpose, an amendment conditioning the availability
of those funds upon implementation by their recipients of another
program related to that general purpose (June 18, 1973, p. 20100); to a
bill authorizing funds for military procurement and construction, an
amendment declaring that none
[[Page [770]]]
of the funds be used to carry out military operations in North Vietnam
(Mar. 2, 1967, p. 5143); to a proposition reducing the line-item
authorization for certain missiles and prohibiting procurement of
certain other missiles, an amendment proposing a conditional restriction
on the availability of funds for such procurement that merely requires
observation of activities of another country, which activities already
constitute the policy basis for the funding of that governmental
activity (missile procurement) (May 16, 1984, p. 12510); to a bill
authorizing Federal funding of certain qualifying state programs, an
amendment restricting the payment of Federal funds in a bill to States
that enact certain laws relating to the activities being funded (July
28, 1993, p. 17403); to an authorization bill, an amendment that
conditions the availability of such funds by adopting as a measure of
their availability the expenditure during the fiscal year of a
comparable percentage of funds authorized by other acts as long as the
amendment does not directly affect the use of other funds (July 26,
1973, p. 26210); to a bill authorizing certain housing programs, an
amendment restricting the amounts of direct spending in the bill to the
levels set in the concurrent resolution on the budget as merely a
measure of availability of funds in the bill and not a provision
directly affecting the congressional budget process (June 11, 1987, p.
15540); to a proposition restricting the availability of funds to a
certain category of recipients, an amendment further restricting the
availability of funds to a subcategory of the same recipients (Sept. 25,
1979, pp. 26135-43); to a bill authorizing appropriations for an agency,
an amendment prohibiting the use of funds for any purpose to which the
funds may otherwise be applied (Nov. 5, 1981, p. 26716); an amendment
that conditions the availability of funds covered by a bill by adopting
as a measure of their availability the monthly increases in the public
debt (as long as the amendment does not directly affect other provisions
of law or impose contingencies textually predicated upon other unrelated
actions of Congress) (Sept. 25, 1979, pp. 26150-52); to a bill
authorizing defense assistance to a foreign nation, an amendment
delaying the availability of that assistance until that nation's former
ambassador testified before a House committee, which had been directed
by the House to investigate gifts by that nation's representatives to
influence Members and employees, as a contingency that sought to compel
the furnishing of information related to efforts to induce defense
assistance to that nation (Aug. 2, 1978, p. 23932); to a provision
authorizing funds for a fiscal year, an amendment restricting the
availability of funds appropriated pursuant thereto for a specified
purpose until enactment of a subsequent law authorizing that purpose
(July 21, 1983, p. 20198); to a bill authorizing humanitarian and
evacuation assistance to war refugees, an amendment making such
authorization contingent on a report to Congress on costs of a portion
of the evacuation program (but not requiring implementation of any new
program) (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11529); and to an amendment precluding the
availability of an authorization for part of a fiscal year and then
permitting availability for the remainder of the year based upon a
contingency, an
[[Page [771]]]
amendment constituting a prohibition on the availability of the same
funds for the entire fiscal year (May 16, 1984, p. 12567).
On the other hand, the following conditions on the availability of
funds are not germane: an amendment conditioning the use of funds on the
conduct of congressional hearings addressing an unrelated subject (July
22, 1994, p. 17613); to a proposition conditioning the availability of
funds upon the enactment of an authorizing statute for the enforcing
agency, a substitute conditioning the availability of some of those
funds upon a prohibition of certain imports into the United States (Nov.
7, 1985, p. 30984); to a bill authorizing funds for military assistance
to certain foreign countries, an amendment to make the availability of
those funds contingent upon efforts by those countries to control
narcotic traffic to the United States, and to authorize the President to
offer the assistance of Federal agencies for that purpose, where the
subjects of narcotics and the accessibility of Federal agencies are not
contained in the bill (June 17, 1971, p. 20589); to a bill authorizing
funds for foreign assistance, an amendment placing restrictions on funds
authorized or appropriated in prior years (Aug. 24, 1967, p. 24002); to
an amendment changing a dollar amount in a bill, a substitute therefor
not only changing the figure but also restricting the use of any funds
in furtherance of a certain activity (June 7, 1972, p. 19920); to a
proposal to restrict availability of agency funds for a year and
amending the organic law as it relates to the internal functions
thereof, an amendment further restricting funding but also applying with
respect to the use of funds in the bill provisions of criminal and other
laws not applicable thereto (Oct. 26, 1989, p. 26269); to a provision
prohibiting aid to a certain country unless certain conditions were met,
an amendment prohibiting aid to another country until that nation took
certain acts, and referring to funds provided in other acts (Nov. 17,
1967, p. 32968); an amendment conditioning the availability of defense
funds to foreign contractors based upon their compliance with Federal
law regarding discrimination not otherwise applicable to them (and
within the jurisdiction of other committees) (June 16, 1983, p. 16060);
and an amendment conditioning the availability of grants to states and
localities based upon their compliance with Federal immigration law
regarding employment eligibility verification not otherwise applicable
to them (and within the jurisdiction of other committees) (Mar. 7, 2007,
pp. 5618, 5619).
An amendment to a general appropriation bill in the form of a
limitation on funds therein for activities unrelated to the functions of
departments and agencies addressed by the bill is not germane (July 10,
2000, p. 13605).
An amendment delaying the availability of authorizations pending
unrelated determinations involving agencies and committee jurisdictions
not within the purview of the bill is also not germane (Feb. 7, 1973, p.
3708; July 8, 1981, p. 15010; July 9, 1981, p. 15218). Thus, the
following are not germane: to a bill authorizing military assistance to
Israel and funds for a U.N. emergency force in the Middle East, an
amendment postponing the availability of funds to Israel until the
President certifies the existence
[[Page [772]]]
of a designated level of domestic energy supplies (Dec. 11, 1973, p.
40837); an amendment delaying the availability of an appropriation
pending the enactment of certain revenue legislation (Oct. 25, 1979, p.
29639); to a bill authorizing radio broadcasting to Cuba, an amendment
prohibiting the use of those funds until Congress has considered a
constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget (Aug. 10, 1982, p.
20250).
Similarly, although it may be in order on a general appropriation bill
to delay the availability of certain funds therein if the contingency
does not impose new duties on executive officials, the contingency must
be related to the funds being withheld and cannot affect other funds in
the bill not related to that factual situation (VII, 1596, 1600), may
not be made applicable to a trust fund provided (IV, 4017), and may not
be made applicable to money appropriated in other acts (IV, 3927; VII,
1495, 1597-1599). Thus, to a general appropriation bill containing funds
not only for a former President but also for other departments and
agencies, an amendment delaying the availability of all funds in the
bill until the former President has made restitution of a designated
amount of money is not germane (Oct. 2, 1974, p. 33620). On the other
hand, to a general appropriation bill providing funds for the Department
of Agriculture and including specific allocation of funds for pest
control, an amendment was germane that prohibited the use of funds for
use of pesticides prohibited by State or local law (May 26, 1969, p.
13753).
It is not in order to amend a bill to delay the effectiveness of the
legislation pending an unrelated contingency (VIII, 3035, 3037). Thus
the following are not germane: an amendment delaying the bill's
effectiveness pending unrelated determinations involving agencies and
committee jurisdictions not within the purview of the bill (Feb. 7,
1973, p. 3708; July 8, 1981, p. 15010; July 9, 1981, p. 15218); an
amendment delaying the bill's effectiveness pending enactment of
unrelated State legislation (June 29, 1967, p. 17921; July 28, 1993, p.
17401); an amendment conditioning authorization for one agency (National
Science Foundation) on appropriations for another (National Aeronautics
and Space Administration) (May 2, 2007, pp. 11093-95); to a bill
proposing relief for women and children in Germany, an amendment
delaying the effectiveness of such relief until a soldier's compensation
act shall have been enacted (VIII, 3035); and to a bill naming an
airport, an amendment conditioning the naming on approval by an entity
without jurisdiction over the administration of the airport (Feb. 4,
1998, p. 794). On the other hand, the following are germane: an
amendment delaying operation of a proposed enactment pending an
ascertainment of a fact when the fact to be ascertained relates to the
subject matter of the bill (VIII, 3029; Dec. 15, 1982, pp. 30957-61); an
amendment postponing the effective date of a title of a bill to a date
certain (July 25, 1973, p. 25828); to a provision to become effective
immediately, an amendment deferring the time at which it shall become
effective, without involving affirmative legislation (VIII, 3030).
[[Page [773]]]
Where a proposition confers broad discretionary power on an executive
official, an amendment is germane that directs that official to take
certain actions in the exercise of the authority or proposes to limit
such authority (VIII, 3022). Thus the following are germane: to an
amendment in the nature of a substitute authorizing the Federal Energy
Administrator to restrict exports of certain energy resources, an
amendment directing that official to prohibit the exportation of
petroleum products for use in Indochina military operations (Dec. 14,
1973, p. 41753); to a provision conferring Presidential authority to
establish priorities among users of petroleum products and requiring
priority to education and transportation users, an amendment restricting
such regulatory authority by requiring that petroleum products allocated
for public school transportation be used only between the student's home
and the closest school (Dec. 13, 1973, pp. 41267-69); to a bill
extending the authorities of one government agency, including
requirements for consultation with several other agencies, an amendment
requiring that agency to perform a function based upon an analysis
furnished by yet another agency, as an additional limitation on the
authority of the agency being extended that did not separately mandate
the performance of an unrelated function by another entity (July 27,
1978, p. 23107); to a proposition authorizing a program to be
undertaken, a substitute providing for a study to determine the
feasibility of undertaking the same type of program, as a more limited
approach involving the same agency (June 26, 1985, pp. 17453, 17458,
17460) (in effect overruling VIII, 2989); and to a bill limiting an
official's authority to construe legal authorities transferred to the
official in the bill, an amendment further restricting such official's
authority to construe under any circumstances certain other laws to be
administered by that official (as an additional, although more
restrictive, curtailment of existing authorities transferred by the
bill) (June 11, 1979, pp. 14226-38).
An amendment providing a privileged procedure for expedited review of
an agency's regulations is not germane if the bill does not contain such
procedures (Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78). On the other hand, to a
bill authorizing an agency to undertake certain activities, an amendment
allowing Congress to disapprove regulations issued pursuant thereto if
the disapproval mechanism does not amend the rules or procedures of the
House is germane (May 4, 1976, p. 12348); and to a bill directing the
furnishing of certain intelligence information to the House without
amending any House procedure, an amendment imposing relevant conditions
of security on the handling of such information in committee (also
without amending any House procedure) for the period covered by the bill
is also germane (June 11, 1991, p. 14204).
It is germane to condition or restrict assistance to a particular
class of recipient covered by the underlying measure. Thus, the
following are germane: to a bill providing aid to shipping, an amendment
to limit such aid to ships equipped with saving devices (VIII, 3027); to
a bill authorizing the insurance of vessels, an amendment denying such
insurance to vessels
[[Page [774]]]
charging exorbitant rates (VIII, 3023); to a proposition denying
benefits to recipients failing to meet a certain qualification, a
substitute denying the same benefits to some recipients but excepting
others (July 28, 1982, pp. 18355-58, 18361). Although a bill relating to
benefits based on indemnification of liability arising out of an
activity does not ordinarily admit as germane amendments relating to
regulation of that activity, an amendment conditioning benefits upon
agreement by its recipient to be governed by certain safety regulations
may be germane if related to the activity giving rise to the liability
(July 29, 1987, p. 21448). On the other hand, it is not germane to
condition or restrict assistance to a particular class of recipient upon
an unrelated contingency such as action or inaction by another class of
recipient or agent not covered by the bill (Mar. 5, 1986, p. 3613).
To a bill not only granting consent of Congress to an interstate
compact but also imposing conditions on the granting of that consent, an
amendment stating an additional related condition to that consent and
not directly changing the compact may be germane (Oct. 7, 1997, p.
21475). To a bill regulating immigration, an amendment providing that
the operation of the act should not conflict with an agreement with
Japan is not germane (VIII, 3050).
Amendments providing exceptions or exemptions must also be within the
scope of the proposition. Thus, to a bill requiring that a certain
percentage of autos sold in the United States be manufactured
domestically, and imposing an import restriction on autos for persons
violating that requirement, an amendment waiving those restrictions with
respect to a foreign nation where the President has issued a
proclamation that that nation is not imposing unfair import restrictions
on any United States product was held not germane, because it dealt with
overall trade issues rather than domestic content requirement for autos
sold in the United States (Nov. 2, 1983, p. 30542). However, an
amendment to the same bill prohibiting its implementation if resulting
in the violation of an international agreement was held germane because
the bill already comprehensively addressed those subject matters by
disclaiming any purpose to amend international agreements or to confer
court jurisdiction relative thereto and by conferring court jurisdiction
over adjudication of penalties assessed under the bill (Nov. 2, 1983,
pp. 30546, 30547). Similarly, the following are germane: to a bill
providing for the deportation of aliens, an amendment to exempt a
portion of such aliens from deportation (VIII, 3029); to a bill
prohibiting the issuance of injunctions by the courts in labor disputes,
an amendment to except labor disputes affecting public utilities (VIII,
3024).
Readings
8. <> Bills
and joint resolutions are subject to readings as follows:
[[Page [775]]]
(a) A first reading is in full when the bill or joint resolution
is first considered.
(b) A second reading occurs only when the bill or joint resolution
is read for amendment in a Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union under clause 5 of rule XVIII.
(c) A third reading precedes passage when the Speaker states the
question: ``Shall the bill [or joint resolution] be engrossed [when
applicable] and read a third time?'' If that question is decided in the
affirmative, then the bill or joint resolution shall be read the final
time by title and then the question shall be put on its passage.
This provision (formerly clause 1 of rule XXI) was adopted in 1789 and
amended in 1794, 1880 (IV, 3391), and 1965 (H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 1965, p.
21). The last change eliminated a provision that permitted a Member to
demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy of a House bill. Before
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
found in former clause 1 of rule XXI. The recodification also clarified
paragraphs (a) and (b) to reflect the modern practice of first and
second readings (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Formerly a <> bill was
read for the first time by title at the time of its introduction, but
since 1890 all bills have been introduced by filing them with the Clerk,
thus rendering a reading by title impossible at that time (IV, 3391).
But the titles of all bills introduced are printed in the Journal and
Record, thereby carrying out the real purpose of the rule.
Under paragraph (a), the first reading of a bill is in full and occurs
when a bill is called up in the House (IV, 3391), although when called
up pursuant to a unanimous-consent request, it is reported by title only
(Dec. 18, 2005, p. 30269). The initial step of consideration in the
Committee of the Whole is sometimes referred to as the ``first
reading.'' Under clause 5 of rule XVIII that reading is in full and
occurs before general debate commences. However, it customarily is
dispensed with by unanimous consent or special rule, although a motion
to dispense with the first reading is not in order (VIII, 2335, 2436).
The Speaker may object to a request for unanimous consent to dispense
with the first reading (IV, 3390; VII, 1054). The Chair has declined to
entertain a unanimous-consent request
[[Page [776]]]
to read a bill in full while a separate measure is currently under
consideration in the House (Feb. 24, 2021, p. _).
Under paragraph (b), the second reading of a bill comprises its
reading for amendment in the Committee of the Whole (Apr. 28, 1977, p.
12635).
The former <> right to demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy
of a bill could be made immediately after it had been ordered to be
engrossed and before it had been read a third time by title (IV, 3400,
3403, 3404; VII, 1061); and before the yeas and nays had been ordered on
passage (IV, 3402). The right to demand the reading in full caused the
bill to be laid aside until engrossed even though the previous question
had been ordered (IV, 3395-3399; VII, 1062). A privileged motion may not
intervene before the third reading (IV, 3405), and the question on
engrossment and third reading is not subject to a demand for division of
the question (Aug. 3, 1989, p. 18544). A vote on passage must first be
reconsidered to remedy the omission to read a bill a third time (IV,
3406). Senate bills are not engrossed in the House; but are ordered to a
third reading. The demand for the reading of the engrossed copy of a
Senate bill cannot be made in the House (VIII, 2426).
A bill in <> the House (as
distinguished from the Committee of the Whole) is amended pending the
engrossment and third reading (V, 5781; VI, 1051, 1052). The question on
engrossment and third reading being decided in the negative the bill is
rejected (IV, 3420, 3421). A bill must be considered and voted on by
itself (IV, 3408). If the two Houses pass similar but distinct bills on
the same subject it is necessary that one or the other House act again
on the subject (IV, 3386). The requirement of a two-thirds vote for
proposed constitutional amendments has been construed in the later
practice to apply only to the vote on the final passage (V, 7029, 7030;
VIII, 3504). A bill having been rejected by the House, consideration of
a similar but not identical bill on the same subject was afterwards held
to be in order (IV, 3384).
Rule XVII
decorum and debate
Decorum
1. (a) <> A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who
desires to speak or deliver a matter to the House shall respectfully
address the Speaker and, on being recognized, may address the House from
any place on the floor. When invited
[[Page [777]]]
by the Chair, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may speak
from the Clerk's desk.
(b) Remarks in debate (which may include references to the Senate or
its Members) shall be confined to the question under debate, avoiding
personality.
This clause (formerly clause 1 of rule XIV) was adopted in 1880, but
was made up, in its main provisions, of older rules, which dated from
1789 and 1811 (V, 4979). A rule of comity prohibiting most references in
debate to the Senate was first enunciated in Jefferson's Manual and was
strictly enforced in the House through the 108th Congress (albeit with
certain exceptions adopted in the 100th and 101st Congresses outlined in
former paragraph (b)) (Sec. 371, supra; H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1987, p. 6;
H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1989, p. 72). In the 109th Congress the exceptions
were deleted and the parenthetical in paragraph (b) was inserted (sec.
2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). A gender-based reference was
eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p.
7) and a mobility-based reference was eliminated in the 115th Congress
(sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). Before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former
clause 1 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This clause, and
rulings of the Chair with respect to references in debate to the Senate,
are discussed in Sec. Sec. 361, 371, supra.
The Speaker, who has a responsibility under rule I to maintain and
enforce decorum in debate, and the chair of the Committee of the Whole,
who enforces decorum in debate under rule XVIII, have reminded and
advised Members of the following: (1) clause 1 requires Members seeking
recognition to do so properly and to address themselves to the question
under debate, avoiding personality; (2) Members should address their
remarks to the Chair only and not to other entities such as the press or
the viewing audience, and the Chair takes the initiative to enforce this
rule (see, e.g., Nov. 8, 1979, p. 31519; Sept. 29, 1983, p. 26501; Dec.
17, 1987, p. 36139; Oct. 17, 2005, p. 22907); (3) Members should not
refer to or address any occupant of the galleries; (4) Members should
refer to other Members in debate only in the third person, by State
designation (Speaker O'Neill, June 14, 1978, p. 17615; Oct. 2, 1984, p.
28520; Mar. 7, 1985, p. 5028) and may not direct remarks to a former
Member present on the floor (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.9); (5)
Members should refrain from using profanity or vulgarity in debate (Mar.
5, 1991, p. 5036; Feb. 18, 1993, p. 2973; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 33744; July
23, 1998, p. 17032; Oct. 11, 2000, p. 22189; Oct. 2, 2003, pp. 23949,
23950; Mar. 10, 2004, p. 3849; May 21, 2014, pp. 8821, 8822; June 10,
2016, p. _; Mar. 16, 2017, p. _); (6) the Chair may interrupt a Member
engaging in personalities with respect to another Member of the House,
as the Chair does with respect to such references to the Senate or the
President (Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551);
[[Page [778]]]
(7) Members should refrain from discussing the President's personal
character (May 10, 1994, p. 9697); (8) Members should heed the gavel
(see, e.g., Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081; Oct. 2, 2003, p. 23950; May 19,
2004, pp. 10107, 10108) because ignoring the gavel is not an act of
civil disobedience but rather an act of stark incivility (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.2), and remarks uttered in debate while not
under recognition do not appear in the Congressional Record (e.g., May
22, 2003, p. 12965; Oct. 2, 2003, p. 23950; May 19, 2004, pp. 10107,
10108); (9) Members may not use audio devices during debate (May 24,
2005, p. 11008; June 22, 2018, p. _). The Speaker has deplored the
tendency to address remarks directly to the President (or others not in
the Chamber) in the second person, and cautions Members on the Chair's
own initiative (see, e.g., Oct. 16, 1989, p. 24715; Oct. 17, 1989, p.
24764; Jan. 24, 1990, p. 426; Oct. 9, 1991, p. 25999; Speaker Boehner,
Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 26, 2013, p. 1680; Oct. 8,
2013, p. 15429; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p. 4783; Speaker
Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, p. 2554; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. _).
Even when referring in debate to the Speaker, Members direct their
remarks to the occupant of the Chair (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6,
Sec. 6.3; May 22, 2018, p. _).
Members should refrain from speaking disrespectfully of the Speaker or
arraigning the personal conduct of the Speaker, and under the precedents
the sanctions for such violations transcend the ordinary requirements
for timeliness of challenges (II, 1248; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.6; Jan. 19, 1995, p. 1599). Engaging in
personalities with respect to the Speaker's conduct is not in order even
though possibly relevant to a pending resolution granting him certain
authority (Sept. 24, 1996, p. 24485).
This clause has been interpreted to proscribe the wearing of badges by
Members to communicate a message, because Members must address the
Speaker to deliver any matter to the House (Speaker O'Neill, Apr. 15,
1986, p. 7525; Feb. 22, 1995, p. 5435; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9662; Oct. 19,
1995, pp. 28522, 28540, 28646; Nov. 17, 1995, p. 5435; Mar. 7, 1996, p.
4083; Sept. 26, 1996, p. 25117; July 24, 1998, p. 17157; Sept. 28, 2000,
p. 19940; Sept. 22, 2004, p. 18967; May 22, 2013, p. 7845; Jan. 31,
2017, p. _). A Member may not address the House in debate where not
recognized by the Chair for such purpose (Jan. 6, 2011, p. 140; Jan. 31,
2017, p. _). A Member's comportment may constitute a breach of decorum
even though the content of that Member's speech is not, itself,
unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Under this standard the Chair
may deny recognition to a Member who has engaged in unparliamentary
debate and ignored repeated admonitions by the Chair to proceed in
order, subject to the will of the House on the question of proceeding in
order (Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535).
For further discussion of personalities in debate with respect to
references to the official conduct of a Member, see Sec. Sec. 361-363,
supra; with
[[Page [779]]]
respect to references to the President, see Sec. 370, supra; and with
respect to references to the Senate, see Sec. Sec. 371-374, supra.
Aside from ``special-order,'' ``morning-hour,'' or ``one-minute''
debate, where no question is pending and recognition is by unanimous
consent or leadership listings, it is a general rule that a motion must
be made before a Member may proceed in debate (V, 4984, 4985), and this
motion must be reduced to writing upon demand (V, 4986). A motion must
also be stated by the Speaker or read by the Clerk before debate may
begin (V, 4982, 4983, 5304). The withdrawal of a motion precludes
further debate on it (V, 4989). But sometimes when a communication or a
report has been before the House it has been debated before any specific
motion has been made in relation to it (V, 4987, 4988). In a few cases,
such as conference reports and reports from the Committee of the Whole,
the motion to agree is considered as pending without being offered from
the floor (IV, 4896; V, 6517).
