A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the 104th Congress

CRS Report for Congress
A Retrospective of House Rules Changes
th
Since the 104 Congress
August 10, 2006
Michael L. Koempel
Senior Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Judy Schneider
Specialist on the Congress
Government and Finance Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

A Retrospective of House Rules Changes Since the
104th 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.rd
Developments in the Democratic majority 103 Congress were a prelude to the rulesth
changes made by the Republicans when they took control of the House in the 104
Congress.
Rules changes beginning with the convening of the 104th Congress have
addressed most aspects of the committee system: decision-making autonomy,
jurisdictions, internal committee procedures and structure, and the role of committeeth
staff. Rules changes since the 104 Congress have also addressed most aspects of
consideration of legislation on the House floor and organization of the chamber. For
example, the minority was guaranteed the ability to offer the motion to recommit
with or without 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Speaker was subjected to a term limit that was later repealed.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 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
been built up 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 other legislation and actions that also changedth
or affected House rules beginning with the convening of the 104 Congress. This
report will not be updated.



Contents
In troduction ......................................................1

103rd Congress: Prelude to a Republican Frame of Reference................2rd


103 Congress Rules.......................................2
Republican Critique........................................4
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress...............10
Contract with America.....................................14
Frame of Reference.......................................14
Scope of Report..........................................14
Rules Changes Affecting Committees.................................15
Structure and Organization.....................................17
Assignments .............................................17
Chairmanships/Term Limitations............................17
Committee Abolition......................................18
Committee Creation.......................................18
Committee Names........................................19
Jurisdiction ..............................................19
Size ....................................................21
Subcommittees ...........................................21
Procedure ...................................................21
Committee Reports.......................................21
Hearings ................................................23
Meetings ................................................23
Motion to Go to Conference................................23
Openness ...............................................24
Oversight ...............................................24
Proxy Voting............................................24
Quorums ................................................24
Recess Authority.........................................24
Referral ................................................25
Subpoena ...............................................25
Transcripts ..............................................25
Voting .................................................25
Witnesses ...............................................25
Staff and Funding.............................................25
Allocation of Staff........................................25
Associate Staff...........................................25
Consultants ..............................................26
Funding ................................................26
Number of Staff..........................................26
Rules Changes Affecting the Chamber and Floor........................26
Amendment Process.......................................27
Appropriations Process....................................27
Classified Materials.......................................28
Commemorative Legislation................................28
Conference ..............................................28
Continuity of Congress....................................28
Corrections Calendar......................................29



Decorum ................................................29
Delegate/Resident Commissioner............................30
Discharge Petitions.......................................30
Motion to Adjourn........................................30
Naming Public Works.....................................30
Order of Business.........................................30
Public Debt Ceiling.......................................30
Recommit ...............................................31
Speaker of the House......................................31
Special Rules............................................31
Suspension of the Rules....................................31
Tax Legislation..........................................31
Unfunded Mandates.......................................31
Voting .................................................32
Rules Changes Affecting Budgetary Legislation.........................32th

104 Congress...........................................33th


105 Congress...........................................35
106th Congress...........................................36
107th Congress...........................................36

108th Congress...........................................36th


109 Congress...........................................38
Rules Changes Affecting Administration of the House....................38th
104 Congress...........................................39
105th Congress...........................................41

106th Congress...........................................41th


107 Congress...........................................41
Rules Changes Affecting Ethics Standards.............................42th

104 Congress...........................................42th


105 Congress...........................................43
106th Congress...........................................43
107th Congress...........................................44

108th Congress...........................................44th


109 Congress...........................................45
Concluding Observations...........................................46
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Republican Rules Package, 103rd Congress............7



A Retrospective of House Rules Changes
th
Since the 104 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
House rules might also be changed for other reasons, such as the contemporary
needs of the chamber. For example, the suspension of the rules procedure has
evolved from occasional use just 40 years ago, to specifically being in order onthth
several days each month, to being in order in the 108 and 109 Congresses on
Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays of each week the House is in session.
The House, often concurrently with the Senate, has also made many extensive
changes in its organization and rules at times other than the convening of a new
Congress. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control
Act of 1974, and the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974 are representative of2
extensive changes made at other times. Changes are also made through freestanding


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 Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812; Legislative Reorganization Act of

1970, 84 Stat. 1140; Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 88 Stat.


287; and the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, H.Res. 988, agreed to in the House
Oct. 8, 1974.
For a detailed history of House reform efforts since 1946, see CRS Report RL31835,
Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern Reform Efforts, by Judy Schneider,
(continued...)

legislation, such as the lobbying reform legislation (H.R. 4975 and S. 2349) being
considered in the 109th Congress, and as provisions of other bills, such as the annual
legislative branch appropriations acts. Changes might also be contained in report
language on legislation and in joint explanatory statements accompanying
conference reports. The rules and decisions of the Democratic Caucus and
Republican Conference can also have a profound influence on the organization and
procedures of the House.
The House and Senate, together or independently, have also established a
process for reform but then not followed through on recommendations. For example,nd
in the 102 Congress, the House and Senate established a Joint Committee on therd
Organization of Congress to report reform recommendations during the 1033
Congress. The joint committee performed extensive work and made far-reaching
recommendations. Legislation embodying the recommendations was introduced in
both chambers (H.R. 3801 and S. 1824) in the 103rd Congress, but action was not
taken on either of these bills.
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, at least, critique the rules for what they contain and do not contain. Therd
disagreement in the House between the parties over the rules of the 103 Congress,
organized by the majority Democrats, and the failure of Congress to act on the
recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress provide
a background or context for some of the rules changes made by the Republicansth
when they organized the House in the 104 Congress.
103rd Congress: Prelude to a Republican
Frame of Reference
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 therd
convening of the 103 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
Office of General Counsel under the Speaker and another rules change thatnd4
conformed House rules on franked mail to a new law of the 102 Congress, the


2 (...continued)
Christopher M. Davis, and Betsy Palmer. Also see CRS Report RL32661, House
Committees: A Framework for Considering Jurisdictional Realignment, by Michael L.
Koempel; CRS Report RL33061, Homeland Security and House Committees: Analysis ofth
109 Congress Jurisdiction Changes and Their Impact on the Referral of Legislation, by
Michael L. Koempel and Judy Schneider; and CRS Report RL31572, Appropriations
Subcommittee Structure: History of Changes, 1920-2005, by James V. Saturno.
3 H.Con.Res. 192, final action in the House occurring Aug. 6, 1992, with House agreement
to a Senate amendment. H.Con.Res. 192 was continued in effect to Dec. 31, 1993, in the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (P.L. 102-392, §317).
4 The 103rd Congress rules package proposed to conform House rules to provisions of fiscal
(continued...)

Democratic rules package was silent on ethics issues of the previous Congress: the
House bank, the House post office, use of the frank, and criminal indictments and5
investigations of Members, both Democratic and Republican.
An innovation of 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 was modified before the rules package was
brought to the House floor to allow a re-vote in the House if the Delegates’ or
Resident Commissioner’s votes affected the outcome of a vote in the Committee of
the Whole. The Delegates and Resident Commissioner were not to be 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 votes6
in the House.
Democratic Members indicated that other major changes proposed to the House
rules were made for purposes of legislative efficiency and productivity. Committees
were allowed to meet while the House was sitting under the five-minute rule, without


4 (...continued)
2003 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, P.L. 102-392, that disallowed Members from
using the frank for mass mailings outside their districts.
5 In the 102nd Congress, 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-
at-Arms 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 (Rule LII) and the Office of Inspector General (Rulerd
LIII). The 103 Congress rules package proposed to recodify Rules LII and LIII within Rule
IV. nd
Votes occurred on additional resolutions during the 102 Congress to authorize
investigations, such as the one concerning the House bank, and to release information, such
as a list of all sitting and former Members who had written overdraft checks.nd
For background information on ethics matters, including House votes, in the 102
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. rd
For background information on ethics matters in the 103 Congress, see Congressional
Quarterly Almanac, 1993, vol. XLIX (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.,

1994): “Rostenkowski Investigated in Stamp Scan,” 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..
6 Debate on the 103rd Congress House rules appears in Congressional Record, vol. 139, Jan.

5, 1993, pp. 49-100.



seeking 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. Teller vote procedures
in the Committee of the Whole were eliminated, except when the electronic voting
system malfunctioned.
The Speaker was authorized to declare short recesses throughout a Congress,
rather than only by authorization of a special rule, usually agreed to 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.
In instances where the Senate added legislative language to a general
appropriation bill and a motion was made to, in effect, change existing law, the chair
of the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over the subject matter could make
a motion to insist on disagreement to the amendment. 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. The
Speaker was also authorized to add Members to, and remove them from, conference
committees and select committees.
The House Fair Employment Practices resolution 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 included in the7
rules package, thus terminating the life of those select committees.
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 to
three hours or not later than 9:00 p.m., whichever came first.
Republican Critique. Republicans argued against the proposed rules on the
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?”8


7 The lives 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.
8 Rep. Gerald Solomon, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 139, Jan. 5, 1993,
p. 55. Several Republican Members and media editorials noted the Republicans’ 10-seat gain
(continued...)

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 only9
Representatives of states are Members of the House; the constitutionality of
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner voting on committees had not been
established; the disparity in population among the territories, Puerto Rico, and the
District of Columbia and between the territories and the congressional districts; and
the return of federal income tax receipts to the territories and Puerto Rico. 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 the loosening 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 House10
is to demean the very concept of the Congress.
In discussing the proposed change to this rule, Representative Bob Walker’s
remarks revealed a sense of the comity that appeared to be lacking between the two
parties:
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


8 (...continued)
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.
9 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).


10 Rep. Robert Michel, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 139, Jan. 5, 1993,
pp. 93-96.

vote on the matter,’ so literally the vote can take place over a matter of hours,11
over a matter of days, over a matter of weeks, over a matter of months.
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 allowed to offer the alternate as an12
amendment. Second, they inserted in the Congressional Record nearly 24 pages of
documentation explaining and in support of their alternate rules package. Third, they
offered two motions that provided alternative ways (to amending) to get votes on
changes to the 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 the
Delegates and Resident Commissioner. The motion was tabled on a vote of 224-176.
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 defeated13


on a 187-238 vote.
11 Rep. Bob Walker, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, vol. 139, Jan. 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.
12 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.
13 The partisan lineup at the convening of the 103rd Congress was 258 Democrats, 176
Republicans, and one independent. On the motion to recommit, all Republicans present and

14 Democrats voted for the motion. The rules package was subsequently agreed to on a 221-


199 vote, with all Republicans present and 27 Democrats voting against it.



