[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c01_txt-11]
[Page 59-68]
CHAPTER 1
Assembly of Congress
B. PROCEDURE
Sec. 10. Adoption of Rules; Applicability
Under the Constitution of the United States, ``Each House may
determine the Rules of its Proceedings . . . .''<SUP>(17)</SUP> The
Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that the House
possesses nearly absolute power to adopt its own procedural rules. In
United States v Ballin,<SUP>(18)</SUP> judicial inquiry into the
validity of a House rule was limited to the question of whether the
House possessed the power to adopt the rule. The Court determined the
only limitations on that power to be that the rule must not violate
constitutional rights, and the method of proceeding must be reasonably
related to the desired result. The wisdom or folly of the rule was held
not to be subject to judicial scrutiny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, clause 2.
18. 144 U.S. 5 (1892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House, through the rulings of the Speaker, has interpreted its
constitutional power to determine its own procedural rules very
broadly. Since the late 1800s,<SUP>(19)</SUP> the rulings of the
Speaker on the subject have consistently embodied the principle that
such power must be exercised by each Congress. The procedural rules of
the preceding Congress are no longer in effect at the opening session
of the new Congress,<SUP>(20)</SUP> and the House proceeds under
general parliamentary law until the rules are adopted.<SUP>(1)</SUP>
Similarly, Congress may not, by rule or statute, provide that the House
is to be governed by certain procedural rules during a future
Congress.<SUP>(2)</SUP> Such
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6743-6755.
20. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3383; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6002.
1. See Sec. 1, supra, and Sec. Sec. 10.1, 10.2, infra; see also 8
Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3383-3386; 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. Sec. 6758-6763.
2. See Sec. 1, supra, and Sec. 10.1, infra; see also 1 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 187, 210. At one time, the theory that a
House might make its rules binding on the succeeding House was
much discussed, and even followed in practice. See 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 6743-6755.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 60]]
provisions must be incorporated into the standing rules by the current
House if they are to be in effect.<SUP>(3)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3383; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House traditionally exercises its constitutional power to adopt
the rules at the opening session of each Congress.<SUP>(4)</SUP> The
resolution adopting the rules, which is usually offered by the former
Chairman of the Committee on Rules,<SUP>(5)</SUP> at the direction of
the majority party caucus, generally provides that the rules of the
preceding House, with amendments, if any, shall be the rules of the
current House.<SUP>(6)</SUP> Thus despite the fact that the rules are
adopted de novo at the beginning of each Congress, in actual practice,
a system of permanent standing rules has been developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 10.3, infra. For the sequence of the adoption of rules in
relation to other organizational business, see Sec. 7, supra.
5. See Sec. 10.4, infra.
6. See Sec. 10.5, infra. The resolution incorporates applicable
provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Acts of 1946 and
1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution adopting the rules is one of several resolutions
considered under general parliamentary law each Congress, before
standing rules are adopted. This body of general parliamentary law,
which is further defined by each new ruling on the subject by the
Speaker, has traditionally been construed to embrace those rules of
procedure which embody practices of long established
custom.<SUP>(7)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus the Speaker follows as closely as practicable the customs and
practices of the House under former rules,<SUP>(8)</SUP> and gives
weight to the precedents of the House in interpreting general
parliamentary law.<SUP>(9)</SUP> It is important to note, however, that
general parliamentary law may differ substantially from the rules
adopted by the House in the preceding Congress, in which case the rules
may be deemed inapplicable.<SUP>(10)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3386.
9. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3384. For a general discussion of the
parliamentary law applied in the House, see Sec. 1, supra. For
general procedure before rules adoption, see Sec. 8, supra, and
for motions practice before rules adoption, see Sec. 9, supra.
10. For example, on Jan. 7, 1959, Speaker Sam Rayburn (Tex.), when the
previous question was moved without debate, ruled that the
House rule, as adopted by the previous Congress, which
prescribed 40 minutes of debate in such situations, was not
applicable. 105 Cong. Rec. 14, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61]]
On a number of occasions the Speaker has been called upon to
interpret general parliamentary law in connection with the adoption of
the rules.<SUP>(11)</SUP> It has been ruled, for example, that
amendments to the resolution may be offered only when the Member in control
of it yields for that purpose or when the previous question is
rejected,<SUP>(12)</SUP> and that
clerical errors may be corrected in the engrossment of the resolution
after adoption.<SUP>(13)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 10.1, and 10.2, infra. For general parliamentary law
relating to action on resolutions, see Sec. 12, infra.