A <> Member
having the floor may not be deprived of it by an ordinary motion, even
the highly privileged motion to adjourn (V, 5369, 5370; VIII, 2646), or
the motion to table (Mar. 18, 1992, p. 6022), a parliamentary inquiry
(VIII, 2455-2458), a question of privilege (V, 5002; VIII, 2459), a
motion that the Committee rise (VIII, 2325), or a demand for the
previous question (VIII, 2609; Mar. 18, 1992, p. 6022), but may be
interrupted for a conference report (V, 6451; VIII, 3294) or by a point
of order (e.g., June 24, 2008, pp. 13499, 13500). It is a custom also
for the Speaker to request a Member to yield for the reception of a
message. A Member may yield the floor for a motion to adjourn or that
the Committee of the Whole rise without losing the right to continue
when the subject is again continued (V, 5009-5013), but if the House has
by resolution vested control of general debate in the Committee of the
Whole in designated Members, their control of general debate may not be
abrogated by another Member moving to rise, unless they yield for that
purpose (May 25, 1967, p. 14121; June 10, 1999, p. 12471). A Member may
also be seated while a paper is being read on the Member's time without
losing the right to the floor (V, 5015). A Member who, having the floor,
moved the previous question was permitted to resume the floor on
withdrawing the motion (V, 5474). But a Member may not yield to another
Member to offer an amendment without losing the floor (V, 5021, 5030,
5031; VIII, 2476), and a Member may not offer an amendment (VIII, 2474,
2475), a motion to adjourn (Mar. 8, 2017, p. _), or a motion that the
Committee of the Whole rise (Sept. 9, 1997, pp. 18183, 18184) in time
secured for debate only, or request unanimous consent to offer an
amendment unless yielded to for that purpose by the Member controlling
the floor (Sept. 24, 1986, p. 25589; May 11, 2006, p. 7877). A Member
recognized under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole may
not yield to another Member to offer an amendment, because it is within
the power of the Chair to recognize Members to offer amendments (Apr.
19, 1973, p. 13240; Dec. 12, 1973, p. 41171). A Member desiring to
interrupt
[[Page [780]]]
another in debate should address the Chair for permission of the Member
speaking (V, 5006; VI, 193), but the latter may exercise discretion as
to whether or not to yield (V, 5007, 5008; VI, 193; VIII, 2463, 2465).
It is not in order to disrupt a Member's remarks in debate by repeatedly
interrupting to ask whether the Member will yield after having declined
to do so (Apr. 9, 1992, p. 9040; Nov. 13, 1997, p. 26533; Apr. 2, 2009,
pp. 9692, 9693). If a Member interrupts another during debate without
being yielded to or otherwise recognized (as on a point of order), such
remarks are not printed in the Record (Speaker O'Neill, Feb. 7, 1985, p.
2229; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.25; July 29, 1994, p. 18609).
Members should not engage in disruption while another is speaking (Dec.
20, 1995, p. 37878; June 27, 1996, p. 15915).
The <> Speaker may of right speak
from the Chair on questions of order and be first heard (II, 1367), but
with this exception may speak from the Chair only by leave of the House
and on questions of fact (II, 1367-1372). On occasions comparatively
rare Speakers have called Members to the Chair and participated in
debate on questions of order or matters relating to their own conduct or
rights, usually without asking consent of the House (II, 1367, 1368,
1371; III, 1950; V, 6097). In more recent years, Speakers have
frequently entered into debate from the floor on substantive legislative
issues before the House for decision. The right to participate in debate
in the Committee of the Whole is without question (see, e.g., Apr. 30,
1987, p. 10811).
It <> has
always been held, and generally quite strictly, that in the House
remarks must be confined to the subject under debate (V, 5043-5048; VI,
576; VIII, 2481, 2534). The Chair normally does not take initiative but
waits for the question of relevancy of debate to be raised (Sept. 27,
1990, p. 26226; Mar. 23, 1995, p. 8986; Nov. 14, 1995, pp. 32354-57,
32374; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37118; Mar. 12, 1996, p. 4448; Mar. 20, 2002,
p. 3663), which is untimely after intervening debate (July 31, 2007, p.
21963).
During debate on a bill, a Member under recognition must confine
remarks to the pending legislation; that is, remarks must not dwell on
another measure not before the House (Nov. 4, 1999, p. 28524; July 31,
2007, p. 21970), but rather must maintain a constant nexus between
debate and the subject of the bill (Nov. 14, 1995, pp. 32354-57; Mar.
12, 1996, p. 4450; Mar. 20, 2002, pp. 3663-64; June 3, 2003, p. 13483,
p. 13486). Although remarks comparing a pending question to a broader
policy concern may be relevant, discussion of the broader policy concern
may not stray from its nexus to the pending question (July 31, 2007, p.
21965, p. 21966, p. 21967). Debate on a motion to amend must be confined
to the amendment (or the second-degree amendment, as the case may be
(July 31, 2007, p. 21966, p. 21969)), and may neither include the
general merits of the bill (V, 5049-5051), nor range to the merits of a
proposition not included in the underlying resolution (Jan. 31, 1995, p.
3032). Similarly, debate on
[[Page [781]]]
a motion to recommit with instructions under the former version of
clause 2 of rule XIX had to be confined to the subject of the motion
rather than dwelling on the general merits of the bill (Mar. 7, 1996, p.
4092). However, the Chair has accorded Members latitude in debating a
series of amendments in the nature of a substitute to a concurrent
resolution on the budget (Mar. 25, 1999, p. 5734). On a motion to
suspend the rules, debate is confined to the object of the motion and
may not range to the merits of a bill not scheduled for such
consideration (Nov. 23, 1991, p. 34189; June 11, 2002, p. 9997). Debate
on a special order providing for the consideration of a bill may range
to the merits of the bill to be made in order (Sept. 26, 1989, p. 21532;
Oct. 16, 1990, p. 29668; Oct. 1, 1991, p. 24836), because the question
of consideration of the bill is involved, but should not range to the
merits of a measure not to be considered under that special order (Sept.
27, 1990, p. 26226; July 25, 1995, p. 20323; Sept. 20, 1995, p. 15838;
Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37118; May 1, 1996, p. 9888; May 8, 1996, p. 10511;
May 15, 1996, p. 1131; Mar. 13, 1997, p. 3833; Mar. 20, 2002, p. 3664)
or to the Rules of the House in general (July 9, 2004, pp. 14971, 14972,
14976 (sustained by tabling of appeal)). Debate on a resolution
providing authorities to expedite the consideration of end-of-session
legislation may neither range to the merits of a measure that might or
might not be considered under such authorities nor engage in
personalities with respect to the official conduct of the Speaker, even
as asserted to relate to the question of granting the authorities
proposed (Sept. 24, 1996, pp. 24485, 24486). If a unanimous-consent
request for a Member to address the House for one hour specifies the
subject of the address, the occupant of the Chair during that speech may
enforce the rule of relevancy in debate by requiring that the remarks be
confined to the subject so specified (Jan. 23, 1984, p. 93). Debate on a
question of personal privilege must be confined to the statements or
issue that gave rise to the question of privilege (V, 5075-5077; VI,
576, 608; VIII, 2448, 2481; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.4).
Debate on a privileged resolution recommending disciplinary action
against a Member, although it may include comparisons with other such
actions taken by or reported to the House for purposes of measuring
severity of punishment, may not extend to the conduct of another sitting
Member not the subject of a committee report (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271).
The question whether a Member should be relieved from committee service
is debatable only within very narrow limits (IV, 4510; June 16, 1975, p.
19056). Debate on a resolution electing a Member to a committee is
confined to the election of that Member and should not extend to that
committee's agenda (July 10, 1995, p. 18258).
Although Speakers have entertained appeals from decisions as to
irrelevancy, they have held such appeals not debatable (V, 5056-5063).
Under prior practice in the Committee of the Whole, remarks did not
have to be confined to the subject during general debate (V, 5233-5238;
VIII, 2590; June 28, 1974, p. 21743); but under modern practice a
special order providing for consideration of a measure in the Committee
of the
[[Page [782]]]
Whole typically does require such relevance in debate. All five-minute
debate in the Committee of the Whole is confined to the subject (V,
5240-5256; July 31, 2007, p. 21969 (sustained on appeal)), even on a pro
forma amendment (VIII, 2591), in which case debate must relate to an
issue in the pending portion of the bill (VIII, 2592, 2593); thus, if a
general provisions title is pending debate may relate to any agency
funded by the bill (June 13, 1991, p. 14692).
Recognition
<> 2. When two or more
Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner seek recognition, the
Speaker shall name the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who is
first to speak. * * *
This provision was adopted in 1789 (V, 4978) and amended in the 115th
Congress to remove a mobility-based reference (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XIV (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
In the early history of the House, when business proceeded on
presentation by individual Members, the Speaker recognized the Member
who sought recognition first; and in case of doubt there was an appeal
from such recognition (II, 1429-1434). But as the membership and
business of the House increased it became necessary to establish and
adhere to a fixed order of business, and recognition, instead of
pertaining to the individual Member, necessarily came to pertain to the
bill or other business that would be before the House under the rule
regulating the order of business. Hence the necessity that the Speaker
should not be compelled to heed the claims of Members as individuals was
expressed in 1879 in a report from the Committee on Rules, which
declared that ``in the nature of the case discretion must be lodged with
the presiding officer'' (II, 1424). And in 1881 the Speaker declined to
entertain an appeal from his decision on a question of recognition (II,
1425-1428), establishing thereby a line of precedent that continues (VI,
292; VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762). It also has been determined that a Member
may not invoke clause 6 of rule XIV (formerly rule XXV) (Sec. 884,
supra), providing that questions relating to the priority of business
shall be decided by a majority without debate, to inhibit the Speaker's
power of recognition under this clause (Speaker Albert, July 31, 1975,
p. 26249). A Member desiring to be recognized should take the time to do
so properly (Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner,
Feb. 26, 2013, p. 1680; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p. 4783; Speaker
Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, pp. 2553, 2554). A Member offering a
nondebatable motion (to adjourn) should not preface it with debate (Dec.
8, 2015, p. 19606).--
[[Page [783]]]
Recognition <> for one-minute speeches by unanimous consent and the order
of recognition therefor are entirely within the discretion of the
Speaker (Nov. 15, 1983, p. 32657; Mar. 7, 2001, p. 3027; Sept. 28, 2012,
p. 14956), who may refuse to recognize for them until the completion of
legislative business (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 73; July 24, 1980, p.
19386) or decline a unanimous-consent request to increase the number
(Mar. 7, 2001, p. 3027; Sept. 16, 2008, p. 19204; Mar. 21, 2010, p.
4092; Feb. 27, 2015, p. 2896). It is not in order to raise as a question
of the privileges of the House a resolution directing the Speaker to
recognize for such speeches, because a question of privilege cannot
amend or interpret the Rules of the House (July 25, 1980, pp. 19762-64).
The modern practice of limiting recognition before legislative business
to one minute began August 2, 1937 (p. 8004) and was reiterated by
Speaker Rayburn on March 6, 1945 (Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 6.1). Although
the Chair's calculation of time consumed under one-minute speeches is
not subject to challenge, the Chair endeavors to recognize majority and
then minority Members by allocating time in a nonpartisan manner (Aug.
4, 1982, p. 19319). A tradition upheld by previous Speakers, and
formalized by an announced policy in the 115th through 117th Congresses
(Speaker Ryan, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _;
Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _), is that the Speaker will recognize
a Member only once per day by unanimous consent for a one-minute speech,
and will not entertain a second request (Speaker McCormack, June 11,
1963, p. 10634; May 1, 1985, p. 9995; July 21, 2009, pp. 18493, 18494;
July 25, 2018, p. _). The Speaker will not entertain a request to extend
recognition beyond one minute (Speaker McCormack, June 11, 1963, p.
10633; Jan. 7, 2014, p. 94; Oct. 2, 2020, p. _).
Since the 98th Congress the Speaker has followed announced policies of
alternating recognition for one-minute speeches and special-order
speeches between majority and minority Members (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 8,
1984, p. 22963; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551). In the 101st Congress, the Chair
continued the practice of alternating recognition for one-minute
speeches but began a practice of recognizing Members suggested by their
party leadership before others in the well (Apr. 19, 1990, p. 7406).
From August 8, 1984, through February 23, 1994, the Speaker also
followed an announced policy of recognizing Members of the same party
within a given category in the order in which their unanimous-consent
requests for special orders were granted (Speaker O'Neill, Aug. 8, 1984,
p. 22963; Jan. 5, 1993, p. 106). On February 11, 1994, the Speaker
announced a new policy governing recognition for special-order speeches.
The Speaker announced that the Chair would recognize for speeches of
five minutes or less before longer speeches, and that Members may not
enter requests for five-minute special orders earlier than one week in
advance. With respect to recognition for longer special orders, the
Speaker announced a policy of recognition that would depend not on
orders by unanimous consent but, rather, on lists
[[Page [784]]]
submitted by the respective party Leaders. This policy, the result of
bipartisan negotiations, was a departure from the modern practice as
described in Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 7.1 (special-order speeches
following legislative business are enabled only by unanimous consent).
In the 112th Congress, the Speaker announced a new policy (effective
February 1, 2011) of recognizing only for longer speeches following
legislative business (Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 105). Under the
Speaker's policy: (1) recognition does not extend beyond 10 p.m.; (2)
recognition is limited to four hours equally divided between the
majority and minority; (3) the first hour for each party is reserved to
its respective Leader or designee; (4) the second hour for each party is
divided into two 30-minute periods; (5) time within each party is
allotted in accord with a list submitted to the Chair by the respective
Leader, and time not claimed at the appropriate point is considered to
have expired; (6) recognition for the first hour alternates between the
parties from day to day; (7) the respective Leaders may establish
additional guidelines for entering requests; and (8) the Speaker may
withdraw recognition should circumstances warrant (Feb. 11, 1994, p.
2244; May 23, 1994, p. 11459; June 10, 1994, p. 12684; Jan. 4, 1995, p.
551; Feb. 16, 1995, p. 5096; May 12, 1995, p. 12765; Jan. 21, 1997, p.
460; Jan. 31, 2001, p. 1078; Jan. 5, 2011, p. 105; Jan. 3, 2013, p. 46;
Jan. 6, 2015, p. 62; Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). In the 116th Congress, the
Speaker revised the existing policy to provide that Members may be
recognized for only one special-order speech per week, and this policy
continued in the 117th Congress (Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _;
Speaker Pelosi, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _).
The Chair will recognize for subdivisions of the first hour for each
party only on designations (and reallocations) by the leadership
concerned (Oct. 2, 1998, p. 23151; Dec. 12, 2001, p. 25605; June 21,
2012, p. 9624; Feb. 14, 2013, p. 1430). A Member who is recognized to
control time during special orders may yield to colleagues for such
amounts of time as the Member may deem appropriate but may not yield
blocks of time to be enforced by the Chair. Members regulate the
duration of their yielding by reclaiming the time when appropriate (Jan.
31, 2001, p. 1078). Neither a one-hour (Mar. 6, 2012, p. 2989; Jan. 6,
2016, p. 103; July 14, 2016, p. _) nor 30-minute (Mar. 6, 2012, p. 2994)
special order may be extended, even by unanimous consent. When
recognition for 30-minute (Jan. 11, 2016, p. 342) or hour-long (Oct. 1,
2013, p. 14891; Jan. 6, 2016, p. 99) special-order speeches does not
commence earlier than one hour or two hours, respectively, before 10
p.m., the Chair prorates the time remaining before 10 p.m. to maintain
equity between the parties in the allocation of the time available.
Under a former stricture, the Chair did not entertain a unanimous-
consent request to extend a five-minute special-order speech (Mar. 7,
1995, p. 7152; Sept. 29, 2009, pp. 22877, 22878), to recognize for a
special-order speech after midnight (May 10, 2007, p. 12222), or to
extend a special-order speech beyond midnight (Oct. 7, 1998, p. 24394).
[[Page [785]]]
The Chair may withdraw recognition during a special-order speech,
declare a recess under clause 12 of rule I, and following the recess
confer recognition for the remainder of the speech (Nov. 4, 2009, p.
26795).-
Beginning <> in the second
session of the 103d Congress, the House has by unanimous consent agreed
(without prejudice to the Speaker's ultimate power of recognition under
this rule) to convene early on certain days for morning-hour debate
(e.g., Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; May 23, 1994, p. 11458; June 8, 1994, p.
12305; June 10, 1994, p. 12684; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Feb. 16, 1995, p.
5096). On May 12, 1995 (p. 12765), the House extended and modified the
above order to accommodate earlier convening times after mid-May of each
year. Through the 111th Congress, the order applied only to Mondays and
Tuesdays. Beginning on February 1, 2011, the House expanded the order to
include Wednesdays and Thursdays. The above-cited orders of the House:
(1) postpone the Prayer, approval of the Journal, and the Pledge of
Allegiance during morning-hour debate; and (2) require the Chair to
recognize Members for not more than five minutes each, alternating
between the majority and minority parties in accord with lists supplied
by their respective Leaders. Beginning in the 112th Congress, the order
was altered to allow the filing of privileged reports during morning-
hour debate (Jan. 5, 2011, p. 104; see, e.g., June 20, 2012, p. 9460;
Aug. 1, 2012, p. 13055; Dec. 20, 2017, p. _). The order was altered to
allow the Speaker to dispense with morning-hour debate upon either
receipt of a notification of an impairment at the place of reconvening
under clause 12(c) of rule I (Jan. 7, 2014, p. 92) or a change in
reconvening pursuant to clause 12(e) of rule I (Jan. 6, 2015, pp. 61,
62); see Sec. 639, supra).
Under the customary order of the House establishing morning-hour
debate, the Chair does not entertain a unanimous-consent request to
extend a five-minute period of recognition (Apr. 28, 1998, p. 6924; Nov.
12, 2002, p. 21327) or to extend recognition beyond the specified
termination (10 minutes before convening) (Jan. 2, 2013, p. 18669). The
Chair may not recognize a request for legislative business (Feb. 27,
2013, pp. 1777, 1778; Feb. 26, 2015, p. 2655; Dec. 9, 2015, pp. 19792,
19793; June 15, 2016, p. _) or that a name be removed from a list of
cosponsors of a bill (Apr. 26, 1994, p. 8544), or the noticing of intent
to offer a question of the privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX
(July 23, 2020, p. _). The Chair may withdraw recognition during
morning-hour debate (Mar. 28, 2012, pp. 4361, 4362).-
In <> the 103d Congress the
House agreed by unanimous consent to conduct at a time designated by the
Speaker structured debate on a mutually agreeable topic announced by the
Speaker, with four participants from each party in a format announced by
the Speaker (Feb. 11, 1994, p. 2244; Mar. 11, 1994, p. 4772; May 23,
1994, p. 11458; June 8, 1994, p. 12305; June 10, 1994, p. 12648).
Pursuant to that authority the House conducted three ``Oxford-style''
debates (Mar. 16, 1994, p. 5088; May 4, 1994, p. 9300; July 20, 1994, p.
[[Page [786]]]
17245). As a precursor to those structured debates, special-order time
was used for a ``Lincoln-Douglas-style'' debate involving five Members,
with one Member acting as ``moderator'' by controlling the hour under
this clause (Nov. 3, 1993, p. 27312).
Although <> there is no appeal from the Speaker's recognition, the
Speaker is not a free agent in determining who is to have the floor. The
practice of the House establishes rules from which the Speaker should
not depart. For example, when the order of business brings before the
House a certain bill the Speaker must first recognize, for motions for
its disposition, the Member who represents the committee that has
reported it (II, 1447; VI, 306, 514). This is not necessarily the chair
of the committee, for a chair who, in committee, has opposed the bill,
must yield the prior recognition to a member of the committee who has
favored the bill (II, 1449). Usually, however, the chair has charge of
the bill and is entitled at all stages to prior recognition for
allowable motions intended to expedite it (II, 1452, 1457; VI, 296,
300). This principle does not, however, apply to the chair of the
Committee of the Whole (II, 1453). Once the proponent of a pending
motion has been recognized for debate thereon, a unanimous-consent
request to modify the motion may be entertained only if the proponent
yields for that purpose (Jan. 5, 1996, p. 348). The Chair will entertain
a unanimous-consent request regarding the disposition of the measure
only if the majority manager yields for that purpose in the case of a
motion to instruct conferees (Mar. 29, 2006, p. 4377); a measure on
which the previous question has been ordered without intervening motion
(Feb. 10, 2000, p. 1019; Feb. 13, 2007, p. 3877, p. 3878; Mar. 4, 2010,
pp. 2608, 2609; July 1, 2010, pp. 12633, 12634 (Chair corrected
himself); Feb. 10, 2011, p. 1497, p. 1509, p. 1521; July 11, 2013, p.
11328); or a measure on which time has been yielded under the hour rule
solely for the purpose of debate (Dec. 16, 2005, p. 29061; Nov. 7, 2007,
p. 30354; May 25, 2011, p. 7881; Feb. 14, 2013, pp. 1406, 1407; Apr. 8,
2014, p. 5785, p. 5787; May 21, 2014, p. 8834; July 30, 2014, p. 13637;
Jan. 21, 2015, pp. 843, 844; Oct. 7, 2015, pp. 15825-29; Sept. 6, 2017,
p. _; July 17, 2018, p. _), even if the Chair has not yet conferred
recognition for debate (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 30.5; May 17, 2012,
p. 7084). Where time has been yielded under the hour rule solely for the
purpose of debate, the Chair may take cognizance of the majority
manager's refusal to yield for a unanimous-consent request for the
consideration or disposition of another measure, and need not verify
such refusal in each instance (Mar. 26, 2014, p. 4864; Aug. 1, 2014, p.
13979; July 7, 2016, p. _; Sept. 14, 2016, p. _; Jan. 31, 2017, p. _;
Sept. 6, 2017, p. _). Even if a request is not entertained under these
strictures, a unanimous-consent request embellished with oratory
constitutes debate and can become an imposition on the time of the
manager who yielded (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14979; Jan. 15, 2014, p. 706; Mar.
26, 2014, p. 4864; Aug. 1, 2014, p. 13979; July 7, 2016, p. _; Sept. 14,
2016, p. _; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _).
[[Page [787]]]
The Member who introduces a bill has no claim to recognition as
opposed to members of the reporting committee, but in cases in which a
proposition is brought directly before the House the mover is entitled
to prior recognition for motions and debate (II, 1446, 1454; VI, 302-
305, 417; VIII, 2454, 3231). This principle applies to the makers of
certain motions. Thus, the Member on whose motion the enacting clause of
a bill is stricken in the Committee of the Whole is entitled to prior
recognition when the bill is reported to the House (V, 5337; VIII,
2629). Where a Member raises an objection in a joint session to count
the electoral vote, and the Houses separate to consider the objection,
the Chair first recognizes that Member (III, 1956; Jan. 6, 2005, p.
199), a co-signer of the objection (Jan. 6, 1969, pp. 145-7), or another
Member in support of the objection (Jan. 6, 2021, p. _). But a Member
may not, by offering a debatable motion of higher privilege than the
pending motion, deprive the Member in charge of the bill of possession
of the floor for debate (II, 1460-1463; VI, 290, 297-299; VIII, 2454,
3193, 3197, 3259). The Member in charge of the bill and having the floor
may demand the previous question, although another Member may propose to
offer a motion of higher privilege (VIII, 2684); but the motion of
higher privilege must be put before the previous question (V, 5480;
VIII, 2684). When the House establishes a special order for
consideration of a measure, only a manager identified by the terms of
that order is recognized to call up the measure (Deschler, ch. 21,
Sec. 1.25; Jan. 18, 2007, p. 1624). The Member who has been recognized
to call up a measure in the House has priority of recognition to move
the previous question thereon, even over the chair of the committee
reporting that measure (Oct. 1, 1986, p. 27468).
