The task force met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m. in Room H-313, The Capitol, Hon. David Dreier [chairman of the task force] presiding.

Present: Representatives Dreier and Frost.

Also Present: Representative Solomon.

Mr. Dreier. The task force will come to order.

This is the first meeting of our bipartisan Rules Committee panel, and I think that this is the first gathering of the sort that has been put together in many, many years.

As you all know, at the Rules Committee's organizational meeting on January 8th, the committee established this bipartisan ad hoc task force for the purpose of recommending at the earliest practicable date a more logical, orderly, and comprehensive set of House rules without substantive policy change.

The task force consists of two Republican Members, Deborah Pryce and I, and two Democratic Members, Martin Frost and Louise Slaughter. While not officially members of the task force, I have also asked Chairman Solomon and Ranking Minority Member Moakley to participate in our proceedings.

The Parliamentarian's Office was asked to prepare for us a proposed recodification that we could use as a starting point for our deliberations. It is based primarily on the work of a similar bipartisan task force appointed by Speaker O'Neill in 1984. It also includes subsequent changes that have been made in the House rules since 1985. A summary of the Parliamentarian's draft, along with a 200 page draft resolution, has been given to each member of the task force. You will note that it pares the number of House rules from 51 to 50 by combining several existing rules and by creating several new rules from parts of existing rules.

The purpose of this meeting today is to establish some general goals and timetables for the task force, and to allow Charlie Johnson to brief us on the history, politics, and logistics of recodification.

Let me emphasize that no decisions regarding a draft recodification will be made at this meeting because we have not had ample opportunity to review the proposals that have come forward. This is meant to serve more as an organizational meeting, an informational meeting, because other than Mr. Moakley, none of us have participated -- he participated back in 1985 in the effort that went on then, but no one else has been involved since that time.

I would like to, with that, recognize Mr. Frost, if you have any comments.

Mr. Frost. No particular comment. Just anxious to hear from the Parliamentarian.

Mr. Dreier. Mr. Solomon.

Mr. Solomon. We want to expedite this today. I have to catch a plane at 2 o'clock, but in the meantime we appreciate the diligence that you all have done, and we look forward to your presentation, gentlemen.

Mr. Dreier. Let me just say that there was a sense early on that we would complete our work by late February or early March. I am here to report that that ain't going to happen. One of the things that I think we are sort of looking for a June date, and I had heard, Charlie, that you will not be printing up the House Manual around June; is that correct?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. JOHNSON, III, PARLIAMENTARIAN, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS G. DUNCAN, DEPUTY PARLIAMENTARIAN AND JOHN V. SULLIVAN, DEPUTY PARLIAMENTARIAN, OFFICE OF THE PARLIAMENTARIAN

Mr. Johnson. The Manual, Mr. Chairman, would normally go to the printer on or before June, but we don't feel any compelling need to have a codification be part of the Manual. It would certainly be nice and preferable, but we could, if there were a codification finally adopted by the House later in the year or even next year, we could reprint the Manual. So that -- it would be a luxury, perhaps, to be able to print a codification if accepted by the House as part of the Manual, but I don't see it as absolutely necessary. The important thing is to get it right and not to delay what would otherwise be an important research tool for the Members.

Mr. Dreier. Sure. Well, my sense is that since we had initially thought that we would complete this by next month, if we do go on a few months, I would like to have a goal of having our work completed by midyear or about the time that you have done the Manual.

My sense, also, is that as we look at our proposals that it is important that we begin by being bold with some of the changes that we have looked at, and Jerry and I have gone through this before, as I testified earlier today to the Ethics Task Force, when we discussed the proposals of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. I think we should start out by being bold and then, if needed, we can pare that back.

I also should say that we have a lot of staff people who have been very involved and helpful. One of the most important is Walter Oleszek from the CRS, and our staff here has been very helpful, and I know they worked closely with you.

Mr. Solomon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to see this expedited as soon as possible. There will be no substantive policy changes in what we are doing. One thing that has made Members nervous with what we are doing is that they are worried that there may be some changes of jurisdiction, and of course this will contain none of that. But I would just hope that Members understand these are technical changes. Depending on the schedule of the Parliamentarians, if their work is in place, I would love to see this accomplished and in the original print of the Manual that is going to come out.

Mr. Dreier. That is kind of a goal that I would like to think that we could achieve, because I have another meeting I have to attend too that is between now and June. But you are right, Charlie, we obviously do want to get it right. You are correct in that. We have a lot of confidence in you and the others who are involved. So why don't you begin.

Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much.

We have prepared for your information several preliminary documents. We thought it might be helpful to furnish the 1984-85 materials which you have, the preface that explains briefly what happened, why the original effort was made, who was behind it, the letter from Speaker O'Neill dated June 12th to Minority Leader Michel, which showed true bipartisan dedication to the project and which we think again is the reality, that there is a bipartisan commitment to getting this project done correctly.