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 majority-minority 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 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
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
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. As noted above,
the 102nd Congress created a Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress
(JCOC).14 The joint committee was directed in H.Con.Res. 192 to report to the two


14 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 Jointrdst
Committee on the Organization of Congress, 103 Cong., 1 sess., H.Rept. 103-413
(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993); and CRS Report RL31835,
Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern Reform Efforts, from which some
information in this section was drawn.

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 United15
States Government, and improving the orderly consideration of legislation.
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 legislative16
functions.
For the House, the House subcommittee of the joint committee recommended
changes affecting the breadth of House organization and operation. Many of these
recommendations were mirrored in the Senate subcommittee’s recommendations.
The following is a synopsis of the House subcommittee’s recommendations:
Legislative-Executive Relations. All standing House committees are
required to prepare an oversight agenda at the beginning of each Congress and
submit it to the House Administration Committee for consideration in the committee
funding process. The House Administration Committee is to publish these agendas
and its recommendations for coordination among committees’ oversight activities.
Committees are also required to hold oversight hearings on reports concerning the
executive branch, such as inspectors general’s reports. All committees are directed
to eliminate unessential executive reporting requirements.
With House approval, the Speaker is 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 are limited to two
standing committees and four subcommittees. Waivers could be granted only by the
House after recommendation of a Member’s party caucus. If enforcement of the
assignment limit causes a committee to have less than half the number of Membersrd
serving on it as it had in the 103 Congress, the Rules Committee must report a
resolution abolishing the committee and transferring its jurisdiction.


15 H.Con.Res. 192, §2(a).
16 Ibid., §2(b).

A Member would 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 he or she were named chair in his or her final term.
Except for the Committee on Appropriations, exclusive or major committees
may not have more than five subcommittees. Non-major committees are limited to
four subcommittees. The Speaker should designate a “primary” committee of
jurisdiction in referring legislation, and should set time or subject-matter limits on
other committees of referral after the primary committee reports a piece of
legislation.
Subcommittees are prohibited from meeting when the parent committee is
meeting, without the written permission of the committee chair. A week’s notice of
a committee or subcommittee meeting is generally required. Committee reports must
include the roll-call vote on a motion to report or, if reporting was by voice vote, to
contain a list of those Members present for the voice vote. Committees must publish
their committee and subcommittee attendance and voting records semiannually in
the Congressional Record.
Standing committees must 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 are taken into consideration by the House Administration Committee
during the committee funding process.
Floor Procedure. A minority motion to recommit with instructions is
guaranteed, and Members are permitted in debate to make references to certain
actions taken by the Senate or its committees that are a matter of public record.
The House should have a four-day legislative week, and specific times should
be set aside for only floor proceedings or only committee meetings. The
Congressional Record must be a substantially verbatim transcript of House
proceedings. The House parliamentarian is directed to prepare a recodification of
House rules.
Budgetary Legislation. Congress establishes a two-year budget cycle for
presidential budget submissions, budget resolutions, multiyear authorizations, and
appropriations. A budget resolution and appropriations bills are considered in the
first year of the two-year cycle, and multiyear authorizations and committee
oversight occur in the second year.
The Appropriations Committee is required to notify appropriate committees of
jurisdiction whenever it reports a measure containing unauthorized appropriations
or legislative provisions. A point of order lies against an appropriation in excess of
an authorization level set by the House.
Budget resolutions must include a statement on total tax expenditures
attributable to special provisions of the tax code. Committee reports, and joint
explanatory statements to conference reports, on tax bills must list tax expenditures,
and committee reports, and joint explanatory statements to conference reports, on
appropriations bills and authorization bills must list earmark provisions.



To gain better control over entitlement spending, a new process is 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,” may use a panel of private citizens as fact finders to investigate
complaints against Members and report to the committee any formal charges of
violations.
Staffing and Support Agencies. A Speaker task force is 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 are imposed on the Congressional Budget Office,
Congressional Research Service, General Accounting Office (now the Government
Accountability Office), the Office of Technology Assessment (subsequently
abolished), and Government Printing Office. Appropriate committees must study
means to better coordinate nonpartisan services in the legislative branch and
minimize duplication, and must assess the feasibility of opening such services to
competitive bidding by the private sector. Appropriate committees must 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” is 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 would also
promulgate administrative enforcement mechanisms, using independent hearing
officers and providing recourse to federal appellate review.
The House Administration Committee is 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 are abolished, and their functions are 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.
As indicated above, legislation embodying the JCOC’s recommendations was
introduced (H.R. 3801 and S. 1824), but no action was taken on these measures. The



House passed H.R. 4822, the Congressional Accountability Act, which the Senate
did not act on. 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.
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 plan for institutional change and priority legislation, shouldth
Republicans become the majority party in the House in the 104 Congress. The
provisions of the Contract 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 implementing17
zero base-line budgeting.
Frame of Reference. The House rules changes made in the 104th Congress,
and since, including changes affecting the organization of committees and the
administration of the House, reflected a Republican frame of reference that was built
over many years as the minority party. Republican criticisms of changes in the House
made at the direction of the Democratic Caucus beginning after the 1974 electionrd
and continuing through the 103 Congress, the ideas of the Conservative
Opportunity Society in the 1980s, the Republican ‘92 Group, the Republican rules
package of the 103rd Congress, the recommendations of the bipartisan Joint
Committee on the Organization of Congress, the Contract with America, and other
sources came together in the rules package the Republicans put before the House inth
the 104 Congress.
Scope of Report. In describing and analyzing the rules changes made in theth
House beginning in the 104 Congress, this report covers only those changes made
in conjunction with the House rules resolution agreed to at the beginning of each
Congress, which was numbered H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress and H.Res. 5 in
subsequent Congresses. This report analyzes the rules, special orders, and Speaker’s
announcements at the convening of a Congress and not all of the actions taken during


17 The text of the Contract with America can be found at [http://www.house.gov/house/
Contract/CONTRACT.html], visited Aug. 2, 2006. These eight items in the Contract were
the basis for the eight sections of title I of H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House Jan. 4, 1995.

a Congress that effected permanent and temporary organizational, procedural,
administrative, and other changes in the House.18
As indicated above, changes may also be made through freestanding legislation
and as provisions of other bills, and in report language on legislation and in joint
explanatory statements accompanying conference reports. Legislative-branch
appropriations bills and budgetary legislation frequently contain organizational,
procedural, and other changes that may be temporary or permanent. Selected
references to major freestanding bills and resolutions are provided in footnotes in the
following sections of this report.
Between the 103rd and 109th Congresses, committees were created and
abolished, and their names were changed. In this report, the names of committees
appear as they existed in the specific Congress being referenced.
Rules Changes Affecting Committees
In the years before the Republican takeover of the House in the 1994 elections,
criticism of the committee system increased among many Members, staff, and
outside groups. Surveys conducted by the Joint Committee on the Organization of
Congress confirmed that Members and staff, in overwhelming numbers, ranked


18 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 appear in the Congressional Record as follows:th
(1) H.Res. 5 (special rule) and H.Res. 6 (104 Congress rules): “Making in Order
Immediate Consideration of House Resolution Adopting the Rules of the House ofth
Representatives for the 104 Congress” and “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 141, Jan. 4, 1995, pp. H9-H90. Speaker’s announcements: “Policies of the
Chair,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, Jan. 4, 1995, pp. H110-H112.th
(2) H.Res. 5 (105 Congress rules): “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 143, Jan. 7, 1997, pp. H8-H27. Speaker’s announcements: “Announcement byth
the Speaker Pro Tempore on Procedures for the 105 Congress,” Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 143, Jan. 7, 1997, pp. H32-H34.th
(3) H.Res. 5 (recodification of House rules, and 106 Congress rules): “Rules of the
House,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 145, Jan. 6, 1999, pp. H6-H207. Speaker’s
announcements: “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 145, Jan. 6, 1999, pp. H217, H218-H220.th
(4) H.Res. 5 (107 Congress rules): “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 147, Jan. 3, 2001, pp. H6-H18. Speaker’s announcements: “Announcement by
the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 147, Jan. 3, 2001, pp.
H20-H22. th
(5) H.Res. 5 (108 Congress rules): “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 149, Jan. 7, 2003, pp. H7-H20. Speaker’s announcements: “Announcement by
the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149, Jan. 7, 2003, pp.
H21-H23. th
(6) H.Res. 5 (109 Congress rules): “Rules of the House,” Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 151, Jan. 4, 2005, pp. H7-H31. Speaker’s announcements: “Announcement by
the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, Jan. 4, 2005, pp.
H33-H35.

committee structure and membership assignments among the major problems in the
House. Although the Democratic-controlled 103rd Congress made changes in the
rules of the House, most notably defunding several select committees, the election
of a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years brought extensive change to
the committee system. Most of the changes were previously recommended by the
Republican members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, but
no action was taken. Other changes were traditionally included in the Republican
alternative to the Democratic rules package adopted on the opening day of a new
Congress. Still others were part of the Contract with America or developed from
other sources.
Changes to the committee system made in the 104th Congress and since address
most aspects of the committee system: decision-making autonomy, committee
jurisdictions, internal committee procedures and structure, and the role of committee
staff. For example, term limits were placed on committee and subcommittee chairs;
committees were abolished but a new Homeland Security panel was created;th
committee names were changed in the 104 Congress, although many were changed
again over the next several years; proxy voting and rolling quorums were abolished;
and new requirements were imposed on committees related to information contained
in committee reports.
The following section identifies changes made to the committee system on
opening day of each Congress since the 104th pursuant to adoption of the resolution
amending the rules of the House and establishing special orders, and pursuant to the
Speaker’s announcements. The section is organized around three central themes: (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.19


19 For a description of rules changes affecting committees made at the beginning of each
Congress, see:th
CRS Report 95-187, Committee System: Rules Changes in the House, 104 Congress,
by Judy Schneider. Archived; available from author on request.th
CRS Report 97-138, Committee System: Rules Changes in the House, 105 Congress,
by Judy Schneider. Archived; available from author on request.th
CRS Report RS20017, Committee System: Rules Changes in the House, 106
Congress, by Judy Schneider. Archived; available from author on request.th
CRS Report RS20769, Committee System: Rules Changes in the House, 107
Congress, by Judy Schneider.th
CRS Report RS21382, Committee System: Rules Changes in the House, 108
Congress, by Judy Schneider.th
CRS Report RS22018, Committee System: Rules Changes in the House, 109
Congress, by Judy Schneider.