The fact that a Member has the floor on one matter does not
necessarily entitle the Member to prior recognition on a motion relating
to another matter (II, 1464). It is because the Speaker is governed by
these usages that the Speaker often asks a Member seeking recognition,
``For what purpose does the gentleman (or gentlewoman) seek
recognition?''. By this question the Speaker determines whether the
Member proposes business or a motion that is entitled to precedence, and
may deny recognition (VI, 289-291, 293; Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-
78; Speaker Wright, Feb. 17, 1988, p. 1583; Feb. 27, 1992, p. 3656). For
example, a Member's mere revelation that the Member seeks to offer a
motion to adjourn does not suffice to render that motion ``pending,''
and thus the Chair remains able to declare a short recess under clause
12 of rule I (Oct. 28, 1997, p. 23524; June 25, 2003, p. 16241; July 13,
2009, p. 17493). There is no appeal from such denial of recognition (II,
1425; VI, 292; VIII, 2429, 2646, 2762; Feb. 27, 1992, p. 3656). Where
the Chair confers recognition solely for the reading of a matter and not
for debate, the Member so recognized may not yield to another for debate
(Jan. 6, 2011, p. 140). Recognition for parliamentary inquiry lies in
the discretion of the Chair (VI, 541; Mar. 23, 2007, p. 7420, p. 7423),
who may take a parliamentary inquiry under advisement
[[Page [788]]]
(VIII, 2174), especially if not related to the pending proceedings (Apr.
7, 1992, p. 8273).
The Chair may follow a tradition of the House to allow the highest
ranking party leaders (Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader)
additional time to make their remarks in debate (Precedents (Wickham),
ch. 3, Sec. Sec. 6.18, 6.19) and only the nominal time yielded for such
debate is charged to the manager (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3,
Sec. Sec. 6.20, 6.21). With regard to recognition for such additional
time, the Chair has refused to espouse a hypothetical outer limit (June
26, 2009, p. 16734) and to announce the amount of time consumed
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 6.20; May 27, 2010, p. 9686).
When <> an essential motion made by the Member in charge of a bill is
decided adversely, the right to prior recognition passes to the Member
whom the Speaker perceives to be leading the opposition to the motion
(II, 1465-1468; VI, 308). Under this principle control of a measure
passes when the House disagrees to a recommendation of the committee
reporting the measure (II, 1469-1472) or when the Committee of the Whole
reports the measure adversely (IV, 4897; VIII, 2430). Similarly, this
principle applies when a motion for the previous question is rejected
(VI, 308). However, a Member who led the opposition to ordering the
previous question may be preempted by a motion of higher precedence
(Aug. 13, 1982, pp. 20969, 20975-78). On the other hand, the mere defeat
of an amendment proposed by the Member in charge does not cause the
right to prior recognition to pass to an opponent (II, 1478, 1479).
Rejection of a conference report after the previous question has been
ordered thereon does not cause recognition to pass to a Member opposed
to the report, and the manager retains control to offer the initial
motion to dispose of amendments in disagreement (Speaker Albert, May 1,
1975, p. 12761). Similarly, the invalidation of a conference report on a
point of order, which is equivalent to its rejection by the House, does
not give the Member raising the question of order the right to the floor
(VIII, 3284) and exerts no effect on the right to recognition (VI, 313).
In most cases, when the House refuses to order the previous question on
a conference report, it then rejects the report (II, 1473-1477; V,
6396). However, control of a Senate amendment reported from conference
in disagreement passes to an opponent when the House rejects a motion to
dispose thereof (Aug. 6, 1993, p. 19582).
A Member managing debate on a measure does not lose the right to
recognition or yield back controlled time when taking a seat after
properly reserving such time during debate (June 27, 2019, p. _).
[[Page [789]]]
In <> debate the members of the committee--except the Committee of
the Whole (II, 1453)--are entitled to priority of recognition for debate
(II, 1438, 1448; VI, 306, 307), but a motion to lay a proposition on the
table is in order before the Member entitled to prior recognition for
debate has begun remarks (V, 5391-5395; VI, 412; VIII, 2649, 2650).
In recognizing for debate under general House rules the Chair
alternates between those favoring and those opposing the pending matter,
preferring members of the committee reporting the bill (II, 1439-1444).
Where debate time is divided and controlled by a majority manager and a
minority manager, the Chair has discretion to alternate recognition
between the two (July 7, 2016, p. _). When a member of a committee has
occupied the floor in favor of a measure the Chair attempts to recognize
a Member opposing next, even though not a member of the committee (II,
1445). The principle of alternation is not insisted on rigidly where a
limited time is controlled by Members, as in the 40 minutes of debate on
motions for suspension of the rules and the previous question (II,
1442).
As <> to motions to suspend the rules, which are in order
on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, the Speaker exercises discretion
in recognition (V, 6791-6794, 6845; VIII, 3402-3404). The Speaker also
may decline to recognize a Member who desires to ask unanimous consent
to set aside the rules in order to consider a bill not otherwise in
order, this being the way of signifying objection to the request. But
this authority did not extend to the former Consent Calendar. The Chair
has declined to entertain a unanimous-consent request to print a
separate volume of tributes given in memory of a deceased former Member
absent concurrence of the Joint Committee on Printing (Aug. 1, 1996, p.
21247). The Speaker has announced and enforced a policy of conferring
recognition for unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of
certain legislation only when assured that the majority and minority
floor and committee leaderships have no objection. This policy includes:
(1) requests relating to reported measures (July 23, 1993, p. 16820;
Feb. 10, 2011, p. 1476) and unreported measures (see, e.g., Dec. 15,
1981, p. 31590; Nov. 16, 1983, p. 33138; Jan. 25, 1984, p. 354; Jan. 26,
1984, p. 449; Jan. 31, 1984, p. 1063; Feb. 4, 1987, p. 2675; Jan. 3,
1989, p. 89; Jan. 3, 1991, p. 64; Jan. 5, 1993, p. 106; Apr. 4, 1995, p.
10297; Mar. 20, 2010, p. 4033; Mar. 5, 2013, p. 2331; Dec. 18, 2015, p.
21534); (2) requests for immediate consideration of matters (separately
unreported) comprising a portion of a measure already passed by the
House (Dec. 19, 1985, p. 38356); (3) requests to consider a motion to
suspend the rules and pass an unreported bill on a nonsuspension day
(Aug. 12, 1986, p. 21126) or a suspension day (Feb. 1, 2012, p. 690;
Mar. 30, 1998, p. 5153); (4) requests to permit consideration of
(nongermane) amendments to bills (Nov. 14, 1991, p. 32083; Dec. 20,
1995, p. 37877; June 27, 2002, p. 11838); (5) requests to permit
expedited
[[Page [790]]]
consideration of measures on subsequent days, as by waiving the
requirement that a bill be referred to committee for 30 legislative days
before a motion to discharge may be presented under clause 2 of rule XV
(formerly clause 3 of rule XXVII) (June 9, 1992, p. 13900); (6) requests
relating to Senate-passed bills on the Speaker's table (Oct. 25, 1995,
p. 29347; Jan. 3, 1996, p. 58; Aug. 2, 1999, p. 18942), including one
identical to a House-passed bill (Feb. 4, 1998, p. 799) and a Senate
concurrent resolution to correct an enrollment (Oct. 20, 1998, p.
27358); (7) requests to dispose of Senate amendments to House bills on
the Speaker's table (Jan. 4, 1996, pp. 200, 210; Nov. 22, 2002, p.
23510; Oct. 1, 2013, p. 14876; Oct. 4, 2013, p. 15196, p. 15204; Oct.
12, 2013, p. 15788). The Speaker will recognize for an ``omnibus''
unanimous-consent request (one request disposing of various measures)
only when assured that the request, and each constituent part of the
request, has been cleared under this policy (Precedents (Wickham), ch.
5, Sec. 18.22; Oct. 16, 2002, p. 20765; Nov. 14, 2002, p. 22513). The
Speaker's enforcement of this policy is not subject to appeal (Apr. 4,
1995, p. 10298) and is a matter of discretionary recognition in the
first instance (Sept. 27, 2006, p. 20065). ``Floor leadership'' in this
context has been construed to apply only to the Minority Leader and not
to the entire hierarchy of minority leadership, where the Chair had been
assured that the Minority Leader had been consulted (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 6.22). It is not a proper parliamentary inquiry
to ask the Chair to indicate which side of the aisle has failed under
the Speaker's guidelines to clear a unanimous-consent request (Feb. 1,
1996, p. 2260; Nov. 22, 2002, p. 23510; Oct. 11, 2013, pp. 15713, 15714;
Oct. 12, 2013, p. 15788; Feb. 6, 2019, p. _), but the Chair may indicate
cognizance of a source of objection for the Record (Feb. 4, 1998, p.
799). The Chair will not issue an advisory opinion on whether an
amendment would be germane to a given proposition for purposes of
obtaining clearances under this policy (Mar. 21, 2010, p. 4172). With
respect to unanimous-consent requests to dispose of Senate amendments to
House bills on the Speaker's table, the Chair will entertain such a
request only if made by the chair of the committee with jurisdiction, or
by another committee member authorized to make the request (Apr. 26,
1984, p. 10194; Feb. 4, 1987, p. 2675; Jan. 3, 1996, p. 86; Jan. 4,
1996, pp. 200, 210; Deschler, ch. 21, Sec. 1.23). For a discussion of
recognition for unanimous-consent requests to vary procedures in the
Committee of the Whole governed by a special order adopted by the House,
see Sec. Sec. 993a, 993b, infra.
2. <> * * * A Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not occupy more than one hour in
debate on a question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union except as otherwise provided in this rule.
[[Page [791]]]
This provision (formerly clause 2 of rule XIV) dates from 1841, when
the increase of membership had made it necessary to prevent the making
of long speeches that sometimes occupied three or four hours each (V,
4978). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 2 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47).
This provision applies to debate on a question of privilege, as well
as to debate on other questions (V, 4990; VIII, 2448). When the time for
debate has been placed within the control of those representing the two
sides of a question, it must be assigned to Members in accordance with
this rule (V, 5004, 5005; VIII, 2462). A Member recognized to call up a
privileged resolution may yield the floor upon expiration of the hour
without moving the previous question, thereby permitting another Member
to be recognized for a successive hour (Dec. 18, 1998, p. 27838). Under
this clause a Member recognized for one hour for a ``special-order''
speech in the House may not extend that time, even by unanimous consent
(Feb. 9, 1966, p. 2794; July 12, 1971, pp. 24594, 24603; Oct. 23, 1997,
p. 23254). The Chair has advised that the Member in charge of measure
would be recognized for unanimous-consent requests to enlarge the time
for debate (Feb. 4, 2009, p. 2698; Feb. 13, 2009, p. 4140). In the 104th
Congress the Speaker announced the intention to strictly enforce time
limitations on debate (Jan. 4, 1995, pp. 457-552). The Chair has
announced that the Chair would accommodate as many unanimous-consent
requests to insert remarks in debate as necessary provided they comprise
a simple, declarative statement (not multiple statements (July 11, 2013,
p. 11317)) of the Member's attitude toward the pending measure; however,
any embellishment of such a request with other oratory may become an
imposition on the time of the Member who yielded for that purpose (see,
e.g., Mar. 24, 1995, p. 9215; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.27;
May 9, 2003, p. 11039; Nov. 21, 2003, p. 30793; Nov. 7, 2009, p. 27192;
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.30; Oct. 13, 2011, pp. 15520,
15521; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.28; May 4, 2017, p. _). The
Chair evaluates each request individually to determine whether it
constitutes debate (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.28) and the
decision of the Chair is subject to appeal (July 11, 2013, p. 11323-24,
p. 11406, p. 11410-11). The Chair exercises discretion in determining
whether to deduct time from the yielding manager (Precedents (Wickham),
ch. 5, Sec. 21.13) and it is not a proper motion that the time deducted
for such debate be restored to the yielding Member (July 11, 2013, p.
11321, p. 11329). Similarly, a unanimous-consent request for the
consideration or disposition of a measure that is embellished with
oratory constitutes debate and may become an imposition on the time of
the manager who yielded for that purpose (Oct. 2, 2013, p. 14979; Jan.
15, 2014, p. 706; Mar. 26, 2014, p. 4864; Aug. 1, 2014, p. 13979; July
7, 2016, p. _; Sept. 14, 2016, p. _; Sept. 6, 2017, p. _).
[[Page [792]]]
Managing debate
3. (a) <> The
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who calls up a measure may
open and close debate thereon. When general debate extends beyond one
day, that Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall be entitled
to one hour to close without regard to the time used in opening.
(b) <> Except as provided in paragraph (a),
a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not speak more than
once to the same question without leave of the House.
(c) A manager of a measure who opposes an amendment thereto is
entitled to close controlled debate thereon.
Paragraph (a) was adopted in 1847 and perfected in 1880 (V, 4996).
Paragraph (b) was adopted in 1789, and amended in 1840 (V, 4991). Before
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph (a) was
found in former clause 3 of rule XIV and paragraph (b) was found in
former clause 6 of rule XIV. The recodification also added paragraph (c)
to codify modern practice (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). This clause
applies to general debate in the Committee of the Whole (Mar. 26, 1985,
p. 6283).
Where a special order of business allocates control of debate to
specified Members, another may not separately claim time on the basis of
opposition (Dec. 16, 2010, p. 22417). In response to a parliamentary
inquiry, the Chair advised that a manager of controlled debate may yield
time to a Member from the other party, but that any Member to whom a
block of time was yielded may not control that time (Oct. 9, 2015, pp.
15999, 16000). For further discussion of management of time for general
debate and for debate on amendments in the Committee of the Whole, see
Sec. 978, infra.
A Member who has spoken once to the main question may speak again to
an amendment (V, 4993, 4994). It is too late to make the point of order
that a Member has spoken already after that Member has begun speaking
(V, 4992). Paragraph (b) is often circumscribed by modern practice and
by special orders of business that vest control of debate in designated
Members and permit them to yield more than once to other Members, and a
Member controlling debate under the hour rule may yield more than once
[[Page [793]]]
to the same Member (Apr. 5, 2000, p. 4497; Oct. 18, 2007, p. 27575). For
a discussion of the right of a Member to speak more than once under the
five-minute rule, see Sec. 981, infra. See also Sec. 357, supra.
A majority manager of the bill who represents the primary committee of
jurisdiction is entitled to close general debate; for example, as
against another manager representing an additional committee of
jurisdiction (May 13, 1998, p. 9042, 9050); or as against the subject of
a disciplinary resolution (July 24, 2002, p. 14313). If an order of the
House divides debate on an unreported measure among four Members, the
Chair will recognize for closing speeches in the reverse order of the
original allocation (Mar. 24, 1999, p. 5454). If a special order of the
House allocates time for debate, which is further fractionalized under a
later order by unanimous consent, the Chair recognizes for closing
speeches in the reverse order of their original recognitions, concluding
with the Member who opened the debate (e.g., Mar. 17, 2011, p. 4399).
This is true even when the manager who opened debate is opposed, as in
the case of a measure reported adversely (July 22, 1998, p. 16726; July
27, 1999, p. 18012; June 21, 2000, pp. 11704, 11721; July 26, 2000, p.
16437). In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair advised that
time unused by a minority manager in general debate is considered as
yielded back upon recognition of the majority manager to close general
debate (Feb. 27, 2002, p. 2059). A Member may yield a final amount of
time to another for purposes of closing (Mar. 17, 2011, p. 4399).
The right to close may not be exercised after the previous question
has been ordered (V, 4997-5000). The right to close does not belong to a
Member who has merely moved to reconsider the vote on a bill where not a
member of the reporting committee (V, 4995). The right of a contestant
in an election case to close when permitted to speak in the contest has
been a matter of discussion (V, 5001).
As codified in paragraph (c), the manager of a bill or other
representative of the committee and not the proponent of an amendment
has the right to close controlled debate on an amendment (VIII, 2581;
July 16, 1981, p. 16043; Apr. 4, 1984, p. 7841; June 5, 1985, p. 14302;
July 10, 1985, p. 18496; Oct. 24, 1985, p. 28824; May 2, 1988, p. 9638;
May 5, 1988, p. 9961), including the minority manager (June 29, 1984, p.
20253; Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21660; July 26, 1989, p. 16403; Oct. 27, 1997,
p. 23212; July 26, 2002, p. 14972) and including the manager of a
measure that was reported adversely (Feb. 13, 2002, p. 1355). This is so
even if the manager is also the proponent of a pending amendment to the
amendment (Mar. 16, 1983, p. 5792). The Chair will assume that the
manager of a measure is representing the committee of jurisdiction even
if the measure called up is unreported (Apr. 15, 1996, p. 7421; July 24,
1998, p. 17263), if an unreported compromise text is made in order as
original text in lieu of committee amendments (Oct. 19, 1995, p. 28650),
or if the committee reported the measure without recommendation (Feb.
12, 1997, pp. 2108, 2109). If the pending text includes a provision
recommended by a com
[[Page [794]]]
mittee of sequential referral, a member of that committee is entitled to
close debate in opposition to an amendment thereto (June 15, 1989, pp.
12084-87). If the rule providing for the consideration of a measure
assigns a managerial role by vesting control of debate: (1) in named
Members who do not serve on a committee of jurisdiction of an unreported
measure (Sept. 18, 1997, p. 19325); or (2) of a reported measure, in a
committee other than one of referral (Feb. 15, 2012, p. 1642), those
managers are entitled to close controlled debate in opposition to an
amendment thereto. The majority manager of the bill will be recognized
to control time in opposition to an amendment thereto, without regard to
the party affiliation of the proponent, where the special order
allocated control to ``a Member opposed'' (May 13, 1998, p. 9110). The
right to close debate in opposition to an amendment devolves to a member
of the committee of jurisdiction who derived debate time by unanimous
consent from a manager who originally had the right to close debate
(Sept. 10, 1998, pp. 19961-63). Such right to close may not devolve to
the manager of a bill who derived debate time by unanimous consent from
a non-committee Member controlling time in opposition because that right
may be transferred only where there has been an unbroken line of
committee affiliation in opposition to the amendment (July 17, 2003, pp.
18585-87). The proponent of a first-degree amendment who controls time
in opposition to a second-degree amendment that favors the original bill
over the first-degree amendment does not qualify as a ``manager'' within
the meaning of paragraph (c) (June 15, 2000, pp. 11040, 11047).
The proponent of an amendment may close controlled debate if: neither
a committee representative nor a Member assigned a managerial role by
the governing special order oppose the amendment (Aug. 15, 1986, p.
22057; May 6, 1998, pp. 8307, 8316; May 13, 1998, p. 9092; July 14,
1998, p. 15321; July 17, 2003, pp. 18585-87); a committee representative
is allocated control of time in opposition to an amendment not by
recognition from the Chair but by unanimous-consent request of a third
Member who was allocated the time by the Chair (July 24, 1997, pp.
15684, 15685, 15689); no representative from the reporting committee
opposes an amendment to a multijurisdictional bill (Mar. 9, 1995, p.
7467); the measure is unreported and has no ``manager'' under the terms
of a special rule (Apr. 24, 1985, p. 9206); a measure is being managed
by a single reporting committee and the Member controlling time in
opposition, though a member of the committee having jurisdiction over
the amendment, does not represent the reporting committee (Nov. 9, 1995,
p. 31964); a Member is recognized by unanimous consent to control time
otherwise reserved for an opponent (e.g., Mar. 8, 2012, p. 3162; July
23, 2014, p. 12747).
[[Page [795]]]
Call to order
4. (a) <> If a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, in speaking
or otherwise, transgresses the Rules of the House, the Speaker shall, or
a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may, call to order the
offending Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, who shall
immediately sit down unless permitted on motion of another Member,
Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner to explain. If a Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner is called to order, the Member,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner making the call to order shall
indicate the words excepted to, which shall be taken down in writing at
the Clerk's desk and read aloud to the House.
(b) The Speaker shall decide the validity of a call to order. The
House, if appealed to, shall decide the question without debate. If the
decision is in favor of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
called to order, the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall be
at liberty to proceed, but not otherwise. If the case requires it, an
offending Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall be liable to
censure or such other punishment as the House may consider proper. A
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not be held to answer a
call to order, and may not be subject to the censure of the House
therefor, if further debate or other business has intervened.
[[Page [796]]]
The first sentence of paragraph (a) and all but the last sentence of
paragraph (b) (formerly clause 4 of rule XIV) were adopted in 1789 and
amended in 1822 and 1880 (V, 5175). The last sentence of paragraph (a)
and the last sentence of paragraph (b) (formerly clause 5 of rule XIV)
were adopted in 1837 and amended in 1880, although the practice of
writing down objectionable words had been established in 1808. When the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, it consolidated former
clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV into a single clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47).
Members <> transgressing the rules of debate and
decorum may be called to order by the Speaker (VIII, 2481, 2521, 3479),
a Member (II, 1344; V, 5154, 5161-5163, 5175, 5192), or a Delegate (II,
1295). A Member may initiate a call to order either by making a point of
order that a Member is transgressing the rules or by formally demanding
that words be taken down under this clause (Sept. 12, 1996, pp. 22897,
22899; Sept. 17, 1996, p. 23426; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; Sept. 25,
1996, p. 24759). A Member's comportment in debate may constitute a
breach of decorum even though the content of the Member's speech is not,
itself, unparliamentary (July 29, 1994, p. 18609). Except for naming the
offending Member, the Speaker may not otherwise censure or punish the
Member (II, 1345; VI, 237; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; see also Sec. 366,
supra). The House may by proper motions under this clause dictate the
consequences of a ruling by the Chair that a Member was out of order
(May 26, 1983, p. 14048). As an exercise of recognition, the Chair's
determination that a Member's time in debate has expired is not subject
to appeal (Mar. 22, 1996 p. 6086; see also Sec. Sec. 622, 629, supra).
Furthermore, a Member speaking while not under recognition (as when
speaking beyond the allotted time) is not entitled to in-House
amplification (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 3.13; see also
Sec. 684, supra).
As discussed in Sec. 374, supra, it is customary for the Chair to
initiate the call to order of a Member who engages in personality in
debate with respect to Members of the Senate, including an insertion in
the Record (Speaker Albert, Apr. 17, 1975, p. 10458; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.16; Feb. 27, 1997, pp. 2784, 2785). On the
other hand, it is customary for the Chair to await an initiative from
the floor to call to order a Member who engages in personality in debate
with respect to another Member of the House (June 29, 1987, p. 18072;
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Feb. 27, 1997, pp. 2784, 2785). The Chair may take
initiative to call to order a Member engaging in verbal outburst either
following expiration of recognition for debate (Mar. 16, 1988, p. 4081)
or during recognition of another Member (June 5, 2003, p. 13884). The
Chair may order the offending Member to be seated (June 5, 2003, p.
13884) or may deny further recognition, subject to the will of the House
on the question of proceeding in order (Speaker O'Neill, June 16, 1982,
p. 13843; July 29, 1994, p. 18609; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535). The Chair
may admonish a Member for words spoken in debate
[[Page [797]]]
and request that they be removed from the Record even before a demand
that the words be taken down (Sept. 24, 1992, p. 27345).
This clause (formerly clause 5) prohibits the taking down of words
after intervening business (V, 5177; VIII, 2536; Sept. 16, 1991, p.
23032; Mar. 28, 1996, p. 6934) and the Chair's ruling in that regard is
subject to appeal (Jan. 22, 2007, p. 1899). However, a Member seeking
recognition at the appropriate time may yet be recognized to demand that
words be taken down even though brief debate may have intervened, as
long as the request is contemporaneous with the objectionable words
(July 16, 2019, p. _; Jan. 6, 2021, p. _), and a request that a Member
uttering objectionable words yield does not forfeit the right to demand
that the words be taken down (VIII, 2528). Action taken by the Chair to
determine whether a point of order from the floor is intended as a
demand that words be taken down is not such intervening debate or
business as would render the demand untimely (Oct. 2, 1984, p. 28522).