So I would assume you would enter for whatever it is worth those preliminary materials without my having to go into in any detail. If you have any questions now about that particular arrangement, how it got off the ground, I would be glad to answer them first before we get into the current proposal.

Mr. Dreier. Well, do you want to just give a little bit of the background?

Mr. Johnson. Lynn Martin was, I think, the catalyst, although there was definite Majority support, behind the creation of the task force which constituted -- it was constituted by Lynn Martin, Trent Lott, Tom Foley, and Joe Moakley, those four Representatives and their respective staffs, and they convinced Speaker O'Neill, as the letter suggests, to proceed informally -- not to go through a resolution creating a task force.

Lynn Martin had first in mind a resolution passed through the Rules Committee and by the House which would formally create a task force. A decision was made, I think properly so, as you have done, to do it in this form, although you have further structured it by committee action as a task force of the Rules Committee.

This was a bipartisan leadership task force on that occasion, and with the help of CRS, and it was very excellent help, we worked for 4 or 5 months during late 1984, early 1985, on a draft which was presented to the members of the task force as a side-by-side comparison with the proposed new rules changes, all without substantive revision, contrasted side-by-side with the existing rules, and then a right-hand column with our commentaries.

We had hoped by today to have a similar document for your inspection. The electronics of it, Tom Duncan, and John Sullivan, our two Deputy Parliamentarians worked to try to put our initial presentation in a side-by-side form. That proved impractical electronically at this stage. We are going to immediately continue to try to present to you, incorporating whatever ideas we develop at this meeting, a document which will be side-by-side with commentary.

Mr. Dreier. Since Jerry raised, and I did, the issue of time frame, do you have any idea as to when you might be at that point?

Mr. Johnson. Well, we have the luxury right now of available time because of the schedule of the House, and as you all know, because our priorities are to be available day-to-day for all Members, it is hard for me right now to sit and say that we can dedicate X number of hours a week. I would certainly hope to be able to prioritize this to the absolute maximum extent possible, and considering what you have just said, but hopefully with the caveat is that the most important thing is to get it right.

Now, there are obviously going to be several perspectives of what ends up being right. I think we should perhaps limit the scope of the reorganization. We feel it is very important, as the summary I presented suggests, to maintain wherever possible existing citations to major rules.

So in the outline of the new rules that you have seen, as the Chairman mentioned, we have only basically dropped one rule numerically, as we feel that there is a logic right now to the structure of the rules of the House. We are not departing, because we don't think that there is a need to depart, from the existing basic structure of the rules.

In addition, we urge minimal restructuring because so many precedents, in all of the volumes, the House Rules and Manual, the Hinds, Cannon, Deschler-Brown precedent volumes, and the new House Practice volume by William Holmes Brown, all make countless references to the major existing rules: germaneness, appropriations, the previous question, and debate.

We feel it is important for scholars, for Members, for staff, to be able to use those research tools in a way that will minimize new citations. Therefore, we have tried to restructure, and again, our focus hopefully today will be to encourage an understanding by the Members and staff as to why we think this structure that is in our proposal makes some sense.

We are not wedded to it, we are open to any suggestions that you would make, we basically see this not totally mirroring existing rules, but we see the structure as starting from rule I -- Duties of the Speaker -- and I am paraphrasing the summary which you all have, the organization of the House, the election of the officers.

We have done some minor restructuring in that area of House Officers, and have made some grammatical changes in some of the rules that have consistent references to, for example, the Speaker, rather than "he." There are some minor grammatical, last-minute attempts to at least clean up some of the more obvious inconsistencies in existing rules on references. But within rules 1 through 7, we feel we have a logical structure, beginning with the Speaker and then going through the election of the four, currently elected officers, and then getting into the other offices of the House.

Now, that raises an interesting question. We do have three un-elected offices addressed in the rules of the House. The Office of Inspector General, the Office of the Historian, and the Office of General Counsel. Those separate offices have become injected into the rules of the House at different times, as have many of the rules, as you all know. Part of the problem here is that so many of the clauses throughout the rules have evolved at different times without a real overview toward consistency. There has been some partial overview. I would say in recent years the Rules Committee has reported a couple of clarification-type resolutions, and opening day resolutions have sought in minor ways to codify or clarify.

But within the first several rules, we feel the duties of the various officers should be laid out in what is basically the current form of the rule.

When we get down to rule VIII, we have moved provisions with respect to the delegates and resident commissioner in with the duties of Members. It enlarges rule VIII, but it gives us room for a new rule XII.

So there are trade-offs here, and we think the trade-offs are logical. Because what we try to do throughout is maintain structure, with some variation, and these variations are certainly debatable.