12. See Sec. 10.9, infra.
13. See Sec. 10.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right of Each House To Determine Its Procedural Rules
Sec. 10.1 Congress may not, by rule or statute, prescribe rules of
procedure for a future House.
On Jan. 22, 1971,<SUP>(14)</SUP> during the debate on the
resolution adopting the rules, the following point of order was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 132, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hall:<SUP>(15)</SUP> Mr. Speaker, I do desire to make a
point of order against consideration of Resolution 5 [the
resolution adopting the rules], inasmuch as it is against the law
of the land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Mr. Durward G. Hall (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker:<SUP>(16)</SUP> The gentleman will state his point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970 is in fact now the law of the land, Public Law No. 91-510, and
section 601 (6) thereof states that the effective date of the act
is January 1, 1971. . . .
Now, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri full well
realizes the precedents of the House, the fact that we operate
until such time as rules are adopted, under ``general parliamentary
procedure,'' and that this is subject to wide interpretation.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, my point of order is lodged on
the fact that the law of the land, first, says that any committee
report or legislation, resolution, must be available to Members for
3 calendar days prior to consideration--section 108(b)(4); and,
second that any minority has 3 calendar days to file views with the
clerk of any subcommittee--section 107(b). . . .
. . . I pray that, based on the precedents, based on
Jefferson's Rules of Procedure, which a former Speaker has ruled
are indeed the greater bulk of existing parliamentary procedure,
that we do not go forward with consideration of this resolution at
this time until we have had due process, the Members have had the
resolution in their hands for a minimum of 3 days, that minority
reports have had an opportunity for preparation and distribution,
and so that true compliance of the law of the land be accomplished.
The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule. . . .
[[Page 62]]
The Constitution is, of course, superior to any public statute
and the Constitution in article I, section 5, gives each House the
authority to determine the rules of its proceedings, and it has
been repeatedly held that the power of each new House to make its
own rules may not be impaired or controlled by the rules or actions
of a preceding House.
These principles are, in fact, recognized and enunciated in
Public Law 91-510, the Legislative Reorganization
Act. Section 101 of the act states in part that the rules changes
recommended therein are enacted ``as an exercise of the rule-making
power of the House subject to and with full recognition of the
power of the House to enact or change any rule of the House at any
time in its exercise of its constitutional right to determine the
rules of its proceedings.''
The Chair overrules the point of order.
Sec. 10.2 The House proceeds under general parliamentary law before
rules are adopted at the beginning of each Congress.
On Jan. 3, 1953, after the previous question was moved on the
resolution adopting the rules for the 83d Congress, the following
parliamentary inquiry was raised:
Mr. Eberharter:<SUP>(17)</SUP> Mr. Speaker, are we proceeding
now under the rules we are going to adopt later, and which have not
yet been adopted? Under what rules is the House proceeding, or is
it proceeding under any rules?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Mr. Herman P. Eberharter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker:<SUP>(18)</SUP> The House is proceeding under the
general parliamentary rules we have had for many years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, if the rules are not adopted today
and the question goes over until next week, would we still proceed
under some other rules that have not yet been adopted by the
Eighty-third Congress?
The Speaker: If the rules were not adopted today, we would
proceed as we are this very moment, under general parliamentary
law.<SUP>(19)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 99 Cong. Rec. 24, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1953. For a more
recent statement, by Speaker Carl Albert (Okla.), that the
House proceeds under general parliamentary law prior to the
adoption of the rules, see 117 Cong. Rec. 132, 92d Cong. 1st
Sess., Jan. 22, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction of Resolution Adopting the Rules
Sec. 10.3 Traditionally the resolution adopting the rules is offered at
the opening session of the new Congress after the adoption of the
resolution authorizing the Clerk to inform the President of the
election of the Speaker and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives.