Similarly, a parliamentary inquiry concerning the propriety of words
just spoken in debate does not render untimely a demand that the words
be taken down as unparliamentary (May 6, 2004, p. 8554). However, an
improper parliamentary inquiry concerning the substantive content of the
words does render untimely such demand (July 20, 2005, pp. 16653,
16654). Although under this clause a Member may not be held to answer a
call to order if further debate or business has intervened, the Chair
may under clause 2 of rule I generally admonish Members to preserve
proper decorum even after intervening debate (Dec. 5, 2001, p. 24002;
Apr. 27, 2016, p. _). For instances in which the Chair admonished
Members for improper references to the Senate after brief intervening
debate, see Sec. 371, supra.
While a demand that a Member's words be taken down is pending, that
Member should be seated immediately (July 29, 1994, p. 18609; Jan. 25,
1995, p. 2352; Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045), and no Member may engage the
Chair until the demand has been disposed of (Nov. 9, 1995, p. 31913;
Nov. 14, 1995, p. 32472). If two Members consecutively demand that each
other's words be taken down as unparliamentary, the Chair advises both
Members to be seated and then directs the Clerk to report the first
words objected to (June 19, 1996, p. 14655). An offending Member may be
directed by the Chair to be seated even if a formal demand that the
Member's words be taken down is not pending; for example, if a Member
declines to proceed in order at the directive of the Chair after points
of order have been sustained against unparliamentary references in
debate, the Chair may, under rule I and this rule, deny the Member
further recognition as a disposition of the question of order, subject
to the will of the House on the question of proceeding in order (Sept.
12, 1996, p. 22900; Sept. 17, 1996, p. 23427; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535;
see also Sec. 366, supra).
The Chair may entertain a unanimous-consent request to withdraw or
modify words taken down either before (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29,
Sec. 51.1) or after (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 51.2) the words have
been reported to the House (VIII, 2528, 2538, 2540, 2543, 2544; July 16,
1998, p. 15827;
[[Page [798]]]
June 28, 2000, pp. 12771, 12776). Unanimous consent is not required for
a Member to withdraw a demand that words be taken down before a ruling
by the Chair (June 18, 1986, p. 14232).
The words having been read from the desk, the Chair decides whether
they are in order (II, 1249; V, 5163, 5169, 5187) as read by the Clerk
and not as otherwise alleged to have been uttered (June 9, 1992, p.
13902). When a Member denies that the words taken down are the exact
words used, the question as to the words is put to the House for
decision (V, 5179, 5180). Where demands are made to take down words both
as spoken in a one-minute speech and as reiterated when the offending
Member is permitted by unanimous consent to explain, the Chair may rule
simultaneously on both (July 25, 1996, p. 19170). A decision of the
Chair on words taken down is subject to appeal (Sept. 28, 1996, p.
25780; Apr. 9, 2003, p. 9005).
The rule permits a motion that an offending Member be permitted to
explain before the Chair rules on the words taken down, and the Chair
has discretion to ask for explanation before ruling on the words (Feb.
1, 1940, p. 954). The Chair also may recognize an offending Member,
permitted by unanimous consent, to explain words ruled out of order
(Nov. 10, 1971, p. 40442).
If words taken down are ruled out of order, the Member loses the floor
(V, 5196-5199; Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352; Apr. 17, 1997, p. 5832; Mar. 7,
2012, p. 3045) and may not proceed on the same day without the
permission of the House (Jan. 29, 1946, p. 533; Precedents (Wickham),
ch. 5, Sec. 22.1; Jan. 25, 1995, p. 2352), even on yielded time (V,
5147), and may not insert unspoken remarks in the Record (Jan. 25, 1995,
p. 2352), but still may exercise the right to vote or to demand the yeas
and nays (VIII, 2546). The ruling does not take the issue off the floor,
and other Members may proceed to debate the same subject (July 25, 1996,
p. 19170; Mar. 7, 2012, p. 3045). The offending Member will not lose the
floor if the House permits the Member to proceed in order (see, e.g.,
Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 22.6), which motion may be stated on
the initiative of the Chair (Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25757; Mar. 29, 1995, p.
9676; July 25, 1996, p. 19170; June 13, 2002, p. 10232) or offered by
any Member (July 25, 1996, p. 19172; Mar. 21, 2007, p. 7074). The motion
is not inconsistent with the immediate consequence of the call to order
because this clause (formerly clause 4) also permits the House to
determine the extent of the sanction for a given breach (Oct. 10, 1991,
p. 26102). The motion is debatable within narrow limits of relevance
under the hour rule, and consequently also is subject to the motion to
lay on the table (Speaker Foley, Oct. 8, 1991, p. 25757).
Where a Member has been called to order not in response to a formal
demand that words be taken down but in response to a point of order, the
former practice was to test the opinion of the House by a motion ``that
the gentleman be allowed to proceed in order'' (V, 5188, 5189; VIII,
2534). Under the modern practice the Chair either may invite the
offending Member to proceed in order (see, e.g., Sept. 12, 1996, p.
22898) or, particularly
[[Page [799]]]
if admonitions have been ignored, may deny the Member recognition for
the balance of the time for which recognized, subject to the will of the
House, as by a vote on the question whether the Member should be
permitted to proceed in order (Sept. 12, 1996, p. 22899; Sept. 17, 1996,
p. 23426; Sept. 18, 1996, p. 23535; Sept. 25, 1996, p. 24759).
Words taken down and ruled out of order by the Chair are subject to a
motion that they be stricken or expunged from the Record. This motion
has precedence (VIII, 2538-2541; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
Sec. 22.1). Unanimous consent to expunge such words often is granted
upon the initiative of the Chair (May 10, 1990, p. 9992; June 13, 2002,
p. 10232), and is debatable within narrow limits (VIII, 2539; Speaker
Martin, June 12, 1947, p. 6896). However, the motion may not be
entertained in the Committee of the Whole (Feb. 18, 1941, p. 1126) or
offered by the Member called to order (Feb. 11, 1941, pp. 894, 899).
When disorderly words are spoken in the Committee of the Whole, they
are taken down and read at the Clerk's desk, and the Committee rises
automatically (VIII, 2533, 2538, 2539) and reports them to the House
(II, 1257-1259, 1348). Action in the House on words reported from the
Committee of the Whole is limited to the words reported (VIII, 2528),
and it is not in order as a question of privilege in the House to
propose censure of a Member for disorderly words spoken in the Committee
of the Whole but not reported therefrom (V, 5202). After words reported
to the House from Committee of the Whole have been disposed of (by
decision of the Chair and any associated action by the House), the
Committee resumes its sitting without motion (VIII, 2539, 2541).
The House has censured a Member for disorderly words (II, 1253, 1254,
1259, 1305; VI, 236). The House has proceeded to consider censure or
other action although business may have intervened in certain
exceptional cases, such as when disorderly words are part of an
occurrence constituting a breach of privilege (II, 1657), when a
Member's language has been investigated by a committee (II, 1655), when
a Member has reiterated on the floor certain published charges (III,
2637), when a Member has uttered words alleged to be treasonable (II,
1252), or when a Member has uttered an attack on the Speaker (II, 1248;
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551; Jan. 19, 1995, p. 1599).
For a discussion of resolving the use of objectionable exhibits that
are a breach of decorum, see Sec. 622, supra; and for a discussion of
resolving the use of objectionable exhibits that are not necessarily a
breach of decorum, see clause 6, Sec. 963, infra.
Comportment
5. <> When the Speaker is
putting a question or addressing the House, a Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner
[[Page [800]]]
may not exit or cross the Hall. When a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner is speaking, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
may not pass between the person speaking and the Chair. During the
session of the House, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may
not wear non-religious headdress or a hat or remain by the Clerk's desk
during the call of the roll or the counting of ballots. A person on the
floor of the House may not smoke or use a mobile electronic device that
impairs decorum. The Sergeant-at-Arms is charged with the strict
enforcement of this clause.
Until the 104th Congress this clause (formerly clause 7 of rule XIV)
was made up of provisions adopted in 1789, 1837, 1871, and 1896. In the
104th Congress a reference to the former Doorkeeper was deleted and a
prohibition against using any personal electronic office equipment was
added (secs. 201, 223, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, pp. 463, 469). However,
that prohibition was modified in the 108th Congress to cover only a
wireless telephone or personal computer (sec. 2(k), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7,
2003, p. 7) and again in the 112th Congress to cover any mobile
electronic device that impairs decorum (sec. 2(e)(2), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
2011, p. 80). In the 115th Congress, the first sentence was amended to
replace a mobility-based reference (sec. 2(e), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017,
p. _). In the 116th Congress, the rule was amended to codify an
exemption for religious headdress (sec. 102(x), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019,
p. _). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 7 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). The Chair may enlist the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce a
breach of this clause (Sept. 17, 1997, p. 19027; Precedents (Wickham),
ch. 6, Sec. 15.7; June 22, 2018, p. _).
Originally Members wore their hats during sessions, as in Parliament,
and the custom was not abolished until 1837 (II, 1136). The prohibition
against Members wearing non-religious headdress or hats in the Chamber
while the House is in session includes doffing a hat in tribute to a
group (Speaker Foley, June 22, 1993, p. 13569; June 10, 1996, p. 13560)
and the donning of a hood (Mar. 28, 2012, pp. 4361, 4362), but in the
116th Congress, the Speaker announced that discretion would be applied
in enforcing the prohibition with respect to hats or head coverings worn
out of medical necessity (Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). In the 96th Congress the
Speaker announced that he considered as proper the customary and
traditional attire for Members, including a coat and tie for male
Members and appro
[[Page [801]]]
priate attire for female Members (where thermostat controls had been
raised in the summer to conserve energy); the House then adopted a
resolution, offered as a question of the privileges of the House,
requiring Members to wear proper attire as determined by the Speaker,
and denying noncomplying Members the privilege of the floor (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.2). In the 106th, 109th, and 112th through
116th Congresses Members were reminded of the need to be in proper
attire in the Chamber (June 28, 2000, p. 12654; June 20, 2006, p. 11895;
Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 180; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 26, 2013,
p. 1680; July 31, 2013, p. 12804; Speaker Boehner, Mar. 25, 2014, p.
4783; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, p. 2553; Speaker Ryan, June 23,
2017, p. _; Speaker Pelosi, Mar. 10, 2020, p. _), and the Chair has so
admonished a Member speaking in debate without a jacket (Apr. 3, 2001,
p. 5361) and has withdrawn recognition of a Member not wearing proper
attire (Mar. 28, 2012, p. 4361). The donning of a distinctive uniform of
another occupation is not proper (Oct. 20, 2009, p. 25164). In the 97th
Congress, the Speaker announced during a vote by electronic device that
Members were not permitted under the traditions of the House to wear
overcoats on the House floor (Dec. 16, 1981, p. 31847).
Pursuant to the modification of this clause in the 112th Congress, the
Speaker has announced that mobile electronic devices that impair decorum
include wireless telephones and personal computers, but that electronic
tablet devices may be used unobtrusively in the Chamber (Speaker
Boehner, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 106), although no device may be used for still
photography or for audio or video recording (Speaker Boehner, Jan. 5,
2011, p. 106; Speaker Boehner, Feb. 25, 2015, p. 2553; June 23, 2016, p.
_; Speaker Ryan, June 23, 2017, p. _). The display of an image on an
electronic device while not under recognition impairs decorum (Mar. 13,
2014, p. 4393). The Chair has also announced that Members should disable
wireless telephones on entering the Chamber (e.g., June 12, 2000, p.
10369). The Chair has cited this clause in prohibiting the use of a
mobile telephone to play audio on the House floor (June 22, 2018, p. _).
Smoking is not permitted in the Hall during sessions of the House
(Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.20), nor during sittings of the
Committee of the Whole (Aug. 14, 1986, p. 21707); and the prohibition
extends to smoking behind the rail (Feb. 23, 1995, p. 5640).
On the opening day of the 101st Congress, the Speaker prefaced his
customary announcement of policies concerning such aspects of the
legislative process as recognition for unanimous-consent requests and
privileges of the floor with a general statement concerning decorum in
the House, including particular adjurations against engaging in
personalities, addressing remarks to spectators, and passing in front of
the Member addressing the Chair (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 88; see also Jan. 5,
1993, p. 105; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 551). The Chair has announced: (1) that
Members should not traffic, or linger in, the well of the House while
another Member is speaking (Feb. 3, 1995, p. 3541; Mar. 3, 1995, p.
6721; Dec. 15, 1995, p. 37111;
[[Page [802]]]
Speaker Boehner, Jan. 23, 2012, p. 179), including Members who may have
been invited to the well by the Member speaking (June 12, 2003, p.
14627; July 7, 2016, p. _); (2) that Members should not engage in
disruption while another Member is speaking (Dec. 20, 1995, p. 37878),
including shouting interjections during debate (Feb. 28, 1995, p. 6259;
Feb. 13, 2009, p. 4136; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 4.3; Oct. 11,
2011, p. 15117). Mass presence of Members in the well while not under
recognition constitutes a breach of decorum (Precedents (Wickham), ch.
6, Sec. 6.1). Under this provision the Chair may require a line of
Members waiting to sign a discharge petition to proceed to the rostrum
from the far right-hand aisle and require the line not to form between
the Chair and Members engaging in debate (Oct. 24, 1997, p. 23293).
Hissing and jeering is not proper decorum in the House (May 21, 1998,
p. 10282).
A former Member must observe proper decorum under this clause, and the
Chair may direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist the Chair in maintaining
such decorum (Sept. 17, 1997, p. 19027). In the 105th Congress the House
adopted a resolution offered as a question of the privileges of the
House alleging indecorous behavior of a former Member and instructing
the Sergeant-at-Arms to ban the former Member from the floor, and rooms
leading thereto, until the resolution of a contested election to which
he was party (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 6.6).
Exhibits
6. <> When the use of an
exhibit in debate is objected to by a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner, the Chair, in the discretion of the Chair, may submit the
question of its use to the House without debate.
This provision was rewritten in the 103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
1993, p. 49) to address the use of exhibits in debate rather than the
reading from papers. As rewritten in the 103d Congress, an objection to
the use of an exhibit automatically triggered a vote by the House on its
use. The clause was amended in the 107th Congress to give the Chair the
discretion to submit the question of its use to the House (sec. 2(o), H.
Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). A gender-based reference was eliminated in
the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
found in former rule XXX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
When the use of an exhibit in debate was objected to before the clause
was rewritten in the 107th Congress, the Chair immediately put the
question on whether use of the exhibit would be permitted (the Chair was
not determining a breach of decorum under clause 2 of rule I) (Nov. 1,
1995, p. 31154; Nov. 10, 1995, p. 20689; July 31, 1996, p. 20689). The
[[Page [803]]]
Chair put the question without debate, and without requiring the
objecting Member to state the basis for the objection (Nov. 10, 1995, p.
20689). As such, an objection under this rule was not a point of order:
it could have been resolved by withdrawal of the exhibit; that failing,
it amounted to a demand that the Chair put to the House the question
whether the exhibit may be used (July 31, 1996, p. 20700). In response
to a point of order raised against an exhibit, the Chair has
acknowledged that submitting the question of its use to the House before
deciding instead to rule on the point of order under clause 2 of rule I
is a matter of discretion (Jan. 20, 2018, p. _ (sustained by tabling of
appeal)).
It is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the Chair to judge the
accuracy or authenticity of the content of an exhibit (Nov. 10, 1995, p.
32142; July 11, 2001, p. 12977). The Chair has held that a second
virtually consecutive invocation of this provision, resulting in a
second pair of votes on use of a chart and on reconsideration thereof,
was not dilatory under former clause 10 of rule XVI (current clause 1 of
rule XVI) or former clause 4(b) of rule XI (current clause 6(b) of rule
XIII) (July 31, 1996, p. 20700). It is not in order to request that the
voting display be turned on as an exhibit to accompany a Member's debate
(Oct. 12, 1998, p. 25770). A Member under recognition to notice a
question of the privileges of the House is not recognized for debate and
thus may not display an exhibit (Mar. 13, 2014, p. 4393). For a
discussion of the Speaker's responsibility to preserve decorum that may
require the disallowance of exhibits in debate that would be demeaning
to the House, or to any Member of the House, or that would be disruptive
of the decorum thereof, see Sec. 622, supra.
The earlier <> form of the rule (formerly rule XXX), originally adopted in
1794 and amended in 1802 and 1880 (V, 5257), addressed reading from
papers. It recognized the right of a Member under the general
parliamentary law to have read the paper on which the House is to vote
(V, 5258), but when that paper had been read once, the reading could not
be repeated unless by order of the House (V, 5260). The right could be
abrogated by suspension of the rules (V, 5278-5284; VIII, 3400); but was
not abrogated simply by the fact that the current procedure was taking
place under the rule for suspension (V, 5273-5277). On a motion to refer
a report, the reading of it could be demanded as a matter of right, but
the latest ruling left to the House to determine whether or not an
accompanying record of testimony should be read (V, 5261, 5262). In
general the reading of a report was held to be in the nature of debate
(V, 5292); but where a report presented facts and conclusions but no
legislative proposition, it was read if submitted for action (IV, 4663).
Where a paper is offered as involving a matter of privilege it may be
read to the House (III, 2597; VI, 606; VIII, 2599), rather than by the
Speaker privately (III, 2546), but a Member may not, as a matter of
right, require the reading of a book or paper on suggestion that it
contains matter infringing on the privileges of the House (V, 5258).
[[Page [804]]]
The former rule XXX prohibiting the reading of papers in debate was
held to apply to the exhibition of articles as evidence or in
exemplification in debate (VIII, 2452, 2453; June 2, 1937, p. 6104; Aug.
5, 1949, p. 10859), and the new form of the rule adopted in the 103d
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49) marks the modern relevance of
that application. Although Members may use exhibits such as charts
during debate subject to this rule, the Speaker may, pursuant to the
authority to preserve order and decorum under rule I (see Sec. 622,
supra), direct the removal from the well of the House of a chart that is
not being utilized during debate (Apr. 1, 1982, p. 6304), or that is
otherwise disruptive of decorum (July 27, 2017, p. _).
The reading <> of papers other than
those on which the vote was about to be taken was usually permitted
without question (V, 5258). However, this privilege was subject to the
authority of the House if another Member objected (V, 5285-5291; VIII,
2597, 2602; Dec. 19, 1974, p. 41425; Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34669). This
principle applied even to the Member's own written speech (V, 5258;
VIII, 2598), to a report that the Member proposed to have read in his or
her own time or to read in his or her place (V, 5293), and to excerpts
from the Congressional Record (VIII, 2597). After the previous question
was ordered, a Member could not ask the decision of the House on a
request for the reading of a paper not before the House for action (V,
5296), even though it be the report of the committee (V, 5294, 5295).
For further discussion, see Sec. Sec. 432-436, supra. Pursuant to the
former form of this rule, the consent of the House for a Member to read
a paper in debate only permitted the Member seeking such permission to
read as much of the paper as possible in the time yielded or allotted to
that Member, and did not necessarily grant permission to read or to
insert the entire document (Mar. 1, 1979, p. 3748). Where a Member
objected to another's reading from a paper, the Chair put the question
without debate. It was not in order under the guise of parliamentary
inquiry to debate that question by indicating that the objection was a
dilatory tactic (Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34672).
Galleries
7. <> During a
session of the House, it shall not be in order for a Member, Delegate,
or Resident Commissioner to introduce to or to bring to the attention of
the House an occupant in the galleries of the House. The Speaker may not
entertain a request for the suspension of this rule by unanimous consent
or otherwise.
[[Page [805]]]
This clause was adopted April 10, 1933 (VI, 197). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 8 of rule XIV (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The Chair
takes the initiative to enforce this clause (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29,
Sec. Sec. 45.4, 45.7).
Congressional Record
8. (a) <> The
Congressional Record shall be a substantially verbatim account of
remarks made during the proceedings of the House, subject only to
technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner making the remarks.
(b) Unparliamentary remarks may be deleted only by permission or order
of the House.
(c) <> This clause establishes a
standard of conduct within the meaning of clause 3(a)(2) of rule XI.
This clause was adopted in the 104th Congress (sec. 213, H. Res. 6,
Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 9 of rule XIV
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). Under paragraph (a) a unanimous-
consent request to revise and extend remarks permits a Member (1) to
make technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections to remarks
uttered and (2) to include in the Record additional remarks not uttered
to appear in a distinctive typeface; however, such a unanimous-consent
request does not permit a Member to remove remarks actually uttered
(Jan. 4, 1995, p. 541). For example, remarks held irrelevant by the
Chair may be removed from the Record by unanimous consent only (Mar. 20,
2002, p. 3663). Remarks uttered while not under recognition (such as
when a Member fails to heed the gavel at the expiration of debate time
or when a Member attempts to interject remarks in debate where the
Member under recognition has refused to yield) do not appear in the
Record (e.g., May 22, 2003, p. 12965; Oct. 2, 2003, p. 23950; May 19,
2004, pp. 10107, 10108; Feb. 15, 2012, p. 1643). Paragraph (a) also
applies to statements and rulings of the Chair (Jan. 20, 1995, p. 1866).
For a discussion of rules relating to the Congressional Record, see
Sec. Sec. 685-692, supra.
[[Page [806]]]
Legislative Proceedings
9. (a) <> A
Member, Delegate, the Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the
House may not engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in the Chamber,
including--
(1) intentionally obstructing or impeding the passage of others in
the Chamber;
(2) the use of an exhibit to impede, disrupt, or disturb the
proceedings of the House; and
(3) the denial of legislative instruments to others seeking to
engage in legislative proceedings.
(b) <> This clause establishes
a standard of conduct within the meaning of clause 3(a)(2) of rule XI.
This clause was added in the 115th Congress (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). In the 114th Congress, the Chair stated that the
mass presence of Members in the well while not under recognition
constituted a breach of decorum (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 6, Sec. 6.1).
Secret sessions
10. <> When confidential
communications are received from the President, or when the Speaker or a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner informs the House that such
individual has communications that such individual believes ought to be
kept secret for the present, the House shall be cleared of all persons
except the Members, Delegates, Resident Commissioner, and officers of
the House for the reading of such communications, and debates and
proceedings thereon, unless otherwise ordered by the House.
[[Page [807]]]
This provision (formerly rule XXIX), in a somewhat different form, was
adopted in 1792, although secret sessions had been held by the House
before that date. They continued to be held at times with considerable
frequency until 1830. In 1880, at the time of the general revision of
the rules, the House concluded to retain the rule, although it had been
long in disuse (V, 7247; VI, 434). Gender-based references were
eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p.
7). This clause was redesignated from clause 9 to clause 10 in the 115th
Congress (sec. 2(a)(3), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former rule XXIX (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The two Houses have legislated in secret session, transmitting their
messages also in secrecy (V, 7250); but the House has declined to be
bound to secrecy by act of the Senate (V, 7249). Motions to remove the
injunction of secrecy should be made with closed doors (V, 7254). In
1843 a confidential message from the President was referred without
reading; but no motion was made for a secret session (V, 7255).
The House and not the Committee of the Whole determines whether the
Committee may sit in executive session, and an inquiry relative to
whether the Committee of the Whole should sit in secret session is
properly addressed to the Speaker and not to the chair of the Committee
of the Whole (May 9, 1950, p. 6746; June 6, 1978, p. 16376; Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 18.31). A Member seeking to offer the motion that
the House resolve itself into secret session must qualify, as provided
by the rule, by asserting that the Member has a secret communication to
make to the House (June 6, 1978, p. 16376). A motion having been
defeated, a Member may offer a second motion on the same legislative day
if having additional communications to make (May 10, 2007, p. 12114,
12177). The motion for a secret session is not debatable (June 20, 1979,
p. 15711; Mar. 31, 1998, p. 5229; Sept. 26, 2006, p. 19781) but is
subject to the motion to lay on the table (May 10, 2007, p. 12177).