The first several rules going to the establishment and duties of offices and Members; the second series, say, from rule IX through rule XIX, for example, addressing procedures within the House, beginning with committees, committee organization, committee rules, committee reports. Then chronologically, if you will, going forward again, pretty much as they now exist, with respect to Floor procedures in the House.

With respect to relations between the House and the Senate, that is addressed basically now in two rules, in rule XX and in rule XXVIII. We have maintained those rules, even though it might not be a pure chronological progression within the House and then House and Senate and then conference.

There is a certain logic to that progression, but we have deviated from it to the extent that we feel it is important to maintain rule XXI, the appropriation rules, the appropriation citations, and also the tax and tariff measures and appropriations on legislative bills. There are so many cites and rulings to those provisions in rule XXI that we have maintained that as a separate composite rule, as probably one of the most important rules, but we have moved unrelated provisions out of rule XXI, and I will explain that.

Again, the several rules we have most sought to maintain citation-wise were germaneness, the previous question, debate, references to committee procedures, appropriation procedures, conference procedures, and suspension of the rules. Those rules I think are the most often cited and deserve, if at all possible, to retain current citations.

Within that, I will back up now and go to certain specific changes that we have made within some of the rules, beginning with rule IX.

Rule IX is currently questions of privilege. As you know, we experienced more rule IX procedures last Congress than virtually all other procedures put together, combining privileges of the House and personal privilege. We have moved that to rule XXII, not because XXII makes any particular sense for questions of privilege, but to make room chronologically for the introduction or the beginning of the legislative process.

So rule IX really addresses the introduction and referral of bills and resolutions, and it includes, all without substantive change, the ban on the introduction of certain bills, such as most recent ban on commemoratives. It addresses the Speaker's authority to refer, which is currently in rule X, including the Speaker's multiple referral authorities. We combine executive communications, petitions, memorial provisions that are now in rule XXII into what we perceive as the proper place -- addressing the start of the legislative process.

When we get to rule X, we again, as you said, Mr. Chairman, haven't yet addressed committee jurisdictions. There are some obsolete provisions under certain committee jurisdictions that perhaps anyone could agree should be eliminated. We haven't addressed those. We do combine in rule X, as you can see, not only the establishment of committees, the statement of their jurisdictions, but also the current provisions in rule X on expenses and staff. So we are looking in rule X at the structure of committees. Then we think that there is a logical progression, as there is in current rules, to go from there to rule XI on procedure within committees.

Within that, we have made some internal changes. The resolution which you have in front of you will show some subheadings. The index that we first furnished has headings for each numbered rule, but as we point out at the top, many rules will have separate, more specific subheadings for clauses within some rules. We feel that once you see those, as you will when you look at the resolution, and when we can further outline it in the side-by-side, there will be perhaps a better comfort level that the reader's attention will be called clearly and logically to clauses within certain rules, subheadings which you might not first see when you look at the outline of the heading of the general rule itself.

So we feel that our reorganization of rule XI is consistent, and has some logic to it. It is explained in some detail, as you can see in our summary.

The summary is a chronological approach to each of these rules. Paragraph 6 explains our restructuring of rule X and there really isn't much in there, except we move the Ethics Committee procedures into a new rule as we did in 1984.

We think there is a logic to combining all ethics provisions, both procedural and various codes of conduct or statements of conduct later on in the rules, which you will see beginning with rule XXXIX through rule XLVI or XLVII. But in rule X we have moved out all of the various provisions respecting the ethics process and into rule XXXIX. Otherwise, what we have done is fairly technical within rule X.

We have narrowed rule XI, as explained in paragraph 7, to just go to the point of full committee reporting. We want to distinguish between committee proceedings within the committees and then committee reports and the content thereof, which we have moved to rule XIII. In-between rules XI and XIII we have interjected any and all permanent select committees. At one point there was a Permanent Select Committee on Aging, which was in rule X. That is no longer. So the only select committee now is the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence currently rule XLVIII.

This committee has recommended creation of several select committees over the years which have not amended the standing rules, and that may be a preferable approach. You all have written guidelines on the creation and establishment of select committees, and they are helpful. They were written some years ago and they remain relevant, I believe.

Mr. Solomon. At some point we ought to discuss the pros and cons of that.

Mr. Johnson. But this only assumes possibly at some point in time a reemergence of a select committee into the standing rules and for the present does acknowledge that the only permanent select committee is the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Then, as I say, rule XI carries us up to the point of full committee ordering reported, and it includes the time for additional views, and all committee procedures that transpire up to that point, up to the point of filing in the House.

We think it is very helpful to have a combined rule XIII, which is a consolidation of reports, calendars and availability of reports and contents of reports. The reader can look in one place, rather than currently two or more, for all provisions with respect to all committee reports, including the Appropriations Committee. The only difference, the only exception, and you would appreciate it, is that the Rules Committee reporting is specially treated together with privileged reports generally in new rule XIX.

