A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through the 109th Congress
Congressional research reportMar 8, 2012
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes
Since the 104th Congress through the 109th
Congress
/name redacted/
Senior Specialist in American National Government
/name redacted/
Specialist on the Congress
March 8, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL33610
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Summary
One of the majority party’s prerogatives is writing the House rules and using its majority status to
effect the chamber’s rules on the day the new House convenes. It is a feature of the House that it
must adopt rules at the convening of each Congress. While each new House largely adopts the
chamber rules that existed in the previous Congress, each new House also adopts changes to those
rules. Institutional and political developments during the Democratic majority, particularly during
the 103rd Congress, were a prelude to the rules changes made by the Republicans when they took
control of the House in the 104th Congress.
Rules changes made at the convening of the 104th Congress addressed most aspects of the
committee system: decision-making autonomy, jurisdictions, internal committee procedures and
structure, and staff. Rules changes for the 104th Congress and after also addressed most aspects of
legislation deliberations on the House floor and organization of the chamber. For example, the
minority was guaranteed the ability to offer the motion to recommit with instructions,
commemorative legislation was banned, the names of signatories of discharge petitions were
publicized, provisions were made for convening a House with a reduced membership due to a
terrorist attack, and the Speaker was subjected to a term limit that was later repealed.
Two of the eight goals of the Republicans’ 1994 Contract with America dealt with budgetary
legislation. House rules were changed to require a three-fifths vote to pass a federal income tax
rate increase, and cost estimates replaced baselines as the preferred way of understanding the
year-to-year changes in federal spending.
Rules changes in the administration of the House were extensive. Offices were abolished and
others created. Responsibilities were shifted and accountability clarified. Rules changes affecting
ethical standards were largely technical, with most major changes taking place through
freestanding and other legislation.
The House rules changes made starting in the 104th Congress reflected a Republican frame of
reference that was built over many years as the minority party. Most rules, however, did not
change, either at all or substantially, since they had evolved over decades to support the majority
in its organization and operation of the House. Rules changes do not necessarily enable a majority
to pass legislation, to overcome voter sentiments, or to work smoothly with the minority. Rules
facilitate the majority’s organization and operation of the House; they do not dictate to party
leaders and others how to run the House or what outcomes can be achieved.
This report describes and analyzes only rules changes made on the opening day of a new
Congress, but it references in footnotes selected other legislation and actions that also changed or
affected House rules during the 104th Congress and during subsequent Congresses.
This report is the first in a series on House rules changes at the beginning of a Congress. For
changes in the 110th, 111th, and 112th Congresses, see CRS Report R42395, A Retrospective of
. This
House Rules Changes Since the 110th Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)
report will not be updated.
Congressional Research Service
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
The 103rd Congress: Prelude to Change........................................................................................... 3
103rd Congress Rules ................................................................................................................. 5
Republican Critique................................................................................................................... 7
Republican Procedural Actions ........................................................................................... 9
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress.................................................................. 12
Legislative-Executive Relations........................................................................................ 13
Committee System ............................................................................................................ 14
Floor Procedure................................................................................................................. 14
Budgetary Legislation ....................................................................................................... 15
Ethics Process.................................................................................................................... 15
Staffing and Support Agencies .......................................................................................... 15
Information Technology .................................................................................................... 16
Public Understanding ........................................................................................................ 16
Action on the JCOC Recommendations in the 103rd Congress......................................... 16
Contract with America............................................................................................................. 17
Recodification of House Rules, 106th Congress ............................................................................ 17
Rules Changes Affecting Committees ........................................................................................... 19
Structure and Organization ...................................................................................................... 20
Assignments and Size........................................................................................................ 20
Chairmanships/Term Limitations ...................................................................................... 22
Committee Abolition......................................................................................................... 22
Committee Creation and Retention ................................................................................... 22
Committee Names ............................................................................................................. 24
Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................................ 25
Subcommittees .................................................................................................................. 28
Procedure................................................................................................................................. 29
Committee Reports............................................................................................................ 29
Conference, Motion to Go to............................................................................................. 31
Hearings Procedures.......................................................................................................... 31
Meetings, Restrictions on.................................................................................................. 32
Openness ........................................................................................................................... 32
Oversight ........................................................................................................................... 33
Proxy Voting...................................................................................................................... 34
Quorums............................................................................................................................ 34
Recess Authority ............................................................................................................... 34
Referral.............................................................................................................................. 34
Subpoenas ......................................................................................................................... 35
Transcripts......................................................................................................................... 36
Voting ................................................................................................................................ 36
Witnesses........................................................................................................................... 36
Staff and Funding .................................................................................................................... 36
Allocation of Staff ............................................................................................................. 37
Associate Staff................................................................................................................... 37
Funding ............................................................................................................................. 37
Number of Staff................................................................................................................. 38
Congressional Research Service
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Rules Changes Affecting the Chamber and Floor.......................................................................... 38
Adjourn, Motion to.................................................................................................................. 39
Admission to the Chamber ...................................................................................................... 39
Amendment Process ................................................................................................................ 40
Appropriations Process............................................................................................................ 40
Bill Introductions..................................................................................................................... 41
Classified Materials ................................................................................................................. 42
Commemorative Legislation ................................................................................................... 42
Conference............................................................................................................................... 42
Motion to Instruct Conferees............................................................................................. 42
Congressional Record.............................................................................................................. 43
Continuity of Congress............................................................................................................ 43
Emergency Recess............................................................................................................. 43
Quorums............................................................................................................................ 44
Speaker Succession ........................................................................................................... 45
Corrections Calendar ............................................................................................................... 45
Decorum and Debate ............................................................................................................... 45
Decorum............................................................................................................................ 45
Debate ............................................................................................................................... 46
Electronic Devices............................................................................................................. 46
Exhibits and Handouts ...................................................................................................... 47
Delegates/Resident Commissioner .......................................................................................... 47
Discharge Petitions.................................................................................................................. 47
District of Columbia Legislation ............................................................................................. 48
Order of Business .................................................................................................................... 48
Public Debt Ceiling ................................................................................................................. 48
Public Works............................................................................................................................ 48
Question of Privileges of the House ........................................................................................ 49
Recommit, Motion to............................................................................................................... 49
Speaker of the House............................................................................................................... 49
Special Order Speeches and Other Non-Legislative Debate ................................................... 50
Special Rules ........................................................................................................................... 50
Suspension of the Rules........................................................................................................... 51
Tax Legislation ........................................................................................................................ 51
Unanimous Consent................................................................................................................. 52
Unfunded Mandates................................................................................................................. 52
Voting ...................................................................................................................................... 52
Postponed Votes ................................................................................................................ 53
Rules Changes Affecting Budgetary Legislation........................................................................... 54
104th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 54
105th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 56
106th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 57
107th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 58
108th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 58
109th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 60
Rules Changes Affecting Administration of the House ................................................................. 60
104th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 61
House Officers................................................................................................................... 61
Other Administrative Changes .......................................................................................... 62
Congressional Research Service
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
105th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 63
106th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 63
107th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 64
Rules Changes Affecting Ethics Standards.................................................................................... 64
104th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 65
105th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 65
106th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 66
107th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 67
108th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 67
109th Congress ......................................................................................................................... 68
Concluding Observations............................................................................................................... 69
Tables
Table 1. Summary of Republican Rules Package, 103rd Congress ................................................ 10
Table 2. Structure of House Rules before and after Recodification............................................... 18
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 71
Congressional Research Service
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Introduction
In the 1994 general election, Republicans won a majority of seats in the House for the first time
since the 83rd Congress (1953-1955). By practice, the majority party organizes the House. It elects
its Speaker, chairs its committees, holds majorities on its committees, selects its officers, and
manages its legislative agenda.
One of the majority’s prerogatives is writing the House’s rules and using its majority status to
effect the chamber’s rules on the day the new House convenes. It is a feature of the House, but
not of the Senate, that it must adopt rules at the convening of each Congress. It is also a feature of
the House that it relies heavily on its formal rules, and formal means of temporarily changing
them, rather than on the informal, ad hoc procedures so often used in the Senate. Although each
new House largely adopts the chamber rules that existed in the previous Congress, each new
House also adopts changes to those rules. Among the many subjects that the rules may cover,
these changes can strengthen the ability of the majority to control the legislative process and the
legislative agenda, and they can bestow rights on the minority party, minority interests, and
individual Members.1
The changes made by the Republican majority in the 104th Congress rules resolution and in
subsequent rules resolutions adopted by Republican majorities through the 109th Congress
addressed nearly every aspect of the legislative process, budget process, committee organization,
administrative operations, and ethical standards. The changes the Republican majority made were
not conceived solely in the days following the 1994 elections, but drew on many experiences and
sources.
This report has two principal parts reflecting its two principal purposes. The first part analyzes the
sources of Republican rules changes. Republicans built their critique of Democratic management
of the House over many years. In drafting rules for the 104th and subsequent Congresses and in
other exercises of the House’s rulemaking authority, Republicans could draw on their experience
and on a variety of partisan and bipartisan plans and proposals. The first purpose of the report is
to identify the sources of the broad rewriting of House rules in the 104th Congress and additional
changes in subsequent Congresses.
The second part of the report organizes rules changes affecting committees and the House floor
topically and changes affecting budgetary legislation, House administration, and ethics by
Congress, and briefly explains the changes in layman’s terms. These changes were included in the
rules resolutions adopted at the beginning of the 104th through 109th Congresses, special orders
adopted in conjunction with the rules resolutions, and Speakers’ policy announcements made at
the convening of each of these Congresses.2 The major topical headings for this part of the report
are as follows:
1
The Constitution empowers the House and Senate to make their rules: “Each House may determine the Rules of its
Proceedings....” U.S. Const. art. I, §5, cl. 2.
2
The rules resolution in the 104th Congress was H.Res. 6; the rules resolutions in the 105th through 109th Congresses
were all numbered H.Res. 5. Debate on rules packages (including the text of the resolutions containing the rules
changes, section-by-section explanations, and other materials inserted by Members) and the Speaker’s announcements
appeared in the Congressional Record as follows:
(1) H.Res. 5 (special rule) and H.Res. 6 (104th Congress rules): “Making in Order Immediate Consideration of
House Resolution Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 104th Congress” and “Rules of the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
•
“Rules Changes Affecting Committees”
•
“Rules Changes Affecting the Chamber and Floor”
•
“Rules Changes Affecting Budgetary Legislation”
•
“Rules Changes Affecting Administration
of the House”
•
“Rules Changes Affecting Ethics Standards”
Each of these major headings is further subdivided by topic or by Congress. The second purpose
of the report is to catalogue and briefly explain by topic—regardless of the location of a topic in
one or more rules—specific changes to rules over the course of Republican majority control of
the House.
This report supplements the official source of rules changes, the House Rules and Manual.3 This
volume, printed in each Congress to reflect adoption of a rules resolution, contains the current
provisions of House rules. For each rule, it also contains the House parliamentarian’s notes
describing changes to the rule (or its specific clauses) and decisions of presiding officers and the
House based upon the rule. Rules in the House Rules and Manual are arranged by rule number.4
This report does not describe all of the actions taken during each Congress that effected
permanent and temporary organizational, procedural, administrative, and other changes in the
operation of the House. In addition to changes made through rules resolutions, such changes were
made through freestanding legislation and as provisions of bills or resolutions, and in report
language on legislation and in joint explanatory statements accompanying conference reports.5
Legislative branch appropriations bills and budgetary legislation contained organizational,
(...continued)
House,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1 (January 4, 1995), pp. 447-530. Speaker’s announcements:
“Policies of the Chair,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1 (January 4, 1995), pp. 551-553.
(2) H.Res. 5 (105th Congress rules): “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, part 1 (January 7,
1997), pp. 121-141. Speaker’s announcements: “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore on Procedures for
the 105th Congress,” Congressional Record, vol. 143, part 1 (January 7, 1997), pp. 146-148.
(3) H.Res. 5 (recodification of House rules, and 106th Congress rules): “Rules of the House,” Congressional
Record, vol. 145, part 1 (January 6, 1999), pp. 47-234. Speaker’s announcements: “Announcement by the Speaker
Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 1 (January 6, 1999), pp. 246, 247-249.
(4) H.Res. 5 (107th Congress rules): “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 147, part 1 (January 3,
2001), pp. 24-37. Speaker’s announcements: “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional
Record, vol. 147, part 1 (January 3, 2001), pp. 39-41.
(5) H.Res. 5 (108th Congress rules): “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 149, part 1 (January 7,
2003), pp. 7-21. Speaker’s announcements: “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional
Record, vol. 149, part 1 (January 7, 2003), pp. 22-24.
(6) H.Res. 5 (109th Congress rules): “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 151, part 1 (January 4,
2005), pp. 42-67. Speaker’s announcements: “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional
Record, vol. 151, part 1 (January 4, 2005), pp. 69-71.
3
Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States, [number] Congress,
prepared by [name], parliamentarian, [number] Cong., 2nd sess., H.Doc. [number] (Washington, DC: GPO, [year]).
4
For additional information, see CRS Report 98-262, House Rules Manual: Summary of Contents, by (name redacted).
5
For a history of attempts at broad-based changes to House rules in the modern era, some implemented and some not
implemented, see CRS Report RL31835, Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern Reform Efforts, by
(name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
2
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
procedural, and other changes that were temporary or permanent. So-called fast-track or
expedited House procedures were included in legislation that otherwise addressed a policy matter.
Democratic Caucus and Republican Conference rules and decisions also had an impact on how
specific House rules (such as rules on suspension of the rules and on committee assignment
limits) were implemented. In a few instances, changes made by means other than the House rules
resolution are described, where necessary to understand changes made in rules resolutions.
Selected references to relevant freestanding bills and resolutions, however, are provided in
footnotes in the report.
Between the 104th and 109th Congresses, some committees were created and others were
abolished, and some committees’ names were changed. In this report, the names of committees
appear as they existed in the specific Congress referenced.