Structure and Organization
Assignments. 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 individual exceptions approved by the House upon
recommendation of the respective party caucus or conference. In addition, the
permissible duration of Members’ service on the Budget Committee was changed
to four Congresses in six Congresses from three Congresses in five Congresses.
Membership on the Intelligence Committee was changed from three terms to four,
while the chair and ranking minority member were allowed to serve a fifth term.
In the 106th Congress, H.Res. 5 eliminated the requirement that four members
of the Standards of Official Conduct Committee rotate off the panel every Congress,
and changed service on the committee to three Congresses in any five Congresses
from two Congresses in any three Congresses. The prohibition of service on the
Budget Committee for more than four Congresses in any six successive Congressesth
was waived for the 106 Congress.
In the 108th Congress, H.Res. 5 provided that the Budget Committee’s
membership would include one member from the Rules Committee, thus codifying
a decision made in the Republican Conference’s early organization meetings.
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.
Chairmanships/Term Limitations. Pursuant to H.Res. 6, effective with theth
104 Congress, committee and subcommittee chairs were limited to serve no more
than three terms as chair. Relatedly, the resolution permitted any majority member,
not the senior most ranking majority member, to be designated as the vice-chair of
a committee or subcommittee.20
In the 108th Congress, H.Res. 5 abolished the term limitation for service as chair
or ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The
term limitation 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.
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.


20 The House also voted twice, once in the 104th Congress and once in the 105th Congress,
on a constitutional amendment imposing terms 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, failed passage 227-204, March 29, 1995, and H.J.Res. 2, failed passage 217-

211, Feb. 12, 1997.



Committee Abolition. The District of Columbia Committee, the Committee
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and the Committee on Post Office and Civilth
Service were abolished pursuant to H.Res. 6 in the 104 Congress.
Committee Creation. H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress created a Select
Committee on Homeland Security with legislative jurisdiction to develop
recommendations and report to the House on matters relating to the Homeland
Security Act of 2002.21 The Select Committee was also charged with conducting a
study of committee jurisdiction over the issue of homeland security and reporting22
any recommended changes to the House by September 30, 2004.
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress created a Committee on Homeland Security with
legislative and oversight jurisdiction. The new panel was granted 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;
(D) Domestic preparedness for and collective response to terrorism;
(E) Research and development; and23
(F) Transportation security.”


21 116 Stat. 2135.
22 In the 107th Congress, in response the President’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.th
In the 105 Congress, the House created another select committee: the Select
Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s
Republic of China. H.Res. 463, agreed to in the House June 18, 1998. The life of the select
committee was ultimately extended to May 31, 1999. H.Res. 5, §2(f), agreed to in the House
Jan. 6, 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.
23 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, by Michael L. Koempel; and CRS Report RL33061,th
Homeland Security and House Committees: Analysis of 109 Congress Jurisdiction Changes
and Their Impact on the Referral of Legislation, by Michael L. Koempel and Judy
Schneid er. th
The House Appropriations Committee reorganized its subcommittees in the 108thth
Congress and the 109 Congress. In the 108 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
(continued...)

Committee Names. Several committees were given new names under H.Res.th

6 for the 104 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).
The following Congress, H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress 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.
Jurisdiction. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress 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. Also abolished was the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Its
jurisdiction was dispersed among several panels: merchant marine was transferred
to the National Security Committee; Coast Guard to the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee; and fisheries and endangered species to the Resources
Committee. From the Commerce Committee, Glass-Steagall was transferred to the
Banking and Financial Services Committee; food inspection was sent to the
Agriculture Committee; railroads and inland waterways were absorbed by the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was
transferred to the Resources Committee; and energy research and development was
moved to the jurisdiction of the Science 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


23 (...continued)
Announces Homeland Security Reorganization,” news release, Jan. 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, 1920-2005, by James V. Saturno.

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 States24
Government.”
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.”
H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress transferred jurisdiction over securities and
exchanges, and insurance generally, to the Committee on Financial Services from the25
Committee on Energy and Commerce. In addition, the resolution reinforced that
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had exclusive oversight
responsibility over the sources and methods of the core intelligence agencies.
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress transferred jurisdiction over transportation
security and port security to the Committee on Homeland Security, but the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure retained jurisdiction over the Coast
Guard and 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 jurisdiction over
border security to the Committee on Homeland Security, but the Judiciary
Committee retained jurisdiction over immigration and non-border related policy. The
resolution also added “criminal law enforcement” to the jurisdiction of the Judiciary
Committee, and transferred jurisdiction over the Customs Service to the Committee


24 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, remarks in the House, “Section-by-Section Analysis of
House Rules Resolution,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, Jan. 4, 1995, p.
H35. See also jurisdictional understandings inserted in the Congressional Record: Rep.
Richard Armey, remarks in the House, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, Jan.4,
1995, p. H45; and Rep. John Kasich, extension of remarks, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 141, Jan. 5, 1995, p. E36.
25 Memoranda of understanding and other announcements 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, remarks in the House, “Memorandum of
Understanding between Energy and Commerce Committee and Financial Services
Committee,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 147, Jan. 20, 2001, p. H67. Thisth
memorandum was updated in the 109 Congress. See “Announcement by the Speaker Pro
Tempore,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151, Jan. 4, 2005, p. H35.

on Homeland Security, although the Committee on Ways and Means retained
oversight of customs revenue.26
Size. In the 107th Congress, pursuant to H.Res. 5, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence was increased from not more than 16 members to not
more than 18 members, of which not more than 10 may be from the same party,
pursuant to H.Res. 5.
Subcommittees. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress prohibited any committee
from having more than five subcommittees, except for Appropriations (13),
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.
Further the Committee on Government Reform, in order to maintain a Censusth
Subcommittee, was entitled to have eight subcommittees for the 106 Congress.
H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress maintained the rule regarding the number of
subcommittees each committee could create. However, 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 entitled 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 to create up to six subcommittees each.
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress maintained the existing rule on subcommittees.
However, 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 seventh
subcommittees in the 109 Congress.
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress maintained the existing rule on subcommittees.
However, 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 seventh
subcommittees in the 109 Congress.
Procedure
Committee Reports. H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress authorized committees
to (1) file joint investigative or oversight reports with other committees on matters


26 For a detailed explanation of the homeland security jurisdictions of the Committee on
Homeland Security and 10 standing committees, see Rep. David Dreier, remarks in the
House, “Legislative History to Accompany Changes to Rule X,” Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 151, pp. H25-H26.

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 were permitted for filing
views, and (3) file final activity reports after an adjournment if at least seven
calendar days were 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 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. Instead, reports must include a new “constitutional authority
statement” that cites the specific powers granted to Congress by the Constitution
upon which the proposed measure was based.
H.Res. 5 stated that to 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 other legislation.
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 and required a new statement of general performance goals and
objectives, including outcome-related goals and objectives for which the measure
authorized funding. In addition, committees were allowed to file supplemental
reports, without additional layovers, to correct errors in the depiction of record votes
taken in committee.
Appropriations Committee. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress prohibited the
inclusion of non-emergency provisions in emergency appropriations measures,
unless the provisions rescinded budget authority, reduced direct spending, or reduced
an amount for a designated emergency. The rules changes also 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.
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.
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.
Hearings. 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. (This rule was clarifiedth
pursuant to H.Res. 5 in the 106 Congress.)
The resolution also clarified the procedure for closing a hearing, saying that the
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 106th Congress clarified the rule to permit committees to adopt
a rule or motion to extend questioning for selected majority and minority members
and to permit questioning of witnesses by staff.
In the 107th Congress, H.Res. 5 modified procedures for committee hearings to
resolve an unintended implication about hearings labeled as something other than
investigative, clarified that a copy of the committee rules and hearing procedures
should be made available to witnesses “upon request,” and clarified that an assertion
that evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate
any person must be made either by a member of the committee or by a witness at a
hearing.
Meetings. 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 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.
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.
Motion to Go to Conference. 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.



Openness. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress prohibited committee meetings
from being closed to the public except by majority roll-call vote if the meeting would
endanger national security, compromise sensitive information, or defame any person.
Further, broadcast coverage was allowed for any open hearing or meeting.
H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress required committees, to the maximum extent
feasible, to make all committee publications available in electronic form.
Oversight. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress required all committees to adopt
oversight plans and submit them to the House Oversight and Government Reform
and Oversight Committees by February 15 of the first session. The Government
Reform and Oversight Committee was required to report the plans back to the House27
by March 31 with recommendations.
In the 106th Congress, H.Res. 5 repealed the prohibition against consideration
of a committee expense resolution when a committee has not submitted its oversight
plan to the House Administration and Government Reform Committees by February

15 of the first session.


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 serve
financial burden on individuals.
Also pursuant to H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence gained exclusive oversight responsibility over the sources
and methods of the core intelligence agencies.
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.”
Proxy Voting. The 104th Congress, pursuant to H.Res. 6, prohibited proxy
voting in both committees and subcommittees.
Quorums. Pursuant to H.Res. 6, the 104th Congress eliminated “rolling
quorums.” Committees were allowed to adopt a one-third quorum rule for any
business except reporting, which would still require a majority.
In the 107th Congress, H.Res. 5 clarified the rules on the majority quorum
requirement for ordering a measure reported, the release of executive session
materials, the issuance of subpoenas, and determining if evidence or testimony may
defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.
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


27 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’ proposed major rules.