Now, to be sure, there have been many references to the Rules Committee's reporting as privileged under clause 4 of rule XI. We wanted to separate out very clearly Rules Committee procedures because we think they deserve separate treatment as privileged reports, and so we have put them in as clause 2 of rule XIX, together with privileged reports generally, which is now also in clause 4(a) of rule XI, and recites the various privileges that the committees have, Appropriations, House Oversight, Standards, Rules, and Budget. Those are the five committees that now have privileged reporting status. We put that in clause 1 of rule XIX to separate out privilege, immediately followed by Rules Committee reports as clause 2 of rule XIX. Clause 3 treats resolutions of inquiry. They are the only other type of privileged report contemplated now in the standing rules, and we moved that provision from rule XXII where it really doesn't make too much sense. So all privileged reports are in rule XIX.

Back to rule XIII, by putting all of the requirements for inclusion of various provisions in reports, Ramseyer, cost estimates, committee roll call totals, oversight and CBO estimates, and the new constitutional authority statement are all wrapped up in rule XIII. The reason for that is we think the reader should be able to look at one place for all reporting requirements.

Also, we do eliminate one ambiguity. If you look at the cost estimate rule, which I think is clause 7 of rule XIII right now, you will see a statement: if a committee fails to comply, a point of order shall lie against the consideration of the bill, whereas the other reporting requirements in rule XI and in rule XIII don't contain that same language, a point of order shall lie against consideration.

Well, under the precedencts, everyone clearly understands that a point of order lies against consideration of any bill for failure to comply with any reporting requirement. So we think the rules should consistently state that such points of order lie and not have some rules say that they lie and others be silent on it.

So our effort in rule XIII has been to be consistent on the assumption that points of order against consideration do lie and if sustained would result in a recommittal of the measure to committee.

Now, recommittal resulting from a point of order does not mean necessarily that the committee is going to have to meet again and go through the whole process again. Recommittal of a bill with a technical error in the report means that the committee has to file a new report and starts the 3-day period over again from the availability of that report. I think that is made clear in this draft with respect to rule XIII.

The Rules Committee does have a Ramseyer requirement, as you know. When the Rules Committee recommends a change in the rules, a permanent change in the standing rules, it has to be Ramseyered. That is put in Rule XIII with the Ramseyer of existing law required by other committees.

The current corrections calendar is in rule XIII. We have moved, as you will see at the end of paragraph 9 in our summary, we have moved the Corrections Calendar, beyond a cross reference in Rule XIII, into rule XXV to show business in order on certain days, chronologically, throughout the week. So we would have suspension of the rules, the Private Calendar, Calendar Wednesday, and the Corrections Calendar, and motions to discharge, which we would treat as a separate rule XXVI. So it makes sense to have the reader be able to look in one place, which would be rule XXV or ruile XXVI, to see all references to business in order on special days.

I am digressing a little bit, but I am trying to follow this chronological sequence as we outline it in the summary.

We moved rule XXX on use of exhibits, which is corruptly rule XXX. It is a problematic rule and has caused some concern about the use of the exhibits rule as a potential filibuster, generally. We don't address anything substantive about how you trigger rule XXX on the use of exhibits; rather, we merely suggest that it more properly belongs in rule XIV as a debate rule, because it really is a question of advisability of the use of exhibits in debate.

Rule XIV we think is important to maintain, because so much relating to debate has happened recently. There are so many citations to the rule against personalities in debate. Clause 1 of rule XIV, we thought needed to be preserved as such, and then the various mechanisms for taking down words, clauses 4 and 5 of rule XIV we maintain as such because they have had many citations. So we really are combining into rule XIV the various rules of debate.

Rule XV is a combination of all voting and quorum rules, many of which are now in rule I, under the Speaker's authority to postpone votes, for example, except in rules that apply in the Committee of the Whole. We have continued to maintain the distinction between voting procedures in Committee of the Whole and voting procedures in the House. Rule XXXIII covers Committee of the Whole procedures, it is often cited, so we leave it basically alone. But in rule XV we are moving many provisions that are now in clause 5 of rule I into rule XV, so that there is a consolidation of procedures on quorum calls and voting.

That raises one example of certain ambiguities that exist. We haven't addressed it yet, but it is a subject that we will want to discuss. Clause 6 of rule XV currently has a laundry list of certain legislative situations at which time points of order of no quorum are not in order. Then you get to clause 6(e) of rule XV which basically says that notwithstanding everything you have just read, the only time you can have a point of no quorum is when the Chair is putting the question to a vote. So it really moots all of these provisions that are earlier carried in clause 6 of rule XV.

While we leave them in the codification, we think it is necessary to discuss sometime soon whether those provisions in clauses 6(a) through (d) make any sense in light of 6(e), which basically says, the only time you can have a point of order is when the Chair is putting the question to a vote.