The following procedures apply during a secret session. The Member who
offers the motion may be recognized for one hour of debate after the
House resolves into secret session, and the normal rules of debate,
including the principle that no motions would be in order unless the
manager yields for that purpose, apply. The Speaker having found that a
Member has qualified to make the motion for a secret session, having
confidential communications to make, no point of order lies that the
material in question must be submitted to the Members to make that
determination (the motion for a secret session having been adopted by
the House). No point of order lies in secret session that employees
designated by the Speaker as essential to the proceedings, who have
signed an oath of secrecy, may not be present. A motion in secret
session to make public the proceedings therein is debatable for one
hour, within narrow limits of relevancy. At the conclusion of debate in
secret session, a Member may be recognized
[[Page [808]]]
to offer a motion that the session be dissolved (July 17, 1979, pp.
19057-59).
Where the House has concluded a secret session and has not voted to
release the transcripts of that session, the injunction of secrecy
remains and the Speaker may informally refer the transcripts to
appropriate committees for their evaluation and report to the House as
to ultimate disposition to be made (June 20, 1979, pp. 15711-13). The
House may subsequently by unanimous consent order printed in the
Congressional Record such proceedings, with appropriate deletions and
revisions agreeable to the committees (July 17, 1979, p. 19049).
On June 20, 1979, the House adopted by voice vote a motion that the
House resolve itself into secret session pursuant to this rule (the
first such occasion since 1830), where the Member offering the motion
had assured the Speaker that he had confidential communications to make
to the House as required by the rule (pp. 15711-13). The Speaker pro
tempore announced on that occasion before the commencement of the secret
session that the galleries would be cleared of all persons, that the
Chamber would be cleared of all persons except Members and those
officers and employees specified by the Speaker whose attendance was
essential to the functioning of the secret session, who would be
required to sign an oath of secrecy, and that all proceedings in the
secret session must be kept secret until otherwise ordered by the House
(June 20, 1979, pp. 15711-13).
On March 13, 2008, the House by unanimous consent authorized the Chair
to resolve the House into secret session pursuant to this rule, that
debate therein proceed without intervening motion for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Whip, and
that at the conclusion of debate the secret session be dissolved and the
House stand adjourned (p. 4145). Before commencement of that secret
session, the Speaker pro tempore (1) read to the House the contents of
this clause; (2) announced a recess to clear the galleries and floor of
all persons except Members and necessary staff, to permit staff to sign
a notarized oath of secrecy, and to conduct a security sweep of the
Chamber; (3) reminded Members of clause 13 of the Code of Official
Conduct; (4) announced that all proceedings in secret session would
remain secret unless otherwise ordered by the House; (5) announced that
three bells would be rung approximately 15 minutes before the House
reconvened for the secret session (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3,
Sec. 6.12).
The House conducted a secret session in the 96th Congress to receive
confidential communications consisting of classified information in the
possession of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, which those committees had authorized to be
used in a secret session of the House if ordered. On that occasion the
Speaker overruled a point of order against the motion for a secret
session because the Speaker must rely on the assurance of a Member
claiming to have confidential communications to make to the House, and
because the Speaker was aware that the committee with possession of the
materials had
[[Page [809]]]
authorized those materials to be used in a secret session (Feb. 25,
1980, p. 3618). Another secret session was held in the 98th Congress
pending consideration of a bill amending the Intelligence Authorization
Act to prohibit United States support for military or paramilitary
operations in Nicaragua (July 19, 1983, p. 19776).
Under the authority in clause 3 of rule I, the Speaker may convene a
classified briefing for Members on the House floor when the House is not
in session (e.g., Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 1.14).
Rule XVIII
the committee of the whole house on the state of the union
Resolving into the Committee of the Whole
1. <> Whenever the House resolves into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the Speaker
shall leave the chair after appointing a Member, Delegate, or the
Resident Commissioner as Chair to preside. In case of disturbance or
disorderly conduct in the galleries or lobby, the Chair may cause the
same to be cleared.
This provision (formerly clause 1(a) of rule XXIII), adopted in 1880,
was made from two older rules dating from 1789 and modified in 1794 to
provide for the appointment of the Chair instead of the inconvenient
method of election by the Committee (IV, 4704). It was amended in the
103d Congress to permit Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to
preside in the Committee of the Whole (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49).
That authority was repealed in the 104th Congress (sec. 212(b), H. Res.
6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468), reinstated in the 110th Congress (H. Res. 78,
Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2140), repealed in the 112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(4),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), and reinstated in the 115th Congress
(sec. 2(t), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2017, p. _). A Delegate first presided
under the former authority on October 6, 1994 (p. 28533). Gender-based
references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th
Congress, this provision was found in former clause 1(a) of rule XXIII
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[[Page [810]]]
The <> Sergeant-at-Arms attends the sittings of the Committee of the
Whole and, under direction of the Chair, maintains order (I, 257). After
repeated disturbances in the gallery, the Chair warned its occupants of
possible prosecution (under 40 U.S.C. 5104) and, in response to a
parliamentary inquiry, affirmed his authority to have the gallery
cleared (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 4, Sec. 4.6). The Chair recognizes
for debate (V, 5003). Like the Speaker, the Chair is forbidden to
recognize for requests to suspend the rule of admission to the floor (V,
7285).
The Chair decides questions of order arising in the Committee
independently of the Speaker (V, 6927, 6928) but has declined to
consider a question that had arisen in the House just before the
Committee began to sit (IV, 4725, 4726) or a question that may arise in
the House in the future (June 21, 1995, p. 16682). For example, the
Chair does not respond to a parliamentary inquiry relating to possible
proceedings in the House on a motion to recommit (Feb. 27, 2002, p.
2079). The Chair does not take cognizance of a ``point of order''
against the legislative schedule, its announcement being the prerogative
of the Leadership (Nov. 10, 1999, p. 29537).
Decisions of the Chair on questions of order may be appealed. In
stating the appeal the question is put as in the House: ``Shall the
decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?'' The
Committee of the Whole may not postpone a vote on an appeal of a ruling
of the Chair (even by unanimous consent); and an appeal of a ruling of
the Chair may be withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole as a matter of
right (June 8, 2000, p. 9954). An appeal is debatable in the Committee
of the Whole under the five-minute rule (June 24, 2003, pp. 15854-56;
Sept. 6, 2017, p. _), but debate must be confined to the question of
sustaining the Chair's ruling and may not address the merits of an
underlying matter (Sept. 6, 2017, p. _). A majority vote sustains the
ruling (Aug. 1, 1989, p. 17159).
The Chair may direct the Committee to rise when the hour previously
fixed for adjournment of the House arrives, or when the hour previously
fixed by the House for consideration of other business arrives, in which
case the Chair reports in the regular way (IV, 4785; VIII, 2376).
However, if the Committee is sitting at the hour fixed for the meeting
of the House on a new legislative day, the Committee and not the Chair
determines whether or not the Committee shall rise (V, 6736, 6737). The
Chair may declare an emergency recess under clause 12 of rule I. In rare
cases wherein the Chair has been defied or insulted, the Chair has
directed the Committee to rise, left the chair and, on the chair being
taken by the Speaker, has reported the facts to the House (II, 1350,
1651, 1653).
Although the Committee of the Whole does not control the Congressional
Record, the Chair may direct the exclusion of disorderly words spoken by
a Member after having been called to order (V, 6987), but may not
determine the privileges of a Member under general ``leave to print''
(V, 6988). Although arguments on a point of order may not be revised,
extended, or inserted, the Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent
has allowed
[[Page [811]]]
a Member to insert remarks about a point of order to follow the ruling
thereon (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 20.17).
2. (a) <> Except as provided in paragraph (b)
and in clause 6 of rule XV, the House resolves into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union by motion. When such a motion is
entertained, the Speaker shall put the question without debate: ``Shall
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for consideration of this matter?'', naming it.
(b) After the House has adopted a resolution reported by the Committee
on Rules providing a special order of business for the consideration of
a measure in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
the Speaker may at any time, when no question is pending before the
House, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole for
the consideration of that measure without intervening motion, unless the
special order of business provides otherwise.
Paragraph (a) was adopted when the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress to codify the form of the motion to resolve into the
Committee of the Whole (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A conforming
change to paragraph (a) was effected in the 109th Congress (sec. 2(f),
H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 2005, p. 43). Paragraph (b) was added in the 98th
Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34). Before the House recodified
its rules in the 106th Congress, paragraph (b) was found in former
clause 1(b) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
[[Page [812]]]
Measures requiring initial consideration in the Committee of the Whole
3. <> All public bills, resolutions, or Senate amendments (as
provided in clause 3 of rule XXII) involving a tax or charge on the
people, raising revenue, directly or indirectly making appropriations of
money or property or requiring such appropriations to be made,
authorizing payments out of appropriations already made, or releasing
any liability to the United States for money or property, shall be first
considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union. A bill, resolution, or Senate amendment that fails to comply with
this clause is subject to a point of order against its consideration.
The first form of this rule was adopted in 1794 and was perfected by
amendments in 1874 and 1896 (IV, 4792). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 3
of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A technical correction
was effected in the 108th Congress (sec. 2(u), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003,
p. 7). It was amended in the 115th Congress to exclude measures
referring a claim to the Court of Claims (sec. 2(n), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
2017, p. _).
To require consideration in the Committee of the Whole, a bill must
show on its face that it falls within the requirements of the rule (IV,
4811-4817; VIII, 2391). If the expenditure is a mere matter of
speculation (IV, 4818-4821; VIII, 2388), or if the bill might involve a
charge but does not necessarily do so (IV, 4809, 4810), the rule does
not apply. However, if a bill sets in motion a train of circumstances
destined ultimately to involve certain expenditures, it must be
considered in the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4827; VIII, 2399), as must
bills ultimately authorizing officials in certain contingencies to part
with property belonging to the United States (VIII, 2399). In passing
upon the question as to whether a proposition involves a charge upon the
Treasury, the Speaker is confined to the provisions of the text and may
not take into consideration personal knowledge not directly deducible
therefrom (VIII, 2386, 2391). The requirements of the rule apply to
amendments as well as to bills (IV, 4793, 4794; VIII,
[[Page [813]]]
2331), and also to any portion of a bill requiring an appropriation,
even though it be merely incidental to the bill's main purpose (IV,
4825).
The House may consider in the Committee of the Whole subjects not
specified in the rule (IV, 4822); for example, major amendments to the
Rules of the House have been considered in the Committee of the Whole
pursuant to special orders (H. Res. 988, Committee Reform Amendments of
1974, considered pursuant to H. Res. 1395, Sept. 30, 1974, p. 32953;
H.R. 17654, Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, considered pursuant
to H. Res. 1093, July 13, 1970, p. 23901). Although conference reports
were formerly considered in the Committee of the Whole, they may not be
sent there as a result of a point of order that they contain matter
ordinarily requiring consideration therein (V, 6559-6561).
When a bill is granted a special order for its consideration in the
House by special rule (IV, 3216-3224) or by unanimous consent (IV, 4823;
VIII, 2393), the effect is to discharge the Committee of the Whole. If
the special order so dictates, the bill is before the full House for
consideration (IV, 3216; VII, 788). Otherwise, the bill is considered in
the House as in the Committee of the Whole (VIII, 2393). In the modern
practice of the House, a special order reported from the Committee on
Rules that makes in order no amendments, or only one amendment, normally
provides for consideration of a measure on the Union Calendar in the
House (see, e.g., Apr. 26, 2001, p. 6299).
When a bill once considered in the Committee of the Whole is
recommitted, it is not, when again reported, necessarily subject to the
point of order that it must be considered in the Committee of the Whole
(IV, 4828, 4829; V, 5545, 5546, 5591).
Resolutions reported by the Committee on House Administration
appropriating from the contingent fund (now referred to as ``applicable
accounts of the House described in clause 1(k)(1) of rule X'') of the
House are considered in the House (VIII, 2415, 2416). Authorizations of
expenditures from the contingent fund, under the later ruling (IV, 4862-
4867), do not fall within the specifications of the rule (IV, 4868). A
bill providing for an expenditure that is to be borne other than by the
Government (IV, 4831; VIII, 2400), or relating to money held in the
Treasury in trust for a nongovernmental entity (IV, 4835, 4836, 4853;
VIII, 2413), is not governed by the rule.
Provisions placing liability jointly on the United States and the
District of Columbia (IV, 4833), granting an easement on public lands or
streets belonging to the United States (IV, 4840-4842), dedicating
public land to be forever used as a public park (IV, 4837, 4838),
providing site for a statue (VIII, 2405), confirming grants of public
lands (IV, 4843) and creating new offices (IV, 4824, 4846), have been
held to require consideration in the Committee of the Whole. Indian
lands have not been considered property of the Government within the
meaning of the rule (IV, 4844, 4845; VIII, 2413). Although a bill
removing the rate of postage has been held to be
[[Page [814]]]
within the rule as affecting revenues (IV, 4861), a bill relating to
taxes on bank circulation have not been so considered (IV, 4854, 4855).
Order of business
4. (a) <> Subject to subparagraph (b) business on the calendar of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union may be taken up
in regular order, or in such order as the Committee may determine,
unless the measure to be considered was determined by the House at the
time of resolving into the Committee of the Whole.
(b) Motions to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for
consideration of bills and joint resolutions making general
appropriations have precedence under this clause.
The early practice left the order of taking up bills to be determined
entirely by the Committee, but in 1844 the House began by rule to
regulate the order, and in 1880 adopted the present rule (IV, 4729).
When the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was transferred from former clause 4 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). At that time references in this provision to
revenue bills and rivers and harbors bills were deleted to conform to
changes made to the rules by the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 (H.
Res. 988, 93d Cong., Oct. 8, 1974, p. 34470), which revoked the
privilege to report such bills at any time.
The power of the Committee to determine the order of considering bills
on its calendar is construed to authorize a motion to establish an order
(IV, 4730) or a motion to take up a specified bill out of its order (IV,
4731, 4732; VIII, 2333). Except in cases in which the rules make
specific provisions therefor, a motion is not in order in the House to
fix the order in which business on the calendars of the Committee of the
Whole shall be taken up (IV, 4733). The Committee of the Whole having
voted to consider a particular bill, and consideration having begun, a
motion to reconsider or change that vote is not in order (IV, 4765).
When there is unfinished business in the Committee of the Whole, it is
usually first in order (IV, 4735; VIII, 2334). An amendment pending when
the Committee rises remains pending when the Committee next considers
that measure (July 27, 2011, p. 12252).
[[Page [815]]]
Reading for amendment-
5. (a) <> Before general debate commences on a
measure in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
it shall be read in full. When general debate is concluded or closed by
order of the House, the measure under consideration shall be read for
amendment. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who offers an
amendment shall be allowed five minutes to explain it, after which the
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who shall first obtain the
floor shall be allowed five minutes to speak in opposition to it. There
shall be no further debate thereon, but the same privilege of debate
shall be allowed in favor of and against any amendment that may be
offered to an amendment. An amendment, or an amendment to an amendment,
may be withdrawn by its proponent only by the unanimous consent of the
Committee of the Whole.
(b) When a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner offers an
amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
the Clerk shall promptly transmit five copies of the amendment to the
majority committee table and five copies to the minority committee
table. The Clerk also shall deliver at least one copy of the amendment
to the majority cloakroom and at least one copy to the minority
cloakroom.
A rule of 1789 provided that bills should be read and debated in the
Committee of the Whole and in the House by clauses. Although that rule
[[Page [816]]]
has disappeared, the practice continues in the Committee of the Whole
but not in the House. Originally there was unlimited debate in the
Committee of the Whole both as to the bill generally and also as to any
amendment. However, in 1841 the rule that no Member should speak more
than an hour was applied both to the Committee of the Whole and to the
House. At the same time another rule was adopted to prevent indefinite
prolongation of debate in the Committee of the Whole by permitting the
House by majority vote to order the discharge of the Committee of the
Whole from the consideration of a bill after acting, without debate, on
pending amendments and any other amendments that might be offered. The
effect of this was to empower the House to close general debate at any
time after it had actually begun in the Committee and thereby require
amendments to be voted on without debate. In 1847 a rule provided that
any Member proposing an amendment should have five minutes in which to
explain it, and in 1850 an amendment to the rule also permitted five
minutes in opposition and guarded against abuse by forbidding the
withdrawal of an amendment once offered (V, 5221). Paragraph (b),
placing the responsibility for providing copies of amendments on the
Clerk, was part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (sec. 124;
84 Stat. 1140) and was added to the rule in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). Before the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 5(a) of rule
XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The recodification also
conformed paragraph (a) to the recodified clause 8 of rule XVI to
reflect the modern practice of first and second readings (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
General debate must close before amendments, or motions for
disposition of the bill, may be offered (IV, 4744, 4778; V, 5221).
General debate is closed by the fact that no Member desires to
participate further (IV, 4745). If no member of a committee designated
to control time is present at the appropriate time during general debate
in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair may presume the time to have
been yielded back (June 11, 1984, p. 15744). Time unused by a minority
manager in general debate will be considered as yielded back upon
recognition of the majority manager to close general debate (Feb. 27,
2002, p. 2059). In the 104th Congress the Speaker announced his
intention to strictly enforce time limitations on debate (Jan. 4, 1995,
p. 457). The Chair manages the sequence in which committees use their
time for general debate under a special rule as a matter of recognition
and may recognize any member of the committee who is filling the role of
chair or ranking minority member under the governing special rule (Mar.
9, 2005, pp. 3928, 3932). For a further discussion of management of time
for general debate and debate on amendments in the Committee of the
Whole, see Sec. 959, supra.
A simple motion to rise is in order during general debate if offered
by a Member managing time or a Member to whom a manager yields for that
purpose (June 10, 1999, p. 12522; Sept. 4, 2003, p. 21155, p. 21157, p.
21158). However, a Member may not, in time yielded for general debate,
[[Page [817]]]
move that the Committee rise (May 25, 1967, p. 14121) or further yield
to another for such motion (Feb. 22, 1950, p. 2178; May 17, 2000, p.
8200).
The motion <> to close general debate in the Committee of
the Whole, successor in practice to the motion to discharge provided by
the rule of 1841, is made in the House pending the motion that the House
resolve itself into Committee, and not after the House has voted to go
into Committee (V, 5208). Though the motion is not debatable, the
previous question is sometimes ordered on it to prevent amendment (V,
5203). If the previous question is ordered, the 40 minutes of debate
under clause 1(a) of rule XIX (formerly clause 2 of rule XXVII) are not
allowed (VIII, 2555, 2690). General debate must have already begun in
the Committee of the Whole before the motion to limit debate it is in
order in the House (V, 5204-5206). The motion may not apply to a series
of bills (V, 5209) and must be offered to apply to the whole and not to
a part of a bill (V, 5207). A proposition for a division of time may not
be made as a part of it (V, 5210, 5211). The motion may not be made in
the Committee of the Whole (V, 5217; VIII, 2548); but, in the absence of
an order by the House, the Committee of the Whole may by unanimous
consent determine general debate (V, 5232; VIII, 2553). If the House has
fixed the time, the Committee may not, even by unanimous consent, extend
it (V, 5212-5216; VIII, 2321, 2550; Mar. 27, 1984, p. 6599; June 17,
1999, pp. 13437, 13442).-
The <> second reading was originally instituted by the rule of 1789 and
has continued, although the rule was eliminated, undoubtedly by
inadvertence, in the codification of 1880 (V, 5221). The recodification
of the 106th Congress conformed paragraph (a) to reflect the modern
practice of first and second readings (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Revenue, general appropriation, lighthouse, and river and harbor bills
are generally read by paragraphs. Other bills are read by sections (IV,
4738, 4740). Absent an order of the House to the contrary, the matter is
in the discretion of the Chair (VIII, 2341, 2344, 2346), although the
Committee of the Whole has overruled a decision (VIII, 2347). A Senate
amendment, however, is read in its entirety, and not by paragraphs or
sections (V, 6194). An amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
from the floor also must be read in its entirety and is then open to
amendment at any point. If a special order of business provides that an
amendment inserting a provision in a bill be considered as adopted in
the House and in the Committee of the Whole, the text thereby inserted
in the bill is not read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole (May
23, 2002, pp. 8923, 8924).
A bill (or the remainder of a bill) may be considered as having been
read and open to amendment by unanimous consent but not by motion (June
18, 1976, p. 19296). A unanimous-consent request in the Committee of the
Whole that an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered from the
floor be read for amendment by sections is not in order (Mar.
[[Page [818]]]
25, 1975, p. 8490). The chair of the Committee of the Whole normally
looks to the manager of a general appropriation bill for any request to
accelerate the reading by paragraph, although the Chair may recognize a
Member seeking unanimous consent to offer an amendment to a portion of a
bill not yet read (July 26, 2001, p. 14733).
To a bill read by paragraph, a motion to strike an entire title,
encompassing multiple paragraphs, is not in order (Aug. 5, 1998, p.
18928; Apr. 29, 2015, pp. 5861-63), but amendments striking each
paragraph of the title could be considered en bloc by unanimous consent
(May 18, 2016, p. _). If a bill is considered as read and open to
amendment at any point, adoption of an amendment adding a new section at
the end of the bill does not preclude subsequent amendments to previous
sections of the bill (Apr. 17, 1986, p. 7861). If a bill is considered
by title, the adoption of an amendment inserting a new title precludes
subsequent amendment to the previous title (Sept. 14, 2005, p. 20220;
see also Deschler-Brown, ch. 27, Sec. 10.13).
When a paragraph or section has been passed, it is not in order to
return thereto (IV, 4742, 4743) except by unanimous consent (IV, 4746,
4747; Deschler, ch. 26, Sec. 2.26) or when, the reading of the bill
being concluded and a motion to rise being decided in the negative, the
Committee on motion votes to return (IV, 4748). By unanimous consent,
the Committee of the Whole permitted a Member to withdraw an amendment
and to reserve her right to reoffer it at a later time, even though that
portion of the bill would have been passed in the reading (June 28,
2001, p. 12262). The Chair may direct a return to a section whereon, by
error, no action was had on a pending amendment (IV, 4750).
Points of order against a paragraph (or other portion of the bill then
open to amendment) should be made before the next paragraph (or portion
of the bill) is read or before an amendment is offered thereto (V, 6931;
VIII, 2351; June 16, 2004, p. 12565). The paragraph or section having
been read, and an amendment offered, the right to explain or oppose that
amendment has precedence of a motion to amend the amendment (IV, 4751)
and a motion to amend the amendment may not be offered while the
proponent is under recognition (May 18, 2016, p. _).
The Member recognized during five-minute debate may not yield time (V,
5035-5037; May 8, 1987, p. 11832; Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34686) unless
remaining standing or otherwise retaining the floor (June 10, 1998, p.
11976); must confine remarks to the subject (V, 5240-5256; VIII, 2591);
may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment (Dec. 12, 14,
1973, pp. 41171, 41716; Sept. 8, 1976, p. 29243; Mar. 7, 1995, p. 7107);
or yield blocks of time (June 14, 2006, p. 11199). If debate on an
amendment is limited or allocated by special order to a proponent and an
opponent, the Members controlling the debate may yield and reserve time,
whereas debate time on amendments under the five-minute rule cannot be
reserved (Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21425). A Member may extend beyond five
minutes by unanimous consent (Feb. 1, 2012, p. 734). The offeror of an
amendment
[[Page [819]]]
is not recognized to commence debate under the five-minute rule during
the pendency of a point of order against it (July 6, 2011, p. 10476).
For a further discussion of management of time for debate on amendments
in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 959, supra.
Where the Chair recognizes the proponent of an amendment to propound a
unanimous-consent request to modify the text of the amendment before
commencing debate thereon, the Chair does not charge time consumed under
a reservation of objection against the proponent's time for debate on
the amendment (Feb. 3, 1993, p. 1978; May 27, 1993, p. 11931).