Following the next section, “The 103rd Congress: Prelude to Change,” there is a section titled
“Recodification of House Rules, 106th Congress.” During the 105th Congress (1997-1999), a
Rules Committee task force completed the first recodification of House rules since the 1880s.
Citations appearing in this report are only to the recodified rules. The parliamentarian’s notes in
the House Rules and Manual, attached to specific rules, clauses, or paragraphs, trace the
recodification of specific provisions of House rules, in addition to changes to the text of the rules.
This report is the first in a series on House rules changes.6 A second report currently covers
changes for the 110th through 112th Congresses: CRS Report R42395, A Retrospective of House
Rules Changes Since the 110th Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted). It is also
divided into two parts, with the first part covering the partisan critique of the majority party’s
management of the House—a source of rules changes when the majority changed—and the
second part organizing rules changes topically. The topic headings in reports in the series are the
same, to the extent that the same procedural and other topics were addressed in each time frame.
The 103rd Congress: Prelude to Change
The House rules changes made in the 104th Congress reflected a Republican frame of reference
that was built over many years as the minority party, including more democratic floor processes,
minority party rights, a subordinate role for seniority, accountability in House operations, and
streamlining of the House’s organization and staffing. The rules changes in the succeeding five
Republican-organized Congresses continued to draw on this frame of reference, but also drew on
current experiences in managing the House. While Republican Members as members of the
minority party for 40 years had less invested in the status quo of the House than Democratic
Members, they nonetheless had some investment, such as the opportunity awaiting those
Republican Members who might assume the chairmanship of a committee on which they had
long served as ranking minority Member. These interests also influenced the final 104th Congress
rules package.
Republican criticisms relevant to the changes made in the 104th Congress began with the
decisions on rules made at the direction of the Democratic Caucus beginning after the 1974
6
In the 1994 general election, Republicans won a majority of seats in the House for the first time since the 83rd
Congress (1953-1955). They maintained their House majority through five consecutive elections, until the 2006
election. This report covers that time period.
Congressional Research Service
3
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
election. The Committee Reform Amendments,7 agreed to just a month before the 1974 elections,
had abolished proxy voting in committees and allocated to the minority one-third of statutory
committee staff and one-third of investigative committee staff. The rules for the House in 94th
Congress (1975-1977) restored proxy voting, although requiring proxies to be given in writing,
and abrogated the committee staff allocation formula, with minority committee staffing in the 94th
Congress anticipated to be about 20% of total committee staffing.8
As the Democratic majority began innovating in the 1970s and 1980s with special rules—such as
modified closed rules and “king of the Hill” rules—to give a procedural advantage to its preferred
policy outcome,9 Republican House Members formed groups, such as the Conservative
Opportunity Society and the Republican ‘92 Group, to contest Democrats’ legislative
management of the House by employing House procedures to attract attention, to critique
Democratic proposals, and to develop and publicize substantive Republican alternatives. The
Conservative Opportunity Society, founded by then-Representative Newt Gingrich in 1983,
promoted conservative proposals as an alternative to the so-called welfare state.10 The ’92 Group,
named for the goal of electing a Republican majority in the House in 1992, was founded by
Republican moderates such as then-Representatives Olympia Snowe and Tom Tauke. It also
advanced proposals for governing as an alternative to Democratic legislation.11
Then, in the 102nd and 103rd Congresses, scandals cast a pall over public perceptions of Congress,
exposing Members’ special treatment and self-dealing, and contributing to the public’s sense of
disconnection between Members of Congress and their constituents. The disclosure of damaging
information began in 1991 with an investigation of the House post office stamp clerks for
embezzlement and drug dealing. A reported allegation by a post office supervisor that he had
helped Members of Congress “get thousands of dollars in cash through phony transactions
disguised as stamp purchases” led to subpoenas for the records of three Members, one of whom
was the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Representative Dan Rostenkowski.12 On May
31, 1994, Representative Rostenkowski was indicted on 17 criminal charges involving
embezzlement, fraud, and coverup.
In September 1991, a General Accounting Office audit revealed that Members had written 8,331
bad checks (non-sufficient fund checks) in the 12 months ending June 30, 1990, at the House
bank, a check-cashing service in the Capitol for Members and staff. Later that month, House
Administration Committee members revealed that more than 250 Members were in arrears for
7
H.Res. 988, agreed to in the House October 8, 1974.
“Congressional Reforms Made in 1975,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1975, vol. XXXI (Washington, DC:
Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1976), p. 30. See also, for example, Rep. Bill Frenzel, “Rules of the House,”
Congressional Record, vol. 121, part 1 (January 14, 1975), p. 25.
9
Steven S. Smith, “Taking It to the Floor,” in Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, eds., Congress
Reconsidered, 4th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1989), pp. 331-350.
10
Public Broadcasting Service, Frontline, “The Long March of New Gingrich,” original air date of January 16, 1996,
interview with Rep. Vin Weber, available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/newtintwshtml/weber.html.
11
Susan Webb Hammond, “Congressional Caucuses and Party Leaders in the House of Representatives,” Political
Science Quarterly, vol. 106, no. 2 (Summer 1991), pp. 277-294; and William F. Connelly Jr. and John J. Pitney Jr.,
Congress’ Permanent Minority: Republicans in the House (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 1994),
pp. 27-30.
12
“Post Office Probe Hints at Large Scandal,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1992, vol. XLVIII (Washington,
DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1993), p. 50.
8
Congressional Research Service
4
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
bills at House restaurants for more than $255,000. In March 1992, the House voted to release the
bad check audit data, including Members’ names.
In May 1992, the ranking Republican Member of the House Appropriations Committee was
separately indicted on bribery and illegal gratuities charges. In August 1992, a Democratic
Member from Massachusetts was separately indicted on charges of extortion, racketeering, and
tax evasion. In the 102nd and 103rd Congresses, a greater than usual number of Members of both
chambers were investigated by their house’s respective ethics committees or federal authorities
and a number of Members of the House were indicted.13
Facing a volatile electorate in the 1992 elections, 52 Representatives retired, 19 were defeated in
primaries, and 24 were defeated in the general election. While the state of the economy set the
tone for the 1992 elections, the scandals, particularly the House bank scandal, figured
prominently in incumbents’ decisions not to run for reelection and in incumbents’ defeat.14 In the
1994 election, voters ended Democrats’ 40-year majority in the House. While a desire for change
was a theme that political observers found among the electorate, a significant group of voters
responded specifically to the Republicans’ campaign manifesto, the Contract with America,
which called for “institutional reforms designed to make the House less cumbersome and more
accountable.”15
The Republicans’ 104th Congress rules package, subsequent rules packages, and other exercises of
the House’s rulemaking authority drew many specific changes from experiences like these and
from three principal sources: the Republican alternative rules package in the 103rd Congress, the
recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, and the House
Republicans’ Contract with America.16 These three sources are discussed in detail in this section.
103rd Congress Rules
The Democratic Caucus at its early organization meeting in December 1992 approved a number
of rules changes, which continued to be developed until the rules package (H.Res. 5) was put
before the House at the convening of the 103rd Congress on January 5, 1993. Except for a rules
change that removed the House general counsel from the Office of the Clerk and created an
13
For background information on ethics matters, including House votes on them, in the 102nd Congress, see
Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1992, vol. XLVIII (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1993): “Voters
Enraged Over House Banking Abuses,” pp. 23-46; “Post Office Probe Hints at Large Scandal,” pp. 47-51; “Cloud of
Scandal Hovers over Capitol Hill,” pp. 51-55; and “House Tightens Limits on Franked Mail,” p. 61.
For background information on ethics matters in the 103rd Congress, see Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1993, vol.
XLIX (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1994): “Rostenkowski Investigated in Stamp Scam,” pp. 64-68,
and “Indictments, Convictions Plague Congress,” pp. 68-74; and Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1994, vol. L
(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1995): “Rostenkowski Indicted, Defeated,” pp. 43-48, and
“Misconduct Charges Plague Members,” pp. 50-55.
14
Phil Kuntz, “House Bank Overdrafts Send a Chill through Campaigns of Incumbents,” Congressional Quarterly
Weekly Report, vol. 50, no. 42, October 24, 1992, pp. 3328-3329; Dave Kaplan and Charles Mahtesian, “Election’s
Wave of Diversity Spares Many Incumbents,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 50, no. 44, November 7,
1992, pp. 3570-3576; and Phil Kuntz, “Overdrafts Were a Potent Charge,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report,
vol. 50, no. 44, November 7, 1992, p. 3575.
15
Robert W. Merry, “Voters’ Demand for Change Puts Clinton on Defensive,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly
Report, vol. 52, no. 44, November 12, 1994, pp. 3207-3209.
16
See, for example, Jeffrey L. Katz, “Republicans Dust Off Blueprints for Changing House Operations,”
Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 52, no. 44, November 12, 1994, pp. 3220-3221.
Congressional Research Service
5
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Office of General Counsel under the Speaker and another rules change that conformed House
rules on franked mail to a new law of the 102nd Congress,17 the Democratic rules package was
silent on the ethics issues of the previous Congresses.18
An innovation included in the rules package provided a vote in the Committee of the Whole to
the four Delegates and the Puerto Rican Resident Commissioner, and allowed these five
individuals to chair the Committee of the Whole as other Members were able to do. This change
also allowed a re-vote in the House if the Delegates’ or Resident Commissioner’s vote affected
the outcome of a vote in the Committee of the Whole. The Delegates and Resident Commissioner
were not given a vote in the House meeting as the House. The Delegates and Resident
Commissioner could also be appointed to any conference committee, not just those created for
legislation reported from a committee on which they served. During debate, Democratic Members
portrayed this change as a matter of fairness and democracy in action, and pointed out the
services of citizenship undertaken by residents of the territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of
Columbia. They argued that allowing the Delegates and Resident Commissioner to vote in the
Committee of the Whole did not flout constitutional requirements since their votes could not
affect the outcome of votes in the House.19 (The counter-argument appears below under
“Republican Critique.”)
Democratic Members indicated that other major changes proposed to the House rules were made
for purposes of legislative efficiency and productivity, although Republicans challenged this
explanation and countered with their own proposed rules changes, as explained below (see
“Republican Critique”). Committees were allowed to meet while the House was sitting under the
five-minute rule, without having to seek permission to do so. Committee records were dispositive
on the presence of a quorum to report a measure, reducing the opportunity to raise a point of
order on the floor, and a point of order on the floor was prohibited in most instances when a
measure was reported by a voice vote or unanimous consent. (A counter-argument appears below
under “Republican Critique.”) Moribund general teller vote procedures (a method of counting
votes without recording individual Members’ positions) in the Committee of the Whole were
eliminated; the possibility of recorded tellers remained in the event the electronic voting system
malfunctioned.
17
The 103rd Congress rules package proposed to conform House rules to provisions of the fiscal 1993 Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 102-392), which disallowed Members from using the frank for mass mailings outside
of their districts.
18
Democrats had nonetheless earlier implemented reforms. In the 102nd Congress, for example, the House on April 9,
1992, agreed to H.Res. 423, the House Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992. Among its provisions, this
resolution abolished the Office of Postmaster of the House, removed certain authorities of the Clerk and Sergeant-atArms of the House, created a bipartisan Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight of the Committee on House
Administration, and established two new entities: the Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services and the Office
of Inspector General. See “House Approves Hiring of Professional Administrator,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac,
1992, vol. XLVIII (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1993), pp. 55-56. The scandals also gave impetus
to the creation of a new Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, to report recommendations at the end of
1993. See “Lawmakers Look for Ways to Improve Operations,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1992, vol. XLVIII
(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1993), pp. 56-57.
Votes occurred on additional resolutions during the 102nd Congress to authorize investigations, such as one concerning
the House bank, and to release information, such as the list of all sitting and former Members who had written overdraft
checks. For background information, see the sources listed at footnote no. 13.
19
Debate on the 103rd Congress House rules appears in Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 1 (January 5, 1993), pp.
49-100.
Congressional Research Service
6
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
The Speaker was authorized to declare short recesses throughout a Congress, rather than only by
authorization of a special rule, a general authority previously granted only at the end of a
Congress. If a question of the privileges of the House was raised by the majority or minority
leader, it would be considered immediately. If a privileges of the House resolution was offered by
another Member, it would be noticed, and the Speaker was required to schedule debate on it
within two legislative days. Debate time on a question of the privileges of the House would be
divided between the proponent, on the one hand, and the leadership of the party in opposition to
the motion, on the other, as determined by the Speaker. This change allowed the Speaker to put
off debate on any privileges of the House resolution not raised by the majority or minority leader
to a time of the Speaker’s, majority’s, or House’s preference, and took half of debate time away
from the proponent of a question of privileges, who previously controlled all debate time.
In instances where the Senate added legislative language to a general appropriation bill and a
motion was made in the House to, in the motion’s effect, agree to a change in existing law, the
chair of the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over the subject matter could make an
intervening motion to insist on disagreement to the amendment. While some could argue that the
change protected the prerogatives of the House, others could argue that the change was a
parochial protection for a specific committee. The change also allowed the motion to hold up a
conference report without proposing a legislative solution. The motion would then be debated for
one hour, with time divided between the proponent of the motion to insist on disagreement and a
proponent of the motion to change existing law, presumably the chairs of the authorizing and
Appropriations committees. The Speaker was also authorized to add Members to, and remove
them from, conference committees and select committees.
The House Fair Employment Practices resolution20 was codified in the rules, and changes were
made in procedures of the Office of Fair Employment Practices. The permanent authorization of
the Select Committee on Aging was repealed, and the temporary authorizations of three existing
select committees were not renewed in the rules package, thus terminating the existence of those
select committees.21
A rules change that had been endorsed by the Democratic Caucus was dropped from the proposed
rules package. This change would have limited special orders (non-legislative debate normally
occurring after the conclusion of a day’s legislative debate) to three hours or not later than 9:00
p.m., whichever came first. Special orders were allowed under the traditions of the House, and
regulated by the Speaker’s announced policies. When the rules change was not offered, special
orders continued to be regulated by the Speaker’s announced policies.