All of the postponement authorities again are being moved in tothe rule XV and out of rule I. The ballot voting rule which perhaps is an anachronism is now rule XXXVIII, balloting in the House. I don't know exactly when the last ballot vote was taken in the House.

As you look through these, you will see in the Manual the dates in which various clauses were adopted and that gives you a pretty good image; in fact, maybe we can do that in the side-by-side to show when existing rules were put in place, to show the large spread in time. Different Congresses writing different rules for different reasons at different times, indicates, I think, after 100 years, a need to do a codification.

Let me back up into rule XI just for a minute, because what we do, as we did in 1984 and 1985, properly clarifies the applicability of committee procedure rules at the subcommittee level. Just a glance at the present rule indicates that many of those subparagraphs are only textually applicable to committees. Others are applicable to committees and subcommittees. We believe, as we have consistently advised, and as I think everyone has accepted, that most of those rules do apply at both the full and subcommittee levels and that the codification should show that. Some might argue that that is a substantive change. I think, based on years of interpretation, that we are not suggesting anything new, but that your side-by-side when you get it, and this draft right now shows that we believe that virtually every paragraph within clause 2 of rule XI should be made textually applicable at the subcommittee level.

Mr. Frost. Could I ask a question?

Mr. Dreier. Sure.

Mr. Frost. Since the Rules Committee itself really doesn't function most of the time the way the other committees of the House do -- that is, we do all of our work in full committee rather than doing a substantial amount of our work in subcommittee -- those of us who are on the Rules Committee and who have spent little or no time on other committees may not have a full appreciation for the interplay between the subcommittee rules and the full committee rules and how that works on other committees, and we may want to have some questions at some point.

There are members of this committee who have spent a significant amount of time on other committees; I am not one. I have only -- in addition to being on the Rules Committee, I have only served on the Budget Committee and on House Administration, because I came on Rules Committee during my first term.

But I am aware, because of my responsibilities for a number of years of chairing the Democratic Caucus Rules Committee, that there are some very significant turf issues that develop on the subcommittee level, and so I would not want us to pass over this one lightly. I don't feel fully competent to comment on this one, but I think at some point there needs to be some discussion of that, Charlie.

Mr. Johnson. Just as one example, we think subcommittees -- if the chairman refuses to call a meeting, three members and then the majority of the members of the subcommittee can petition for the call of a subcommittee meeting. It takes three members initially to sign the petition, and then the majority have to sign to allow the subcommittee to convene a special meeting.

The way the rule is spelled out right now, it says "committees," it doesn't say "subcommittees," but I think there is a clear understanding that that rule applies at the subcommittee level. It is one of maybe seven examples.

Mr. Dreier. Is that something that should be clarified?

Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. I think it should be made clear that all of the -- virtually every provision in rule XI applies at the subcommittee level, and we will outline in the side-by-side the justification for each and why we do not believe that is a substantive departure from current understanding and practice.

Rule XVI is one of the key rules, and it has become a little more top-heavy, perhaps, than the current rule XVI. We have combined it, as you can see in the summary, to include motions, consideration, amendments, germaneness, divisibility and readings.

Now, why all in one rule? To begin with, most of what you see is already in part of rule XVI. We are working around germaneness. We want to preserve the citation to clause 7 of rule XVI as the germaneness rule, but we also felt it important to combine as many other rules that relate to the amendment process within the House, not House-Senate relations, but within the House, as possible.

Right now, rule XIX is the rule that describes the four stages of amendment that could be pending at one time. We think it is important to place that in the area together with germaneness, together with the priority of the motion to amend, compared with the other motions in the House, currently clause 4 of rule XVI, together with the divisibility of certain motions to strike and insert. All of that we put together as part of rule XVI, we think in a logical way.

We also moved clause 1 of rule XXI, which is now readings, which says: The bill shall be read by title the first time, the second time for amendment, and the third time by title, engrossment and third reading.

We have clarified the modern requirements for readings, and we have moved the readings portion of rule XXI, which is clause 1, into rule XVI, because there is a certain logic to having motions and readings and engrossment and third reading all being a part of the rule. It also freed us up to isolate rule XXI and not have it be such a disparate rule. It allowed us to use rule XXI then to focus on provisions in certain bills, primarily appropriation bills and tax bills, and points of order against those provisions. Rather than to have a separate readings provision in rule XXI, we think it makes more sense in rule XVI.

Mr. Frost. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just consulting with staff, and I just want to make sure, a number of years ago I was involved in this issue of redrafting a rule of the House dealing with the motion to rise on appropriation bills, and I believe that is currently in rule XXI. Does that stay in rule XXI? That doesn't get moved up here?

Mr. Johnson. Yes, yes, it stays, because it is unique to the appropriations process and entrenchment and limitations in amendments. It keeps the same citation in clause 2 of rule XXI. So we think we can justify the additions that are made and the slight restructuring in rule XVI.