24 hours, rather than the existing rule that allowed for a privileged motion to recess
from day to day.
Referral. H.Res. 6 for the 104th Congress prohibited joint referral. The
Speaker was authorized to designate a committee of primary jurisdiction upon
introduction. Split and sequential referrals, either upon introduction or after the
primary committee reported, were allowed.
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
“exceptional circumstances.”
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
[standing] committee.”
Subpoena. H.Res. 5 in the 106th Congress clarified House rules to state the
practice that a subpoena may specify the terms of return other than at a meeting or
hearing of a committee or subcommittee.
Transcripts. The 104th Congress, pursuant to H.Res. 6, required hearing and
meeting transcripts to be substantially verbatim accounts of the proceedings.
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
or the motion to report.
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, on agreeing to an amendment, and resuming proceeding 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.
Witnesses. 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 practical, a curriculum vitae and a disclosure by
source of the federal grants and contracts received by them and any entity they
represent in the current and preceding two fiscal years.
Staff and Funding
Allocation of Staff. The 104th Congress, under the provisions of H.Res. 6,
required committee chairs to provide sufficient staff to subcommittees, which would
lose independent hiring authority.
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 the review of
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, cl. (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.
Consultants. H.Res. 5 in the 106th Congress required consultants to abide by
provisions of the Code of Official Conduct.
H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress provided that consultants could not lobby the
contracting committee or the members or staff of the contracting committee on any
matter; lobbying other members or staff on matters outside the jurisdiction of the
contracting committee was allowed.
Funding. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress consolidated separate salary
authorization levels for statutory and investigative staff into a single, two-year
committee expense resolution.
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.
Number of Staff. Committee staff were to be reduced by at least one thirdrdth
from the 103 Congress level pursuant to H.Res. 6 in the 104 Congress.
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, their
inability to offer a motion to recommit with instructions, the increased use 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 still
providing procedures 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 coped with these competing
demands. In the 108th Congress and 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 the operations of the Houseth
floor on the opening day of each Congress since the 104 pursuant to adoption of the
resolution amending the rules of the House and establishing special orders, and28


pursuant to the Speaker’s announcements.
28 For a description of rules changes affecting the chamber and floor made at the beginning
of the 104th, 107th, 108th , and 109th Congresses, see:th
CRS Report 96-850, House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 104
Congress, by Stanley I. Bach. Archived; available from Elizabeth Rybicki on request.
(continued...)

Amendment Process. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress provided for
amendments to be numbered when submitted for printing in the Congressional
Record before being offered on the floor.
Appropriations Process. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress permitted
Members to offer en bloc a pair of amendments to a general appropriations bill if the
only effect of the amendments was to “transfer appropriations among objects without
increasing the levels of budget authority or outlays in the bill,” so-called offsetting
amendments. The rules change also disallowed any Member from demanding that
the question (vote on the offsetting amendment) be divided. The rules change thus
allowed Members to offer amendments to parts of an appropriations bill not yet open
for amendment.
H.Res. 6 provided that all points of order be automatically considered as
reserved when a general appropriations bill was reported on the floor, obviating the
need for Members to reserve them. 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 is thereby
allowed, if the motion is agreed to, to preclude consideration of limitation
amendments.
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. The resolution 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. Tax and tariff measures may not be reported from a
committee not having jurisdiction over such a measure, and an amendment with tax
or tariff provisions is not in order to a bill reported by a committee not having
jurisdiction. The 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.”


28 (...continued)
CRS Report RS20782, House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 107th
Congress, by Stanley I. Bach.th
CRS Report RS21388, House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 108
Congress, by Elizabeth Rybicki.th
CRS Report RL32772, House Rules Changes Affecting Floor Proceedings in the 109
Congress, by Thomas P. Carr and Elizabeth Rybicki.

Classified Materials. In the 104th Congress, H.Res. 6 implemented a
nondisclosure oath by any Member, officer, or employee before being granted access
to classified information.
In the 107th Congress, the clerk was directed to publish in the Congressional
Record the names of Members who had taken the nondisclosure oath.
Commemorative Legislation. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress banned the
introduction and consideration of commemorative legislation.
Conference. H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress allowed a committee to adopt a
committee rule to grant the committee chair the general authority to make motions
in committee necessary to send a bill to conference.
Motion to Instruct Conferees. H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress clarified that
a motion to instruct conferees was in order after a conference committee had been
appointed for 20 calendar days without having filed its report, but only after the
Member proposing to make such a motion gave one calendar day notice of his or her
intent to do so. Further, the resolution barred motions to instruct conferees and
motions to recommit conference reports with instructions from including
“argu ment.”
H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress stated that a motion to instruct conferees was in
order after a conference committee had been appointed for 20 calendar days and 10
legislative days without making a report.
Continuity of Congress. Even prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11,
Congress considered the possibility of a catastrophe affecting the ability of Congress
to function, such as the joint bipartisan leadership directive in 2000 to the Capitol
Police Board to develop a comprehensive emergency preparedness plan for the29th
legislative branch. The 108 Congress, the first after the attacks, modified House
rules to prepare for a catastrophic event, authorizing the Speaker to adjust the whole
number of House in the event of a Member’s death, resignation, expulsion,
disqualification, or removal.30 The 109th Congress further addressed the issue by
creating procedures to enable the House to function with fewer Members.31
Emergency Recess. H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress entitled the Speaker,
when notified of an imminent threat to the House’s safety, to declare an emergency


29 For information on Congress’s COOP, see CRS Report RL31594, Congressional
Continuity of Operations: An Overview of Concepts and Challenges, by R. Eric Petersen and
Jeffrey W. Seifert.
30 In addition, H.Con.Res. 1, agreed to in the House Jan. 7, 2003, and in the Senate Feb. 13,
2003, authorized the Speaker and the Senate majority leader to convene Congress outside
the District of Columbia.
31 The House also passed bills in the 108th and 109th Congresses to provide for continuity in
representation by setting standards for special elections for Representatives. H.R. 2844,
which passed the House April 22, 2004, and H.R. 841, which passed the House March 3,

2005.



recess subject to the call of the chair, and allowed the Speaker to accelerate or
postpone the reconvening of the House in the event of an emergency.
Provisional Quorum. H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress allowed for the House
to conduct business with a provisional quorum only after a motion to compel
Members’ attendance had been disposed of and the following actions were taken in
the following sequence: (1) a call of the House totaling 72 hours was taken without
producing a quorum; (2) the Speaker and majority and minority leaders receive from
the sergeant-at-arms a catastrophic quorum failure report; and (3) a further call of the
House is conducted within 24 hours and a quorum does not appear.
Speaker Succession. H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress required the Speaker
to submit to the clerk of the House a list of Members who would take over the
responsibilities of the speakership in the event of a vacancy.
Corrections Calendar. H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress permitted
consideration of Corrections Calendar measures at any time on a corrections day and32
permitted bills to be called up in any order from the calendar.
H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress exempted that measures placed on the
Corrections Calendar from having to satisfy the three-day layover and availability
requirements before being eligible for floor consideration.
th
H.Res. 5 in the 109 Congress repealed the Corrections Calendar.
Debate. H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress allowed remarks in debate to include
references to the Senate or its Members, although the remarks were to be confined
to the question under debate and not to individual personalities.
Decorum. House rules and precedents address who has access to the floor,
what exhibits can be shown, and what electronic devices can be used. The Speaker
controls the floor of the House and is responsible for maintaining order on the floor.
In order to preserve decorum, the House has taken both formal and informal action
to disallow occurrences that might be disruptive of appropriate decorum. For
example, in 1995, a caricature of the Speaker presented during debate was ruled out33th
of order. Rules changes since the 104 Congress have addressed issues of decorum.
Electronic Devices. H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress amended House rules
banning the use of electronic devices on the floor to forbid only “a wireless
telephone or personal computer,” thereby allowing handheld electronic devices, such
as BlackBerries®.


32 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. th
The 105 Congress House agreed to H.Res. 7 on Jan. 7, 1997, creating a Corrections
Calendar office.
33 “Point of Order,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, Nov. 16, 1995, p.
H13041.

Exhibits. H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress clarified that, whenever there was an
objection on the floor to the use of an exhibit, the presiding officer may rule on the
objection. The existing rule implied that the issue would be submitted to the House
for a vote.
Staff Access. H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress granted designated party
leadership staff access to the House floor with the approval of the Speaker.
Delegate/Resident Commissioner. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress
prohibited Delegates and the Resident Commissioner from voting in the Committee
of the Whole.
Discharge Petitions. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress provided for publication
of, and other means of public access to, the names of Members who signed discharge
petitions. The language clarified and specified how public disclosure of names was
to take place.
H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress clarified that the intent of permitting discharge
petitions on resolutions from the Rules Committee was for the purpose of a
resolution making in order the consideration of a single measure that had been
introduced for at least 30 legislative days (and not multiple measures), and that such
a resolution may only make in order germane amendments to such a measure.
Motion to Adjourn. H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress clarified that a Member
could move to adjourn during a call of the House.
Naming Public Works. H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress barred consideration
of any measure, amendment, or conference report that names a “public work” in
honor of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator while that person
is serving in Congress.
Order of Business. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress incorporated the Pledge
of Allegiance into the daily order of business, following approval of the Journal,
codifying practice of the House since 1988.
H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress clarified that a motion to adjourn was in order
during a call of the House.
Public Debt Ceiling. H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress repealed the House rule
that had provided for the automatic engrossment and transmittal to the Senate of
House joint resolutions changing the public-debt ceiling — the so-called Gephardt
rule, named for former Representative Richard Gephardt. The rule operated with
congressional agreement to a concurrent resolution on the budget, and allowed the
House to avoid a separate vote on debt-limit legislation.
H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress reinstated the Gephardt rule. The House’s final
vote on congressional agreement to a concurrent resolution on the budget was
deemed also to be the vote on the joint resolution. The rules change also mandated
that the Budget Committee’s report on the budget resolution and a joint explanatory
to accompany a conference report contain a “clear statement of the effect the



eventual enactment of a joint resolution engrossed under this rule would have on the
statutory limit on the public debt.”
Recommit. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress assured the minority the right to
offer a motion to recommit, either with or without instructions.
Speaker of the House. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress authorized the
creation of an Office of Legislative Floor Activities in the Office of the Speaker.
H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress repealed the limit of four consecutive terms for
a Speaker.
Special Rules. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress required special rules to the
extent possible to identify the specific House rules being waived in a special rule.
Suspension of the Rules. H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress included a
standing order allowing consideration of measures under suspension of the rules on34
Wednesdays through the second Wednesday in April (April 9, 2003).
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress allowed the Speaker to entertain motions to
suspend the rules on Wednesdays.
Tax Legislation. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress required a three-fifths vote
(of the Members voting, a quorum being present) to pass a bill or joint resolution or
agree to an amendment or conference report “carrying a Federal income tax rate35
increase.” The resolution further disallowed the House from considering bills, joint
resolutions, amendments, and conference reports containing a “retroactive Federal
income tax increase.” “Retroactivity” was defined as making the tax rate increase
apply to a period “beginning prior to the enactment of the provision.”
In the 105th Congress, H.Res. 5 sought to clarify the definition of “Federal
income tax rate increase” by limiting the relevant rules’ effect to specified provisions
of the Internal Revenue Code. The changes were meant to clarify that the
requirement of a three-fifths vote to approve an income tax rate increase did not
apply to provisions that merely increased revenues or effective tax rates.
Unfunded Mandates. H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress clarified the
opportunity to offer a motion to strike an unfunded mandate provision from a bill
(unless the motion was disallowed pursuant to a special rule). The clarification was
that the motion was solely for unfunded intergovernmental mandates, not for private
sector mandates.