Republican Critique
While the majority party in the House can use its numbers to effect the chamber rules it desires,
the minority party often tries to amend the rules proposed by the majority and normally critiques
the proposed rules. Republicans in the 103rd Congress argued against the proposed rules on the
20
H.Res. 558, agreed to in the House October 3, 1988, and renewed in the 101st and 102nd Congresses before being
incorporated into House rules in the 103rd Congress.
21
The existence of the Select Committees on Children, Youth, and Families; Hunger; and Narcotics Abuse and Control
were not extended. In addition, changes in Democratic Caucus rules related to subcommittees resulted in the
elimination of more than 15 subcommittees, an example of the impact of a party’s decision on the implementation of
House rules.
Congressional Research Service
7
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
basis of what they did and what they failed to do. Representative Gerald Solomon, as ranking
Republican on the Rules Committee and Republican floor manager of the rules debate, used his
opening remarks to argue that, after the events of the last Congress, voters had chosen change in
the 1992 election and Democrats were misreading the voters’ message: “The American people
thought last November they were voting for a change. Where is it?”22
Many of the Republican Members who spoke during debate on the rules spoke against allowing
the Delegates and Resident Commissioner to vote in the Committee of the Whole. Their
arguments were based on constitutional objections that only Representatives of states may be
Members of the House;23 the constitutionality of the existing practice of allowing Delegates and
the Resident Commissioner to vote on committees had not been established; the disparity that
existed in population among the territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia and
between the territories and the congressional districts; and the situation that federal income tax
receipts were returned to the territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Some
Members also argued that, practically, the votes of the Delegates and Resident Commissioner
would be sought to build a majority and, politically, the change reduced the Republicans’ election
gains by half since the Delegates and Resident Commissioner were all Democrats. This last point
was reinforced in editorial columns representing a range of political orientation.
Although other specific proposals in the rules package evoked criticism, none besides the
Delegate voting was criticized so much as expanding the possible meaning of the requirement for
a quorum to be physically present in committee to report out legislation. Minority Leader Robert
Michel stated:
a rolling quorum defeats the purpose of collective deliberation and decision making. The
very word “Congress” has at its root the concept of coming together, of being together, of
political community, and to institute procedures that fragment the collective sense of
decision making and responsibility in the House is to demean the very concept of the
Congress.24
In discussing the proposed change to this rule, Representative Bob Walker’s remarks revealed that
a sense of the comity between the two parties appeared to be lacking:
22
Rep. Gerald Solomon, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 1 (January 5, 1993), p. 55. Several
Republican Members and media editorials noted the Republicans’ 10-seat gain in the House in the 103rd Congress.
Perhaps more indicative of the change that occurred in the congressional elections was the number of new Members
elected—110—of whom 63 were Democrats and 47 were Republicans.
23
The Constitution states: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by
the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the
most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” U.S. Const. art. I, §2, cl. 1. The Constitution also states: “No person
shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen
of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.” U.S.
Const. art I, §2, cl. 2.
Several Republican Members challenged in court the granting of voting rights in the Committee of the Whole to
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner. The court found the rule valid since the votes were rendered “meaningless”
in instances where they would be decisive in a vote’s outcome. Michel v. Anderson, 817 F. Supp. 126 (D.D.C., 1993),
aff’d, 14 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir., 1994). See CRS Report RL33824, The Constitutionality of Awarding the Delegate for the
District of Columbia a Vote in the House of Representatives or the Committee of the Whole, by (name redacted);
and CRS Report R40170, Parliamentary Rights of the Delegates and Resident Commissioner From Puerto Rico, by
(name redacted).
24
Rep. Robert Michel, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 1 (January 5, 1993), pp. 93-96.
Congressional Research Service
8
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Under the rolling quorum concept, what can happen is that legislation can be passed not by a
committee meeting in a room and deciding that it is time to pass the legislation, but by a
declaration that “what we are going to do is allow the vote to remain open until sufficient
members of the committee have shown up to vote on the matter,” so literally the vote can
take place over a matter of hours, over a matter of days, over a matter of weeks, over a
matter of months.25
Republican Procedural Actions
In addition to debate, the Republican minority did three other things during the debate on the
proposed rules package. First, they prepared an extensive alternate package of rules changes (see
Table 1) although they were not able to offer the alternate as an amendment once the previous
question was moved on the Democratic majority’s rules resolution. Once the previous question is
moved in the House, no amendments or further debate are in order.26 A number of the proposals in
this alternate rules package were included in the Republicans’ 104th Congress rules resolution,
and several of these proposals (or similar ones) also appeared in the Democrats’ 103rd Congress
rules resolution.
Second, Republicans inserted in the Congressional Record nearly 24 pages of documentation
explaining and in support of their alternate rules package.27 Third, they offered two motions that
provided alternative ways (to amending) to obtain votes on changes to the majority’s proposed
rules package. As soon as the resolution containing the majority’s rules package was reported on
the floor, Representative Gerald Solomon offered a motion to refer the resolution to a special
committee to study the constitutionality of giving voting rights in the Committee of the Whole to
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner. The motion was tabled on a vote of 224-176.28 At the
conclusion of debate on the majority’s rules package, Representative Michel offered a motion to
commit the resolution to a select committee with instructions to report back forthwith with two
amendments to strike provisions related to new privileges for the Delegates and Resident
Commissioner and to add a new provision of term limits of three consecutive Congresses for
chairs and ranking minority Members of standing committees, effective immediately. The motion
was defeated on a 187-238 vote.29
25
Rep. Bob Walker, “Changes in House Rules,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 1 (January 5, 1993), pp. 115-117.
Mr. Walker spoke during rules debate. These remarks are from a 60-minute special order for which Mr. Walker was
recognized in the evening following the debate. The complete special order appears on pp. 115-122.
26
The majority’s proposed rules package was debated in the House under the hour rule, and an additional 30 minutes
was added to the debate time by unanimous consent. The previous question was ordered on a 249-176 vote, thereby
eliminating the possibility of amendment. One motion to commit by the minority was in order after the previous
question was ordered.
27
Rep. Gerald B. Solomon, “Rules of the House” (inserted materials), Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 1 (January
5, 1993), pp. 55-76. Rep. Solomon and other Republican Members also inserted analyses and newspaper editorials at
other points in the debate.
28
Ibid., pp. 53-53.
29
Rep. Robert Michel, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 139, part 1 (January 5, 1993), pp. 98-99. The
partisan lineup of Members at the convening of the 103rd Congress (1993-1995) was 258 Democrats, 176 Republicans,
and one independent, who caucused with the Democrats. On the motion to table, all Republicans voting and 10
Democrats voted against the motion. On the motion to recommit, all Republicans voting and 14 Democrats voted for
the motion. The rules package was subsequently agreed to on a 221-199 vote, with all Republicans who voted and 27
Democrats voting against it.
Congressional Research Service
9
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
The Republicans’ alternate rules package was the first principal source of rules changes
subsequently advanced by Republican majorities in the 104th and subsequent Congresses.
Table 1. Summary of Republican Rules Package, 103rd Congress
Congressional-Presidential Relations
When cleared by Congress, House-originated bills are transmitted to the President within 10 calendar days
Upon reading of veto message in House, the Speaker immediately puts question on reconsideration
Administrative Matters
At the beginning of a session of Congress, the Speaker announces the legislative program, target dates for considering
major legislation, weeks in session (assuming a five-day work week), weeks of district work periods, and a target
adjournment date
Reprogramming of House funds is allowed only with the approval of the Speaker and minority leader
Speaker provides for uniform visual broadcast coverage of House
Office of Doorkeeper is abolished
Chief Financial Officer of the House is established, with responsibilities for reviewing and analyzing the House’s
financial operations, managing specified operations, and reporting to the Speaker, minority leader, and House
Administration Committee
Office of General Counsel is created, accountable to a bipartisan leadership group; House approval of a resolution is
required for the general counsel to appear before a court or file a brief
Members and staff on foreign travel must disclose their official itinerary
Members are disallowed from sending franked mass mailings outside their districts
Appropriate committees are directed to report legislation bringing the House under coverage of specific laws:
National Labor Relations Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act, Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination Act, Freedom of
Information Act, Privacy Act, title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and Independent Counsel Act
Committees: Organization
House elects committee members within seven calendar days of Congress’s convening, and committees organize
within seven calendar days of election
Party ratios on committees, subcommittees, select committees, and conference committees reflect party ratios of full
House, unless House rules provide otherwise
House Administration Committee has an equal party ratio
House Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations has an equal party ratio
Chair and majority of members of the Government Operations Committee are of the opposite party to that of the
President
Size of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is reduced to 13 from 19 members, with a 7-6 majorityminority party ratio
Existing select committees are abolished
Committees are limited to five subcommittees, except for the Committee on Appropriations, which may have not
more than 13 subcommittees, and nine major committees, which may have not more than six subcommittees:
Committees on Agriculture, Armed Services, Banking, Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, Foreign Affairs,
Judiciary, Public Works, and Ways and Means
No Member may serve on more than four subcommittees
A three-Congress term limit is placed on committee chairs and ranking minority Members
House members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress are directed to request the joint
committee to study and recommend committee jurisdiction realignment on functional lines and with parallel
Congressional Research Service
10
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
jurisdictions between House and Senate committees and with executive departments
Committees: Procedures
Joint referral of measures is eliminated; Speaker may designate a committee of principal jurisdiction
The majority of a committee or subcommittee constitutes its quorum to conduct business, including markup of
legislation
Proxy voting is banned
Committee meetings may be closed only for reasons of national security or personal privacy, and only by majority
roll-call vote
Committee reports on measures and other matters must include the names of those voting for and against reporting;
if reporting was done without a record vote, a list of Members present must appear in the report
Committees: Additional Matters
Committee and subcommittee prints may be released to the public by vote, with the opportunity for inclusion of
minority or additional views, or they may be released without a vote but must carry a disclaimer that the document
does not reflect the views of the committee or its members
Oversight plans from committees for a new Congress are sent to the House Administration Committee, which
reports the plans to the House by March 15 with any recommendations to ensure coordination; Speaker may appoint
ad hoc oversight committees when committees share jurisdiction
Prior to consideration of a committee expense resolution, the House must adopt a resolution establishing an overall
ceiling on House committee staff; the Budget and Appropriations Committees are subject to same staff ceiling and
committee expense resolutions
The number of committee staff is reduced by 10% a year over three years
The minority is entitled to up to one-third of investigative staff funds
Members, officers, and employees must take an oath not to disclose classified materials
Floor Procedures: Special Rules
Special rules may not be considered on same calendar day as they are reported or on a subsequent calendar day of
the same legislative day, except by a two-thirds vote of the House
Rules Committee may not report a special rule limiting floor amendments on a measure, unless the Rules Committee
chair announces to the House at least four days in advance of a committee meeting that such a rule may be reported
House must agree by a two-thirds vote to consideration of a special rule that provides for automatic adoption of an
amendment, bill, joint resolution, conference report, motion, or matter
Rules Committee may not report a special rule disallowing amendatory instructions in a motion to recommit
Floor Procedures: Suspension of the Rules
Measures may be considered by suspension of the rules only by direction of the committees of jurisdiction or on
request of the chair and ranking minority Member of such committees
Notice that a measure will be considered by suspension of the rules is placed in the Congressional Record at least one
day in advance of consideration, together with the text of any amendment
No measure may be considered by suspension of the rules that authorizes or appropriates more than $50 million for
a fiscal year
No constitutional amendment may be considered by suspension of the rules
Floor Procedures: Additional Matters
Automatic roll-call votes are required for final passage of appropriations, tax, and Member pay-raise bills; conference
reports; and adoption of budget resolutions and conference reports containing debt-limit increases
Names of signers of discharge petitions are published in the Congressional Record once 100 signatures are obtained;
updates are published weekly thereafter
Congressional Research Service
11
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Pledge of Allegiance is required as the third item in the House’s order of business
Congressional Record is a verbatim account of proceedings
A commemorative calendar is established
Conference Matters
Members are allowed three days to file supplemental, minority, or additional views in conference reports
Budgetary Legislation
Rules Committee reports on special rules must justify any proposed Budget Act waiver, and must contain comments
on the waiver received from the Budget Committee; a separate vote could be demanded in the House on a Budget
Act waiver
A point of order would lie against a provision of a reconciliation bill not directly related to reconciliation instructions
to reduce spending or raise revenues, as determined by the Budget Committee
To consider an appropriations bill under a special rule, a three-fifths vote is required to agree to the special rule if it
waives points of order against, or denies amendments to, an unauthorized or legislative provision, if such a provision
had not been previously agreed to for that fiscal year by the House
Committee reports on appropriations bills must include a list of unauthorized activities funded in such bills
Restrictions on limitation amendments to appropriations bills are abolished
Offsetting, deficit-neutral amendments may be offered en bloc to an appropriations measure
Continuing appropriations measures of less than 30 days may provide only for the lesser spending amount of the
House bill, Senate bill, conference report, or previous year’s appropriation; this ceiling could be waived only by a
three-fifths vote
Continuing appropriations of more than 30 days must carry the full text of the provisions to be enacted
Prohibition on legislation and unauthorized appropriations in appropriations bills is extended to long-term continuing
resolutions
CBO cost estimate is required to be included in the committee report on a long-term continuing resolution
Authorization measures for a fiscal year, if reported after May 15 immediately preceding the beginning of that fiscal
year, may not be considered
House members of the Joint Committee on Organization of Congress are directed to request that the joint
committee study and make recommendations on biennial budgeting
Rules and Government Operations Committees are directed to report a bill granting the President enhanced
rescission authority, which would be subject to disapproval by congressional enactment
Campaign Reform
House Administration Committee is directed to report a campaign reform bill
Source: Prepared by authors based on Republican amendment and amendment summary printed in the
Congressional Record. Rep. Gerald B. Solomon, “Rules of the House” (inserted materials), Congressional Record, vol.
139, part 1 (January 5, 1993), pp. 60-69.