We think the headings within -- again, I specifically point to the headings which you will see in the actual resolution. Each clause will have a heading that will further bring the reader's attention to the provision. Even though the heading of the general rule is rather disparate, you will see that the clauses have separate subheadings.

Recommittal and previous question: The only motion we have moved out of rule XVI is the motion to recommit, and, again, we know the sensitivity of the motion to recommit with instructions. We wanted all of those provisions on recommittals, be they recommittals of bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, or simple resolutions to be in rule XVII where currently the general motion for recommittal and its relationship to the previous question is treated.

As you also know, the guarantee that the Minority has to offer motions to recommit with instructions on bills and joint resolutions is contained in clause 4 of rule XVI under the general description of motions. We felt that it was helpful to have all treatment of recommittal in one rule but not to make substantive changes. We certainly wouldn't want to make any substantive change on the right to recommit.

Now, there is one ambiguity. I don't want to dwell on it. It is paragraph 14 on page 5 of your summary. There is a parenthetical there, and I don't want to dwell on this because it is very esoteric. It is under rule XVII. It says: The motion to recommit is now in order, either after the previous question is ordered, which 99.9 percent of the time is when the motion to recommit is made, or pending the motion for the previous question. That doesn't come up -- that situation doesn't arise in 99 percent of the cases, because, one, either the previous question has been ordered by a rule, or, in the case of the Rules Committee, there are no dilatory motions such as recommital. However, for example, on a committee funding resolution -- and that is what I cite here as an example -- that is why we are treading very lightly in this area. We don't want to appear to be changing a substantive right that a Member technically has.

When the funding resolutions have come up in recent years, House Oversight has always tried to preempt the right of the Minority to come in with a motion to recommit with instructions to amend the numbers by having a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute which will be adopted first, thereby relegating the Minority motion to recommit either to a straight motion or with general instructions.

Well, several years ago, the Republican Minority discovered these words, "or pending," and asked, could we offer our motion to recommit before the previous question is ordered, thereby getting a leg up and getting our vote on recommittal with instructions even though there was pending a committee amendment reported from House Oversight offered by the Majority -- can we get the first vote on our amendment?

And our response was, not necessarily, because while you could offer it pending the motion for the previous question and pending the committee amendment, that motion to recommit can be tabled, since the previous question has not yet been ordered. It would be possible for the Majority to table the motion to recommit without debate and then foreclose any subsequent motion to recommit.

This rule gives the Minority one choice: either offer recommittal pending or after the previous question is ordered.

We were tempted to take out the word "pending," because it is not ever really utilized, but once this discussion came up in the context of committee funding resolutions, we decided that it would be a substantive change in some eyes if we were to take out the word "pending."

So we call it to your attention as an example of an ambiguity or a technical issue that needs to be addressed in subsequent meetings.

If I thoroughly confused you on that, I apologize.

I know your time constraints, but let me just mention some of the major additional rule summaries.

As I said, we have clause 1 of rule XIX separated out for privileged reports generally and then for treatment of the Rules Committee reports and how they are considered on the Floor as a clause 2 of rule XIX to immediately follow the treatment of privileged rules generally. Then, as I said, treatment of resolutions of inquiry, because they are privileged report, is also moved in as clause 3 of rule XIX.

Rule XX is basically not touched, although we try to distinguish, as we did in 1985, between the stage of disagreement having been reached and not having been reached. As most of you know, when Senate amendments come back from the Senate, they are not initially eligible for consideration on the House Floor by motion. Rule XX provides that the House must resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider Senate amendments, which we never do; as a matter of fact, we go right to conference. The only exception to the restriction against motions at that stage is that committees can meet and authorize the motion to go to conference.

On the motion to go to conference, we have made one clarification that we think is consistent with our advice that committees of initial referral, if they report the bill, are the committees that must authorize the motion to go to conference, but a sequential committee, a true sequential committee, which might have gotten a day or a week to look at a certain aspect is not necessarily the committee of jurisdiction required to move to go to conference. We believe that reflects our consistent advice, but it should be spelled out, because the rule currently says, "committee of jurisdiction."

Clearly, under the current referral practice, even though you have the primary committee, you may have other initial committees which, if they report, are entitled, we think, to be counted into the equation on moving to go to conference in the absence of unanimous consent or a rule from the Rules Committee.

Rule XXI is our other major concern. As I said earlier, we transferred clause 1, which is the readings portion, into rule XVI. So we tried to focus on rule XXI as addressing what can be in certain bills and what points of order lie against provisions in certain bills, and, clearly, the appropriations, general appropriations bill, is the clause most often impacted -- legislation on appropriation bills, unauthorized appropriations, and reappropriations of unexpended balances.