[[Page 63]]
At the opening session of the 91st Congress,<SUP>(1)</SUP>
following the adoption of a resolution authorizing the appointment of a
committee to notify the President of the
assembly of Congress (H. Res. 5), the House adopted a resolution
instructing the Clerk to inform the President that the House had
elected John W. McCormack, Speaker, and W. Pat Jennings, Clerk (H. Res.
6). Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, then introduced the
resolution providing for the adoption of the rules for the 91st
Congress (H. Res. 7), which was agreed to without debate.<SUP>(2)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 35, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969. For other
recent examples of this order of proceedings see 117 Cong. Rec.
13, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971; 113 Cong. Rec. 28, 90th
Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967.
2. While this order of proceeding is generally followed, several
deviations are noted in Hinds' Precedents. In one instance the
rules were adopted immediately after the election of the
Speaker (1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 93), and in another the rules
were adopted before the election of the Clerk (1 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 245).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On occasion, the resolution adopting the rules has been immediately
preceded by a unanimous-consent request,<SUP>(3)</SUP> or by another
resolution.<SUP>(4)</SUP> And in the 73d Congress,<SUP>(5)</SUP> the
House passed a bill of major importance before the adoption of the
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See 84 Cong. Rec. 13, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1939; 79 Cong.
Rec. 13, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1935 (unanimous consent
requested for permission for the House to recess).
4. See 111 Cong. Rec. 20, 21, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965
(resolution on clerk-hire).
5. 77 Cong. Rec. 83, 73d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 9, 1933 (see Sec. 12.8,
infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.4 Generally, the resolution adopting the rules is offered by
the former Chairman of the Committee on Rules at the direction of
the majority caucus.
In the 92d Congress, Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi,
introduced the resolution adopting the rules,<SUP>(6)</SUP> and later
during the debate thereon remarked that he was presenting the
resolution by direction of the Democratic Caucus, but was opposed to
one of the provisions contained therein.<SUP>(7)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 117 Cong. Rec. 13, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971. For other
recent examples, see 115 Cong. Rec. 35, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.,
Jan. 3, 1969; 107 Cong. Rec. 25, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3,
1961; 105 Cong. Rec. 15, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 7, 1959.
7. 117 Cong. Rec. 132, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: When the former Chairman of the Com
[[Page 64]]
mittee on Rules is opposed to key provisions of the resolution adopting
the rules, the resolution may be offered by the Majority Leader.
In the 88th,<SUP>(8)</SUP> 89th,<SUP>(9)</SUP> and 90th
Congresses,<SUP>(10)</SUP> the resolution was introduced by Majority
Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, at the
direction of the Democratic Caucus.<SUP>(11)</SUP> The debate over the
adoption of the rules for the 88th Congress was focused on the merits
of a provision which would increase the size of the Committee on Rules
from 12 to 15 members.<SUP>(12)</SUP> Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, the
former Chairman of the Committee on Rules, indicated his opposition to
that provision as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 109 Cong. Rec. 14, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1963.
9. 111 Cong. Rec. 21, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965.
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 28, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967.
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 23, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965 (remarks of
Mr. Albert).
12. 109 Cong. Rec. 14, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this resolution passes, you all know what it means, and it
will happen again, and that is to say whenever the President wants
a bill passed or the Speaker wants a bill submitted to the floor,
he gets it. Now, I think that there ought to be some discretion
about this matter so that the Committee on Rules could do now like
they have done in the past, at least give the matter some looking
over, give it some consideration and a little time, so that the
country might know what some of these measures are about. I hope
none of my southern friends are going to be complaining around here
when certain measures come up that are going to come up, and come
up quite promptly, if the Committee on Rules is packed again. And,
I hope that when they go to vote on this resolution that they will
remember that there are some things involved in this that will
greatly and adversely affect their States; not just how many people
should be on the Committee on Rules or who shall govern the
Committee on Rules.<SUP>(13)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 18, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 89th and 90th Congresses, the resolution adopting the rules
incorporated the 21-day rule, providing for the discharge of the
Committee on Rules from the consideration of a special order by a
majority vote of the House. On both occasions, the former Chairman of
the Committee on Rules demonstrated his opposition to the resolution by
voting against the motion on the previous question.<SUP>(14)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 24, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965 (Howard W.