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress
A second principal source for Republicans’ 104th Congress and subsequent rules was the
recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress.30
30
Among the Republican House Members who served on the joint committee were Gerald Solomon and David Dreier,
who was named co-vice chair of the joint committee. In the transition following the 1994 general elections, Speakerdesignate Newt Gingrich selected Representative Solomon, a House Rules Committee member, to chair the committee
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
The 102nd Congress (1991-1992) created a Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress
(JCOC).31 The joint committee was directed in H.Con.Res. 192 to report to the two chambers by
December 31, 1993, the end of the 103rd Congress’s first session, on its work:
[The joint committee shall] (1) make a full and complete study of the organization and
operation of the Congress of the United States; and (2) recommend improvements in such
organization and operation with a view toward strengthening the effectiveness of the
Congress, simplifying its operations, improving its relationships with and oversight of other
branches of the United States Government, and improving the orderly consideration of
legislation.32
The study shall include an examination of—(1) the organization and operation of each House
of the Congress, and the structure of, and the relationships between, the various standing,
special, and select committees of the Congress; (2) the relationship between the two Houses
of Congress; (3) the relationship between the Congress and the executive branch of the
Government; (4) the resources and working tools available to the legislative branch as
compared to those available to the executive branch; and (5) the responsibilities of the
leadership, their ability to fulfill those responsibilities, and how that relates to the ability of
the Senate and the House of Representatives to perform their legislative functions.33
For the House, the House subcommittee of the joint committee recommended changes affecting
the breadth of House organization and operations. Many of these recommendations were mirrored
in the Senate subcommittee’s recommendations for the Senate.
The following is a synopsis of the House subcommittee’s recommendations, which informed the
Republicans’ rules resolutions and other exercises of the House’s rulemaking authority beginning
with the 104th Congress:
Legislative-Executive Relations
All standing House committees should be required to prepare an oversight agenda at the
beginning of each Congress and to submit it to the House Administration Committee for
consideration in the committee funding process. The House Administration Committee should
publish these agendas and its recommendations for coordination among committees’ oversight
activities. Committees should also be required to hold oversight hearings on reports concerning
(...continued)
in the 104th Congress. He also placed Representative Dreier, another House Rules Committee member, in charge of
streamlining House committees and legislative operations; Mr. Dreier’s proposals, including those he drew from the
joint committee’s recommendations, were the foundation for the rules resolution adopted for the 104th Congress.
Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa, The Almanac of American Politics 1996 (Washington, DC: National Journal Inc.,
1995), p. 165; and Philip D. Duncan and Christine C. Lawrence, Politics in America 1996 (Washington, DC:
Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1995), p. 150.
31
For additional information, see U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of
the Congress: Final Report of the House Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 103rd
Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 103-413 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993); and CRS Report RL31835,
Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern Reform Efforts, by (name redacted), (name redacted),
and (name redacted)
, from which some information in this section was drawn.
32
Section 2(a) of H.Con.Res. 192, final action occurring in the House Aug. 6, 1992. H.Con.Res. 192 was continued in
effect in the 103rd Congress by a provision in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (P.L.
102-392, §317 (1992)).
33
Ibid., §2(b).
Congressional Research Service
13
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
the executive branch, such as inspectors general’s reports. All committees should be directed to
eliminate unessential executive reporting requirements.
With House approval, the Speaker should be authorized to appoint ad hoc oversight committees.
Although there were no specific recommendations on legislative-judicial relations, appropriate
committees were encouraged to develop formal and informal means of dialogue between the two
branches.
Committee System
Members’ committee assignments should be limited to two standing committees and four
subcommittees. Waivers could be granted by the House only after recommendation of a
Member’s party caucus. If enforcement of the assignment limit caused a committee to have less
than half the number of Members serving on it as it had in the 103rd Congress, the Rules
Committee would be directed to report a resolution abolishing the committee and transferring its
jurisdiction.
A Member should be allowed to serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for
eight years (rather than six years), and the chair could serve an additional term if the Member
named chair was in his or her final term.
Except for the Committee on Appropriations, exclusive or major committees should not have
more than five subcommittees. Non-major committees would be limited to four subcommittees.
The Speaker would be instructed to designate a “primary” committee of jurisdiction in referring
legislation, and could set time or subject-matter limits on other committees of referral after the
primary committee reported a piece of legislation.
Subcommittees should be prohibited from meeting when their parent committee was meeting,
without the written permission of the committee chair. A week’s notice of a committee or
subcommittee meeting should generally be required. Committee reports should include the rollcall vote on a motion to report or, if reporting was by voice vote, contain a list of those Members
present for the voice vote. Committees should be directed to publish their committee and
subcommittee attendance and voting records semiannually in the Congressional Record.
Standing committees should prepare an oversight agenda at the beginning of each Congress, and
report at the end of the Congress on how that agenda was fulfilled. The reports would be taken
into consideration by the House Administration Committee in deliberations on committee
funding.
Floor Procedure
A minority motion to recommit with instructions should be guaranteed. Members should also be
permitted in debate to make references to certain actions taken by the Senate or its committees
that were a matter of public record.
The House should have a four-day legislative week, and specific times would be set aside only
for floor proceedings or only for committee meetings. The Congressional Record should be a
substantially verbatim transcript of House proceedings. The House parliamentarian should be
directed to prepare a recodification of House rules.
Congressional Research Service
14
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Budgetary Legislation
Congress should establish a two-year budget cycle for presidential budget submissions, budget
resolutions, multiyear authorizations, and appropriations. A budget resolution and appropriations
bills would be considered in the first year of the two-year cycle, and multiyear authorizations and
committee oversight would occur in the second year.
The Appropriations Committee should be required to notify appropriate committees of
jurisdiction whenever it reported a measure containing unauthorized appropriations or legislative
provisions. A point of order would lie against an appropriation in excess of an authorization level
set by the House.
Budget resolutions should include a statement on total tax expenditures attributable to special
provisions of the tax code. Committee reports on tax bills, and joint explanatory statements to
conference reports on tax bills, should list tax expenditures, and committee reports on
appropriations bills, and joint explanatory statements to conference reports on appropriations
bills, and authorization bills should list earmark provisions.
To gain better control over entitlement spending, a new process should be established that
requires the President to submit targets for direct spending and to make recommendations for
reaching the targets in the event they will be exceeded.
Ethics Process
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the “Ethics Committee”) should be allowed to
use a panel of private citizens as fact finders to investigate complaints against Members and to
report to the committee any formal charges of violations.
Staffing and Support Agencies
A Speaker task force should be appointed to study the legislative branch to achieve cost savings
consistent with reductions implemented in the executive branch under the National Performance
Review.
Eight-year authorizations should be imposed on the Congressional Budget Office, Congressional
Research Service, General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office34),
Office of Technology Assessment,35 and Government Printing Office. Appropriate committees
should study means to better coordinate nonpartisan services in the legislative branch and
34
For a history and explanation of the name change, see the Government Accountability Office’s website, at
http://gao.gov/about/namechange.html.
35
Congress did not fund the continuation of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in FY1996. The House
Appropriations Committee did not include funding in H.R. 1854, the fiscal 1996 appropriation bill for the legislative
branch, and an amendment to restore funding was defeated on the House floor. “Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act, 1996,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 12 (June 21, 1995), pp. 16677-16683. The Senate Appropriations
Committee reported H.R. 1854 with only termination funds for OTA. An amendment to restore funding was defeated
on the Senate floor. “Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996,” Congressional Record, vol. 141,
part 14 (July 20, 1995), pp. 19635-19640, 19641-19647, and 19661. As sent to the President, H.R. 1854 contained
termination funding. After President Clinton vetoed H.R. 1854, Congress sent to the President H.R. 2492, which
contained only termination funding for OTA (P.L. 104-53, 109 Stat. 514, 526 (1995)).
Congressional Research Service
15
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
minimize duplication, and should assess the feasibility of opening such services to competitive
bidding by the private sector. Appropriate committees should report on the feasibility of granting
to private firms by competitive bid the right to operate certain congressional facilities, including
the barber and beauty shops, gymnasium, health and medical services, restaurants, and child care
facilities.
A bicameral “office of compliance” should be created to study how to apply labor laws to
Congress, and to issue regulations applying those laws to Congress, effective on House and
Senate approval of a concurrent resolution. The office should also establish administrative
enforcement mechanisms, using independent hearing officers and providing recourse to federal
appellate review.
The House Administration Committee should be given a goal of creating professional
development programs for congressional employees. Appropriate House and Senate committees
should study staff salaries and take steps to achieve greater parity between the chambers.
Information Technology
The Joint Committees on the Library and on Printing should be abolished, and their functions
should be transferred to a Joint Committee on Information Management, which would oversee
information management for Congress.
Public Understanding
To foster public understanding of Congress and the legislative process, the House should
undertake different activities such as experimenting with alternative forms of debate, such as
Oxford Union-style debates; encourage the creation of a congressional education center; and
enhance orientation programs for journalists covering Congress. Legislative information should
be more readily available to Members, the public, and the media, and bills, committee reports,
conference reports, and amendments (to bills to be considered under suspension of the rules)
should be available for review at least 24 hours before consideration.
Action on the JCOC Recommendations in the 103rd Congress
Legislation embodying the JCOC’s recommendations was introduced in the 103rd Congress (H.R.
3801 and S. 1824), but no action was taken on these measures. The House, however, passed H.R.
4822, the Congressional Accountability Act, which the Senate did not act on. In explication of
recommendations of the joint committee, this bill would have applied certain federal labor laws to
Congress, established an Office of Congressional Fair Employment Practices, provided a dispute
resolution process, and established a procedures for Congress to consider rules proposed by the
new office’s board. The House also agreed to H.Res. 578, establishing an Office of Compliance
and effecting other recommendations related to the applicability of labor laws to Congress.36
The House and Senate also came close to passing new lobby laws and gift rules (S. 349, H.Rept.
103-75), but, while the House agreed to the conference report on the measure, Senate
consideration ended when the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the conference report.
36
H.Res. 578, agreed to in the House October 7, 1994.
Congressional Research Service
16
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Contract with America
As part of the campaign preceding the 1994 elections, most Republican candidates for U.S.
Representative signed the Contract with America, a campaign platform for institutional change
and priority legislation, should Republicans become the majority party in the House in the 104th
Congress. The provisions of the platform that related to Congress as an institution were as
follows:
On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass
the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in
their government:
First, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
Second, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of
Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
Third, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
Fourth, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
Fifth, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
Sixth, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
Seventh, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
Eighth, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero baseline budgeting.37
The Contract with America was the third principal source for changes to House rules in the 104th
Congress. These eight planks were the basis for the eight sections of title I of H.Res. 6, agreed to
in the House January 4, 1995.
Recodification of House Rules, 106th Congress
The recodification of House rules was a recommendation of the Joint Committee on the
Organization of Congress. A brief explanation is included here in this report since references to
the numbers and clauses of rules in succeeding sections are to the recodified rules.
With the Speaker’s approval, the Rules Committee established a task force on recodification at
the committee’s organizational meeting for the 105th Congress. House rules had last been
comprehensively recodified in the 1880s. Fifty-one rules were collapsed to twenty-eight, without
substantive change but with deletion of obsolete provisions. The recodification sought to use
consistent language, to cluster together like provisions, and to retain rules numbers long
associated with certain procedures.38 The Rules Committee presented its recommendations to
37
The text of the Contract with America can be found at http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html.
A separate order allowed the majority and minority leaders, or their designees, to insert materials in the
(continued...)
38
Congressional Research Service
17
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
House leaders, chairs, and ranking minority Members in October 1998.39 The proposed
recodification was adopted when the House adopted its rules for the 106th Congress on January 6,
1999.40
The parliamentarian’s notes in the House Rules and Manual, attached to specific rules, clauses, or
paragraphs, trace the recodification of specific provisions of House rules, in addition to changes
to the text of the rules. Therefore, citations appearing in the balance of this report are only to the
recodified rules, and only to a clause of a rule at the time a change was made. Cross references to
House rules prior to recodification may be found in the parliamentarian’s notes or through Table
2, and changes following recodification to the numbering of clauses, paragraphs, and
subparagraphs may be found in the parliamentarian’s notes.
Table 2. Structure of House Rules before and after Recodification
Structure of 105th Congress Compared with 106th Congress Rules
Subject
Former Rule Number(s)
Recodified Rule Number
Speaker
Rule I
Rule I
House Officers and Officials
Rules II, III, IV, V, VI, VII
Rule II
Members of Congress
Rules VIII, XII
Rule III
Hall of the House
Rules XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII
Rule IV
Broadcasting the House
Rule I
Rule V
Official reporters, media galleries
Rule XXXIV
Rule VI
Records of the House
Rule XXXVI, XXXVII
Rule VII
Response to Subpoenas
Rule L
Rule VIII
Questions of Privilege
Rule IX
Rule IX
Organization of Committees
Rules X, XI, XLVIII
Rule X
Procedures of Committees
Rules XI, X, XXXV
Rule XI
Referral of Measures
Rules X, XXII, XXXIX
Rule XII
Reports of Committees
Rules XI, XIII
Rule XIII
Order of Business
Rule XXIV
Rule XIV
Special Days
Rules XXVII, XXIV
Rule XV
Motions and Amendments
Rule XVI
Rule XVI
Decorum and Debate
Rules XIV, XXIX, XXX
Rule XVII
Committee of the Whole
Rule XVIII
Rule XXIII
Motions after Amendment Stage
Rule XVII
Rule XIX
Voting and Quorum Calls
Rules XVI, I, XXXVIII
Rule XX
(...continued)
Congressional Record that they considered legislative history pertinent to the recodification. H.Res. 5, §2(e) (106th
Cong.), agreed to in the House January 6, 1999.
39
U.S. House, Committee on Rules, Survey of Activities of the House Committee on Rules, 105th Congress, 105th
Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 105-840 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1999), pp. 51-52.
40
“Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 1 (January 6, 1999), pp. 47-235.