There is one very interesting dichotomy between current clauses 2 and 6 of rule XXI. Clause 2 addresses unauthorized appropriations and legislation and says that no such provision shall be reported in a general appropriation bill. Clause 6 says, with respect to unexpended balances, "No general bill shall be received or considered."

You would look at that and say, well, doesn't the point of order there lie under clause 6 against consideration rather than against the specific reappropriation provision of the bill itself? The constant interpretation of clause 6 has been that. Even though it says "receive or consider," the point of order comes against the provision when it is read for amendment.

So one of the things we tried to do has been to make consistent the clause 2 and clause 6 restrictions so that the point of order lies against the provision in the bill and not against the consideration of the entire bill. While that is a change in language, we believe it comes within an agreed-upon codification of current practice. So we moved unauthorized appropriation legislation, and reappropriation all into clause 2 as separate paragraphs.

Then, we wanted the keep the prohibitions against appropriations in legislative bills and tax and tariff provisions in bills not within that committee's jurisdiction. They are currently clauses 5(a) and (b) of rule XXI. Until 1974, clause 4 covered appropriations in legislative bills. We have moved back to that. We can debate that, whether that should retain 5(a) and tax and tariff 5(b), or whether we should have clause 4 and 5. To me, this will separate it enough to go back to clause 4 and 5.

But in between, we insert clause 3, which is an anomaly in some ways. It is currently in the jurisdictional statement in rule X for the Transportation Committee. It is noted down at the bottom of paragraph 17.

Right now, the Transportation Committee is not allowed to report specific road provisions in a bill which is a general road bill. ISTEA will be coming up, but ISTEA will probably have in it a demonstration project which will be a specific road somewhere.

Technically, the Rules Committee is asked every year there is a highway bill to waive that provision now in rule X because it is a specific road in a general bill. We are not removing it, we are putting it into rule XXI as an example of a provision against which a point of order would lie in a general road bill.

There is also the provision in the Transportation Committee's jurisdiction that if a bill is for a specific road, you can't have a provision in that bill for another specific road.

These rules were put together in the early part of the century in response to "logrolling" and a lot of deals being cut, and maybe they still are on highway bills. If you have a specific road bill, you can't have another specific road in the same bill. There aren't such bills any more, we don't believe, but we don't take it out of the codification, we just call it to your attention, and we move the provision, if it should remain, into rule XXI as a prohibition against certain provisions.

Then the new three-fifths vote requirement on tax rate increases, which is now 5(c) and (d) of rule XXI, we keep in rule XXI, because we weren't sure where else to put it. It is not as a point of order against the provision, it is a procedure on the requirement for final passage, or it is a prohibition against retroactive tax rate increases. But we keep it in rule XXI.

Rule XXII is confined to questions of privilege, which is now rule IX. It is really just a shift from rule IX to rule XXII, and it is just questions of privilege of the House and personal privilege.

Rule XXIII remains Committee of the Whole procedure, and we think we have changed some obsolete provisions with respect to revenue bills and rivers and harbors bills which are no longer privileged under rule XI.

Transportation and Infrastructure has no jurisdiction any longer to report rivers and harbors bills as privileged. Ways and Means can't report revenue bills any more as privileged, so we eliminated the reference in rule XXIII to their being privileged.

Rule XXIV, the general order of business rule, is a conglomeration of procedures, many of which are not observed. It is going to be an interesting aspect of our joint deliberation: Do we want to keep the clause 4 morning hour rule and a rule that says that, after the morning hour, the House can resolve into the Committee of the Whole under clause 5 to do whatever business the Committee of the Whole decides it wants to do?

Those procedures haven't been utilized, I don't believe, and certainly not since I have been here and maybe not in this century, because they are always superseded by leadership decisions, either by a rule from the Rules Committee or by a suspension or unanimous consent, but they are in that codification, because they reflect alternative procedures in the event that the Rules Committee or the leadership, through suspension, chooses not to make a bill in order. These are alternative procedures which, under unique circumstances, could be utilized.

The morning hour is seldom, if ever, available, because virtually no reported bill goes to the House calendar. Most bills require some expenditure of money or disposition of property, so they are on the Union Calendar. So they can't be considered under morning hour.

Calendar Wednesday certainly is a viable rule. It has been utilized infrequently, but it is there in the event that the Rules Committee will not report a rule, and a standing committee in alphabetical order on Wednesday can bring up a reported bill under standing House rules, which might involve extended consideration in Committee of the Whole under the general 5-minute rule.

So there may be some reluctance to utilize the Calendar Wednesday rule, but it is there as a safeguard presumably against Rules Committee inaction and can only be waived by a two-thirds vote.

So we are not recommending necessarily the removal of any of those provisions, but for Morning Hour and the general motion to go into Committee of the Whole for unspecified reasons, we think those may be obsolete at this point, and would be certainly willing to discuss that further.

