Since the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act, the House has made incremental alterations in its procedural rules and practices. Most such changes have been embodied in amendments to the Rules at the outset of a Congress, on the basis of proposals recommended by the Democratic Caucus Committee on Organization, Study, and Review (OSR) or by the House Committee on Rules. Under this practice, the House Democratic Caucus and its OSR Committee have assumed the primary role in reviewing proposals for House Rules changes. By including numerous significant changes in the resolution adopting House Rules for the new Congress, the House minority and new Members of both parties have little opportunity to influence the content of the Rules package. In addition, the package is generally considered under procedures which prohibit the offering of floor amendments. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Many of these changes in House rules have been directed toward expediting business and facilitating its management. Several may be viewed as significant steps toward leadership coordination of the floor schedule, including changes pertaining to the suspension of the rules. Through changes in 1973 and 1977, motions to suspend the rules were made in order on every Monday and Tuesday instead of only the first and third Mondays. Also, a result of changes beginning in 1979, a demand may no longer be made that a motion to suspend the rules be seconded by a majority by tellers. These changes enhanced the Speaker's authority because he has total discretion in recognition for such motions. In the 1979 case, however, the increase in the Speaker's authority may have been only incidental to the objective of eliminating the need for a teller count or roll call that could potentially be used for dilatory purposes.
To avoid delay in transforming from the House to the Committee of the Whole to consider a measure, in 1983 the Speaker was empowered to declare the House in Committee of the Whole after the House had adopted a special rule making consideration of a measure in order. This change eliminated the need for a separate vote of the House for the purpose. Other changes enhanced the Speaker's scheduling authority. First, as a result of amendments in 1989 and 1993, Members may still move to discharge or instruct conferees if the conferees have not reported for more than 20 days, but only after giving prior notice. The Speaker may then put over for one day the consideration of these motions. Second, under another 1993 change, similar notice is required for Members other than the majority or minority leader to raise questions of the privileges of the House. The Speaker may then schedule their consideration at any time within 2 days.
In another change that primarily enhanced the ability of the leadership to manage floor proceedings, in 1985 the majority manager was permitted to demand one hour, rather than the standard ten minutes, of debate on a motion (offered by the minority party) to recommit a measure to the reporting committee with instructions. A similar focus on improved control of the floor agenda was also reflected in changes in the budget process, more fully discussed in other chapters. These changes restricted the ability of the Members to secure consideration of limitation amendments on appropriation bills and of provisions affecting the national debt ceiling.
Still other changes chiefly served the function of expediting business, and some also tended to relieve pressures on Members from the fragmentation of time. Many also had a bearing on the leadership's powers to counter potential dilatory tactics. Major changes in this category pertained to issues including motions to recess and adjourn, quorums and voting, reading of amendments, resolutions of inquiry, and committee meetings.
In 1973 the Speaker was permitted to entertain motions to recess or fix the time to which to adjourn, and in 1993 he was authorized to declare short recesses. Making these motions subject to the Speaker's discretion, rather than restoring their former privileged status which was abolished by the ``Reed Rules,'' inhibits the revival of such motions for dilatory purposes.
Several changes affected different aspects of quorum and voting procedures. First, as a result of changes from 1977 through 1981, Members can now obtain quorum calls only at the point when a question is put, except that the Speaker in his discretion may entertain a motion for a call of the House. In addition, the Committee of the Whole is no longer required to rise and report to the House proceedings under a quorum call. Second, through a series of rules changes beginning in 1979, the Speaker has received authority to postpone and cluster gradually expanding categories of roll call votes, and to reduce the time for voting to five minutes after the first vote in a cluster. Third, another 1979 change raised the second required for a recorded vote in Committee of the Whole to 25 Members. Finally, in 1993, teller votes were abolished; the installation of an electronic voting system two decades ago had made teller voting largely obsolete.
Other changes included a 1981 amendment that permitted the House to dispense with the reading of an amendment if it is available in printed form. Also, in 1983 the time before a Member could secure consideration of a resolution of inquiry to the Executive Branch was lengthened from 7 to 14 legislative days after its referral to committee. Lastly, rather than needing permission to meet when a bill is being read for amendment under the five-minute rule, beginning in 1993 committees may meet during sessions of the House without restriction.
A final group of diverse changes primarily operated to enhance individual Members' information and resources. First, a 1976 amendment required that conference reports, already subject to a three-day layover requirement, be available for 2 hours before consideration. Next, beginning in 1977, a Member was authorized to have a staff assistant present on the floor during consideration of an amendment he or she had offered. Then, beginning in 1981, committees were mandated to use automated facilities of the House Information Systems for scheduling meetings. Finally, a 1985 rule provided that where both majority and minority managers favored a conference report, an opponent is entitled to control one-third of the time for debate.