34 On April 30, 2003, the House agreed by unanimous consent to consider suspension
measures through the last Wednesday in June (June 25, 2003). On June 26, 2003, the Houseth
agreed to H.Res. 297, extending this authorization to the end of the 108 Congress.
35 This rules change was challenged in court by House Democrats and others. The court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding “federal courts should generally refrain, as
a matter of policy, from intruding in the name of the Constitution upon the internal affairs
of Congress at the behest of lawmakers who have failed to prevail in the political process.”
Skaggs v. Carle, 898 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C., 1995), aff’d 110 F.3d 831 (D.C. Cir., 1997).

Voting. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress required a roll-call vote on final
passage or adoption of any bill, joint resolution, or conference report making general
appropriations or increasing federal income tax rates, and on final approval of any
concurrent budget resolution or the conference report on a budget resolution.
H.Res. 5 in the 106th Congress abolished the practice of pairing, other than live
pairs.
Postponed Votes. H.Res. 6 in the 104th Congress expanded the authority of
the Speaker to postpone votes on ordering the previous question, and to reduce to
five minutes the time for votes that immediately followed votes on ordering the
previous question.
H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress extended the Speaker’s authority to postpone
votes to any manager’s amendment and motion to recommit (or any previous
question thereon) considered under the Corrections Day process.
H.Res. 5 in the 107th Congress permitted the chair to postpone record votes on
amendments, allowing at least 15 minutes for the first vote and reducing the
subsequent votes to not less than five minutes.
H.Res. 5 in the 108th Congress clarified House rules to allow the Speaker to
reduce the minimum time allowed for voting on a second or subsequent electronic
vote to five minutes, provided the Speaker gave notice and no business had taken
place between votes.
H.Res. 5 in the 109th Congress added the motion to reconsider, tabling motions
to reconsider, and amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole among
those votes the Speaker might postpone within two additional legislative days.
Rules Changes Affecting Budgetary Legislation
Two of the eight goals of the institutional reforms of the Contract with America
dealt with budgetary legislation: a three-fifths vote “to pass a tax increase” and an
“honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero baseline
budgeting.” The Republican majority fine tuned and implemented the following
changes and others in the rules for the 104th Congress: changes to the Budget
Committee, which has been the subject of incremental change in nearly every
Congress since the 104th Congress; prohibitions and limitations placed on the
appropriations process; and requirements added to the processing of tax legislation.
Other Contract with America goals related to public policy, which also affected
House and congressional procedures, were achieved through other pieces of
legislation, like the Unfunded Mandates Act and the Line Item Veto Act. Still other
policy initiatives with implications for House and congressional procedures
developed and were realized through legislation such as the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1997.



The annual concurrent resolution on the budget is regularly a source of
permanent and temporary changes in the budget process.36 Other process changes are
included in appropriations acts and other freestanding legislation.
This report analyzes the rules, special orders, and Speaker’s announcements at
the convening of a Congress and not all of the actions taken during a Congress that
have affected the consideration of budgetary legislation.

104th Congress. Ten of the changes made by H.Res. 6 affecting budgetary37


legislation were described above. Those changes discussed in the section Rules
Changes Affecting Committees were:
!Members were permitted to serve four Congresses out of six
consecutive Congresses on the Budget Committee, with existing
exceptions continuing for majority and minority leadership
representatives and, under certain circumstances, for chairs and
ranking minority members.
!The Budget Committee was given jurisdiction over “Measures
relating to the congressional budget process, generally” and over
“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.”


36 Permanent and temporary changes to budget process rules are regularly included in the
annual concurrent resolutions on the budget. Beginning with the 104th Congress, the budget
resolutions that passed at least the House are as follows:th
(1) 104 Congress: H.Con.Res. 67 (FY1996), conference report adopted in both the
House and the Senate June 29, 1995; and H.Con.Res. 178 (FY1997), conference report
adopted in the House June 12, 1996, and in the Senate June 13, 1996.th
(2) 105 Congress: H.Con.Res. 84 (FY1998), conference report adopted in both the
House and the Senate June 5, 1997; and H.Con.Res. 284 (FY1999), agreed to in the House
June 5, 1998.th
(3) 106 Congress: H.Con.Res. 68 (FY2000), conference report adopted by the House
April 14, 1999, and by the Senate April 15, 1999; and H.Con.Res. 290 (FY2001), conference
report adopted by both the House and the Senate April 13, 2000.th
(4) 107 Congress: H.Con.Res. 83 (FY2002), conference report adopted by the House
May 9, 2001, and by the Senate May 10, 2001; and H.Con.Res. 353 (FY2003), agreed to in
the House March 20, 2002.th
(5) 108 Congress: H.Con.Res. 95 (FY2004), conference report adopted by both the
House and the Senate April 1,2004; and S.Con.Res. 95 (FY2005), conference report adopted
by the House May 19, 2004.th
(6) 109 Congress: H.Con.Res. 95 (FY2006), conference report adopted by both the
House and the Senate April 28, 2005; and H.Con.Res. 376 (FY2007), agreed to in the House
June 22, 2006.
37 H.Res. 6, agreed to in the House Jan. 4, 1995. For an analysis of the rules changes made
in the 104th Congress that affected budgetary legislation, see CRS Report 95-432, Budget
Process Changes Made in the Rules of the House in January 1995 (H.Res. 6), by Robert
Keith. Archived, available from author on request.th
The House and Senate in the 104 Congress also passed the Line Item Veto Act (110
Stat. 1200), and the Unfunded Mandates Act (109 Stat. 48).

!The Appropriations Committee was prohibited 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.
!The Appropriations Committee was also required to identify
unauthorized appropriations in its reports on general appropriations
bills.
Those changes discussed in the section Rules Changes Affecting the Chamber
and Floor were:
!A three-fifths vote was required to pass legislation containing a
federal income tax rate increase.
!The House was barred from consideration of legislation containing
a retroactive federal income tax rate increase.
!An automatic roll-call vote was required on final passage of (or
adoption of the conference report on) any budget resolution or any
measure making general appropriations or increasing federal income
tax rates.
!A motion to rise and report during consideration of a general
appropriation bill has precedence over motions to further amend the
bill only if offered by the majority leader or a designee.
!A Member may offer en bloc offsetting amendments, which may
affect parts of a measure not yet read for amendment.
!Whenever an appropriations bill is reported, all points of order
against it are automatically reserved.
H.Res. 6 also 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, 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 be38
characterized as spending cuts.
Finally, since H.Res. 6 also eliminated committees and changed the
jurisdictions of committees, a provision of H.Res. 6 provided for the revision of39


spending allocations made under the budget resolution for FY1995.
38 The House passed a bill in the 103rd Congress that eliminated inflation adjustments from
baseline estimates for discretionary programs, among other provisions. H.R. 4907, passed
by the House Aug. 12, 1994. No action was taken in the Senate.
39 H.Con.Res. 218, conference report agreed to in the House May 5, 1994, and in the Senate
May 12, 1994. The revisions were subsequently printed in the Congressional Record: Rep.
John Kasich, remarks in the House, “Communication from the Chairman of the Committee
on the Budget Regarding Revised 302(a)/602(a) Allocation for Fiscal Years 1995-1999,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, pp. H2301-H2305

105th Congress. The changes made by H.Res. 5 in the 105th Congress40


affecting budgetary legislation were described above. Those changes discussed in
the section Rules Changes Affecting Committees were:
!The majority leader was allowed, 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 jurisdictions of the Budget and Government Reform and
Oversight Committees were revised. The Budget Committee was
given oversight over the “budget process” rather that over solely the
“congressional budget process.” The Government Reform
Committee was given jurisdiction over “government management
and accounting measure, generally” rather than “budget and
accounting measures, generally.”
!The layover requirements for Budget Committee reports on budget
resolutions were conformed to those of other committees for other
legislation.
Those changes discussed in the section Rules Changes Affecting the Chamber
and Floor were:
!The definition of “Federal income tax rate increase” was sought to
be clarified by limiting the relevant rules’ effect to specified
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The changes were meant
to clarify that the requirement of a three-fifths vote to approve an
income tax rate increase did not apply to provisions that merely
increase revenues or effective tax rates.
!The Appropriations Committee was prohibited 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, so-called made-known provisions and
amendments.
!The precedence of the majority leader’s motion to rise and report
over a further motion to amend was further tightened by clarifying
that the majority leader’s motion has precedence over any motion to
amend.
!The opportunity to offer a motion to strike an unfunded mandate
provision from a bill (unless the motion was disallowed pursuant to
a special rule) was clarified. The clarification was that the motion
was solely for unfunded intergovernmental mandates, not for private
sector mandates.


40 H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House Jan. 7, 1997. During the 105th Congress, the House and
Senate also passed the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (111 Stat. 251, 677), putting in
place in title X of the act enforcement procedures to ensure compliance with laws having the
goal of achieving a balanced budget by FY2002. For a brief description of the Budget
Enforcement Act, see CRS Report 97-930, The Budget Enforcement Act of 1997: A Fact
Sheet, by Robert Keith.