The Chair endeavors to alternate recognition to offer amendments
between majority and minority Members (giving priority to committee
members) (Precedents (Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 11.3). Recognition of
Members to offer amendments in the Committee of the Whole under the
five-minute rule is within the discretion of the Chair and cannot be
challenged on a point of order (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 9.6). The
Chair does not anticipate the order in which amendments may be offered
nor declare in advance the order in which Members proposing amendments
will be recognized (Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 21.3).
The Committee of the Whole may not, even by unanimous consent,
prohibit the offering of an amendment otherwise in order under the five-
minute rule (July 31, 1984, p. 21701; Mar. 7, 1995, p. 11931). The fact
that copies of an amendment have not been made available as required in
this clause is not grounds for a point of order against the amendment
(June 21, 1974, p. 20609; Mar. 25, 1976, p. 7997; June 1, 2011, p.
8521). An amendment that has been disposed of in the Committee of the
Whole (June 17, 2004, pp. 12944, 12945) or ruled out of order (May 18,
2016, p. _; May 25, 2016, p. _) may not be withdrawn. Debate may
continue, and the Chair puts the question, on an amendment
notwithstanding the manager's ``acceptance'' of it (July 31, 2007, p.
21953; June 14, 2011, p. 9179).-
The pro <> forma amendment to ``strike the last word'' has long been used
for purposes of debate or explanation where an actual amendment is not
contemplated (V, 5778; VIII, 2591). Unless a special rule precludes any
amendment except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate, a pro
forma amendment may be voted on unless withdrawn (VIII, 2874) but the
Chair does not as a matter of course put the question on a pro forma
amendment. A special rule that precludes amendments to an amendment also
precludes pro forma amendments thereto (Aug. 1, 2001, p. 15559; July 21,
2011, p. 11751). A Member who has occupied five minutes on a pro forma
amendment to debate a pending substantive amendment may not lengthen
this time by making another pro forma amendment (V, 5222; VIII, 2560),
may not offer another pro forma amendment after intervening debate on a
pending amendment or proposition, even on a subsequent day (July 14,
1998, p. 15298; May 23, 2002, p. 8913 (see May 22, 2002, p. 8707)), and
may not extend debate time by offering a substantive amend
[[Page [820]]]
ment while other Members are seeking recognition (July 28, 1965, p.
18631). A Member recognized to offer a pro forma amendment under the
five-minute rule may not during that time offer a substantive amendment
but must be separately recognized for that purpose (Nov. 19, 1987, p.
32880). A Member may speak in opposition to a pending amendment and
subsequently offer a pro forma amendment and debate that (June 30, 1955,
p. 9614; Oct. 11, 2011, p. 15133); a Member may offer a second-degree
amendment and then offer a pro forma amendment to debate the underlying
first-degree amendment (June 28, 1995, p. 17633); a Member who has
debated a substantive amendment may thereafter be recognized in
opposition to a pro forma amendment thereto (July 20, 1951, p. 8566);
and a Member may offer a pro forma amendment each to a pending amendment
and a second-degree amendment thereto (June 12, 2007, p. 15525; July 31,
2007, pp. 21962, 21963), but not more than one (July 31, 2007, p.
21967). A Member who has offered a substantive amendment and then
debated it for five minutes may not extend that time by offering a pro
forma amendment, because it is not in order for the offeror of an
amendment to amend his or her own amendment except by unanimous consent
(Oct. 14, 1987, p. 27898). A pro forma amendment may be offered after a
substitute has been adopted and before the vote on the amendment, as
amended, by unanimous consent only, because the amendment has been
amended in its entirety and no further amendments, including pro forma
amendments, are in order (Oct. 18, 1983, p. 28185; June 28, 1995, p.
17633). A Member recognized on a pro forma amendment may not allocate or
reserve time, but may in yielding indicate to the Chair when the Member
intends to reclaim time (May 19, 1987, p. 12811; July 13, 1994, p.
16438). The Chair endeavors to alternate recognition to offer pro forma
amendments between majority and minority Members (giving priority to
committee members) rather than between sides of the question (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 3, Sec. 11.4). A pro forma amendment may not be offered
while a point of order is pending (Feb. 16, 2011, p. 2174).
Quorum and voting
6. (a) <> A quorum of a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union is 100 Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner. The
first time that a Committee of the Whole finds itself without a quorum
during a day, the Chair shall invoke the procedure for a quorum call set
forth in clause 2 of rule XX, unless the Chair elects to invoke an
alternate procedure set forth in clause
[[Page [821]]]
3 or clause 4(a) of rule XX. If a quorum appears, the Committee of the
Whole shall continue its business. If a quorum does not appear, the
Committee of the Whole shall rise, and the Chair shall report the names
of absentees to the House.
(b)(1) The Chair may refuse to entertain a point of order that a
quorum is not present during general debate.
(2) After a quorum has once been established on a day, the Chair may
entertain a point of order that a quorum is not present only when the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union is operating
under the five-minute rule and the Chair has put the pending proposition
to a vote.
(3) Upon sustaining a point of order that a quorum is not present, the
Chair may announce that, following a regular quorum call under paragraph
(a), the minimum time for electronic voting on the pending question
shall be not less than two minutes.
(c) When ordering a quorum call in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, the Chair may announce an intention to declare
that a quorum is constituted at any time during the quorum call when the
Chair determines that a quorum has appeared. If the Chair interrupts the
quorum call by declaring that a quorum is constituted, proceedings under
the quorum call shall be considered as vacated, and the Committee of the
Whole shall continue its sitting and resume its business.
[[Page [822]]]
(d) A quorum is not required in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for adoption of a motion that the Committee rise.
It was the early practice for the Committee of the Whole to rise on
finding itself without a quorum (IV, 2977), and it was not until 1847
that a rule (formerly clause 2(a) of rule XXIII) was adopted. The rule
was amended in 1880, again in 1890 (which included the concept that a
quorum in the Committee should be 100 rather than a quorum of the House
(IV, 2966)), and in 1971 (Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144). On October 13, 1972
(H. Res. 1123, p. 36012) the rule was amended to reflect the
installation of the electronic voting system in the House Chamber. The
clause was amended in the 93d Congress to give the Chair discretion to
vacate proceedings under the call when a quorum appears (H. Res. 998,
Apr. 9, 1974, pp. 10195-99). In the 95th Congress the clause was
substantially changed to allow quorum calls only under the five-minute
rule where the Chair has put the question on a pending proposition,
after a quorum of the Committee of the Whole has been once established
on that day (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70). The clause was amended
again in the 96th Congress to permit the Committee to continue its
business following the appearance of a quorum so that the Speaker need
not take the chair to receive the Committee's report of absentees as in
previous practice, and to enable the Chair to reduce to five minutes the
period for a recorded vote immediately following a regular quorum call
(H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16), which time was reduced to not less
than two minutes in the 113th Congress (sec. 2(b)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3,
2013, p. 25). In the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1981, p. 98) the
clause was amended to allow the Chair the discretion whether or not to
entertain a point of order of no quorum during general debate only.
Gender-based references were eliminated in the 111th Congress (sec.
2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). In the 116th Congress, paragraph
(a) was amended to include Delegates and the Resident Commissioner as
part of a quorum (sec. 102(y)(1), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). Before
the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was
found in former clause 2(a) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p.
47).
The chair of the Committee of the Whole must entertain a point of
order of no quorum during consideration under the five-minute rule if a
quorum has not yet been established in the Committee on the bill then
pending (and the fact that a quorum of the Committee has previously been
established on another bill on that day is irrelevant during
consideration (Sept. 19, 1984, p. 26082)). If a recorded vote on a prior
amendment or motion during consideration under the five-minute rule on
that bill on that day has established a quorum, a subsequent point of no
quorum during debate is precluded (June 3, 1992, p. 13336), although a
subsequent call of the Committee may be ordered by unanimous consent
(May 10, 1984, p. 11869; Dec. 17, 1985, p. 37469; June 25, 1986, p.
15551). A vote by division is
[[Page [823]]]
not such intervening business as would preclude a reduced-time vote
under a previous version of clause 6(b)(3) (July 22, 1994, p. 17609).
Clause 6(c) permits the chair of the Committee of the Whole to
announce in advance, at the time that the absence of a quorum is
ascertained, an intention to vacate proceedings when a quorum appears,
and to convert to a regular quorum call if a quorum does not appear at
any time during the call (May 13, 1974, p. 14148). The Chair need not
convert to a regular quorum call precisely at the expiration of 15
minutes if 100 Members have not responded on a ``notice'' quorum call
but may continue to exercise discretion to vacate proceedings at any
time during the entire period permitted for the conduct of the call by
clause 2 of rule XX (July 17, 1974, p. 23673).
Before the installation of the electronic system, a quorum in the
Committee was established by a call of the roll. At one time the roll
was called but once (IV, 2967); but in the later practice it was called
twice as on other roll calls (VI, 668). Under the modern practice the
Chair normally directs that Members record their presence by electronic
device. The Chair may, however, in the Chair's discretion, order that
Members respond by the alternative procedures in clause 3 of rule XX
(alphabetical call of the roll) or clause 4(a) of rule XX (clerk
tellers) (for the use of clerk tellers for a ``notice'' quorum call in
the Committee of the Whole, see July 13, 1983, p. 18858).
Where the Committee has risen to report the absence of a quorum, it
resumes its session by direction of the Speaker on the appearance of a
quorum (IV, 2968; VI, 674). The quorum that must appear to permit the
Committee to continue its business is a quorum of the Committee and not
of the House (IV, 2970, 2971). However, if such quorum fails to appear,
a quorum of the House is required for the Committee to resume its
sitting (VI, 674). It was formerly held that after the Committee has
risen and reported its roll call, a motion to adjourn was in order
before direction as to resumption of the session (IV, 2969); but under
the later practice the Committee immediately resumed its session without
intervening motion or unanimous-consent requests (VI, 672, 673; VIII,
2377, 2379, 2436). The failure of a quorum of the House to answer on
this roll call does not interfere with the authority of the Speaker to
direct the Committee to resume its session (IV, 2969). The Chair's count
of a quorum is not subject to verification by tellers (VIII, 2369,
2436), may not be challenged by an appeal (July 24, 1974, p. 25012), and
may include those present and not voting (VI, 641). On a division vote
totaling less than 100, the Chair has relied on an immediately prior
count on a point of no quorum and on the Chair's observation of several
Members present but not voting on the division vote in finding the
presence of a quorum of the Committee of the Whole (June 29, 1988, p.
16504). No quorum being present when a vote is taken in the Committee of
the Whole, and the Committee having risen before a quorum appeared, such
vote is invalid, and the question is put de novo when the Committee
resumes its business (VI, 676, 677). Although
[[Page [824]]]
an ``automatic'' roll call (under clause 6(a) of rule XX) is not in
order in the Committee of the Whole, a point of order of no quorum may
intervene between the announcement of a division vote result and the
transaction of further business, and a demand for a recorded vote
following the quorum call is not thereby precluded (Oct. 9, 1975, p.
32598). Where a recorded vote is refused but the Chair has not announced
the result of a voice vote on an amendment, and the demand for a
division vote remains possible, the question remains pending and the
Chair is obligated to entertain a point of order of no quorum under this
provision (June 6, 1979, p. 13648).
Under <> clause 6(d), the presence of a quorum is not necessary for
adoption of a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise (IV, 2975,
2976, 4914; Mar. 5, 1980, p. 4801; Oct. 3, 1985, p. 26096; May 21, 1992,
p. 12394; July 21, 2004, p. 16849).
A simple motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is privileged
(VIII, 2369), takes precedence over a motion to amend (May 21, 1992, p.
12394; June 12, 2007, p. 15522), and is not debatable (May 17, 2000, p.
8203). However, the motion cannot interrupt a Member who has the floor
(VIII, 2370, 2371; June 12, 2007, p. 15527, pp. 15689, 15690), may be
withdrawn by unanimous consent (June 12, 2019, p. _) and may be ruled
out when dilatory (VIII, 2800). A demand for a record vote on the motion
is untimely after the Committee rises (May 19, 2016, p. _). For a
further discussion of the motion to rise, see Sec. 334, supra.
A point of order of no quorum may not be entertained, on a day on
which a quorum has been established, during the period after the
Committee of the Whole has risen after completing its consideration of a
bill or resolution and before the Chair has reported the bill or
resolution back to the House. The Chair having announced the absence of
a quorum in the Committee of the Whole, a motion to rise is in order
and, if a quorum develops on the vote by which the motion is rejected,
the roll is not called and the Committee proceeds with its business
(VIII, 2369). The passage of a bill by the House is not invalidated by
the fact that the Committee of the Whole reported it on an erroneous
supposition that a recorded vote had disclosed a quorum (IV, 2972).
Under the modern practice, the Committee of the Whole may rise
informally without motion to enable the House to transact certain
administrative business (see Sec. 330, supra).
(e) <> In
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, the Chair
shall order a recorded vote on a request supported by at least 25
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.
[[Page [825]]]
This provision was adopted in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15,
1979, pp. 7-16). A gender-based reference was eliminated in the 111th
Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). In the 116th
Congress, this provision was amended to include Delegates and the
Resident Commissioner (sec. 102(y)(2), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. ).
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 2(b) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan.
6, 1999, p. 47). A demand for a recorded vote on an amendment is
untimely where the Chair has recognized for the next amendment (Dec. 15,
2005, p. 28739; May 28, 2014, p. 9125) or put the question on the next
amendment pending on the tree (Procedure, ch. 30, Sec. 12.5), or where
considerable time has elapsed after the Chair's announcement of the
voice vote (June 13, 2006, p. 11037), but not when a Member is seeking
recognition for that purpose when the Chair announces the result of the
voice vote (June 27, 2012, pp. 10175, 10176; Sept. 20, 2012, p. 14571).
The Committee may vacate a pending vote by electronic device by
unanimous consent (see Sec. 993b, infra) but not by motion (May 8, 2008,
p. 8148).
- (f) <> In the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
the Chair may reduce to not less than two minutes the minimum time for
electronic voting on any or all pending amendments after a record vote
has been taken on the first pending amendment, if in the discretion of
the Chair Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner would be
afforded an adequate opportunity to vote.
(g) The Chair may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment. The Chair may resume proceedings on a postponed request at
any time. The Chair may reduce to not less than two minutes the minimum
time for electronic voting--
(1) on any postponed question that follows another electronic
vote, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first
in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes; or
[[Page [826]]]
(2) on any postponed question taken after the Committee of the
Whole resumes its sitting if in the discretion of the Chair Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner would be afforded an adequate
opportunity to vote.
Paragraph (f) was added in the 102d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991,
p. 39). Paragraph (g)(1) was added in the 107th Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 3, 2001, p. 25). Gender-based references were eliminated from both
in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). Both
were amended in the 112th Congress to permit the Chair to reduce the
minimum time for voting to not less than two minutes (instead of five
minutes) (sec. 2(e)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). Such two-minute
voting had previously been granted ad hoc by unanimous consent in the
House (e.g., Mar. 16, 2006, p. 3767). Paragraph (g)(2) was added in the
113th Congress (sec. 2(b)(1), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2013, p. 25), and was
amended in the 116th Congress to include Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner (sec. 102(y)(3), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019, p. _). Paragraphs
(f) and (g) were amended in the 116th Congress to expand the
availability of two-minute voting (sec. 102(z), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3, 2019,
p. _). Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress,
paragraph (f) was found in former clause 2(c) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A vote by division is not such intervening
business as would preclude a reduced-time vote under a previous version
of paragraph (f) (July 22, 1994, p. 17609). Pursuant to paragraph (g),
the Chair may resume proceedings on a postponed question at any time,
even while an amendment is pending (May 24, 2011, p. 7740; July 30,
2013, p. 12566).
Before the adoption of paragraph (g), the chair of the Committee of
the Whole could not entertain a unanimous-consent request to reduce to
fewer than 15 minutes the minimum time for recorded votes (June 18,
1987, p. 16764) or to postpone and cluster votes on amendments (July 13,
1995, p. 18871; Sept. 27, 1995, p. 26611; July 14, 1998, p. 15305).
Special rules of the House before adoption of paragraph (g) commonly
provided the chair of the Committee of the Whole authority to postpone
and cluster requests for recorded votes. Where a special rule provided
such authority: (1) use of that authority, and the order of clustering,
was entirely within the discretion of the Chair (e.g., Aug. 5, 1998, p.
18950); (2) a request for a recorded vote on an amendment on which
proceedings had been postponed could be withdrawn by unanimous consent
before proceedings resumed on the request as unfinished business, in
which case the amendment stood disposed of by the voice vote thereon
(May 16, 2000, p. 7994); (3) it did not permit the Chair to postpone a
vote on an appeal of a ruling of the Chair (even by unanimous consent)
(June 8, 2000, p. 9954); (4) the Committee of the Whole by unanimous
consent could vacate postponed proceedings,
[[Page [827]]]
thereby permitting the Chair to put the question de novo (June 20, 2000,
p. 11526); and (5) the Chair could resume proceedings on unfinished
business consisting of a ``stack'' of amendments even while an amendment
was pending (July 10, 2000, p. 13615).
An amendment pending as unfinished business where proceedings on a
request for a recorded vote have been postponed can be modified by
unanimous consent on the initiative of its proponent (July 19, 2005, pp.
16487, 16488; see also Mar. 30, 2000, p. 4037).
Pursuant to this clause, where the Chair has announced that the Chair
will postpone a request for a recorded vote that was made pending a
point of order of no quorum, the point of order is considered as
withdrawn because the question is no longer pending after the Chair's
announcement (see Sec. 1026, infra). Under a previous form of this
paragraph, the offering of a pro forma amendment to discuss the
legislative program or an extended one-minute speech by a Member to
express gratitute to the Members on a personal matter constituted
intervening business that precluded a reduced-time vote except by
unanimous consent (June 22, 2000, p. 12087; June 27, 2000, p. 12586). A
request for a record vote under this paragraph may be withdrawn by
unanimous consent before proceedings resume on the request as unfinished
business, in which case the amendment stands disposed of by the voice
vote thereon (e.g., Sept. 17, 1998, p. 20845; June 25, 2004, pp. 14173-
75) unless the request proposes that the Chair put the question de novo
(e.g., Sept. 22, 2004, pp. 18957, 18958, 18962; July 18, 2013, p.
11838).
(h) <> Whenever a recorded vote on any question has been decided by
a margin within which the votes cast by the Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner have been decisive, the Committee of the Whole shall rise
and the Speaker shall put such question de novo without intervening
motion. Upon the announcement of the vote on that question, the
Committee of the Whole shall resume its sitting without intervening
motion.
This paragraph (former clause 2(d) of rule XXIII) was added in the
103d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 1993, p. 49), repealed in the 104th
Congress (sec. 212(c), H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468), reinstated in
the 110th Congress (H. Res. 78, Jan. 24, 2007, p. 2140), repealed in the
112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(4), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80), and
reinstated in the 116th Congress (sec. 102(b)(2), H. Res. 6, Jan. 3,
2019, p. _).
Whether the votes cast by the delegates are decisive is determined by
a ``but for'' test, the question being whether the result would be
different
[[Page [828]]]
if their votes are not counted (May 19, 1993, p. 10409; Feb. 8, 2007, p.
3550). The Chair's count in such matter is not subject to appeal (Feb.
8, 2007, p. 3550). The Chair does not differentiate between Members and
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner in announcing the result of a
record vote in the Committee of the Whole (Feb. 8, 2007, p. 3579). An
amendment adopted by immediate proceedings de novo in the House does not
disturb the sequence of a ``king-of-the-hill'' procedure established by
a special rule waiving all points of order against subsequent amendments
(Mar. 17, 1994, p. 5388). This paragraph is applicable only to votes
taken in the Committee of the Whole (Mar. 11, 2008, p. 3740). In
response to a parliamentary inquiry in the House after automatic rising
under this paragraph, the Chair has clarified that the vote is on the
same amendment just voted on in the Committee of the Whole (June 18,
2009, p. 15625).
Dispensing with the reading of an amendment
7. <> It shall be in
order in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to
move that the Committee of the Whole dispense with the reading of an
amendment that has been printed in the bill or resolution as reported by
a committee, or an amendment that a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner has caused to be printed in the Congressional Record. Such
a motion shall be decided without debate.
This provision was added in the 97th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 5,
1981, pp. 98-113) to permit a motion to dispense with the reading of
certain amendments in the Committee of the Whole. Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 5(b) of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
Closing debate-
8. (a) <> Subject to paragraph (b) at any time after the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union has begun five-minute debate on
amendments to any portion of a bill or resolu
[[Page [829]]]
tion, it shall be in order to move that the Committee of the Whole close
all debate on that portion of the bill or resolution or on the pending
amendments only. Such a motion shall be decided without debate. The
adoption of such a motion does not preclude further amendment, to be
decided without debate.
(b) If the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
closes debate on any portion of a bill or resolution before there has
been debate on an amendment that a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner has caused to be printed in the Congressional Record at
least one day before its consideration, the Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner who caused the amendment to be printed in the
Record shall be allowed five minutes to explain it, after which the
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who shall first obtain the
floor shall be allowed five minutes to speak in opposition to it. There
shall be no further debate thereon.
(c) Material submitted for printing in the Congressional Record under
this clause shall indicate the full text of the proposed amendment, the
name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner proposing it, the
number of the bill or resolution to which it will be offered, and the
point in the bill or resolution or amendment thereto where the amendment
is intended to be offered. The amendment shall appear in a portion of
the Record designated for that purpose. Amendments to a specified
measure submitted
[[Page [830]]]
for printing in that portion of the Record shall be numbered in the
order printed.
This clause (formerly clause 6 of rule XXIII) was adopted in 1860,
with amendments in 1880 and 1885 (V, 5221, 5224). Paragraph (b),
permitting 10 minutes for debate on an amendment that has been printed
in the Record even after the Committee of the Whole closes debate, was
inserted in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144)
following the enactment of an identical provision in section 119 of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140). In the 105th
Congress that provision was amended to accommodate the printing of
amendments to measures not yet reported (H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 1997, p.
121). The third sentence, relating to the procedure for submitting and
printing of amendments, was added in the 93d Congress (Precedents
(Wickham), ch. 5, Sec. 24.15). The last sentence, relating to the
numbering of printed amendments, was added in the 104th Congress (sec.
217, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 468). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 6
of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). A clerical correction
was effected to paragraph (c) in the 107th Congress (sec. 2(x), H. Res.
5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. 26).
The Speaker announced that amendments to be printed in the Record
pursuant to this clause must be deposited in a separate box at the
Rostrum or with the Official Reporters of Debates within 15 minutes
following adjournment, and must bear the Member's original signature
(Nov. 25, 1974, p. 37270). Although ordinarily the expiration of time
for debate on a bill and all amendments thereto precludes debate on
amendments offered thereafter (July 18, 1968, p. 22110), debate on an
amendment printed in the Record may nevertheless proceed for 10 minutes
under this clause (Aug. 2, 1973, p. 27715). Printing an amendment in the
Record under this clause permits debate notwithstanding a limitation of
debate only if the amendment has been properly offered, and does not
permit the offering of an amendment not otherwise in order under the
rules (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11491); and the guaranteed five minutes may be
claimed only if the offeror of the amendment is the Member who caused it
to be printed under the rule (June 1, 1976, p. 16044; June 29, 1989, p.
13928; June 19, 1991, p. 15473). The guaranteed time applies to an
amendment offered as a substitute for another amendment, rather than as
a primary amendment, if offered in the precise form printed (June 26,
1979, p. 16682), but where such a substitute amendment has not been
printed in the Record it may not be debated unless time is yielded
within the original 10 minutes (Dec. 10, 1987, p. 34710). Where a
special order requires amendments to be printed in the Record to qualify
during the consideration of a bill under the five-minute rule, but makes
no designation concerning offerors, any printed amendment may be offered
by any Member (Mar. 22, 1990, p. 5017); but only the Member causing the
amendment to be printed is entitled to the time for debate guaranteed by
this clause.