Congressional Research Service
18
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Subject
Former Rule Number(s)
Recodified Rule Number
Restrictions on Certain Bills
Rule XXI
Rule XXI
House-Senate Relations
Rule XX, XXVIII
Rule XXII
Statutory Public Debt Limit
Rule XLIX
Rule XXIII
Code of Official Conduct
Rule XLIII
Rule XXIV
Use of Official Funds
Rules XLV, XLVI
Rule XXV
Outside Earned Income, Gifts
Rules XLVII, LI
Rule XXVI
Financial Disclosure
Rule XLIV
Rule XXVII
General Provisions
Rule XLII
Rule XXVIII
Source: Prepared by authors of this report, based in part on Rep. David Dreier, “Major Rule Citation Changes
Pursuant to the Recodification of the Rules of the House” (table) in “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record,
vol. 145, part 1 (January 6, 1999), pp. 82-83.
Notes: The subject column lists the subject of the recodified rules, in numerical order. Individual prerecodification rules might have covered several subjects; the column Former Rule Number(s) lists principal
sources for a recodified rule, not the source of every provision of a recodified rule. A table showing the
recodification of specific text, with commentary on changes, appears at Rep. David Dreier, “Rules of the House,”
Congressional Record, vol. 145, part 1 (January 6, 1999), pp. 84-223.
Rules Changes Affecting Committees
Surveys and hearings conducted by the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress showed
that Members and staff, in overwhelming numbers, ranked committee structure and other matters
involving committees to be among their greatest concerns.41 The House had previously made
extensive changes to committee organization or procedures or both in the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, and
a 1980 resolution realigning committee jurisdiction over energy.42 Incremental changes to
committee organization and procedures had been made in biennial rules resolutions, and, as noted
above, decisions in the Democratic-controlled House in the 103rd Congress eliminated four select
committees.
Changes to the committee system made in rules resolutions in the 104th Congress and
subsequently addressed most aspects of the committee system. The following section identifies
changes made to the committee system on the opening day of each Congress since the 104th
Congress in resolutions adopting the rules of the House and establishing special orders, and
pursuant to the Speakers’ announcements. The section is organized around three central themes:
41
U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Organization of the Congress: Final Report of the
House Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 103-413
(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993), p. 23.
42
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812 (1946); Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1140
(1970); Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 287 (1974); the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, H.Res. 988, agreed to in the House October 8, 1974; and energy jurisdiction realignment, H.Res.
549, agreed to in the House March 25, 1980. For a detailed history of House reform efforts since 1946, see CRS Report
RL31835, Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern Reform Efforts, by (name redacted), (name redacted)
, and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
19
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
(1) structure and organization, including committee chairmanships and committee assignments,
committee jurisdiction, and subcommittees; (2) procedure, including committee hearings and
meetings, committee reports, referral, and oversight; and (3) staff and funding.43
Structure and Organization
Assignments and Size
General Assignment Rules44
H.Res. 6, agreed to in the 104th Congress, prohibited Members from serving on more than two
standing committees and four subcommittees of standing committees, with exceptions approved
by the House upon recommendation of the respective party caucus or conference. House rules
had been silent on assignment limitations.45 A subcommittee was defined as a unit of a committee
set up for at least six months; a special oversight subcommittee of the National Security
Committee was exempted from this definition. Ex officio service by a chair or ranking minority
Member on their committee’s subcommittees was not included in the limit.
H.Res. 6 also authorized the Speaker, with the approval of the House, to appoint ad hoc oversight
committees to review matters within the jurisdiction of two or more standing committees. The
change was one of several made in House rules to enhance and coordinate House committee
oversight. A House rule previously provided this authority to the Speaker only when the House
approved creation of an ad hoc committee with legislative authority or, generally, a select
committee.
Budget Committee46
H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress changed the permissible duration of Members’ service on the
Budget Committee to four Congresses in six Congresses from three Congresses in five
Congresses.
43
For additional information on rules changes affecting committees made at the beginning of each Congress, see
CRS Report 95-187, Committee System: Rules Changes in the House, 104th Congress, by (name redacted);
CRS Report 97-138, Committee System: Rules Changes in the House, 105th Congress, by (name redacted);
CRS Report RS20017, Committee System Rules Changes in the House, 106th Congress, by (name redacted);
CRS Report RS20769, Committee System Rules Changes in the House, 107th Congress, by (name redacted);
CRS Report RS21382, Committee System Rules Changes in the House, 108th Congress, by (name redacted); and
CRS Report RS22018, Committee System Rules Changes in the House, 109th Congress, by (name redacted).
44
For additional information, see CRS Report 98-367, House Committees: Assignment Process, by (name redacted), and
CRS Report 98-151, House Committees: Categories and Rules for Committee Assignments, by (name redacted).
45
For background on House committee sizes and assignments, see CRS Report R41501, House Legislative Procedures
and House Committee Organization: Options for Change in the 112th Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redac
ted).
46
For background on the Budget Committee, see CRS Report R40774, Committee on the Budget in the House of
Representatives: Structure and Responsibilities, by Megan Suzanne Lynch.
Congressional Research Service
20
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
In the 106th Congress, the prohibition of service on the Budget Committee for more than four
Congresses in any six successive Congresses was waived during the 106th Congress by a separate
order in H.Res. 5.
In the 108th Congress, H.Res. 5 provided that the Budget Committee’s membership would include
one member from the Rules Committee, codifying a decision made in the Republican
Conference’s early organization meetings. (Amended clause 5 of Rule X.)
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress contained a provision that one member of the majority party and
one member of the minority party were to be “designated” by the respective elected leaderships
as members of the Budget Committee. The rule that was amended had previously required the
members to be “from” the elected leaderships. (Amended clause 5 of Rule X.)
Ethics Committee47
In the 106th Congress, H.Res. 5 eliminated the requirement that four members (two from each
party) of the Standards of Official Conduct Committee (the “Ethics Committee”) rotate off the
panel every Congress,48 and changed service on the committee to three Congresses in any five
Congresses from two Congresses in any three Congresses. The size of the committee was also set
at 10 members, 5 of each party.49 (Amended clause 5 of Rule X.)
Intelligence Committee50
Membership on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was changed by H.Res. 6 in the
104th Congress to four terms from three in six successive Congresses, while the chair and ranking
minority Member were allowed to serve a fifth term. The Speaker was also designated as an ex
officio member of the committee in place of the majority leader; the minority leader continued as
an ex officio member. The size of the Intelligence Committee was also decreased to 16 members
(from 19), with a limit of not more than 9 members from one party.
In the 107th Congress, H.Res. 5 increased the size of the Intelligence Committee to not more than
18 members (from not more than 16 members), of which not more than 10 could be from the
same party.51 (Amended clause 11(a)(1) of Rule X.)
47
For background on the Ethics Committee, see CRS Report 98-15, House Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of Its
Evolution and Jurisdiction, by (name redacted).
48
Established previously by Section 2 of H.Res. 168 (105th Cong.), agreed to in the House September 18, 1997. This
resolution (in Section 1) was also the source of a provision of Rule X, clause 5(a), directing the Speaker and minority
leader to each designate 10 Members, not assigned to the Ethics Committee, to serve on investigative subcommittees of
the Ethics Committee.
49
While 10 members (5 of each party) was the size of the committee in the previous, 105th Congress, the Ethics Reform
Act of 1989 had established the size of the committee at 14, with 7 members of each party. P.L. 101-194, §803(b); 103
Stat. 1716, 1774 (1989). As an exercise in congressional rulemaking authority, the House could change the size in law
by a later rule, by a rules change, by a special order, or by simply electing a specific number of members to the
committee.
50
For background on the Intelligence Committee, see CRS Report RL32525, Congressional Oversight of Intelligence:
Current Structure and Alternatives, by (name redacted).
51
In the 107th and 109th Congresses, the House again changed the size of the Intelligence Committee. On January 6,
2001, the House by unanimous consent agreed to an order to set the size of the committee at 20, with not more than 11
members from one party. Rep. Porter Goss, “Composition of Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,”
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
21
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Chairmanships/Term Limitations52
Pursuant to H.Res. 6, effective with the 104th Congress, committee and subcommittee chairs were
limited to serve as chair to not more than three terms in three consecutive Congresses. The
resolution also permitted any majority member, not the senior most ranking majority Member, to
be designated as the vice-chair of a committee or subcommittee.53
H.Res. 6 also allowed a chair or ranking minority Member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence who had served just one term to be reappointed to serve an additional term if he or
she had already completed the term limit of four Congresses on the committee.
In the 108th Congress, H.Res. 5 abolished the term limit for service as chair or ranking minority
Member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Amended clause 11 of Rule X.)
The term limit for service as chair or ranking minority Member of the Budget Committee was
codified to six years, equal to the term limitation for other standing committee chairs. (Amended
clause 5 of Rule X.)
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress authorized the chair of the Rules Committee to serve as chair
notwithstanding the rule limiting service of committee chairs to three consecutive terms.
(Amended clause 5 of Rule X.)
Committee Abolition
The Committee on the District of Columbia, the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
and the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service were abolished pursuant to H.Res. 6 in the
104th Congress. (See “Jurisdiction” below for explanation of the distribution of the committees’
jurisdiction.)
Committee Creation and Retention54
(See also “Jurisdiction” below.)
H.Res. 6 also authorized the Speaker, with the approval of the House, to appoint ad hoc oversight
committees to review matters within the jurisdiction of two or more standing committees. The
change was one of several made in House rules to enhance and coordinate House committee
oversight. A House rule previously provided this authority to the Speaker only when the House
(...continued)
Congressional Record, vol. 147, part 1 (January 6, 2001), p. 115. H.Res. 51 (109th Cong.), agreed to in the House
January 26, 2005, set the membership at 21, of which not more than 12 members could be from the same party.
52
For additional information on chairs and ranking minority Members, see CRS Report RS21165, House Standing
Committee Chairs and Ranking Minority Members: Rules Governing Selection Procedures, by (name redacted).
53
In seeking to fulfill another provision of the Contract with America, Republicans brought congressional term limit
proposals to the floor. The House voted twice, once in the 104th Congress and once in the 105th Congress, on a
constitutional amendment imposing term limits on service in Congress. A two-thirds vote is required to propose an
amendment to the Constitution, and both votes fell short. See H.J.Res. 73 (104th Cong.), failed passage 227-204, March
29, 1995, and H.J.Res. 2 (105th Cong.), failed passage 217-211, February 12, 1997.
54
For background information on types of House committees, see CRS Report 98-241, Committee Types and Roles, by
(name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
22
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
approved creation of an ad hoc committee with legislative authority or, generally, a select
committee.
A rules change in H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress extended until January 21, 1997, the existence of
a Select Committee on Ethics (comprising members of the Standards of Official Conduct
Committee in the 104th Congress), to allow committee members to complete their work and make
any recommendations to the House related to the official conduct of Speaker Newt Gingrich.55
H.Res. 5 in the 106th Congress contained a separate order continuing until March 31, 1999, the
existence of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns
with the People’s Republic of China.56
H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress created a Select Committee on Homeland Security for one
Congress’s duration with legislative jurisdiction to develop recommendations and report to the
House on matters relating to the Homeland Security Act of 2002.57 The select committee was also
charged with conducting a study of committee jurisdiction over the issue of homeland security
and reporting any recommended changes to the House by September 30, 2004.58
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress created a permanent, standing Committee on Homeland Security
with legislative and oversight jurisdiction. The new panel was granted legislative jurisdiction over
the following:
(1) Overall homeland security policy.
(2) Organization and administration of the Department of Homeland Security.
(3) Functions of the Department of Homeland Security related 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;
55
For background, see “Gingrich Weakened by Ethics Case,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1997, vol. LIII
(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1998), pp. 1-11–1-15.
56
Established by H.Res. 463 (105th Cong.), agreed to in the House June 18, 1998. The separate order in H.Res. 5 (106th
Cong.) contained restrictions on certain provisions of H.Res. 463. The life of the select committee was ultimately
extended to May 31, 1999. H.Res. 129, agreed to in the House March 24, 1999; H.Res. 153, agreed to in the House
April 29, 1999; and H.Res. 170, agreed to in the House May 13, 1999. For background, see Chuck McCutcheon, “With
Cox Report’s Release, Struggle for Consensus Begins,” CQ Weekly, vol. 57, no. 22, May 29, 1999, pp. 1251-1254.
57
116 Stat. 2135.
58
The select committee’s letter of transmittal, report, and supplementary materials on proposed committee
jurisdictional changes are available at http://web.archive.org/web/20041023103612/http://hsc.house.gov/files/
mini_report_sigs.pdf.
In the 107th Congress, in response the President George W. Bush’s proposal to create the Department of Homeland
Security, the House created a Select Committee on Homeland Security to receive proposed legislation on the
department’s creation from a number of standing committees and to “develop recommendations and report to the
House on such matters that relate to the establishment of a department of homeland security as may be referred to it by
the Speaker.” H.Res. 449, agreed to in the House June 19, 2002. The existence of that select committee expired with
the adjournment of the 107th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
23
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
(D) Domestic preparedness for and collective response to terrorism;
(E) Research and development; and
(F) Transportation security.”59
The new committee was granted oversight authority over homeland security, including the
“interaction of all departments and agencies with the Department of Homeland Security.”
(Amended clauses 1 and 3 of Rule X.) In addition, in his announced policies for the 109th
Congress, the Speaker stated that referrals to the Select Committee on Homeland Security would
not constitute precedent for referrals to the permanent committee.60 (See “Jurisdiction” below in
this section for concomitant changes in other committees’ jurisdiction.)
Committee Names
(Name changes are made as amendments to Rule X, with any needed conforming changes made
in other rules.)
Several committees were given new names under H.Res. 6 for the 104th Congress:
•
Banking and Financial Services (formerly Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs);
•
Commerce (formerly Energy and Commerce);
•
Economic and Educational Opportunities (formerly Education and Labor);
•
Government Reform and Oversight (formerly Government Operations);
•
House Oversight (formerly House Administration);
•
International Relations (formerly Foreign Affairs);
•
National Security (formerly Armed Services);
•
Resources (formerly Natural Resources);
•
Science (formerly Science, Space, and Technology); and
•
Transportation and Infrastructure (formerly Public Works and Transportation).
