[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c05_txt-7]                         

[Page 315-318]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                       A. HOUSE RULES AND MANUAL
 
Sec. 6. --Applicability; Construction

    A rule<SUP>(11)</SUP> provides that the rules of proceeding in the 
House shall be observed in Committees of the Whole House so far as they 
may be applicable. Similarly, the rules of the House are the rules of 
its committees and subcommittees so far as applicable.<SUP>(12)</SUP> 
Thus, Members may appeal from decisions of the chairmen of their 
respective committees in the same manner as Members have a right

[[Page 316]]

to appeal from a decision of the Speaker or presiding officer in the 
House.<SUP>(13)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XXIII, House Rules and Manual Sec. 877 (1973).
12. Rule XI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 735 (1973).
13. 95 Cong Rec. 1212, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 15, 1949 (remarks of 
        Speaker Sam Rayburn [Tex.]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been stated,<SUP>(14)</SUP> in response to objections raised 
against certain rules changes, that it is not within the province of 
the Chair in disposing of a point of order to consider the effect or 
anticipated effect of the passage of any rule on legislation which may 
be pending. A proposed rule having been reported by the Committee on 
Rules, it is for the House to consider and act upon it, and such action 
is controlling. It is the province of the Chair to look to the terms of 
each existing rule and direct the House to proceed in accordance with 
those terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 79 Cong Rec. 11265, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 16, 1935 (remarks of 
        Speaker Joseph W. Byrns [Tenn.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where two rules of the House are in conflict, the last one adopted 
controls.<SUP>(15)</SUP> Similarly, where the rules of the House and a 
subsequent legislative enactment are not consistent, the enactment must 
prevail.<SUP>(16)</SUP> On the other hand, a rule subsequently adopted 
may supersede the provisions of such an enactment.<SUP>(17)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 6.1, infra.
16. See Sec. 6.2, infra.
17. In the 86th Congress, a provision in the mutual security 
        appropriation bill reappropriating unexpended balances was 
        conceded to be unauthorized, notwithstanding a section in the 
        Mutual Security Act of 1955 authorizing such reappropriations, 
        since the rules of the House adopted on Jan. 7, 1959 contained 
        a later, expression of Congress to the contrary. See 106 Cong 
        Rec. 13138, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 17, 
        1960.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conflicting Rules

Sec. 6.1 Where two rules of the House are in conflict, the last one 
    adopted controls.

    In the 74th Congress, in the course of holding that the House may, 
by rule, provide for the consolidation into an omnibus bill of private 
bills once objected to, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
stated:<SUP>(18)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong Rec. 11264, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 16, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman . . . in his argument today, has contended that 
    this rule conflicts with a number of rules to which he has 
    referred. Without passing upon the question of whether or not there 
    is a conflict, the Chair will state that if there is a conflict the 
    rule last adopted would control. The Chair assumes that if this 
    rule should be found to conflict with previous rules that the House 
    intended, at least by implication, to repeal that portion of the 
    previous rule with which it is in conflict.

Sec. 6.2 Where the rules of the House and a subsequent legislative 
    enactment are not

[[Page 317]]

    consistent, the enactment must prevail, being a later expression of 
    the will of the House.

    In the 87th Congress, it was held that a House rule prohibiting, on 
general appropriation bills, provisions reappropriating unexpended 
balances of appropriations, was not applicable to provisions in an 
appropriation bill that were authorized by a legislative enactment 
passed subsequently to the adoption of the rules.<SUP>(19)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 107 Cong Rec. 18133, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 5, 1961 (Speaker 
        pro tempore John W. McCormack, Mass.).
            Of course, a rule subsequently adopted may supersede the 
        provisions of such an enactment. See Sec. 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factors Considered in Construing Rule

Sec. 6.3 In construing a rule, the Speaker may consider all the facts 
    and issues involved in a point of order arising under the terms of 
    the rule.

    In the 75th Congress, a point of order was made against the 
acceptance by the House of the report of an election committee, on the 
grounds that the making of the report violated a rule specifying the 
time within which election committees should make final reports to the 
House in contested election cases. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, ruled that the provisions in question were directory and not 
mandatory, and did not prevent an election committee from filing a 
report after expiration of the specified time. In reaching such 
decision, the Speaker indicated that he would look beyond the strict 
terms of the rule to all the facts in the case in order to determine 
the intention of the House in adopting the rule. Among the factors 
considered by the Speaker in reaching his decision were the 
constitutional power of the House to decide the qualifications of its 
Members, and the fact that the time period between the election of 
Members and the meeting of Congress was much shorter than it had been 
at the time the rule in question was adopted.<SUP>(20)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 81 Cong Rec. 8842-8846, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 13, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proceedings Not Expressly Authorized by Rules

Sec. 6.4 On occasion, acts or proceedings not expressly authorized by 
    the rules may be deemed inconsistent with or in violation of the 
    rules.

    Examples may be seen in the rulings of Speakers Sam Rayburn,

[[Page 318]]

of Texas, and John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, under the rules as 
they existed at the time, in regard to televising committee 
meetings.<SUP>(21)</SUP> The tenor of the rulings was that since there 
was no authority in the rules of the House granting the privilege of 
televising the proceedings of the House, there was no authorization for 
televising committee meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See 98 Cong. Rec. 1334, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 25, 1952; 101 
        Cong. Rec. 628, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 24, 1955; 108 Cong. 
        Rec. 267-269, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 16, 1962; 113 Cong. 
        Rec. 8419, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 5, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------