[[Page [831]]]
The motion to close five-minute debate is not in order until such
debate has begun (V, 5225; VIII, 2567), which means after one five-
minute speech (V, 5226; VIII, 2573). The motion to strike the enacting
clause under clause 9 (formerly clause 7) is preferential to the motion
to close debate (June 28, 1995, p. 17647; July 13, 1995, p. 18872).
Although any Member may move, or request unanimous consent, to limit
debate under the five-minute rule, the manager of the bill has priority
in recognition for such purpose (June 19, 1984, p. 17055). The House, as
well as the Committee of the Whole, may close five-minute debate after
it has begun (V, 5229, 5231), but rarely exercises this right. The
motion to close debate, although not debatable (Apr. 23, 1975, p. 11534;
June 5, 1975, p. 17187, July 14, 1998, p. 15304), may be amended (V,
5227; VIII, 2578). A time limitation imposed by the Committee of the
Whole under this clause may be rescinded or modified only by unanimous
consent (Sept. 17, 1975, p. 28904). Although the Committee of the Whole
may limit debate on amendments, it may not restrict the offering of
amendments in contravention of a special order adopted by the House
(June 25, 1985, p. 17201). The Committee of the Whole by unanimous
consent may limit and allocate control of time for debate on amendments
not yet offered (May 6, 1998, p. 8348). The motion may be ruled out when
dilatory (V, 5734).
The closing of debate on the last section of a bill does not preclude
debate on a substitute for the whole text (V, 5228). Where there is a
time limitation on debate on a pending amendment in the nature of a
substitute and all amendments thereto, but not on the underlying
original text, debate on perfecting amendments to the original text
proceeds under the five-minute rule absent another time limitation (Apr.
13, 1983, p. 8402). Where the time for debate on a pending amendment in
the form of a motion to strike (and all amendments thereto) has been
limited, a subsequently offered perfecting amendment considered as
preferential to (rather than as an amendment to) the motion to strike
remains separately debatable outside the limitation (July 20, 1995, p.
19788). Where five-minute debate has been limited to a certain number of
minutes without reference to a time certain, the time consumed by
reading of amendments, quorum calls, points of order and votes does not
reduce the amount of time remaining for debate (Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28459;
Nov. 9, 1971, p. 40060). However, where debate has been limited to a
time certain, such activities as reading and voting consume time
otherwise available for debate (May 6, 1970, p. 14452; Aug. 2, 1984,
22180). Unlike time placed under a Member's control, five-minute debate
(or time derived therefrom under a limitation) may not be reserved or
yielded in blocks except by unanimous consent (Mar. 2, 1976, p. 4992;
May 11, 1976, p. 13416). A motion to limit debate on a pending amendment
may neither allocate the time proposed to remain nor vary the order of
recognition to close debate, though the Committee of the Whole may do
either separately by unanimous consent (July 12, 1988, p. 17767). The
Committee of the Whole may by motion: (1) limit debate on a pending
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute (considered as read)
[[Page [832]]]
and on all amendments thereto to a time certain; and then (2) separately
limit debate on each perfecting amendment as it is offered (Mar. 16,
1983, p. 5794).
Under a limitation on debate the Chair may, in the Chair's discretion,
choose among the following: (1) permit continued debate under the five-
minute rule; (2) divide the remaining time among those desiring to
speak; or (3) divide the remaining time between a proponent and an
opponent to be yielded by them to other Members (June 14, 1977, p.
18833; May 25, 1982, p. 11672; May 10, 2000, p. 7515). The Chair also
may, in the Chair's discretion, give priority in recognition under a
limitation to those Members seeking to offer amendments, over other
Members seeking recognition at the time the limitation was agreed to
(May 26, 1977, pp. 16950-52). Where time for debate has been limited on
a bill and all amendments thereto to a time certain several hours away,
the Chair may, in the Chair's discretion, continue to proceed under the
five-minute rule until desiring to allocate remaining time on possible
amendments, and may then divide that time among proponents of
anticipated amendments and committee members opposing those amendments
(e.g., July 16, 1981, p. 16044; Feb. 28, 1995, pp. 6306-08). The Chair
has discretion to reallocate time to conform to the limit set by
unanimous consent of the Committee of the Whole (Mar. 16, 1995, p.
8115).
As codified in clause 3(c) of rule XVII (and except as indicated in
Sec. 959, supra) a manager of the bill controlling time in opposition to
an amendment, and not the proponent of the pending amendment, has the
right to close debate on the amendment (July 16, 1981, p. 16043), even
where the manager is the proponent of a pending amendment to the
amendment (Mar. 16, 1983, p. 5792).
Striking the enacting clause
9. <> A motion that the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union rise and report a bill or resolution to the House with the
recommendation that the enacting or resolving clause be stricken shall
have precedence of a motion to amend, and, if carried in the House,
shall constitute a rejection of the bill or resolution. Whenever a bill
or resolution is reported from the Committee of the Whole with such
adverse recommendation and the recommendation is rejected by the House,
the bill or resolution shall
[[Page [833]]]
stand recommitted to the Committee of the Whole without further action
by the House. Before the question of concurrence is submitted, it shall
be in order to move that the House refer the bill or resolution to a
committee, with or without instructions. If a bill or resolution is so
referred, then when it is again reported to the House it shall be
referred to the Committee of the Whole without debate.
The practice of rejecting a bill by striking the enacting clause dates
from a time as early as 1812, but the first rule on the subject was not
adopted until 1822. By amendments in 1860, 1870, and 1880 the rule has
been brought into its present form (V, 5326). The rule before 1880
applied in the House as well as in the Committee of the Whole. In the
revision of 1880, it was classified among the rules relating to the
Committee of the Whole, but there is nothing to indicate that this
change was intended to limit the scope of the motion. It was probably a
recognition merely of the fact that the motion was used most frequently
in the Committee of the Whole (V, 5326, 5332). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, at which time the rule was
also expanded to include resolutions and resolving clauses, it was found
in former clause 7 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). The
motion must be in writing and in the proper form (July 24, 1986, p.
17641; Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22071; Sept. 12, 1986, p. 23178).
The motion <> may not be made until the first section of
the bill has been read (V, 5327; VIII, 2619), and may be offered while
an amendment is pending (V, 5328-5331; VIII, 2622, 2624, 2627). The
motion takes precedence over the motion to amend and therefore over the
motion to rise and report at the end of the reading of a general
appropriation bill for amendment under clause 2(d) of rule XXI (July 24,
1986, p. 17641). The motion also takes precedence over a motion to limit
debate on pending amendments (June 28, 1995, p. 17647; July 13, 1995, p.
18874). If a special order provides that a bill shall be open to
amendment in the Committee of the Whole, the motion is in order (VII,
787); contra (IV, 3215), but after the stage of amendment has been
passed the motion is not in order (IV, 4782; VIII, 2368). Where a bill
is being considered under a special order that permits only committee
amendments and no amendments thereto, the motion is not in order if no
committee amendments are in fact offered (Apr. 16, 1970, p. 12092).
Where a bill is being considered under a special order that permits only
specified amendments to an amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text, the
[[Page [834]]]
motion is in order even after disposition of the specified amendments
(Nov. 30, 2011, p. 18465).
The motion is debatable as to the merits of the bill, but may not go
beyond its provisions (V, 5336). The debate on the motion is governed by
the five-minute rule (V, 5333-5335; VIII, 2618, 2628-2631); only two
five-minute speeches are in order (V, 5335; VIII, 2629), and time may
not be reserved (May 22, 1991, p. 11830); thus where a Member recognized
for five minutes in opposition to the motion yields back the time,
another Member may not claim the unused portion thereof (Mar. 3, 1988,
p. 3241). Members of the committee managing the bill have priority in
recognition for debate in opposition to the motion (May 5, 1988, p.
9955; June 26, 1991, p. 16436). The Chair will not announce in advance
the Member to be recognized in opposition to the motion (July 17, 1996,
p. 17543). The motion is not debatable after the expiration of time for
debate on the pending bill and all amendments thereto (July 9, 1965, p.
16280; July 19, 1973, p. 24961; June 19, 1975, p. 19785). However, it is
debatable where the limitation is only on an amendment in the nature of
a substitute being read as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under a special order and not on the bill itself (June 20, 1975, p.
19966). For more concerning debate on the motion, see Deschler, ch. 19,
Sec. 13.
A second motion to strike the enacting clause is not entertained on
the same legislative day in the absence of any material modification of
the bill (VIII, 2636), but the motion may be repeated on a subsequent
legislative day without change in the bill (May 6, 1950, p. 6571). The
rejection of a proposed amendment to the bill does not qualify as a
modification of the bill (June 21, 1962, p. 11369), nor does the
adoption of an amendment to a proposed amendment to the bill. However,
adoption of an amendment to an amendment in the nature of a substitute
read as an original bill pursuant to a special order does qualify as a
modification of the bill (June 20, 1975, p. 19970). A motion that is
withdrawn by unanimous consent rather than voted on by the Committee
does not preclude the offering of another motion on the same day without
a material modification of the bill (May 9, 1996, p. 10758).
A point of order against the motion should be made before debate
thereon has begun (V, 6902; VIII, 3442; May 6, 1950, p. 6571), and when
challenged the Member offering the motion must qualify as being opposed
to the bill (Mar. 13, 1942, p. 2439; May 6, 1950, p. 6571; June 14,
1979, p. 14995; Jan. 26, 1995, p. 2521). When a bill is reported from
the Committee of the Whole with the recommendation that the enacting
words be stricken, the motion to strike is debatable (V, 5337-5340), but
a motion to lay on the table is not in order (V, 5337). The previous
question may be moved on the motion to concur without applying to
further action on the bill (V, 5342). When the House disagrees to the
action of the Committee in striking the enacting words and does not
refer it under the provisions of the rule, it goes back to the Committee
of the Whole, where it becomes unfinished business (V, 5326, 5345, 5346;
VIII, 2633). Notwithstanding that consider
[[Page [835]]]
ation of the pending bill was governed by a ``modified-closed'' rule
permitting only specified amendments, pending the concurrence of the
House with a recommendation of the Committee of the Whole that the
enacting clause be stricken, the House could by instructions in a motion
to refer under this clause direct the Committee of the Whole to consider
additional germane amendments (Apr. 14, 1994, p. 7452). When the
enacting words of a bill are stricken, the bill is rejected (V, 5326).
When the enacting clause of a Senate measure is stricken, the bill is
rejected (V, 5326); and the Senate is so informed (IV, 3423; VIII, 2638;
June 20, 1946, p. 7211; Oct. 4, 1972, p. 33787).
Concurrent resolution on the budget
10. (a) <> At the conclusion of general debate in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union on a concurrent resolution on the
budget under section 305(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
concurrent resolution shall be considered as read for amendment.
(b) It shall not be in order in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union to consider an amendment to a
concurrent resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto, unless the
concurrent resolution, as amended by such amendment or amendments--
(1) would be mathematically consistent except as limited by
paragraph (c); and
(2) would contain all the matter set forth in paragraphs (1)
through (5) of section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(c)(1) Except as specified in subparagraph (2), it shall not be in
order in the House or in the Committee of the Whole House on the state
of the Union to consider an amendment to a concurrent resolution on the
budget, or an amend
[[Page [836]]]
ment thereto, that proposes to change the amount of the appropriate
level of the public debt set forth in the concurrent resolution, as
reported.
(2) Amendments to achieve mathematical consistency under section
305(a)(5) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if offered by
direction of the Committee on the Budget, may propose to adjust the
amount of the appropriate level of the public debt set forth in the
concurrent resolution, as reported, to reflect changes made in other
figures contained in the concurrent resolution.
Paragraph (a) (first sentence of former clause 8 of rule XXIII) was
added on January 4, 1977 (H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., pp. 53-70). Paragraph
(b) (second sentence of former clause 8 of rule XXIII) was adopted in
the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16). In the 96th
Congress paragraph (b) was amended further and paragraph (c) (third
sentence of former clause 8 of rule XXIII) was added by Public Law 96-78
(93 Stat. 589) and was originally intended to apply to concurrent
resolutions on the budget for fiscal years beginning on or after October
1, 1980. However, in the 96th Congress the provisions of that public law
amending the Rules of the House were made applicable to the third
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1980 as well as the
first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1981 (H. Res.
642, Apr. 23, 1980, p. 8789). Before the House recodified its rules in
the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 8 of rule
XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
A <> prior clause 11 (formerly clause 5(c) of rule XXIII) provided
that an amendment in the Committee of the Whole proposing only to strike
an unfunded mandate from a portion of the bill could be precluded only
by specific terms of a special order of business. It was repealed in the
112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80). For the
text of the former rule and its history, see Sec. 991 of the House Rules
and Manual for the 111th Congress (H. Doc. 110-162).
[[Page [837]]]
Applicability of Rules of the House
11. <> The Rules of the House are the rules of the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union so far as applicable.
This clause was adopted in 1789 (IV, 4737). Before the House
recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in
former clause 9 of rule XXIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). It was
redesignated as clause 11 when a prior clause 11 was repealed in the
112th Congress (sec. 2(e)(5), H. Res. 5, Jan. 5, 2011, p. 80).
The Member offering an amendment in the Committee of the Whole
pursuant to a special order of the House has the burden of proving that
it meets the description of the amendment made in order (July 17, 1996,
p. 17553). The Chair advised the Committee that an amendment made in
order was described by subject matter rather than by prescribed text and
that the pending amendment fit such description (July 20, 2000, p.
15751). For a description of the authority under clause 6(g) for the
chair of the Committee of the Whole to postpone and cluster requests for
recorded votes on amendments (which, before the adoption of that clause,
was commonly provided by special orders of the House), and the Chair's
interpretation thereof, see Sec. 984, supra.
The Chair may not entertain a unanimous-consent <> request in the Committee of
the Whole if its effect is to materially modify procedures required by a
special rule or order adopted by the House. For example, the following
unanimous-consent requests may not be entertained in the Committee of
the Whole: (1) to permit a perfecting amendment to be offered to the
underlying bill where a special rule permitted its consideration only as
a perfecting amendment to a committee amendment (Aug. 2, 1977, p.
26161); (2) to permit a substitute to be read by section for amendment
where the special rule did not so provide (Dec. 12, 1973, p. 41153); (3)
to extend the time limitation for consideration of amendments beyond
that set by a special order requiring the Chair to put the question on
the pending amendments at the expiration of certain hours of
consideration (Apr. 10, 1986, p. 7079; Oct. 30, 1991, p. 29213; Aug. 3,
1999, p. 19218; Oct. 21, 1999, p. 26492); (4) to restrict ``en
blocking'' authority granted in a special order (Sept. 11, 1986, p.
22871; June 21, 1989, p. 12744); (5) to change the scheme for control
(other than among committees controlling time) (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29984;
Sept. 29, 2005, p. 21797; Jan. 26, 2011, p. 910; Oct. 9, 2015, pp.
15999, 16000) or duration (Aug. 1, 1989, p. 17143; Mar. 12, 1991, p.
5799; Mar. 17, 1993, p. 5385; June 17, 1999, pp. 13437, 13442; Feb. 9,
2005, pp. 1923, 1925 (Chair corrected himself)) of general debate
specified by the House, including a ``wrap up'' debate following the
amendment process (Mar. 25, 2004, pp. 5318-20) but the allotment of time
to
[[Page [838]]]
a chair or ranking minority member inures to all members of the
committee (Nov. 5, 2009, p. 26948); (6) to preempt the Chair's
discretion (granted by a special order) to postpone and cluster votes or
to schedule further consideration of a pending measure to a subsequent
day (June 4, 1992, p. 13625; July 13, 1995, p. 18872); (7) to postpone a
vote on an appeal of a ruling of the Chair (June 8, 2000, p. 9954); (8)
to permit an amendment offered by another Member to an amendment
rendered unamendable by a special order or to permit a subsequent
amendment changing such unamendable amendment already adopted (Nov. 18,
1987, p. 32643; July 26, 1989, p. 16411; July 24, 1996, p. 18907); (9)
to permit consideration of an amendment out of the order specified in a
special rule (May 25, 1988, p. 12275; Oct. 3, 1990, p. 27354; Oct. 31,
1991, p. 29359; Nov. 19, 1993, p. 30472; June 10, 1998, p. 11914; July
29, 1999, p. 18735; May 3, 2007, p. 11198; Feb. 28, 2012, p. 2379; July
23, 2014, p. 12745); (10) to permit consideration of an additional
amendment (July 28, 1988, p. 19491; June 10, 1998, p. 11914; June 24,
2005, p. 14215; Mar. 15, 2006, p. 3702); (11) to authorize a
supplemental report from the Committee on Rules in lieu of the original
report referred to in the special order (Speaker Wright, Aug. 11, 1988,
p. 22105); (12) to permit another to offer an amendment vested in a
specified Member (May 1, 1990, p. 9030); (13) to permit a division of
the question on an amendment rendered indivisible by a special order
(July 16, 1996, p. 17318); (14) to preclude procedural votes (where the
order of the House refrained from precluding any form of motion to rise)
(July 26, 2001, p. 14754); (15) to preclude further amendment except as
specified (Apr. 3, 2003, p. 8490); (16) to permit the offering of a pro
forma amendment to an amendment when the special order governing
consideration occupied the field by permitting pro forma amendments to
the bill only (July 7, 2004, pp. 14678, 14692); (17) to allow five
minutes of controlled debate for an additional opponent where the time
in opposition had already been claimed and then yielded back by another
Member (July 16, 2019, p. _).
Unanimous-consent requests have been entertained <> in the Committee of the Whole: (1)
to permit the modification of a designated amendment made in order by a
special rule, once offered, if the request is propounded by the
proponent of the amendment (see, e.g., June 10, 1993, p. 12486; July 24,
1996, p. 18906; May 6, 1998, p. 8332; Mar. 29, 2000, p. 4017; Mar. 13,
2002, p. 3127), including as unfinished business where proceedings on a
request for a recorded vote have been postponed (Mar. 30, 2000, p.
4037); (2) to permit a page reference to be corrected in a designated
amendment made in order as printed where the printed amendment included
an erroneous reference (Aug. 3, 1977, pp. 26450, 26451); (3) to permit a
supporter of an amendment to claim debate time allocated by special
order to an opponent, where no opponent seeks recognition (May 23, 1990,
p. 11988); (4) to shorten the time set by special order for debate on a
particular amendment (Aug. 1, 1990, p. 21510; Mar. 29, 1995, p. 9742);
(5)
[[Page [839]]]
to lengthen the time set by special order for debate on a particular
amendment under terms of control congruent with those set by the order
of the House (May 11, 1988, p. 10495; May 21, 1991, p. 11646; Mar. 22,
1995, p. 8769; June 27, 1995, p. 17329; Nov. 2, 1995, p. 31376; Mar. 25,
2004, pp. 5318-20) but not for an unspecified amount, such as the ``time
that the Speaker may claim to speak on her side of this issue'' (May 27,
2010, p. 9686); (6) to permit en bloc consideration of several
amendments under a ``modified-closed'' special order providing for the
sequential consideration of designated separate amendments (Aug. 10,
1994, p. 20768; July 6, 2016, p. _; Nov. 17, 2016, p. _; July 17, 2018,
p. _) (and the House may delegate to the Committee the authority to
consider by unanimous consent non-sequential amendments out of sequence
(Aug. 11, 1986, p. 20633); (7) to permit one of two committees
controlling time for general debate pursuant to a special order to yield
control of its time to the other (Aug. 18, 1994, p. 23118); (8) to
permit the proponent (or opponent) of an amendment to yield control of
time in support (or in opposition) to another (Mar. 9, 2006, p. 3144;
Mar. 28, 2012, p. 4444); (9) to permit the offering of pro forma
amendments for the purpose of debate under a ``modified-closed'' special
order limiting both amendments and debate thereon (July 17, 1996, p.
17563; July 24, 1996, p. 18896); (10) to reach ahead in the reading of a
general appropriation bill to consider one amendment without prejudice
to others earlier in the bill under a special order of the House
contemplating that each remaining amendment be offered only at the
``appropriate point in the reading of the bill'' (Mar. 29, 2000, p.
3980); (11) to permit the reading of an amendment that already was
considered as read under the special order of the House (June 13, 2000,
p. 10546; July 10, 2002, p. 12441; June 24, 2009. p. 16124; May 29,
2014, p. 8913, p. 8913) or that had been read when offered, including a
second-degree amendment (June 20, 1991, pp. 15610, 15611; May 31, 2012,
p. 8086; May 25, 2016, p. _); (12) to permit a request for a recorded
vote even though untimely (June 24, 2005, p. 14182; Mar. 28, 2007, p.
8168; July 18, 2012, p. 11637); (13) to vacate a pending recorded vote
in favor of taking the question de novo (although a motion to that
effect is not available) (May 8, 2008, p. 8148) or to vacate a prior
recorded vote to the end that the request for a recorded vote remain
pending as unfinished business, such that it could be added to the end
of a current vote ``stack'' (where it was alleged that Members were
improperly prevented from being recorded) (June 6, 2012, p. 8473).
[[Page [840]]]
Rule XIX
motions following the amendment stage
Previous question
1. (a) <> There shall be a motion
for the previous question, which, being ordered, shall have the effect
of cutting off all debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the
immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered. Whenever
the previous question has been ordered on an otherwise debatable
question on which there has been no debate, it shall be in order to
debate that question for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a
proponent of the question and an opponent. The previous question may be
moved and ordered on a single question, on a series of questions
allowable under the rules, or on an amendment or amendments, or may
embrace all authorized motions or amendments and include the bill or
resolution to its passage, adoption, or rejection.
The House adopted a rule for the previous question in 1789, but did
not turn it into an instrument for closing debate until 1811. The
history of the motion for the previous question is discussed in V, 5443,
5446; VIII, 2661. In 1880 the previous question rule was amended to
apply to single motions or a series of motions as well as to amendments,
and the motion to commit pending the motion for the previous question or
after the previous question is ordered to passage was added (V, 5443).
From 1880 to 1890, the previous question could only be ordered to the
engrossment and third reading, and then again ordered on passage, but in
1890 the rule was changed to permit ordering the previous question to
final passage (V, 5443). When the House recodified its rules in the
106th Congress, it consolidated former clause 1 of rule XVII and a
provision included in former clause 2 of rule XXVII, permitting 40
minutes debate on which the previous question has been ordered without
there having been debate under this clause. The 106th Congress also
transferred the provision addressing the
[[Page [841]]]
motion to commit from clause 1 of rule XVII to clause 2 of this rule (H.
Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The previous question is the only motion used for closing debate in
the House itself (V, 5456; VIII, 2662). It is not in order in the
Committee of the Whole (IV, 4716; Apr. 25, 1990, p. 8257) but is in
order ``in the House as in Committee of the Whole'' (VI, 639). The
motion may not include a provision that it shall take effect at a
certain time (V, 5457). The motion does not require a second (Oct. 26,
2015, p. 16531).
The <> provisions of the rule define the application of the
previous question with considerable accuracy. It may not be moved on
more than one bill, or on motions to agree to a conference report and to
dispose of differences not included in the report, except by unanimous
consent (V, 5461-5465). When ordered on a motion to send to conference,
it applies to that motion alone and does not extend to a subsequent
motion to instruct conferees (VIII, 2675). It may apply to the main
question and a pending motion to refer (V, 5466; VI, 373; VIII, 2678),
or to a pending resolution and a pending amendment thereto (Sept. 25,
1990, p. 25575; July 16, 1998, p. 15793). When a bill is reported from
the Committee of the Whole with the recommendation that the enacting
words be stricken, it may be applied to the motion to concur without
covering further action on the bill (V, 5342). During consideration ``in
the House as in Committee of the Whole'' it may be demanded while
Members still desire to offer amendments (IV, 4926-4929; VI, 639), but
it may not be moved on a single section of a bill (IV, 4930). When
ordered on a resolution with a preamble there is doubt of its
application to the preamble, unless the motion so specifies (V, 5469,
5470). Thus, the practice of the House is for special rules to order the
previous question on a resolution and on its preamble. It may be moved
on a series of resolutions, but this does not preclude a division of the
resolutions on the vote (V, 5468), although where two propositions on
which the previous question is moved are related, as in the case of a
special order reported from the Committee on Rules and a pending
amendment thereto, a division is not in order (Sept. 25, 1990, p.