106th Congress. In the absence of a concurrent resolution agreed to by
Congress on the budget for FY1999, a separate order included in the rules package
authorized the chair of the Budget Committee to publish budget allocations under
section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act in the Congressional Record, and
stated that “those budget levels shall be effective in the House as though established41
by passage” of a budget resolution.
A technical change conformed House rules to the Budget Enforcement Act of
1997, relating to oversight requirements of the Budget Committee, consideration of
bills providing new entitlement authority, and submission of views and estimates on
the President’s budget. Two technical changes were included in separate orders:th
service limits on the Budget Committee were waived for the 106 Congress, and a
clarification was made concerning the text against a point of order that would lie
under section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act.
107th Congress. The rules mechanism providing for automatic engrossment
and transmittal to the Senate of a joint resolution to increase the debt limit, known
as the Gephardt rule after former Representative Richard Gephardt, was repealed.
The rule operated with congressional agreement to a concurrent resolution on the
budget, and allowed the House to avoid a separate vote on debt-limit legislation.42
As described in the section Rules Changes Affecting Committees, rules changes
required the Appropriations Committee to include in reports on general
appropriations bills 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.
The separate order related to a point of order under section 303 of the
Congressional Budget Act was repeated. Two additional technical changes were
included in separate orders: The word “resolution” in section 306 of the
Congressional Budget Act was interpreted to mean “joint resolution,” and not simple
or concurrent resolution, and a provision of or amendment to legislation to create at
federal office or position at a specified or minimum level of compensation and
funded by annual appropriations was not to be considered as entitlement authority
under the Congressional Budget Act.
108th Congress. In the absence of a concurrent resolution agreed to by
Congress on the budget for FY2003, a separate order in H.Res. 5 established theth
provisions of H.Con.Res. 353 as having effect in the 108 Congress until
congressional agreement to a FY2004 budget resolution. The chair of the Budget
Committee was also directed to submit allocations under section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act for printing in the Congressional Record.43


41 H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House Jan. 6, 1999.
42 H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House Jan. 3, 2001.
43 H.Con.Res. 353, agreed to in the House March 20, 2002. The allocations may be found
at Rep. Jim Nussle, remarks in the House, “Allocations of Spending Authority to House
Committees,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149, Jan. 8, 2003, pp. H74-H75.
(continued...)

The separate order related to a point of order under section 303 of the
Congressional Budget Act was repeated. Two additional separate orders were also
repeated: The word “resolution” in section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act was
interpreted to mean “joint resolution,” and a provision of or amendment to legislation
to create a federal office or position was not to be considered as entitlement authority
under the Congressional Budget Act.
Three provisions were described above in the section Rules Changes Affecting
Committees:
!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,” also known as “dynamic
scoring,” 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 include a statement of assumptions and data
sources. The reporting requirement could be waived if the Joint
Taxation Committee certified that such 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.
!Two provision of H.Res. 5 affected the Budget Committee’s
makeup. The membership of the Budget Committee was changed to
include one member of the Committee on Rules, codifying action
taken in the Republican Conference’s early organization meetings.
!The term limitation 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.
Two rules changes were discussed above in the section Rules Changes
Affecting the Chamber and Floor:
!H.Res. 5 reinstated the Gephardt rule. The House’s final vote on
congressional agreement to a concurrent resolution on the budget
was deemed also to be the vote on the joint resolution. The rules
change also mandated that the Budget Committee’s report on the
budget resolution and a joint explanatory to accompany a conference
report contain a “clear statement of the effect the eventual enactment
of a joint resolution engrossed under this rule would have on the44


statutory limit on the public debt.”
43 (...continued)
For an analysis of the rules changes made in the 108th Congress that affected budgetary
legislation, see CRS Report RL31728, House Rules Affecting the Congressional Budgetth
Process in the 108 Congress (H.Res. 5), by Bill Heniff Jr.
44 For a history and analysis of the Gephardt rule, see CRS Report RL31913, Developing
Debt-Limit Legislation: The House’s “Gephardt Rule,” by Bill Heniff Jr.

!H.Res. 5 also defined “tax or tariff provisions” vis-à-vis a general
appropriation bill. Tax and tariff measures may not be reported from
a committee not having jurisdiction over such a measure, and an
amendment with tax or tariff provisions is not in order to a bill
reported by a committee not having jurisdiction. The 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.”
109th Congress. In the absence of a concurrent resolution agreed to by
Congress on the budget for FY2004, a separate order in H.Res. 5 established theth
provisions of S.Con.Res. 95 as having effect in the 109 Congress until45
congressional agreement to a FY2005 budget resolution.
The separate order related to a point of order under section 303 of the
Congressional Budget Act was repeated. Two additional separate orders were also
repeated: The word “resolution” in section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act was
interpreted to mean “joint resolution,” and a provision of or amendment to legislation
to create a federal office or position was not to be considered as entitlement authority
under the Congressional Budget Act.
As described above in the section Rules Changes Affecting Committees, H.Res.
5 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.
Rules Changes Affecting Administration
of the House
Rules changes from the 104th through the 107th Congresses affected the structure
of the House’s administration and the relationships within it. Some offices were
abolished, while others were created. Responsibilities were shifted, and
accountability was clarified. Modern practices, such as financial audits, were put in
place, and traditional practices, such as requirements for distribution of printed
materials, were reformed in light of changed conditions, such as the proliferation of
versatile desktop information technology.
Additional changes to the administration of the House have been implemented
in all Congresses since the 104th Congress through other legislation, not covered
here, including the annual legislative branch appropriations bills, and freestanding
legislation, such as the House Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act.46


45 H.Con.Res. 353, agreed to in the House March 20, 2002.For an analysis of the rules
changes made in the 109th Congress that affected budgetary legislation, see CRS Reportth
RS22021, House Rules Affecting the Congressional Budget Process in the 109 Congress
(H.Res. 5), by Bill Heniff Jr.
46 110 Stat. 1718.

Many changes in the administration of the House, however, were taken at the
initiative of the House leadership, the House Administration Committee or House
Oversight Committee, the House Appropriations Committee, House officials, the
House and Senate together, or legislative branch agencies. For example, in 1994,
neither THOMAS nor the Legislative Information System existed, and the use of
current information technology was not ubiquitous in the House. The World Wide
Web was in its infancy, and use of e-mail was still somewhat novel. The
BlackBerry® personal digital assistant was first introduced in 1999. The
commitment to using information technology in the House was not generally
effected through changes to House rules or specific provisions in legislation, but
through initiatives exercised in various fora, including committee reports on
legislation, joint explanatory statements accompanying conference reports, and
actions of the House Administration Committee not requiring House consideration.
Again, this report analyzes the rules, special orders, and Speaker’s
announcements at the convening of a Congress and not all of the actions taken during47
a Congress.

104th Congress. Some of the most wide-ranging changes implemented withth


the convening of the 104 Congress were in the area of administration of the House.
In the 104th Congress rules adopted by the House, the House abolished the position
of the director of non-legislative and financial services and created the chief
administrative officer, who would be elected by the House. The chief administrative
officer (CAO) took over the duties of the abolished position and other duties as
assigned by the Speaker or House Oversight Committee (formerly the House
Administration Committee), and was made subject to the policy direction and48


oversight of the Speaker and House Oversight Committee.
47 Changes affecting the administration of the House are regularly included in the annual
legislative branch appropriations bills and in accompanying committee and conferenceth
reports. Beginning with the 104 Congress, the legislative branch appropriations bills are as
follows: th
(1) 104 Congress: P.L. 104-53 (FY1996); and P.L. 104-197 (FY1997).th
(2) 105 Congress: P.L. 105-55 (FY1998); and P.L. 105-275 (FY1999).th
(3) 106 Congress: P.L. 106-57 (FY2000); and P.L. 106-554 (FY2001), an omnibus
appropriations act incorporating by reference H.R. 5657, as introduced on December 14,

2000. th


(4) 107 Congress: P.L. 107-68 (FY2002); and P.L. 108-7 (FY2003), an omnibus
appropriations act, with legislative branch appropriations appearing as Division H.th
(5) 108 Congress: P.L. 108-83 (FY2004); and P.L. 108-447 (FY2005), an omnibus
appropriations act, with legislative branch appropriations appearing as Division G.th
(6) 109 Congress: P.L. 105-55 (FY2006); and H.R. 5521, passed the House June 7,

2006.


48 H.Res. 6, agreed to by the House Jan. 4, 1995. The position of director of non-legislative
and financial services had been created by the House Administrative Reform Resolution of

1992 (H.Res. 423), agreed to by the House April 9, 1992. For information on administrativeth


changes during the 104 Congress, see CRS Report 96-764, House Administrativeth
Reorganization: 104 Congress, by Paul S. Rundquist and Lorraine H. Tong. Archived,
available from author upon request.

The rules also abolished the Office of the Doorkeeper, and folded the
doorkeeper’s duties into the Office of the Sergeant at Arms.49
The rules strengthened the accountability of the House officers to the House
Oversight Committee. All House officers were required to report semiannually to the
committee with financial statements and an explanation of their office’s operations,
implementation of new policies and procedures, and future plans.
The House inspector general was directed in the rules to conduct a
“comprehensive audit of House financial records and administrative operations”th
during the 104 Congress, and was authorized to contract with independent auditing
firms to conduct the audit. The inspector general’s authority was broadened to cover
audits of the financial and administrative functions of the House and joint entities,
not just those under the former director of non-legislative and financial services. The
inspector general was also required to report to the Standards of Official Conduct
Committee any violations of House rules or laws by Members, officers, or
employees of the House committed in the performance of official duties.
The rules package also contained a special rule making in order the
consideration of the Congressional Accountability Act (H.R. 1), and setting the terms
of its debate and amendment. Making Congress subject to various federal labor and
antidiscrimination laws was a provision of the Republican Contract with America.50
The Congressional Accountability Act — applying 11 labor and antidiscrimination
laws to Congress and the legislative branch and establishing the Office of
Compliance as an independent entity within the legislative branch — became theth51
first enactment of the 104 Congress.
With the abolition by the rules of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee,
that committee’s jurisdiction over franking and congressional mail regulations was
transferred to the House Oversight Committee. The House Oversight Committee’snd
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight, created in the 102 Congress, was also52


abolished.
49 In the FY1996 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-53), Congress also
terminated the Office of Technology Assessment, a legislative branch agency, and made the
first cut toward a planned 25-percent reduction in resources for the General Accounting
Office (now the Government Accountability Office), another legislative branch agency.
50 The text of the Contract with America can be found at [http://www.house.gov/house/
Contract/CONTRACT.html], visited Aug. 2, 2006.
51 109 Stat. 3. For information on the Congressional Accountability Act, see CRS Report 95-
557, Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, by Charles Dale, Robin Jeweler, Nancy Lee
Jones, Jay R. Shampansky, Kathleen S. Swendiman, and Vincent Treacy. Archived;
available from Ms. Jones on request.
52 The subcommittee was created by the House Administrative Reform Resolution of 1992
(H.Res. 423), agreed to by the House April 9, 1992.