Smith, [Va.], former Chairman of the Committee on Rules); 113
Cong. Rec. 31, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967 (William M.
Colmer, [Miss.], former Chairman of the Committee on Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form of Resolution
[[Page 65]]
Sec. 10.5 The resolution adopting the rules usually provides that the
rules of the preceding House, with or without amendments shall be
the rules of the current House.
The following proceedings in the 87th Congress<SUP>(15)</SUP>
illustrate the practice whereby the House
adopts the rules of the preceding Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 25, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1961. For similar
examples, see 113 Cong. Rec. 28, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10,
1967; 105 Cong. Rec. 15, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 7, 1959;
103 Cong. Rec. 47, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of
the 86th Congress, together with all applicable provisions of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, be, and
they are hereby, adopted as the Rules of the House of
Representatives of the 87th Congress.
In recent Congresses,<SUP>(16)</SUP> the resolution adopting the
rules of the previous Congress frequently has provided for amendments
to those rules. Such a resolution<SUP>(17)</SUP> routinely contains
language substantially similar to the resolution adopting the rules of
the previous Congress intact, with the following addition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See, e.g., 117 Cong. Rec. 13, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971;
115 Cong. Rec. 35, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1969; 111
Cong. Rec. 21, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965.
17. See, e.g., 109 Cong. Rec. 14, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The rules of the preceding Congress are adopted], with the
following amendment therein as a part thereof, to wit: . . .
Although a resolution adopting the rules usually takes the above
form, the entire set of standing rules may be drafted as part of the
resolution. In the 83d Congress<SUP>(18)</SUP> the resolution adopting
the rules provided in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 99 Cong. Rec. 15-24, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the following be, and they are hereby, adopted
as the rules of the Eighty-third Congress. . . .
Withdrawing or Postponing the Resolution to Adopt Rules
Sec. 10.6 The resolution adopting the rules may be withdrawn at any
time before action is taken thereon.
In the 92d Congress<SUP>(19)</SUP> the reading of the resolution
adopting the rules by the Clerk was interrupted by the following
proceedings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 117 Cong. Rec. 13, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker:<SUP>(20)</SUP> The Clerk will suspend the reading
of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
William M. Colmer).
Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that an error was made in
the haste here and that the wrong resolution was submitted.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent----
The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi can withdraw the
resolution.
Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the resolution.
Mr. Gross:<SUP>(1)</SUP> Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to
object----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Mr. Harold R. Gross (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker: The reservation of objection is not in order.
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, did not the gentleman from Mississippi
offer a resolution to the House?
The Speaker: Yes, he did; but he has withdrawn it; and he has
that right to withdraw it.
Sec. 10.7 Consideration of the resolution adopting the rules may be
postponed, on motion, until the following day.
At the opening session of the 92d Congress,<SUP>(2)</SUP> after the
resolution adopting the rules was read and a point of order was
reserved against it, the following motion was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 117 Cong. Rec. 15, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 21, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Colmer:<SUP>(3)</SUP> Mr. Speaker, I move that further
consideration of the resolution be put over until tomorrow, and
that the resolution be printed in the Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Mr. William M. Colmer (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker:<SUP>(4)</SUP> The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to.
Non-Divisibility of the Resolution
Sec. 10.8 The Speaker indicated, in response to a parliamentary
inquiry, that a resolution adopting the rules of the preceding
Congress with three amendments was not subject to a demand for a
division of the question.
A question as to the divisibility of the vote on the resolution
arose in the 89th Congress<SUP>(5)</SUP> in the form of a parliamentary
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 111 Cong. Rec. 21, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965. In Hinds'
Precedents, a similar situation is noted in which the Speaker,
David B. Henderson (Iowa), ruled that it was not in order to
demand a separate vote on each rule. 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 6159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith:<SUP>(6)</SUP>. . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Mr. Howard W. Smith (Va.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is another question I want to ask, and I think maybe the
gentleman might yield. There are three distinct changes of existing
rules of the House which have been in effect for a long time. . . .