59
For background and analysis on the creation and existence of the Homeland Security Committee, see CRS Report
RL32711, Homeland Security: Compendium of Recommendations Relevant to House Committee Organization and
Analysis of Considerations for the House, and 109th and 110th Congresses Epilogue, by (name redacted); and CRS
Report RL33061, Homeland Security and House Committees: Analysis of 109th Congress Jurisdiction Changes and
Their Impact on the Referral of Legislation, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
The House Appropriations Committee reorganized its subcommittees in the 108th Congress and the 109th Congress. In
the 108th Congress, it created a Homeland Security Subcommittee, and changed the jurisdiction of other subcommittees
while retaining a total of 13 subcommittees. U.S. House, Committee on Appropriations, “Chairman Young Announces
Homeland Security Reorganization,” news release, January 29, 2003. In the 109th Congress, it reorganized its
subcommittees and reduced their number to 10. U.S. House, Committee on Appropriations, “Chairman Lewis
Announces Major Reorganization of the House Appropriations Committee and Slate of Subcommittee Chairmen,”
news release, February 9, 2005. See also CRS Report RL31572, Appropriations Subcommittee Structure: History of
Changes from 1920-2011, by (name redacted).
60
“Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 151, part 1 (January 4, 2005), p. 71.
Congressional Research Service
24
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
In the following 105th Congress, H.Res. 5 changed the name of the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
In the 106th Congress, pursuant to H.Res. 5, the name of the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight was changed to the Committee on Government Reform; the Committee on House
Oversight was returned to the Committee on House Administration; and the Committee on
National Security was returned to the Committee on Armed Services.
H.Res. 5 of the 107th Congress changed the name of the Committee on Commerce to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. Further, the resolution reconstituted the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services as the Committee on Financial Services. (See “Jurisdiction,” next
below, for an explanation on the realignment of these two committees’ jurisdiction.)
Jurisdiction61
(See also “Committee Creation and Retention” above and “Referral” below.)
104th Congress
H.Res. 6 transferred jurisdiction from the District of Columbia Committee and the Post Office
and Civil Service Committee (both abolished by the resolution) to the Government Reform and
Oversight Committee. The Post Office Committee’s jurisdiction over the Franking Commission
was transferred to the House Oversight Committee. Specific jurisdiction over paperwork
reduction and over public information and records was added to the Government Reform
Committee’s jurisdiction, and the committee was given specific responsibility for coordinating
House committees’ oversight plans.
The House Oversight Committee’s jurisdiction over the erection of monuments to the memory of
individuals was transferred to the Resources Committee.
Also abolished was the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Its jurisdiction was dispersed
among several panels:
•
the Merchant Marine Academy, the national security aspects of merchant marine,
and interoceanic canals were transferred to the National Security Committee;
•
marine research was transferred to the Science Committee;
•
the Coast Guard, navigation, vessel registration, prevention of collisions at sea,
non-national security aspects of merchant marine, and pollution of navigable
waters were transferred to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and
•
fisheries, marine affairs except pollution of navigable waters, oceanographic
affairs, and endangered species were transferred to the Resources Committee.
An addition for purposes of clarification was also made to the National Security Committee’s
jurisdiction, for intelligence-related activities of the Department of Defense. An addition was
61
For additional information on jurisdiction, see CRS Report 98-175, House Committee Jurisdiction and Referral:
Rules and Practice, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
25
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
made to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s jurisdiction over federal management
of emergencies and natural disasters.
Changes affected a sizable portion of the Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction:
•
primary jurisdiction over Glass-Steagall reform legislation was given to the
Banking and Financial Services Committee;
•
food inspection was consolidated in the Agriculture Committee with the addition
of the inspection of poultry, seafood, and seafood products;
•
railroads and inland waterways were absorbed by the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee;
•
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (except ratemaking) was transferred to the Resources
Committee; and
•
the commercial application of energy technology was moved to the Science
Committee, consolidating its jurisdiction over energy research and development.
The Commerce Committee gained from the Resources Committee jurisdiction over regulation of
the domestic nuclear energy industry, and a conforming change was made in the committee’s
oversight jurisdiction.
H.Res. 6 also added specific water conservation jurisdiction for the Agriculture Committee. It
added specific jurisdiction for the Banking Committee over economic stabilization, defense
production, and financial aid to commerce and industry. It added small business jurisdiction
related to regulatory flexibility and paperwork reduction to the jurisdiction of the Small Business
Committee.
H.Res. 6 also expanded the Budget Committee’s jurisdiction to include “Measures relating to the
congressional budget process, generally” and “Measures relating to the 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.” A
paragraph of the committee’s jurisdiction regarding concurrent budget resolutions and matters
under titles III and IV of the Congressional Budget Act was amended to add: “and other measures
setting forth appropriate levels of budget totals for the United States Government.”62
The Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction was clarified with the specific addition of “judiciary” and
“administrative practice and procedure” to its jurisdiction. H.Res. 6 also amended the jurisdiction
of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to reflect previous referral decisions.
62
The section-by-section analysis of H.Res. 6 indicated that the Budget Committee “would gain jurisdiction over
budgetary legislation from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.” Rep. Gerald Solomon, “Section-bySection Analysis of House Rules Resolution,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1 (January 4, 1995), p. 474. See
also jurisdictional understandings inserted in the Congressional Record: Rep. Richard Armey, Congressional Record,
vol. 141, part 1 (January 4, 1995), pp. 483-484; and Rep. John Kasich, “Rules Package/Memorandum of
Understanding,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1 (January 4, 1995), pp. 617-618. Memoranda of understanding
or other announcements can explain the meaning of jurisdictional changes or the settlement of a jurisdictional
disagreement.
Congressional Research Service
26
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
105th Congress
In the 105th Congress, H.Res. 5 revised the jurisdictions of the Budget and Government Reform
and Oversight Committees. The Budget Committee was given oversight over the “budget
process” rather than over solely the “congressional budget process.” The Government Reform
Committee was given jurisdiction over “government management and accounting measures,
generally” rather than “budget and accounting measures, generally.”
107th Congress
H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress transferred jurisdiction over securities and exchanges, and
insurance generally, to the Committee on Financial Services from the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.63 (Amended clause 1 of Rule X.) In addition, the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence gained exclusive oversight responsibility over the sources and methods of the core
intelligence agencies. (Amended clause 3 of Rule X.)
The resolution transferred, to the clerk of the House, the House Administration Committee’s
responsibilities to examine House-passed bills, joint resolutions, amendments, and enrolled bills
and joint resolutions, and to present enrolled bills and joint resolutions to the President. In
cooperation with the Senate, the clerk now examines bills and joint resolutions passed by both
houses to ensure their correct enrollment, and presents enrolled bills and joint resolutions
originated in the House to the President, after obtaining the signatures of the Speaker and the
President of the Senate. The clerk then reports to the House the fact and date of a measure’s
presentment to the President. (Amending clause 2(d) of Rule II, and clause 4(d)(1) of Rule X.)
108th Congress
H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress created a Select Committee on Homeland Security for one
Congress’s duration with legislative jurisdiction to develop recommendations and report to the
House on matters relating to the Homeland Security Act of 2002.64 The select committee was also
charged with conducting a study of committee jurisdiction over the issue of homeland security
and reporting any recommended changes to the House by September 30, 2004.65
63
Memoranda of understanding, Speakers’ announcements, and decisions of the House can explain the meaning of
jurisdictional changes and the settlement of jurisdictional disagreements. For explanation of the jurisdictions of the
Energy and Commerce Committee and the Financial Services Committee, see Speaker Dennis Hastert, “Memorandum
of Understanding between Energy and Commerce Committee and Financial Services Committee,” Congressional
Record, vol. 147, part 1 (January 20, 2001), p. 163.
64
116 Stat. 2135.
65
The select committee’s letter of transmittal, report, and supplementary materials on proposed committee
jurisdictional changes are available at http://web.archive.org/web/20041023103612/http://hsc.house.gov/files/
mini_report_sigs.pdf.
In the 107th Congress, in response the President George W. Bush’s proposal to create the Department of Homeland
Security, the House created a Select Committee on Homeland Security to receive proposed legislation on the
department’s creation from a number of standing committees and to “develop recommendations and report to the
House on such matters that relate to the establishment of a department of homeland security as may be referred to it by
the Speaker.” H.Res. 449, agreed to in the House June 19, 2002. The existence of that select committee expired with
the adjournment of the 107th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
27
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
109th Congress
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress transferred jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure over transportation security and port security to the Committee on Homeland
Security, but the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee retained jurisdiction over the Coast
Guard as an agency and over many of its programs and activities and over transportation safety.
The resolution also transferred jurisdiction over domestic preparedness for terrorist acts to the
Committee on Homeland Security, but the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee retained
jurisdiction over natural disasters and other emergencies. Further, the resolution transferred the
Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction over border security to the Committee on Homeland Security,
but the Judiciary Committee retained jurisdiction over immigration and over non-border related
policy. The resolution also specifically added “criminal law enforcement” to the jurisdiction of
the Judiciary Committee. The resolution transferred jurisdiction over the Customs Service to the
Committee on Homeland Security, although the Committee on Ways and Means retained
jurisdiction over customs revenue.66 (Amended clause 1 of Rule X.) (See “Committee Creation
and Retention” above for the jurisdiction of the Select Committee on Homeland Security that
existed in the 108th Congress and the jurisdiction of the permanent Homeland Security Committee
established in the 109th Congress.)
In addition, the Speaker in his announced policies for the 109th Congress indicated that the
referral of measures to the Select Committee on Homeland Security of the 108th Congress would
not constitute precedent for referrals to the standing Committee on Homeland Security.67
The Speaker’s announced policies also addressed the January 20, 2001, “Memorandum of
Understanding Between Energy and Commerce Committee and Financial Services Committee,”
regarding the jurisdictions of the two committees. The Speaker announced that the final two
paragraphs of the memorandum dealing with electronic commerce, anti-fraud authorities under
securities laws, and the setting of accounting standards by the Financial Accounting Standards
Board would no longer provide jurisdictional guidance.68
Subcommittees69
H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress prohibited any committee from having more than five
subcommittees, except for Appropriations (13 subcommittees), Government Reform and
Oversight (7), and Transportation and Infrastructure (6).
In the 106th Congress, H.Res. 5 maintained the existing rule restriction regarding the limitation of
five subcommittees; however, committees that maintained an oversight subcommittee were
restricted to no more than six subcommittees. H.Res. 5 also deleted the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure from the exemption to the five subcommittees plus an oversight
66
For a detailed explanation seeking to differentiate the homeland security jurisdictions of the Committee on Homeland
Security and that of 10 standing committees, see Rep. David Dreier, “Legislative History to Accompany Changes to
Rule X,” Congressional Record, vol. 151, part 1 (January 4, 2005), pp. 60-61.
67
“Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 151, part 1 (January 4, 2005), pp. 69-71.
68
Ibid.
69
For additional information on subcommittees, see CRS Report 98-544, Subcommittees in the House of
Representatives, by (name redacted), and CRS Report 98-610,House Subcommittees: Assignment Process, by (name
redacted).
Congressional Research Service
28
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
subcommittee. (Amended clause 5 of Rule X.) Further, the Committee on Government Reform, in
order to maintain a Census Subcommittee, was allowed by a separate order in the rules resolution
to have eight subcommittees for the 106th Congress.
H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress maintained the rule regarding the number of subcommittees each
committee could create. However, by separate order in the rules resolution, the Committee on
Government Reform was allowed to create up to eight subcommittees and the Committee on
International Relations and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure were allowed to
create up to six subcommittees each.
The 108th Congress’s H.Res. 5 also maintained the existing rule on subcommittees. However, the
Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on International Relations, and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure were allowed by separate order in the rules resolution to create
up to six subcommittees each.70
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress maintained the existing rule on subcommittees. However, by
separate order in the rules resolution, the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure were entitled to create up to six subcommittees each, and the
Committee on International Relations was allowed to create up to seven subcommittees in the
109th Congress.
Procedure
Committee Reports71
H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress added content requirements to the directive to committees to
submit biennial activities reports. The resolution required activities reports to contain separate
summaries of legislative and oversight activities, and for the oversight summary to compare a
committee’s plan to its actions and to list recommendations resulting from the committee’s
oversight.
H.Res. 6 required committee reports on legislation to include members’ recorded votes in
committee on amendments. Reports already included members’ recorded votes on motions to
report.
H.Res. 6 contained a “truth-in-budgeting baseline reform” provision requiring a comparison
(when practicable) of total funding in legislation to the “appropriate levels under current law.”
The purported effect of this rules change was to require that the entire amount of authorizations,
70
The House Appropriations Committee reorganized its subcommittees in the 108th Congress and the 109th Congress.
In the 108th Congress, it created a Homeland Security Subcommittee, and changed the jurisdiction of other
subcommittees while retaining a total of 13 subcommittees. U.S. House, Committee on Appropriations, “Chairman
Young Announces Homeland Security Reorganization,” news release, January 29, 2003. In the 109th Congress, it
reorganized its subcommittees and reduced their number to 10. U.S. House, Committee on Appropriations, “Chairman
Lewis Announces Major Reorganization of the House Appropriations Committee and Slate of Subcommittee
Chairmen,” news release, Feb. 9, 2005. See also CRS Report RL31572, Appropriations Subcommittee Structure:
History of Changes from 1920-2011, by (name redacted).
71
For additional information on committee reports, see CRS Report 98-169, House Committee Reports: Required
Contents, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
29
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
appropriations, and entitlement spending to be shown in cost estimates, not solely in increments
of change. The “truth” aspect was intended to get at a criticism of baseline budgeting that allowed
spending increases above a current year’s level, but below baseline levels, to be characterized as
spending cuts.