Legislative service organizations (LSOs) were prohibited, and the House
Oversight Committee was authorized to “take such steps as are necessary to ensure53
an orderly termination and accounting for funds” of LSOs then in existence.
105th Congress. The Speaker, in consultation with the minority leader, was
directed to develop “through an appropriate entity of the House” a system of drug
testing that could provide for testing of Members, officers, or employees.54
The chief administrative officer was made subject to the policy direction and
oversight of only the House Oversight Committee. The Speaker was no longer also
designated in the rule.
The House authorized the inclusion of a committee reserve fund for
unanticipated expenses in a primary expense resolution, to be allocated on the
approval fo the House Oversight Committee.
The chair and ranking minority member of the House Oversight Committee
must jointly approve the amount of a proposed settlement between an employee
complainant under the Congressional Accountability Act and the employing House
office.
Rule LI, Employment Practices, was repealed as obsolete, having been
superseded by the Congressional Accountability Act.

106th Congress. Three largely technical changes to the House rules wereth55


made in the 106 Congress. First, a clarification was made that the Speaker
appoints and sets the annual rate of pay for employees of the Office of the Historian.
Second, the requirement that a House employee must perform duties commensurate
with his or her compensation “in the offices of the employing authority” was
amended to conform with federal statutes allowing telecommuting. Finally, to
conform the rules with changes in House officials’ duties made earlier, “chief
administrative officer” was substituted for “clerk” as the entity responsible for
disbursing pay.
As noted earlier, the House Oversight Committee’s earlier name was restored:
House Administration Committee.
107th Congress. The House Administration Committee’s responsibilities to
examine House-passed bills, joint resolutions, and amendments and enrolled bills
and joint resolutions were transferred to the clerk of the House. In cooperation with
the Senate, the clerk examines bill and joint resolutions passed by both houses to
ensure their correct enrollment, and presents enrolled bills and joint resolutions


53 The House Oversight Committee subsequently authorized “congressional member
organizations” that were informal, in that they had no corporate identity. See CRS Report
RL30301, Informal Congressional Groups and Members Organizations: Selected Questions
and Responses, by Sula Pat Richardson.
54 H.Res. 5, agreed to by the House Jan. 7, 1997.
55 H.Res. 5, agreed to by the House Jan. 6, 1999.

originated in the House to the President, after obtaining the signatures of the Speaker
and the President of the Senate.56
The clerk was also authorized to distribute certain documents and other
materials in nonprint forms. References to “print...,” “binding,” and “mail” were
struck from the rule listing the documents.
The clerk, sergeant at arms, and chief administrative officer were made subject
only to the oversight of the House Administration Committee. Only the inspector
general is subject to the committee’s policy direction.
Rules addressing responses to the legal process were clarified to indicate that
they applied to both judicial and administrative subpoenas and to judicial orders.
Rules Changes Affecting Ethics Standards
The rules packages before the House at the beginning of each Congress since
the 104th Congress largely dealt with technical matters. Substantive changes were
achieved at other times through House resolutions and new laws — many of them
consequential and far-reaching — and through the parties’ revisions of their own
rules. The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct also regularly issues
advisory memoranda and provides other assistance interpreting the ethical standards
applicable to Members, officers, and employees of the House.
The ethics changes made in the rules package at the beginning of the 109th
Congress, however, proved controversial, and the House rescinded those changes andth
reinstated the text of the ethics rules from the 108 Congress within four months. A
dispute between the majority and minority over committee rules and staffing alsoth
delayed the organization of the Standards of Official Conduct Committee in the 10957
Congress.
Again, this report analyzes the rules, special orders, and Speaker’s
announcements at the convening of a Congress and not all of the actions taken during
a Congress.

104th Congress. Democrats sought to commit a special rule (H.Res. 5)


making in order the consideration of the Republican rules package (H.Res. 6) and
setting the terms of its consideration. The motion to commit H.Res. 5 contained
instructions to report the resolution back forthwith with the addition of a new section
to H.Res. 6 relating to a ban on gifts from lobbyists and limitations on Members’
royalty income. The motion was defeated. At the conclusion of consideration of
H.Res. 6, Democrats then sought to commit H.Res. 6 to a select committee, with
instructions to report the resolution back forthwith with the addition of new sections


56 H.Res. 5, agreed to by the House Jan. 3, 2001.
57 See, for example, Susan Ferrechio, “Democrat Berman Brings Experience, Different Style
to Stymied Ethics Panel,” CQ Today, May 2, 2006, pp. 3, 33; and Susan Ferrechio, “House
Ethics Committee Members Finally Agree on Hiring of Top Staffer, CQ Today, Nov. 4,

2005, p. 3.



relating to a ban on gifts from lobbyists, limitations on Members’ royalty income,
and changes to several provisions of H.Res. 6. The motion was defeated.58
105th Congress. A rules change and an item included in the Speaker’s
announcements further regulated activities in the House chamber and in the rooms
adjacent to the chamber. Under the rules change, Members, officers, employees, and
others, such as former Members, entitled to admission to the House chamber or an
adjoining room were proscribed from “knowingly” distributing a campaign59
contribution.
An announcement first made by the Speaker on August 1, 1996, was includedth
in the Speaker’s announcements for the 105 Congress. The announcement
concerned the meaning of then-Rule XXXII, cl. 3, which allows former Members
and other former officials access to the House floor unless they have a personal
interest in legislation pending before the House or reported from committee, or are
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 is lobbying legislation,
and stated that former Members could be prohibited from the House floor or the
adjoining rooms.60
A rules change also extended until January 21, 1997, the existence of a Selectth
Committee on Ethics, established in the 104 Congress, to allow it to complete its
work and make any recommendations to the House on a statement from an
investigative subcommittee of the Standards of Official Conduct Committee related61
to the official conduct of Speaker Newt Gingrich.
106th Congress. A change included in the 106th Congress rules package
allowed lower-paid House employees to receive honoraria for activities not related62
to their official duties.


58 “Making in Order Immediate Consideration of House Resolution Adopting the Rules of
the House of Representatives for the 104th Congress” and “Rules of the House,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 141, Jan. 4, 1995, pp. H9-H90.
The House on Nov. 16, 1995, agreed to H.Res. 250 prohibiting gifts to Members,
officers or employees, except as provided for in the new rule created by the resolution. The
House on Dec. 22, 1995, agreed to H.Res. 299, regulating Members’ book contracts,th
royalties, and advances. In the 104 Congress, Congress also passed the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995, signed into law Dec. 19, 1995 (109 Stat. 691), superseding the
Regulation of Lobbying Act, title III of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat.

812, 839).


59 H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House Jan. 7, 1997. Congress also passed the Lobbying
Disclosure Technical Amendments Act (P.L. 105-166).
60 “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore on Procedures for the 105th Congress,”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 143, Jan. 7, 1997, pp. H32-H34.
61 The House also on Sept. 18, 1997, agreed to H.Res. 168, implementing the
recommendations of the bipartisan House Ethics Reform Task Force.
62 H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House Jan. 6, 1999.

The rules package also contained a special rule making in order the
consideration of a resolution to amend recodified Rule XXVI, cl. 5, the House gift
rule. Subsequently, the House agreed to H.Res. 9 allowing the acceptance of a gift
of less than $50 in value and of gifts from one source that were cumulatively valued
at less than $100. A gift of less than $10 value does not count toward the $10063
limit.
The operating procedures of the Standards of Official Conduct Committee
included in H.Res. 168 were made a separate order of the House.
The Speaker’s 1996 announcement on access by former Members with an64
interest in legislation was again included in Speaker’s announcements of policies.
107th Congress. The 107th Congress House changed the Code of Official
Conduct rule pertinent to the House’s employment of spouses, strengthening or
clarifying the meaning of 5 U.S.C. §3110 in relation to personal office andth
committee employment. Beginning with the 107 Congress, a Member could not
employ his or her spouse in a paid position, and a committee employee could not be65
compensated if his or her spouse was a member of that committee.
The rules changes also contained technical corrections to the meaning of
various terms, such as “officer,” in the gift rule to ensure the rule covered all House
employees.
The operating procedures of the Standards of Official Conduct Committee
included in H.Res. 168 were again made a separate order of the House.
108th Congress. The rules changes for the 108th Congress removed a
prohibition related to outside earned income, affected accounting for the value of
gifts of perishable food to an congressional office, and allowed reimbursement for66
transportation and lodging to attend a charitable event in certain circumstances. The
practice of medicine was exempted from the restriction on professional services
involving a fiduciary relationship. A Member, therefore, was allowed to earn outside
income, including from the practice of medicine, of up to 15 percent of his or her
congressional pay.67 The value of a gift of perishable food was to be allocated among


63 “House Gift Rule Amendment,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 145, Jan. 6,

1999, pp. H208-H211.


64 “Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
145, Jan. 6, 1999, pp. H218-H220. This statement was also included in the Speaker’s
announcements in each subsequent Congress.
65 H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House Jan. 3, 2001. In the second session, Congress (1) passed
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (P.L. 107-155), and (2) expelled Rep. James Traficant,
with in excess of two-thirds of the House voting favorably July 24, 2002, for H.Res. 495.
66 H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House Jan. 7, 2003.
67 In a subsequent letter to Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi, the chair and ranking
minority member of the Standards of Official Conduct Committee stated their belief that
such an exemption would require amendment of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat.
1716, 1760). Joel Hefley and Alan Mollohan, letter to Speaker Dennis Hastert and Minority
(continued...)

the individual recipients of an office rather solely to the Member whose office
received the gift.
The prohibition on accepting reimbursement for transportation and lodging to
attend a charitable event is waived if five conditions are met: the offer of free
attendance was made by the charity benefitting from the event, the reimbursement
was paid by that charity, the charity is a 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal
Revenue Code, all net proceeds of the event are for the benefit of the charity, and the
net proceeds are exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue68
Code.
The rules changes also incorporated into the rules the operating procedures for
the Standards of Official Conduct Committee that were part of H.Res. 168 agreed to
in the 105th Congress and that had existed as a separate order of the House in the

106th and 107th Congresses.