25575). The previous question is often ordered on nondebatable
propositions to prevent amendment (V, 5473, 5490), but may not be moved
on a motion that is both nondebatable and unamendable (IV, 3077). It
applies to questions of privilege as to other questions (II, 1256; V,
5459, 5460; VIII, 2672).
The <> Member in charge of the bill and having the floor may demand
the previous question, although another Member may propose a motion of
higher privilege (VIII, 2684), which must be put first (V, 5480; VIII,
2609, 2684). If the Member in charge of the bill claims the floor in
debate another Member may not demand the previous question (II, 1458);
but having the floor, unless yielded to for debate only, any Member may
make the motion although the effect may be to deprive the Member in
charge of the bill of the floor (V, 5476; VIII, 2685). The Member who
has called
[[Page [842]]]
up a measure in the House has priority of recognition to move the
previous question thereon, even over the chair of the reporting
committee (Oct. 1, 1986, p. 27468). If, after debate, the Member in
charge of the bill does not move the previous question, another Member
may (V, 5475); but where a Member intervenes on a pending proceeding to
make a preferential motion, such as the motion to recede from a
disagreement with the Senate, that Member may not move the previous
question on that motion as against the rights of the Member in charge
(II, 1459), and the Member in charge is entitled to recognition to move
the previous question even after surrendering the floor in debate (VIII,
2682, 3231). Where a Member controlling the time on a bill or resolution
in the House yields for the purpose of amendment (or offers an
amendment), another Member may move the previous question on the bill or
resolution before the Member offering the amendment is recognized to
debate it (Deschler, ch. 23, Sec. 18.3; July 24, 1979, p. 20385). A
Member recognized to control one hour of debate in the House may move
the previous question even if that Member had previously yielded time to
others (Mar. 9, 1977, p. 6811, 6816). But, where under a rule of the
House debate time on a motion or proposition is equally divided and
controlled by the majority and the minority, or between those in favor
and those opposed (see, e.g., clauses 2 and 6 of rule XV), the previous
question may not be moved until the other side has used or yielded back
its time; and the Chair may vacate the adoption of the previous question
where it was improperly moved while the other side was still seeking
time (Oct. 3, 1989, p. 22842). The previous question may not be demanded
on a proposition against which a point of order is pending (VIII, 3433).
The <> motion to lay on the table may not be applied to the previous
question (V, 5410, 5411); and it may not be applied to the main question
after the previous question has been ordered (V, 5415-5422; VIII, 2655),
or after the yeas and nays have been ordered on the demand for the
previous question (V, 5408).
The motion to postpone may not be applied to the main question after
the previous question has been ordered (V, 5319-5321; VIII, 2617). The
previous question may be applied both to the main question and a pending
motion to refer (V, 5342; VI, 373). Neither the motion to adjourn (IV,
3211-3213; June 14, 2001, p. 10725; Apr. 18, 2002, p. 4969) nor the
motion to amend (Mar. 17, 2016, pp. 3369, 3370) is available when the
previous question has been ordered by special rule from the beginning of
debate to final passage or adoption without intervening motion. Under
clause 4 of rule XVI, the motion for the previous question is
preferential to the motion to amend (Oct. 26, 2015, p. 16531).
[[Page [843]]]
This <> clause allows 40 minutes of debate when the previous
question is ordered on an otherwise debatable proposition on which there
has been no debate (V, 6821; VIII, 2689; Sept. 13, 1965, p. 23602; Mar.
22, 1990, p. 4996) but not before it is ordered (Nov. 6, 2007, p.
29820). However, any previous debate on the merits of the main
proposition precludes the 40 minutes (V, 5499-5502). The demand for 40
minutes of debate must come before the vote is taken on the main
question (V, 5496). It is not available: (1) when the question on which
the previous question is ordered is otherwise nondebatable, such as the
motion to close debate (VIII, 2555, 2690); (2) on an undebated amendment
where the motion for the previous question covers both the amendment and
the original proposition, which has been debated (V, 5504) (although
when the previous question is ordered merely on an amendment that has
not been debated, the 40 minutes are allowed (V, 5503)); (3) on
incidental motions (V, 5497-5498); (4) on propositions previously
debated in the Committee of the Whole (V, 5505); (5) on conference
reports accompanying measures that were debated before being sent to
conference (V, 5506-5507); (6) on ancillary measures, such as a
concurrent resolution to correct an enrolled bill (V, 5508). Debate
allowed under this provision is equally divided and controlled between
the person demanding the time and a Member representing the opposition
(V, 5495; Sept. 13, 1965, pp. 23602-06; May 8, 1985, p. 11073). Priority
in recognition for time in opposition is accorded to a Member truly
opposed (VIII, 2689).
(b) <> Incidental questions of order arising during the
pendency of a motion for the previous question shall be decided, whether
on appeal or otherwise, without debate.
This provision was adopted in 1837 to prevent delay by debate on
points of order after the demand for the previous question (V, 5448).
Before the House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, this
provision was found in former clause 3 of rule XVII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6,
1999, p. 47). The Chair may recognize and respond to a parliamentary
inquiry although the previous question may have been demanded (Mar. 27,
1926, p. 6469; May 23, 2017, p. _; Jan. 20, 2018, p. _).
A question of privilege relating to the integrity of action of the
House itself has been distinguished from ordinary questions of order and
has been debated after the ordering of the previous question (III,
2532).
(c) <> Notwithstanding paragraph (a),
when the previous question is operating to adoption or passage of a
measure
[[Page [844]]]
pursuant to a special order of business, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of such measure in the House to such time as may be
designated by the Speaker.
This provision was adopted in the 111th Congress (sec. 2(f), H. Res.
5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). This authority has been exercised with regard to
a motion to dispose of amendments between the Houses (e.g., Nov. 18,
2010, p. 17856).
Recommit
2. (a) <> After the previous question has been
ordered on passage or adoption of a measure, or pending a motion to that
end, it shall be in order to move that the House recommit (or commit, as
the case may be) the measure, without instructions, to a standing or
select committee. For such a motion to recommit, the Speaker shall give
preference in recognition to a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner who is opposed to the measure.
(b) The previous question shall be considered as ordered on any motion
to recommit (or commit, as the case may be).
The motion to commit or recommit described in paragraph (a) was added
to the previous question rule (formerly clause 1 of rule XVII) in 1880
(V, 5443). The portion of paragraph (a) that gives preference in
recognition to one opposed to the measure was added to former clause 4
of rule XVI in the 61st Congress (Mar. 15, 1909, pp. 22-34). Paragraph
(c) and an earlier form of paragraph (b), relating to debate on the
motion to recommit with instructions, were added to former clause 4 of
rule XVI by section 123 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970
and made a part of the standing rules in the 92d Congress (H. Res. 5,
Jan. 21, 1971, p. 14). Paragraph (b) was amended in the 111th Congress
to allow for debate on the straight motion, and subparagraph (2) was
added to restrict the range of permissible instructions to those
``forthwith'' (sec. 2(g), H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 2009, p. 7). That provision
was also amended in the 99th Congress to provide that on the demand of
the majority floor manager of a bill or joint resolution, the 10 minutes
of debate on a motion to recommit with instruc
[[Page [845]]]
tions, the previous question having been ordered, may be extended to one
hour, equally divided and controlled (H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, p. 393).
In the 117th Congress, the rule was amended to eliminate the
availability of instructions, and paragraph (b) was rewritten to order
the previous question on any motion to recommit and to render the motion
nondebatable (sec. 2(s)(2), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). When the
House recodified its rules in the 106th Congress, it consolidated the
last sentence of former clause 1 of rule XVII and provisions of former
clause 4 of rule XVI, addressing the motion to recommit, under this
clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47). For a general discussion of the
motion to refer, see Sec. 916, supra.
The <> motion to commit under
this rule applies to resolutions of the House alone as well as to bills
(V, 5572, 5573; VIII, 2742), and to a motion to amend the Journal (V,
5574). It does not apply to a report from the Committee on Rules
providing a special order of business (V, 5593-5601; VIII, 2270, 2750),
or to a pending amendment to a proposition in the House (V, 5573). A
motion to commit under this clause has been allowed after the previous
question has been ordered on a motion to dispose of Senate amendments
before the stage of disagreement (V, 5575; VIII, 2744, 2745). However, a
motion to commit under this clause does not apply to a motion disposing
of Senate amendments after the stage of disagreement where utilized to
displace a pending preferential motion (Speaker Albert, Sept. 16, 1976,
p. 30887).
The motion to commit may be made pending the demand for the previous
question on passage (or adoption), whether a bill or resolution is under
consideration (V, 5576). However, when the demand covers all stages of
the bill to passage, the motion to commit is made only after the third
reading and is not in order pending the demand or before the third
reading (V, 5578-5581). When separate motions for the previous question
are made, respectively, on the third reading and on passage of a bill,
the motion to commit should be made only after the previous question is
ordered on passage (V, 5577). When the House refuses to order a bill to
be engrossed and read a third time, the motion to commit may not be made
(V, 5602, 5603). When the previous question has been ordered on a simple
resolution (as distinguished from a joint resolution) and a pending
amendment, the motion to commit should be made after the vote on the
amendment (V, 5585-5588). A motion to commit has been entertained after
ordering of the previous question even before the adoption of rules at
the beginning of a Congress (VIII, 2755; Precedents (Wickham), ch. 5,
Sec. 5.4).
When a special order declares that at a certain time the previous
question shall be considered as ordered on a bill to final passage, it
has usually, but not always, been held that a motion to commit is
precluded (IV, 3207-3209). Under clause 6(c) of rule XIII (formerly
clause 4(b) of rule XI) the Committee on Rules is prohibited from
reporting a special order that precludes the motion to recommit as
provided in clause 2 of rule XIX (VIII, 2260, 2262-2264; see also
Sec. 1001, supra). That provision was amended in the 104th Congress to
further prohibit the Committee on Rules from deny
[[Page [846]]]
ing the Minority Leader or a designee the right to include proper
amendatory instructions in a motion to recommit except with respect to a
Senate measure for which the text of a House-passed measure has been
substituted (sec. 210, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 460), but such
further prohibition was removed in the 117th Congress upon the
elimination of the motion to recommit with instructions in this clause
(sec. 2(s)(1), H. Res. 8, Jan. 4, 2021, p. _). Where a special order
providing for consideration of a matter in the House provides that the
previous question shall be considered as ordered thereon without
intervening motion and does not simply state that the previous question
be considered as ordered after debate, the previous question is
considered as ordered from the beginning of the debate, precluding the
consideration of any intervening motion (Mar. 12, 1980, pp. 5387-93;
June 14, 2001, p. 10725).
Where a bill is recommitted under this motion, the previous question
being pending but not ordered on final passage and, having been reported
again, is again amended and subjected to the previous question, another
motion to commit is in order after the engrossment and third reading (V,
5591).
Before <> the amendment
of this clause in the 92d Congress and until the amendment of this
clause in the 117th eliminating debate on all motions to recommit, no
debate was permitted on a motion to recommit with instructions after the
previous question was ordered (V, 5561, 5582-5584; VIII, 2741). Under
such former version of this clause, the 10 minutes of debate provided
under this clause did not apply to a motion to recommit a simple or
concurrent resolution or a conference report, because the clause limited
its applicability to bills and joint resolutions (Nov. 15, 1973, p.
37151; Mar. 29, 1976, p. 8444; Speaker O'Neill, June 19, 1986, p. 14698;
June 30, 2010, p. 12462). The manager of a bill or joint resolution, if
opposed, and not the proponent of a motion to recommit with
instructions, had the right to close controlled debate on a motion to
recommit (Speaker Wright, Dec. 3, 1987, p. 34066). The Member recognized
for five minutes in favor of the motion was not permitted to reserve
time (Speaker Wright, June 29, 1988, p. 16510; June 29, 1989, p. 13938).
Although time for debate on a motion to recommit was not ``controlled,''
and therefore Members could not reserve or yield blocks of time (July
26, 2006, p. 16072), a Member under recognition was permitted to yield
to another while remaining standing or otherwise retaining the floor
(Feb. 27, 2002, p. 2081).
Although the ordering of the previous question on a bill and all
amendments to final passage precludes debate (other than that specified
in clause 2 of rule XIX) on a motion to recommit, it does not exclude
amendments to such motion (V, 5582; VIII, 2741); and, under the former
version of this clause, unless the previous question had been ordered on
a motion to recommit with instructions, the motion was open to amendment
germane to the bill (see V, 6888; VIII, 2711). An amendment to a motion
to recommit is read in full (unless the reading is dispensed with by
unani
[[Page [847]]]
mous consent) (Feb. 27, 2002, p. 2084). An amendment to a motion to
recommit is not debatable (Feb. 27, 2002, p. 2084). Under the previous
form of the rule, an amendment striking all of the proposed instructions
and substituting others could not be ruled out as interfering with the
right of the minority to move recommittal (VIII, 2698, 2759). Under the
former version of this clause the Member offering a motion to recommit a
bill with instructions could, at the conclusion of the 10 minutes of
debate thereon, yield to another Member to offer an amendment to the
motion if the previous question had not been ordered on the motion to
recommit (Speaker Albert, July 19, 1973, p. 24967).
The motion may be withdrawn in the House at any time before action or
decision thereon (VIII, 2764). The motion may not be laid on the table
after the previous question has been ordered (V, 5412-5414).
For <> precedents
and history regarding the motion to recommit with instructions, see
Sec. 1002b of the House Rules and Manual for the 116th Congress (H. Doc.
115-177).
Before <> former
clause 4 of rule XVI was amended in 1909 to give priority in recognition
for the motion to recommit to an opponent of a bill or joint resolution
pending final passage, it was held that the opponents of a bill had no
claim to prior recognition (II, 1456). Although the provision as amended
in 1909 applied only to bills and joint resolutions, the principle
embodied in that provision was applied also to motions to recommit
simple or concurrent resolutions or conference reports under former
clause 1 of rule XVII (VIII, 2764; Nov. 28, 1979, p. 33914). When the
House consolidated the last sentence of former clause 1 of rule XVII and
provisions of former clause 4 of rule XVI, addressing the motion to
recommit, under this clause (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47), the
sentence conferring prior recognition to the opposition was formally
applied to all measures. However, precedents under former clause 1 of
rule XVII still dictate that recognition to offer a motion to commit a
resolution offered from the floor as a privileged matter without having
been referred to committee does not depend on opposition to the
resolution or on party affiliation (Speaker Albert, Feb. 19, 1976, p.
3920).
When applying this rule the Speaker looks first to the Minority Leader
or a designee (as imputed by the form of former clause 4(b) of rule XI
adopted in the 104th Congress (current clause 6(c) of rule XIII)). If
the Minority Leader is not seeking recognition, the Speaker looks to
minority members of the committee reporting the bill, in order of their
rank on the committee (Speaker Garner, Jan. 6, 1932, p. 1396; Speaker
Byrns, July 2, 1935, p. 10638), then to other Members on the minority
side (Speaker Rayburn, Aug. 16, 1950, p. 12608). Until a qualifying
minority Member has had the motion read by the Clerk, that Member is not
entitled to the floor so as to prevent a senior qualifying minority
member from the reporting committee from seeking recognition to offer
the motion to recom
[[Page [848]]]
mit (Speaker O'Neill, Apr. 24, 1979, p. 8360). If no Member of the
minority qualifies, a majority Member who is opposed to the bill may be
recognized (Speaker Garner, Apr. 1, 1932, p. 7327). The Chair does not
assess the degree of a Member's opposition (Oct. 23, 1991, p. 28258) and
accepts a Member's averment of opposition (Nov. 9, 2005, pp. 25640,
25643; Apr. 26, 2006, pp. 6196, 6197; May 4, 2006, pp. 7031, 7032; Oct.
27, 2015, pp. 16588, 16589). A Member who is opposed to the bill ``in
its present form'' (i.e., in the form before the House when the motion
is made) qualifies to offer the motion (Speaker Martin, Apr. 15, 1948,
p. 4547; Speaker McCormack, Mar. 12, 1964, p. 5147). In response to a
parliamentary inquiry, the Chair requested all Members to reflect on the
importance of the Chair's being able to rely on the veracity of a
Member's assertion, when qualifying to offer a motion to recommit, of
opposition to the bill; and the Chair recited to the Members the
following apology by the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations in 1979: ``The honorable, if not technical, duty of a
Member offering a motion to recommit is to vote against the bill on
final passage'' (Speaker Hastert, June 23, 2005, p. 13845, quoting from
Deschler-Brown, ch. 29, Sec. 23.49). The Chair also advised that it is
not a violation of the rules for a Member to vote for passage after
asserting opposition to a measure in order to qualify to offer a motion
to recommit, and it is not the province of the Chair to instruct a
Member how to vote (Apr. 26, 2006, p. 6197).
The priority in recognition of a Member of the minority who is opposed
is not diminished by the fact that the minority party may have
successfully led the opposition to the previous question on the special
order governing consideration of the bill and offered a ``modified-
closed'' rule permitting only minority Members to offer perfecting
amendments to the majority text (June 26, 1981, p. 14740). However,
although the motion to recommit is the prerogative of the minority if
opposed, a Member who in the Speaker's determination led the opposition
to the previous question on the motion to recommit is entitled to offer
an amendment to the motion to recommit, regardless of party affiliation,
such as the chair (June 26, 1981, pp. 14791-93) or another majority-
party member (Feb. 27, 2002, pp. 2080-85) of the committee reporting the
bill. The right to offer a motion to recommit a House bill with a Senate
amendment belongs to a Member who is opposed to the whole bill in
preference to a Member who is merely opposed to the Senate amendment
(VIII, 2772). Where the previous question has been ordered on both the
pending resolution and its preamble, a Member may qualify to offer a
motion to recommit on the basis of opposition to the preamble, even
though it is not otherwise subject to separate vote or amendment (Feb.
12, 1998, p. 1333). A Member seeking recognition in opposition to a
motion to recommit must likewise qualify as opposed to the motion (Apr.
29, 1998, p. 7156; Oct. 27, 2015, pp. 16588, 16589) or obtain unanimous
consent if not (e.g., Mar. 14, 2007, p. 6386) and the Chair requires a
Member to state opposition to the motion before recognizing that Member
in opposition (Oct. 27, 2015, pp. 16588, 16589).
[[Page [849]]]
Reconsideration
3. <> When a motion has been
carried or lost, it shall be in order on the same or succeeding day for
a Member on the prevailing side of the question to enter a motion for
the reconsideration thereof. The entry of such a motion shall take
precedence over all other questions except the consideration of a
conference report or a motion to adjourn, and may not be withdrawn after
such succeeding day without the consent of the House. Once entered, a
motion may be called up for consideration by any Member. During the last
six days of a session of Congress, such a motion shall be disposed of
when entered.
The motion to reconsider used in the Continental Congress and in the
House of Representatives from its first organization, in 1789, was first
made the subject of a rule in 1802; and at various times this rule has
been perfected by amendments (V, 5605). Before the House recodified its
rules in the 106th Congress, this provision was found in former clause 1
of rule XVIII (H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. 47).
The motion is not used in the Committee of the Whole (IV, 4716-4718;
VIII, 2324, 2325; June 23, 2011, p. 9954), but is in order ``in the
House as in Committee of the Whole'' (VIII, 2793). It is not in order in
the House during the absence of a quorum when the vote proposed to be
reconsidered requires a quorum (V, 5606). However, on votes incident to
a call of the House the motion to reconsider may be entertained and also
laid on the table, although a quorum may not be present (V, 5607, 5608).
The <> mover of a
proposition is entitled to prior recognition to move to reconsider (II,
1454). A Member may make the motion at any time without thereby
abandoning a prior motion made by such Member and pending (V, 5610). A
Delegate or the Resident Commissioner may not make the motion in the
House (rule III; II, 1292; VI, 240). The provision of the rule that the
motion may be made by any Member of the majority is construed, in case
of a tie vote, to mean any Member of the prevailing side (V, 5615,
5616), and the same construction applies in case of a two-thirds vote
(II, 1656; V, 5617, 5618; VIII, 2778-2780). Where the yeas and nays have
not been ordered, any Member, irrespective of whether voting with the
majority or not, may make the motion to reconsider (V, 5611-5613, 5689;
VIII, 2775, 2785; Sept. 23,
[[Page [850]]]
1992, p. 27196); but a Member who was absent (V, 5619), or who was
paired in favor of the majority contention and did not vote, may not
make the motion (V, 5614; VIII, 2774). Any Member may object to the
Chair's statement that by unanimous consent the motion to reconsider a
vote is laid on the table, and the objecting Member need not have voted
on the prevailing side, but if objection is made, the Chair's statement
is ineffective and only a Member who voted on the prevailing side may
offer the motion to reconsider the vote (Aug. 15, 1986, p. 22139). The
Speaker, having voted on the prevailing side, has moved reconsideration
from the floor (June 12, 2015, p. 9534; May 18, 2018, p. _). The Chair,
having voted on the prevailing side, may offer the motion to reconsider
by stating the pendency of the motion (Oct. 9, 1997, p. 22017).
The <> precedence given the motion by the rule permits it to be
made even after the previous question has been demanded (V, 5656) or
while it is operating (V, 5657-5662; VIII, 2784). The motion to
reconsider the vote on the engrossment of a bill may be admitted after
the previous question has been moved on a motion to postpone (V, 5663),
and a motion to reconsider the vote on the third reading may be made and
acted on after a motion for the previous question on the passage has
been made (V, 5656). It also takes precedence of the motion to resolve
into Committee of the Whole to consider an appropriation bill (VIII,
2785), or even of a demand that the House return to Committee after the
appearance of a quorum (IV, 3087). However, in a case wherein the House
had passed a bill and disposed of a motion to reconsider the vote on its
passage, it was held to be too late to reconsider the vote sustaining
the decision of the Chair that brought the bill before the House (V,
5652), and that a motion to vacate those proceedings was not in order
(Speaker O'Neill, Dec. 17, 1985, pp. 37472-74). After a conference has
been agreed to and the managers for the House appointed, it is too late
to move to reconsider the vote whereby the House acted on the amendments
in disagreement (V, 5664). Although the motion has high privilege for
entry, it may not be considered while another question is before the
House (V, 5673-5676; July 2, 1980, p. 18354), or while the House is
dividing (VIII, 2791). A motion to reconsider a secondary motion to
postpone that has previously been offered and rejected is highly
privileged, even after the manager of the main proposition has yielded
time to another Member and before that Member has begun his or her
remarks (May 29, 1980, p. 12663). When it relates to a bill belonging to
a particular class of business, consideration of the motion is in order
only when that class of business is in order (V, 5677-5681; VIII, 2786).
It may then be called up at any time; but is not the regular order until
called up (V, 5682; VIII, 2785, 2786). When once entered it may remain
pending indefinitely, even until a succeeding session of the same
Congress (V, 5684). The motion to reconsider is subject to the question
of consideration (VIII, 2437), and may be laid on the table (VIII, 2652,
2659). The motion to reconsider an action taken on a bill on
[[Page [851]]]
File and source
- File
- CDOC_cdoc-116hdoc177_cdoc-116hdoc177.htm
- Size
- 3,875,969 bytes
- SHA-256
- 097b87fbcde14bef624a65f46a440593b336282d3002986331910e94ad89e546
- Original
- No public link identified.