H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress authorized committees to (1) file joint investigative or oversight
reports with other committees on matters on which they conducted joint studies or investigations,
(2) file investigative or oversight reports after the final adjournment of a Congress if they were
properly approved by the committee and at least seven calendar days had been permitted for
filing views, and (3) file final activity reports after an adjournment if at least seven calendar days
had been permitted for filing views. H.Res. 5 also stipulated that proposed investigative reports
would be considered as read if available for at least 24 hours in advance of their consideration.
In addition, H.Res. 5 changed the period for filing views on reports from three full days after the
day on which the bill or matter was ordered reported to two days. The resolution granted a
committee an automatic right to have until an hour after midnight on the second day to file its
report, if an intention to file views was announced. The resolution repealed the requirement that
committee reports include an inflationary impact statement. Reports, however, must now include
a new “constitutional authority statement” that cited the specific powers granted to Congress by
the Constitution upon which the proposed measure was based.
H.Res. 5 stated that committees must make their publications available in electronic form “to the
maximum extent feasible.” It also conformed the layover requirements for Budget Committee
reports on budget resolutions to those of other committees for legislation they reported.
H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress repealed the requirement that committee reports include a
summary of oversight findings and recommendations by the Committee on Government Reform,
but required inclusion of a new statement of general performance goals and objectives, including
outcome-related goals and objectives for which the measure authorized funding. (Amended
clause 4 of Rule X.) In addition, committees were allowed to file supplemental reports, without
additional layovers, to correct errors in the depiction of record votes taken in committee.
(Amended clause 3 of Rule XIII.)
Appropriations Committee
H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress required the Appropriations Committee to identify unauthorized
appropriations in its committee reports on general appropriations bills, in addition to the existing
requirement to list legislative provisions.
The Appropriations Committee was also prohibited in H.Res. 6 from including non-emergency
provisions in emergency appropriations measures, unless the provisions rescinded budget
authority, reduced direct spending, or reduced an amount for a designated emergency.
With regard to reports on general appropriations bills, H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress required the
Appropriations Committee to include additional information on unauthorized appropriations—a
statement of the last year for which expenditures were authorized, the level authorized for that
year, the actual level of spending for that year, and the level of appropriations in the current bill.
(Amended clause 3 of Rule XIII.)
Congressional Research Service
30
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Ways and Means Committee
H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress allowed the majority leader, after consultation with the minority
leader, to designate “major tax legislation” on which the report by the Ways and Means
Committee could then include a “dynamic estimate”—the macroeconomic feedback emanating
from the proposed change in tax policy. The dynamic estimate was to be “used only for
informational purposes,” not for enforcement or scorekeeping purposes.
In the 108th Congress, H.Res. 5 required the Ways and Means Committee to include in committee
reports on measures amending the Internal Revenue Code a “macroeconomic impact analysis” by
the Joint Taxation Committee. A macroeconomic impact analysis was defined as an estimate of
“changes in economic output, employment, capital stock, and tax revenues expected to result
from enactment of the proposal.” The joint committee’s analysis was also to include a statement
of assumptions and data sources. The reporting requirement could be waived if the Joint Taxation
Committee certified that such an analysis was not calculable, or the chair of the Ways and Means
Committee inserted the analysis in the Congressional Record prior to the measure’s consideration
by the House. (Amended clause 3 of Rule XIII.)
Conference, Motion to Go to
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress allowed committees to adopt a rule allowing the committee chair
to offer a privileged motion to go to conference whenever the chair deemed it appropriate to do
so. Previously, a chair needed prior authorization by his or her committee to make such a
privileged motion. (Amended clause 2 of Rule XI.)
Hearings Procedures72
(See also “Openness” and “Witnesses” below.)
H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress authorized committees to adopt a rule or motion to (1) permit
selected majority and minority Members, in equal numbers, to take more than five minutes to
question witnesses, up to a limit of 30 minutes per side, per witness, and (2) permitted staff to
question witnesses if the other side was given equal time and opportunity to do so. A House rule
had provided only for five minutes of questioning of witnesses by committee members.
H.Res. 5 in the 106th Congress clarified the rule permitting more than five minutes of time for
committee members and staff to question witnesses. An addition to the rule stated that such time
must be equally divided between majority and minority. A change to the rule stated that such
questioning could not exceed one hour in total. (Amended clause 2 of Rule XI.)
In the 107th Congress, H.Res. 5 struck the word “investigative” from the rule on hearing
procedures so that it was clear the procedures referred to all hearings. (Amended clause 2 of Rule
XI.)
72
For additional information on hearings, see, for example, CRS Report 98-317, Types of Committee Hearings, by
(name redacted), and CRS Report 98-339, House Committee Hearings: Scheduling and Notification, by (name redact
ed).
Congressional Research Service
31
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Meetings, Restrictions on
H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress prohibited committees from sitting while the House was reading a
measure for amendment under the five-minute rule without special leave to sit. Special leave
would be granted unless 10 or more Members objected to the unanimous consent request, or a
privileged motion offered by the majority leader was adopted by the House. The Committees on
Appropriations, Budget, Rules, Standards of Official Conduct, and Ways and Means were
exempted from the prohibition on sitting. While restrictions on committees meeting while the
House was reading a measure for amendment under the five-minute rule had varied, House rules
in the immediately preceding 103rd Congress allowed committees to meet without obtaining
permission to do so, except during a joint session or meeting of the House and Senate.
The Speaker in addition established the following guidelines regarding requests by committees to
meet while the House was proceeding under the five-minute rule:
•
If the request for permission to sit pertained to a day for which the legislative
program had not been announced, then unanimous consent was required. Once
the legislative program for a day had been announced, then the objections of 10
Members would be required to deny a request.
•
Requests would not be entertained on a day that all votes on legislative matters
had been postponed to another day; however, requests for committee hearings to
be held later in the week would be accepted by the chair if a request had the
concurrence of the ranking minority Member of the committee or subcommittee.
•
On days when legislative business was to be conducted, and when roll-call votes
were in order on legislation, the chair would entertain requests during the oneminute period only when assured of the support of the ranking minority Member
of the committee or subcommittee involved.
•
If 10 or more Members objected to a request, then that request could not be
renewed on the same day unless the chair was assured that the objections had
been withdrawn.
•
The chair would not entertain requests after legislative business had concluded.73
H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress allowed all committees to meet at any time the House was in
session without first obtaining special leave from the full House. The Speaker’s policy, therefore,
was also discontinued.
Openness
(See also “Witnesses” below.)
H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress prohibited committee meetings from being closed to the public
unless the deliberations would endanger national security, compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, defame a person, or violate a law or House rule. Meetings previously could have
been closed without a stated purpose. The resolution also struck from the House rule committee
deliberations over budget and personnel as matters that allowed a committee to close a meeting.
73
“Policies of the Chair,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1 (January 4, 1995), pp. 551-553.
Congressional Research Service
32
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
The House rule already allowed a meeting to be closed only by a majority vote, a quorum being
present. Further, broadcast coverage and still photography was specifically allowed for any
hearing or meeting that was open.
H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress clarified the procedure for closing a hearing, indicating that a
hearing would not be closed if a majority of those voting, instead of a majority of committee
members, determined that the evidence or testimony would not tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate any person.
H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress also required committees, to the maximum extent feasible, to
make all committee publications available in electronic form.
In the 107th Congress, H.Res. 5 allowed either a member of the committee or a witness at a
hearing to assert that evidence or testimony at the hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate a person. (Amended clause 2 of Rule XI.)
Oversight
(See also “Committee Reports” and “Openness” above, and “Subpoena” and “Witnesses” below.)
H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress required all committees to adopt oversight plans—in an open
meeting with a quorum present—and to submit them to the House Oversight Committee and the
Government Reform and Oversight Committee by February 15 of the first session. The
Government Reform and Oversight Committee was required to report the plans back to the House
by March 31 with recommendations. The committee was directed to consult majority and
minority leadership prior to submitting the committees’ oversight plans to the House with its own
recommendations for coordination and for ensuring the goals of the rule would be achieved.74
Previous House rules required committees to conduct oversight, but they were not specific and
did not require a plan.
In developing their plans, committees were instructed to consult with other committees with
jurisdiction over the same or related laws, programs, or agencies. If a committee did not submit
an oversight plan, it would not be in order to include its funding in a committee expense
resolution.
H.Res. 6 also authorized the Speaker, with the approval of the House, to appoint ad hoc oversight
committees to review matters within the jurisdiction of two or more standing committees. The
change was one of several made in House rules to enhance and coordinate House committee
oversight. A House rule previously provided this authority to the Speaker only when the House
approved creation of an ad hoc committee with legislative authority or, generally, a select
committee.75
74
Congress also passed Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking, subtitle E, title II, of the Contract with America
Advancement Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 847, 868), providing a process for congressional review and disapproval of
agencies’ major proposed rules.
75
H.Res. 168, agreed to in the House June 20, 1995, replaced the Consent Calendar with a new Corrections Calendar,
part of an expedited procedure to repeal or correct laws, rules, and regulations. The 105th Congress House agreed to
H.Res. 7 on January 7, 1997, creating a Corrections Calendar office. For an explanation of the Corrections Calendar,
see CRS Report 97-301, The House's Corrections Calendar, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
33
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
In the 106th Congress, H.Res. 5 repealed the prohibition against consideration of a committee
expense resolution when a committee had not submitted its oversight plan to the House
Administration and Government Reform Committees by February 15 of the first session.
(Amended clause 2 of Rule X.)
H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress required committees to include in their oversight plans a review of
specific problems with federal rules, regulations, statutes, and court decisions that were
ambiguous, arbitrary, or nonsensical, or imposed a severe financial burden on individuals.
(Amended clause 2 of Rule X.)
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress required committees, in oversight plans provided to the
Government Reform Committee and the House Administration Committee, to “have a view
toward insuring against duplication of federal programs.” (Amended clause 2 of Rule X.)
Proxy Voting
(See also “Voting” below.)
The 104th Congress, pursuant to H.Res. 6, prohibited proxy voting in committees and
subcommittees.
Quorums76
Pursuant to H.Res. 6, the 104th Congress eliminated so-called rolling quorums, returning to earlier
text of the rule on reporting measures to the House, which required a majority of the committee to
be “actually present.” Text that allowed the rule to be interpreted to allow a rolling quorum was
eliminated.
In the 107th Congress, H.Res. 5 amended the rule on the majority quorum requirement for
reporting a measure to comprehend other instances in other rules when a majority quorum was
required by House rules: the release of executive session materials, the issuance of subpoenas,
and determining if evidence or testimony may defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.
(Amended clause 2 or Rule XI.)
Recess Authority
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress allowed for a privileged motion in committee to recess subject to
the call of the chair for a period of less than 24 hours, rather than the existing rule that allowed for
a privileged motion only to recess from day to day. (Amended clause 1 of Rule XI.)
Referral77
(See also “Committee Creation and Retention” and “Jurisdiction” above.)
76
For an explanation of quorums in the House of Representatives, see CRS Report 98-870, Quorum Requirements in
the House: Committee and Chamber, by (name redacted).
77
For additional information on referral of legislation, see CRS Report 98-175, House Committee Jurisdiction and
Referral: Rules and Practice, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
34
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
H.Res. 6 for the 104th Congress prohibited joint referral, the principal form of referral to more
than one committee.78 The Speaker was instead directed upon introduction of a measure to
designate a committee of primary jurisdiction. Split referrals and sequential referrals continued to
be allowed, either upon introduction or after the primary committee reported, and the Speaker
was still permitted to refer legislation to an ad hoc committee with the approval of the House.
In his announced policies for the 104th Congress, the Speaker deleted text from the Speaker’s
announcement for the 103rd Congress, which had stated: “the appointment by the chair of various
groups of conferees in the context of the particular House and Senate provisions sent to the
conference should not be construed as precedent binding the Speaker to subsequent joint referrals
of all bills amending the work product of that particular conference.”79
H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress allowed the Speaker to refer measures to more than one committee
without a designation of a primary committee under “extraordinary circumstances,” providing the
Speaker with an alternative to designating a primary committee if he or she believed
extraordinary circumstances affecting referral to exist. (Amended clause 2 of Rule XII.)
In the 109th Congress, the Speaker’s announced policies included a provision that indicated that
referral of measures to the Select Committee on Homeland Security in the 108th Congress “will
not constitute precedent for referrals to the new committee,” referring to the newly created
standing Committee on Homeland Security.80 (See also the discussion above at “Committee
Creation and Retention” and, under Jurisdiction, “109th Congress.”)
The Speaker’s announced policies for the 109th Congress also addressed the January 30, 2001,
“Memorandum of Understanding Between Energy and Commerce Committee and Financial
Services Committee,” regarding the jurisdictions of the two committees. The Speaker announced
that the final two paragraphs dealing with electronic commerce, anti-fraud authorities under
securities laws, and the setting of accounting standards by the Financial Accounting Standards
Board would no longer provide jurisdictional guidance.81
Subpoenas
H.Res. 5 in the 106th Congress clarified House rules to include the practice that a subpoena could
specify the terms of return to other than at a meeting or hearing of a committee or subcommittee.
(Amended clause 2 of Rule XI.) (See also “Quorums” above.)
78
“The practice of referring a measure to two or more committees for concurrent consideration….” Walter Kravitz,
Congressional Quarterly’s American Congressional Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2001), p. 154.
79
“Policies of the Chair,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1 (January 4, 1995), pp. 551-553.
80
“Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 151, part 1 (January 4, 2005), pp. 69-71.
81
Ibid. For explanation of the jurisdictions of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Financial Services
Committee under the memorandum, see Speaker Dennis Hastert, “Memorandum of Understanding between Energy and
Commerce Committee and Financial Services Committee,” Congressional Record, vol. 147, part 1 (January 20, 2001),
p. 163.
Congressional Research Service
35
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Transcripts
The 104th Congress, pursuant to H.Res. 6, required hearing and meeting transcripts to be
substantially verbatim accounts of the proceedings, with committee members’ votes shown on
roll-call votes.