109th Congress. Some planned changes to House ethics procedures and
standards were deleted from the rules package placed before the House shortly69
before House consideration. Some changes, however, were retained in H.Res. 5.
One change required a Member named in a complaint, or a Member whose official
conduct was referenced in certain communications to or from the committee, to be
notified before specified actions by the Standards of Official Conduct Committee.
Once notified, the Member would then be able to submit written views or to request
the creation of an adjudicatory subcommittee. A second change provided for the
dismissal of a complaint after 45 days if an affirmative decision to establish an
investigative subcommittee had not been made. A third change allowed a Member70
to have the same attorney as another Member or witness in an investigation.
Although Members are prohibited from maintaining unofficial congressional
office accounts or using campaign funds to pay for office expenses such as


67 (...continued)
Leader Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 8, 2003, available online at [http://www.house.gov/ethics/
m_letter_on_medical_practice.htm], visited Aug. 2, 2006.
68 H.Res. 5, agreed to in the House Jan. 7, 2003. For information on ethics changes in the

108th Congress, see CRS Report RS21439, House Ethics Rules Changes in the 108th


Congress, by Mildred Amer.
69 H.Res. 5, agreed to by the House Jan. 4, 2005. In addition, the House on Feb. 1, 2005,
agreed to H.Res. 648, prohibiting former Members and others entitled to floor privileges
from the floor if the person is a registered lobbyist or foreign agent; such individuals are also
excluded from the House gym. The House and Senate have also passed lobby reform
legislation (H.R. 4975 and S. 2349, respectively). For information on ethics changes in thethth
109 Congress, see CRS Report RS22034, House Ethics Rules Changes in the 109
Congress, by Mildred Amer.
70 The House restored the earlier text of the ethics rule (Rule XI, cl. 3) changed by H.Res.
5 when it agreed April 27, 2005, to a special rule (H.Res. 241) providing for the adoption
of H.Res. 240, which contained the earlier text of the ethics rule. For background, see Alan
K. Ota, “No Pat on the Back for GOP as Intraparty Issues Dominate,” CQ Weekly, Jan. 10,
2005, pp. 66-70; and Susan Ferrechio, “House Ethics: Republicans Blink,” CQ Weekly, May

2, 2005, pp. 1144-1145.



information technology services, an earlier change in law allowed Members to use
certain campaign funds for “handheld communications devices,” such as
BlackBerries® and cell phones. The rules change conformed the House rule (Rule
XXIV, cl. 1) to existing law, including the use of campaign funds for handheld
communications devices (2 U.S.C. §59e(d)).
Another rules change also conformed House rules to federal law (39 U.S.C.
§3210) by proscribing a Member who is a candidate in a primary or general election
from sending a franked mass mailing less than 90 days before the election. The rule
previously contained a 60-day limit.
Another rules change permitted family members other than a spouse or child
to accompany a Member on privately funded, official travel.
Concluding Observations
As said earlier in this report, the House rules changes made in the 104th
Congress, and since, including changes affecting the organization of committees and
the administration of the House, reflected a Republican frame of reference that was
built over many years as the minority party. Republican criticisms of changes in the
House made at the direction of the Democratic Caucus beginning after the 1974rd
election and continuing through the 103 Congress, the ideas of the Conservative
Opportunity Society in the 1980s, the Republican ‘92 Group, the Republican rules
package of the 103rd Congress, the recommendations of the bipartisan Joint
Committee on the Organization of Congress, the Contract with America, and other
sources came together in the rules package the Republicans put before the House inth
the 104 Congress.
The Republican majority continued to draw on these antecedents in rulesth
packages for subsequent Congresses. The extensive changes of the 104 Congress
were followed by incremental changes in the 105th, 106th, and 107th Congresses. At
the same time, a number of rules did not change, either at all or substantially. The
great bulk of House rules was continued from Congress to Congress since the rules
had been built up over decades to support the majority in its organization and
operation of the House.
After control of four Congresses, however, a confluence of events caused the
Republicans to revisit the rules and some of the changes they had made. With the
events of 9/11 and anthrax attacks on Capitol Hill, publication of the 9/11
Commission report, the return of the federal budget deficit, a Republican President
in the White House and Republican control of both houses of Congress, and a
widening of Republican margins in the House and Senate, House Republicans madethth
more extensive changes in House rules in the 108 and 109 Congresses.
In these Congresses, the Republican majority adapted to changed conditions.
They adjusted to the end of the first round of committee chair term limits,
discontinued the Speaker’s term limit, accommodated demands for additional
subcommittees, created a Homeland Security Committee and altered other
committees’ jurisdictions vis-à-vis homeland security, realigned Appropriations
Committee subcommittees to handle homeland security spending and then



reorganized the subcommittees to better handle Republican spending priorities,
implemented new analyses of tax legislation, grappled with the possibility of a
terrorist attack that could kill or disable many Representatives, and picked their way
through ethical breaches by both Democratic and Republican Members.
Through actions intended to open up Congress, and especially the House —
including the advent of THOMAS, putting documents online at committee and other
websites, and “webcasting” — Congress allowed more citizens to know more, and
to know more quickly, about Congress, and, concomitantly and unavoidably, readily
gave lobbyists and political activists more knowledge and insight into Congress and
policymaking. Committee and floor actions were increasingly accompanied by
intense lobbying, grassroots communications, public relations, and coverage 24/7 by
an array of traditional and new news and opinion outlets in a variety of media. Most
Members also felt compelled to be in their districts three or four days every week,
and many full weeks, making themselves available to their constituents.
The cost of campaigns and the pressure to raise money for their parties, too,
opened many Members to more contact with more people who became interested in
an individual Member’s actions. Congressional districts have become more
politically homogeneous through redistricting, and fewer voters are registering by
party, leaving arguably a more politically homogeneous set of voters voting in each
party’s primaries.
Rules changes do not necessarily enable a majority to pass legislation, to keep
all the party’s Members together, to work smoothly with the minority, to achieve the
same outcomes as the other body, or to overcome voter sentiments. Rules facilitate
the majority’s organization and operation of the House, but they do not dictate to
party leaders and others how to run the House. In more recent Congresses, the
Republican majority needed to accommodate a wider, more assertive range of
Republican Members’ perspectives, and to deal with an emboldened minority.
Consequently, the number of open — and modified open — special rules diminished
and the number of structured rules increased, a third day for the consideration of
legislation by suspension of the rules was added, fewer days were spent in session,
more competition over jurisdiction between committees occurred, and some
measures passed by the House could not pass the Senate and convening conferences
between the chambers was sometimes problematic.
Despite the extensive rules changes in the House since the 104th Congress, the
House remains one of the two independent political institutions of Congress,
designed to be so by the Framers. Interest balances interest, as noted in The
Federalist Papers, and unless there is majority political will — not necessarily a
party majority but a majority of Members of each house — to take an action, such
as make a specific law, that action will not happen. One role of Congress is to make
law, but its larger role is to winnow the proposals about what should be law —
because some proposals are bad ideas or lack public support or offend a constituency
or cost too much or are impractical or are for some other reason unable to generate
the needed majorities. If rules — in the broadest sense, not House special rules —
allow opportunities for all Members to participate at all stages of the legislative
process, in both chambers, then the Framers’ system would be viewed by many as
working.



In looking to the future, it is a telling statistic that 60% of Representatives,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner have not known another set of rules andth
operational frame of reference than the one that has existed since the 104 Congress.
Of the 438 Members of the House in August 2006, 265 sitting Members began theirth
service in the 104 or a later Congress — 153 Republicans and 112 Democrats.rd
Another 16 Members, so far, whose service began in the 103 Congress or before,
will be leaving the House, and there are currently two vacancies.
Rules changes are likely to be incremental rather than extensive with a
Republican majority or at some future time with a Democratic majority. Looking
to the very next Congress, the package of rule changes presented by the majority
party would take into consideration the size of the party majority. The changes would
need to balance that fact, and protect minority prerogatives, against the need to
govern. A Republican House might consider further committee jurisdictional
realignments, more changes to the budget process, incremental changes to reduce the
number of times the minority might make certain motions or introduce certain
resolutions, and other adjustments to House rules. A Democratic House would likely
consider whether to abolish some changes made by the Republicans, giving
consideration to the circumstance that nearly 60% of the Democratic Caucus is junior
enough not to have served in the majority. Observers question whether Democrats
might eliminate committee chairs’ term limits, return some degree of autonomy to
subcommittees, restore proxy voting, or use more open special rules.
The House majority party would also need to consider majority control of the
Senate as it contemplates a rules package. The House majority party might
contemplate the party arrangements and the effectiveness of the President and
Congress over the past 25 years. President Reagan began with a Republican Senate
and Democratic House and ended with a Democratic Congress. President George
H.W. Bush held office with a Democratic Congress. President Clinton began office
with a Democratic Congress and served most of his two terms with a Republican
Congress. President George W. Bush has served only with a Republican Congress,th
except for a portion of the 107 Congress when Democrats controlled the Senate.
The Presidents have succeeded and failed with their major policy initiatives under
each arrangement.
The rules of the House do not exist to achieve a specific legislative result. They
are available to all Members and to any majority. Many factors besides party control,
and the party’s use of rules, affect the congressional environment. To look back in
history, Speaker Thomas Bracken Reed could be said to have created the modern,
majority-minority House with his rulings, but he could not have contemplated how
a very strong Speaker like Joseph Cannon would use the Speakership to dominate
the House. The Corrections Calendar was announced with great fanfare when it was
created in 1995; it had long been moribund when it was terminated in the rules
package for the 109th Congress. As noted in the report, the consideration of
legislation under suspension of the rules was a minor procedure 40 years ago; now
motions to suspend the rules are in order Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays when
the House is in session. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 called for two budget



resolutions each year; the procedure was impractical and hugely time consuming and
was abandoned.71
The House rules — the common language of the House — are very important
components of governance, and they exist for all Members and all majorities to use.


71 Exogenous developments also affect Congress. For example, the installation of air
conditioning in the Capitol complex after World War II made it thinkable to spend the
summer and fall in Washington, DC; the jet plane and the growth of air travel made it
possible for most Members to go home weekends and to have their families live at home
rather than in the Washington, DC, area; and the World Wide Web, e-mail, and other
information technology advances have connected probably every Member and his or her
staff with the Member’s constituents (and anyone else) to receive and send communications.