. . . Under the rules perhaps this is a parliamentary inquiry.
Is the oppor
[[Page 67]]
tunity for a division of the question going to be had
so we can vote for what we want to vote for and vote against what
we do not want to vote for instead of having to swallow the whole
dose at one time.
The Speaker:<SUP>(7)</SUP> The gentleman is making a
parliamentary inquiry. In reply, the Chair may say this resolution
is not divisible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. John W. McCormack (Mass.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amending the Resolution
Sec. 10.9 When the Member in control of the resolution adopting the
rules refuses to yield for the introduction of amendments, they may
be offered only if the previous question on the resolution is first
voted down.
At the opening session of the 83d Congress,<SUP>(8)</SUP> the
Member who had offered the resolution adopting the rules indicated that
he would not yield for the introduction of amendments. The following
parliamentary inquiry was then raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 99 Cong. Rec. 24, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Celler:<SUP>(9)</SUP> Mr. Speaker, do I correctly
understand that the parliamentary situation is that if the motion
for the previous question is not voted down, no opportunity will be
given to offer an amendment by way of liberalizing the rules?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Mr. Emanuel Celler (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker:<SUP>(10)</SUP> The gentleman states the situation
accurately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings in connection with the adoption of the rules of the
92d Congress are illustrative of the procedure usually followed when
amendments to the resolution are offered. On Jan. 22,
1971,<SUP>(11)</SUP> the previous question on the resolution, which
incorporated the controversial 21-day rule for discharging the
Committee on Rules as part of the standing rules, was rejected. An
amendment deleting that provision was then offered, and subsequently
agreed to by the House.<SUP>(12)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 117 Cong. Rec. 140. 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 143, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 10.10 Although generally, an amendment may be offered only after
the previous question is voted down on the resolution to adopt
rules,<SUP>(13)</SUP> there are exceptions to this rule.
In the 79th Congress,<SUP>(14)</SUP> an amendment to the resolution
adopting the rules was introduced without objection even though the
Member in charge of the resolu
[[Page 68]]
tion had not yielded for that purpose, nor had he moved the previous
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 31, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967; 97 Cong.
Rec. 17, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1951; 95 Cong. Rec. 10,
81st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1949.
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 10, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker's Participation in Debate on the Resolution
Sec. 10.11 The Speaker may participate in the debate on the resolution
adopting the rules.
In the 89th Congress,<SUP>(15)</SUP> the Speaker, John W.
McCormack, of
Massachusetts, took the floor in support of the resolution adopting the
rules, and in the course of his remarks, explained his reasons for so
doing:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 23, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965. See also 109
Cong. Rec. 14-22, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., where Speaker McCormack
took the floor to debate the resolution adopting the rules and
increasing the membership of the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, as this resolution involves changes
in the rules, I feel that my views should be known to the Members
of the House. I strongly favor the resolution offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert]. I think the 21-day rule is a
rule that is for the benefit of the individual Member of the House
without regard to party affiliation in giving [him] the opportunity
of passing upon legislation that has been reported out of a
standing committee.
Correction of the Resolution
Sec. 10.12 The House, by unanimous consent, may direct the Clerk to
correct clerical errors in the engrossment of the resolution
adopting the rules.
The resolution adopting the rules for the 90th Congress, as passed
by the House on Jan. 10, 1967,<SUP>(16)</SUP> contained several errors.
On Jan. 12, 1967,<SUP>(17)</SUP> Majority Leader Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma; who had introduced the resolution, asked the House for
unanimous consent to direct the Clerk to make the following corrections
in the engrossment of the resolution: First, to strike out ``Ninetieth
Congress'' and insert ``Eighty-ninth Congress''; and second, to insert
the clause ``With the following amendment, to wit:'', which was
necessary to integrate the amendment into the resolution. There was no
objection to the request. Mr. Albert then obtained unanimous consent
for the resolution as corrected to be printed in the Journal and in the
Record.<SUP>(18)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 33, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 430, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 431, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 12, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------