Voting
Pursuant to H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress, committee reports were to include the names of
committee members voting for or against any amendments in addition to their votes on the
motion to report. H.Res. 6 also prohibited proxy voting in committees and subcommittees.
H.Res. 5 in for the 108th Congress permitted committees to adopt a rule that allowed the chair of
the committee or subcommittee to postpone votes on approving a measure or matter, or on
agreeing to an amendment, and to resume proceedings on a postponed question at any time after
reasonable notice. An underlying proposition would remain subject to further debate or
amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. (Amended clause 2 of Rule
XI.) Committees did not previously have specific authority to postpone or cluster votes.
Witnesses82
(See also “Hearings Procedures” and “Openness” above.)
H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress required non-governmental witnesses who appear before a
committee to provide with their advance written testimony, to the greatest extent practicable, a
curriculum vitae and a disclosure by source of the federal grants and contracts received by them
and any entity they represented in the current and preceding two fiscal years. This rule, a new
addition to requirements placed on witnesses, has been called the “truth-in-testimony” rule.
In the 107th Congress, H.Res. 5 clarified that a copy of the committee rules and hearing
procedures should be made available to witnesses “upon request,” and that an assertion that
evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate a person may be
made either by a member of the committee or by a witness at a hearing. (Amended clause 2 of
Rule XI.)
Staff and Funding
(See also various entries related to congressional staff and consultants under “Rules Changes
Affecting Administration
of the House” and “Rules Changes Affecting Ethics Standards,” below.)
82
For additional information on committee witnesses, see CRS Report 98-338, House Committee Hearings: Witness
Testimony, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
36
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Allocation of Staff
The 104th Congress, under the provisions of H.Res. 6, required committee chairs to provide
sufficient staff to subcommittees, whose chairs and ranking minority Members would lose
independent hiring authority. Committee chairs were also directed to ensure the minority was
“fairly treated” in the apportionment of staff. (See also “Number of Staff” below.)
Associate Staff
In the 104th Congress, under new provisions of H.Res. 6, associate or shared staff were excepted
from prohibitions on performing work other than committee work, but each chair was required to
certify that compensation by a committee was commensurate with the work performed.
Explanatory information placed in the Congressional Record indicated that chairs could require
certifications from supervising committee members.83 Conditions of employment for shared staff
were subject to regulation by the House Oversight Committee. The Committee on Appropriations
was exempted from these new provisions on associate staff.
H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress stated that the associate or shared staff of the Committee on
Appropriations were not subject to review by the Committee on House Administration with
respect to the reporting of a committee expense resolution. Such staff were still to be subject to
the general restrictions of House Rule X, clause 9. Further, H.Res. 5 clarified that the professional
staff of the Appropriations Committee should comply with the same rules regarding their duties
as professional staffs of other committees. (Amended clause 9 of Rule X.)
Funding84
H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress consolidated what were separate salary authorization levels for
statutory staff on the one hand and investigative staff and committee expenses on the other into
committee salary and expense accounts funded by a single, two-year (rather than annual)
committee expense resolution. Authorization of additional spending by any committee could still
be obtained only through a supplemental expense resolution. The Budget Committee, which had
been exempted from the committee funding process, was brought into the new process. The
Appropriations Committee continued to be exempt from this process.
The rules resolution also provided committees with interim spending authority consistent with
planned reductions, pending adoption of a committee expense resolution. The chair of the House
Oversight Committee was authorized to sign vouchers for committees terminated through the
rules resolution.
A provision of the resolution also stated that, if a committee did not submit an oversight plan, it
would not be in order to include its funding in a committee expense resolution.
83
Rep. Gerald Solomon, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1 (January 4, 1995), p. 472.
For additional information on committee funding, see CRS Report RL32794, House Committee Funding Requests
and Authorizations, 104th-112th Congresses, by Matthew Eric Glassman.
84
Congressional Research Service
37
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
In the 105th Congress, H.Res. 5 allowed committee primary expense resolutions reported by the
House Oversight Committee to include a reserve fund for unanticipated expenses, provided that
any allocation from such a fund was approved by the House Oversight Committee.
In the 106th Congress, H.Res. 5 repealed the prohibition against consideration of a committee
expense resolution when a committee had not submitted its oversight plan to the House
Administration and Government Reform Committees by February 15 of the first session.
(Amended clause 2 of Rule X.)
Number of Staff
Committee staff were to be reduced by at least one-third from the 103rd Congress level pursuant
to H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress. Explanatory information inserted in the Congressional Record
indicated that this reduction was to be achieved by the House Oversight Committee through the
committee funding process.85 The number of authorized staff for each committee was increased to
30 professional staff from 18 professional staff and 12 clerical staff, with all staff designated
professional. The allocation for the minority was set at 10 (rather than 6 professional and 4
clerical), or one-third of professional staff if a committee hired fewer than 30 staff.
Rules Changes Affecting the Chamber and Floor
While in the minority, Republican complaints included being denied the opportunity to offer
amendments to measures because of restrictive rules, an inability to routinely offer a motion to
recommit with instructions, the increased volume of commemorative legislation, and a floor
schedule that was neither family friendly nor conducive to deliberation. On the opening day of the
104th Congress, the new majority rules package attempted to address some of these complaints,
while renewing procedural rules that allowed them to control the schedule, agenda, and
proceedings. Over the next several Congresses, some rules changes agreed to in 1995 were
modified or even repealed as the majority party considered the competing demands of
deliberation and decision making. In the 108th Congress, in response to the September 11, 2001,
and anthrax terrorist attacks, the majority’s rules package addressed a previously unanticipated
concern: How could a House with fewer Members conduct business?
The following section identifies changes made to operations on the House floor on the opening
day of each Congress from the 104th through the 109th Congress with adoption of the resolution
continuing but amending the rules of the House and establishing special orders, and pursuant to
the Speaker’s announcements.86 It is organized topically, with cross references between the
different topics and to related changes in other sections of the report.
85
Rep. Gerald Solomon, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol. 141, part 1 (January 4, 1995), p. 472.
For additional information on rules changes affecting the chamber and floor made at the beginning of the 104th, 107th,
108th , and 109th Congresses, see
CRS Report 96-850, House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 104th Congress, by (name redacted) (out of
print; available from author of current report).
CRS Report RS20782, House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 107th Congress, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RS21388, House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 108th Congress, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL32772, House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Procedures in the 109th Congress, by (name redacted) and
(continued...)
86
Congressional Research Service
38
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
Adjourn, Motion to
H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress clarified that a Member could move to adjourn during a call of the
House (quorum call); allowing the motion had been at the discretion of the Speaker.
Admission to the Chamber
The Speaker added to his announced policies for the 105th Congress a policy that he and previous
Speakers had stated at various times, but not since 1977 at the beginning of a Congress.87 The
announcement confirmed the concordance of the words of then-Rule XXXII, clause 3, with its
understanding by the Speaker and its enforcement by the House. The rule allowed former
Members and other former officials access to the House floor unless they (1) had a personal
interest in legislation pending before the House or reported from committee, or (2) were
employed to lobby on legislation pending before the House, reported from committee, or under
consideration by a committee or subcommittee. The announcement reiterated these prohibitions
against access by former Members, indicated they applied to former Members whose employer
was lobbying legislation, and stated that former Members could be prohibited from the House
floor and adjoining rooms. Serving Members were exhorted to report violations by former
Members to the sergeant at arms.88
H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress granted designated majority and minority party leadership staff
access to the House floor with the approval of the Speaker. (Amended clause 2 of Rule IV.) The
change codified what had been practice, but on which the rules had been silent.
In addition, in applying Rule 4 (“Hall of the House”), the Speaker in his announced policies for
the 108th Congress expressed his intent to grant approval only to leadership staff essential to floor
activities. The Speaker then reiterated policies consistent with provisions of Rule IV limiting
floor access to certain committee staff only when a measure reported from their committee was
being considered, and allowing floor access for a Member’s personal staff only when the Member
had an amendment pending. A committee or personal staff member wishing to be present on the
floor required the approval of his or her supervisor, which was then subject to the approval of the
Speaker. Noting the concurrence of the minority leader regarding this policy, the Speaker directed
the sergeant-at-arms to assure enforcement of the rule and the Speaker’s policy.89
The Speaker expanded control over staff floor access in his policies for the 109th Congress. First,
he clarified that individual Members’ staff were not entitled to floor access during House
consideration of a Member’s bill or during a Member’s special order speech. Second, he
requested that committee chairs and ranking minority Members submit to the Speaker a list of
staff to be allowed on the floor during consideration of a measure reported by their committee. He
(...continued)
(name redacted).
87
The policy was first announced by Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr. on January 6, 1977; reiterated by Speaker
O’Neill on June 7, 1978, by Speaker Thomas S. Foley on June 9, 1994, and by Speaker Newt Gingrich on May 25,
1995, and again on August 1, 1996.
88
“Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore on Procedures for the 105th Congress,” Congressional Record, vol.
143, part 1 (January 7, 1997), pp. 146-148.
89
“Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, vol. 149, part 1 (January 7, 2003), pp. 22-24.
Congressional Research Service
39
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
stated that the sergeant at arms would keep these lists, and further stated that committee staff
should exchange their IDs for committee staff badges.
Amendment Process
H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress provided for floor amendments to be numbered when submitted
for printing in the Congressional Record. This change was intended to make it more convenient
to identify such amendments. (See additional changes to the amendment process immediately
following under “Appropriations Process.”)
Appropriations Process90
(See also “Appropriations Committee” under “Committee Reports;” “Voting” below in this
section; and “Rules Changes Affecting Budgetary Legislation” below.)
H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress permitted Members to offer amendments en bloc to a general
appropriations bill if the only effect of the en bloc amendment was to “transfer appropriations
among objects without increasing the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill,” a so-called
offsetting amendment. The rules change also disallowed any Member from demanding that the
question (vote on the offsetting amendment) be divided. The rules change allowed Members to
offer amendments to parts of an appropriations bill not yet open for amendment, making in order
amendments proposing this type of transfer of funds.91
H.Res. 6 provided that all points of order against a general appropriations bill be automatically
considered as reserved when the bill was reported to the House, obviating the need for a Member
to be physically present to reserve them when the report was filed.
H.Res. 6 also gave precedence (over a motion to further amend) to a motion that the Committee
of the Whole rise and report, when the motion is offered by the majority leader or his designee,
after a general appropriation bill has been read for amendment. The majority leader was thereby
allowed, if the motion was agreed to, to preclude consideration of limitation amendments. The
precedence of the motion existed in prior House rules, but the change restricted the motion’s
precedence to its being offered by the majority leader.92
H.Res. 6 also made automatic a roll-call vote on final passage or adoption of any bill, joint
resolution, or conference report making general appropriations. While the rule obviated the need
to request such a vote, the purpose of the rule change was to ensure that a roll-call vote occurred
on passage or adoption of this legislation. A roll-call vote does not occur unless it is requested and
seconded, or requested and the absence of a quorum is noted.93
90
For an overview of the appropriations process, see CRS Report R42388, The Congressional Appropriations Process:
An Introduction, by (name redacted).
91
For additional information on offset amendments, see CRS Report RL31055, House Offset Amendments to
Appropriations Bills: Procedural Considerations, by (name redacted).
92
For an explanation of the motion to rise and report, see CRS Report RL32200, Debate, Motions, and Other Actions
in the Committee of the Whole, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
93
For an explanation of how recorded votes are obtained in the House, see CRS Report 98-228, House Voting
Procedures: Forms and Requirements, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
40
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress through 109th Congress
H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress prohibited the Appropriations Committee from reporting a
measure, or the House from considering an amendment, making the availability of funds
contingent on the receipt or possession of information by the funding authority if that information
was not already required by law. This change was directed at so-called made-known provisions
and amendments that could be used despite a ban on legislating on appropriations bills.94 The
rules resolution also further tightened the precedence of the majority leader’s motion to rise and
report over a further motion to amend by clarifying that the majority leader’s motion has
precedence over any motion to amend, not just over a motion to offer a limitation amendment.
In the 108th Congress, H.Res. 5 defined “tax or tariff provisions” vis-à-vis a general appropriation
bill. Under existing House rules, tax and tariff measures could not be reported from a committee
not having jurisdiction over such a measure, and an amendment with tax or tariff provisions was
not in order to a bill reported by a committee not having jurisdiction. The change dealt with an
ambiguity of the rules related to limitation amendments offered to appropriations bills. The 108th
Congress rules change provided that a tax or tariff measure “includes an amendment proposing a
limitation on funds in a general appropriation bill for the administration of a tax or tariff.”95
(Amended clause 5 of Rule XXI.)
Bill Introductions96
(See also “Commemorative Legislation” below.)
In the 104th Congress, a separate order in H.Res. 6 allowed more than one Member to be listed as
an original sponsor on the first 20 bills and first 2 joint resolutions.
In the 106th Congress, a separate order in H.Res. 5 reserved the first 10 bill numbers for
assignment by the Speaker until March 1, 1999.
In the 107th Congress, a separate order in H.Res. 5 reserved the first 10 bill numbers for
assignment by the Speaker during the first session of the 107th Congress.
A separate order in H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress reserved the first 10 bill numbers for
assignment by the Speaker during the first session of the 108th Congress.
94
An explanation of this change inserted in the Congressional Record stated: “[I]t would make clear that the
Appropriations Committee could not report, nor could an amendment be considered by the House, that makes the
availability of funds contingent upon the receipt or possession of information by the funding authority if such
information is not required by existing law. This is designed to prohibit the consideration of so-called ‘made-known’
provisions and amendments which in the past have been used a technical loophole to circumvent the prohibition on
legislating in an appropriations measure.” Rep. Gerald Solomon, “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, vol.
143, part 1 (January 7, 1997), p. 128. For additional discussion of legislating on appropriations bills, see CRS Report
R41634, Limitations in Appropriations Measures: An Overview of Proced
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.