I mentioned earlier the order of business on certain days. We think there is a logic to having the days outlined in various clauses from Monday through Wednesday, so that the reader can see what business might be in order on certain days, and that would be rule XXV.

Rule XXVI would be discharge. The discharge rule and the suspension rule are now combined in rule XXVII for no apparent reason. Rule XXVI could be a separate discharge rule, which, as you know, has been narrowed to a proper extent. A substantive change was made on Opening Day in the discharge rule to confine discharge petitions to a subject single matter and not allow the use of a shell bill to become a vehicle to make in order an unspecified nongermane amendment. That is no longer permitted under the discharge rule.

But all we are doing here is relocating the discharge rule as a separate rule XXVI following other business in order on certain days. The suspension rule would remain rule XXVII. There are some technical changes in each of those that we have suggested, but nothing of substance.

Rule XXVIII is currently a conglomeration of various rules addressing conference procedures, going to conference, scope issues, and nongermane Senate provisions. We have pretty much left it intact but have combined what are now three separate and very cumbersome provisions in clauses 4 and 5 of rule XXVIII with respect to dealing with nongermane Senate provisions that emerge either in conference or subsequently by motion after a conference.

We put them in one place but deal with nongermane Senate provisions with the same approach that you can make the point of order, have a separate 40 minutes of debate, and then have a separate vote on rejection of the nongermane portion. Be it in a conference report or a motion in disagreement, it is the same rule, but all in one clause rather than in three.

Beyond that, from rule XXX on, we have combined certain rules on housekeeping and prohibitions on access to the Floor and galleries, for example.

One question on broadcasting which we now have in rule XXXIII: There had been a suggestion that, with respect to committee broadcasting, it remain a committee procedure rather than a separate broadcast procedure. That is debatable. You could go either way on that, as we suggest in paragraph 24.

Papers and withdrawal of papers, a very thoughtful rule on preservation and withdrawal of papers that the Rules Committee put together some years ago, assisted by the late Jack Dooling, we combined with access to papers as a new rule, XXXVI.

Then, we get into the various issues of official conduct beginning, as we describe in paragraph 26, in rule XXXIX where we have moved the procedures of the Standards Committee --

Mr. Frost. If I could ask a question, you skipped over XXXVII. This was a rule that the Rules Committee itself, we drafted a number of years ago, the procedure for response to subpoenas. It was rule L, and now you have put it in rule XXXVII. Does that remain the same?

Mr. Johnson. No change. The same with rule XXXVIII on the pay of witnesses: No change, just in a slightly different place.

We thought in 1985 and still feel that to have a place or a series of rules in sequence to consult in the Rules of the House on ethical matters makes some sense.

As you can see, there are about seven rules. The rule on officers and employees and prosecution of claims against the Government, currently rule XLVII, it is a rule of conduct. The use of funds by lame duck members part of which is in new rule I; part of it is in rule XI on the use of committee and Speaker funds for lame duck travel.

We thought it was a conduct rule, so we have combined the various rules on the use of funds by members not reelected into a new rule. But all of the other rules, including the new gift ban rule, are listed in that series.

The debt limit rule in the last paragraph remains in rule XLIX, and we thought it made sense to move the general provisions rule, which is what incorporates Jefferson's Manual and the statutory provisions, to put that in as the last rule.

So that is a long-winded summary, but we would hope that we could agree on the format and then proceed to look at ambiguities, potential obsolescence, and work together in whatever way you see fit.

Mr. Dreier. Let me just say that I think it is very helpful. We wanted to get your entire outline on the record, because I think that is an important thing for us to have.

Since we are in part speaking for the record, I should probably say that I feel very strongly about the last thing that you just said about bringing things up to date. I still think that rule X needs to be updated, without any substantive changes. I have long advocated that. It seems to me that it is an important item. I know it is sensitive for everyone, but I would just like to say that I think that is worth looking at.

One of the things that I think is also very important, if you look back at the experience that you had 12 years ago, is the challenge we face in trying to underscore the importance of this project to members.

What I would like to ask is first for recommendations, and you don't need to answer right now, but also to enlist your help in trying to figure out a way in which we can gain support among the membership for what it is that we are trying to do.

So it is just something that you can think about and we can discuss further.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Louise, do you have any questions?

Ms. Slaughter. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dreier. Okay. Is there anything else that you think we need to discuss at this point?

Mr. Johnson. We will try to have the side-by-side as quickly as possible.

Mr. Dreier. We look forward to that. Again, we would like to stay on this time frame that we are talking about. Obviously, we want to do it right, as both you and Jerry said, but we want to get this done. You have the experience of going back to 1985. I think that we can come to some sort of resolution, I would hope, within the next couple or 3 months, even before you go to print with the Manual, if we can just shoot towards that as a goal.

Thank you all very much. The task force stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the task force was adjourned.]