No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Notes on Procedure
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
The business of the session raised a number of interesting questions of congressional procedure. There was the usual discussion of the seniority rule for the chairmanships of the committees, with proposals for supplanting it by free election. But the admitted evils of a system under which men hold their posts not according to fitness but to length of service are known while those of a new scheme are not, and no change is contemplated. In the Senate, the situation was amazing. For day after day it laid the appropriation bills aside and discussed a makeshift, compromise tariff bill when it was sure that President Wilson's inevitable veto could not be overridden.
- Type
- American Government and Politics: The Third Session of the Sixty-Sixth Congress, December 6, 1920-March 4, 1921
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1921
References
6 See American Political Science Review, Vol. 14, p. 670.
7 The exact language of the amendment is as follows:
“2. Any amendment of the Senate to a general appropriation bill which would be in violation of the provisions of clause 2 of Rule XXI, if said amendment bad originated in the House, shall not be agreed to by the managers on the part of the House unless specific authority to agree to such amendment shall be first given by the House by a separate vote on every such amendment.”
The language of Rule xxi, which was referred to, is as follows:
“2. No appropriation shall be reported in any general appropriation bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, for any expenditure not previously authorized by law, unless in continuation of appropriations for such public works and objects as are already in progress.” House Manual and Digest, sec. 815.
8 Congressional Record, March 4, p. 4743. The most serious deadlock between the House and the Senate under this rule was probably on the sundry civil bill. A Senate amendment appropriated ten million dollars for the Muscle Shoals nitrate proposition. The House conferees submitted the amendment to the House and by a vote of 182–193 the House refused to recede from its position and concur in the Senate amendment (February 25, Congressional Record, p. 4100.) On March 3, the House by a vote of 144–207 again insisted on its disagreement (p. 4654), and the Senate was forced to yield. (March 3, p. 4711.)
9 On February 11, Congressman Lanham read to the House his poem entitled “In Memory of Those Who Died at the Battle of Budget Hill.” A Parody on the “Charge of the Light Brigade,” this effusion extolled “the slaughtered four hundred” whom the thirty-five had “shattered and sundered.”
10 Congressman Britten, however, complained that the appropriations committee was legislating; that, by making it appear that the appropriations were for additions to naval equipment, grants were made for what were really new purposes, not authorized by law, but not subject to points of order. Congressional Record, February 12, p. 3231.
11 On January 7, Speaker Gillett made a very important ruling under Rule xxi. House Resolution 15163, on the union calendar number 373, was reported from the committee on Indian affairs, carrying an appropriation of $100,000. The committee, observing the spirit of the rule, reported an amendment striking out the appropriation and inserting an authorization. For the purpose of securing a ruling, Congressman Mann made the point of order that the bill was erroneously on the calendar. “It seems to the Chair,” the Speaker said, “that the purpose of the rule—to prevent legislative Committees from reporting appro priations will be effected by ruling that the point of order lies against the item of appropriation, and not against the reporting of the bill.” Congressional Record, p. 1181.
12 See Congressional Record, December 18, p. 536.
13 See American Political Science Review, Vol. 15, p. 79.
14 House Report No. 1243, January 26: rejected in House, February 7; passed House, February 8; reported in Senate, February 16; passed Senate, February 22; approved by President, February 26; Public No. 328.
15 Mr.Barkley, : “It is nothing short of an outrage that this bill is brought in under these conditions. There are many members on both sides of the House who want to support it. I myself will support it under proper conditions, but I will not vote to suspend the rules and pass this bill without debate or amendment.” Congressional Record, p. 2869.Google Scholar
Mr. Rayburn: “This move here today is made in the face of everything that has been agreed to in our committee since its organization for fair consideration. This move is made in order to protect the leadership of this House, the members of the Rules Committee, because they are afraid to report a rule for a bill and not report it on other matters. They are saying that they will not report any rules at all!” (P. 2869.)
Mr. Sims: “This bill provides potentially for $400,000,000 to be taken out of the Treasury ‥‥ the appropriation being automatic under the Transportation Act. Not even an amendment can be offered. What is the matter with the bill? Is it so gpod that no member of the House should be permitted to offer an amendment to it?” (P. 2870.)
16 Congressional Record, p. 2951.
17 Provision was made for five hospital plants for the treatment of neuropsychiatrie and tuberculosis patients; “One in the Central Atlantic Coast States, one in the region of the Great Lakes, one in the Central Southwestern States, one in the Rocky Mountain States, and one in Southern California.” These locations were denounced as “porkbarrel allotments,” three of them of doubtful suitability for tuberculosis patients. The problem, Mr. Wingo said, should be settled “free from any sectional discrimination or political trade or trafficking.” The gentlemen in charge of the bill deprecated “partisanship and sectionalism and log-rolling, yet as a matter of fact, the bill is brought here under suspension of the rules of the House so that the Democratic side of this House and no man on the Republican side of the House who wants to go further and offer amendments so to meet the whole problem by a broad constructive bill instead of the piecemeal bill is denied the opportunity to do so.” Congressional Record, February 7, p. 2863.
18 On one of these the chairman voted in the negative and made the result a tie, so that the motion to consider bills from the committee on claims was lost. See Hinds Precedents, sec. 5997.
19 For the report of the proceedings, see Congressional Record, February 18, pp. 3614–3639.
20 January 26 was an interesting day also, in that the House voted 141–142 against an amendment to the agricultural appropriation bill providing $360,000 for free seeds, A motion to reconsider was made and a motion to lay that on the table resulted in a vote of 131–131. The next day the House voted 166–153 to reconsider its action and the amendment passed by 169–149. There had been four roll calls on the item. The amendment was struck out by the Senate and the House voted (February 28) 198–134 to insist on its action. The Senate debated the matter for an hour on March 2 and voted for it, 55–22.
21 Congressional Record, p. 2691. On February 5, the day before the attempt to suspend the rules and pass the railroad bill (see above) Congressman Huddleston inquired what the intentions of the Republican leaders were with reference to the Winslow Bill, and when the information was refused conducted a little filibuster for the afternoon. He offered twenty amendments to the army appropriation bill (which was being considered under the five minute rule) and argued them all (with allusions to the proposed railroad legislation) until called to order for not discussing the matter at issue. He made three points of no quorum which did not require roll calls since the President's message vetoing the army resolution was to be voted upon and one hundred members—the committee of the whole quorum—were present. But when the committee of the whole reported the army bill to the House, Mr. Huddleston made the point, the roll was called, followed a moment later by a yea and nay vote on the veto message. Congressional Record, p. 2777ff.
Certain members of the House also sought, from time to time, to secure information from the leaders as to their proposals for the bill to create a live stock commission and regulate the packing plants (S. 3944; Senate Report 429). This measure passed the Senate January 24 and the House Report (No. 1297) was made February 5, but it was not allowed to be considered.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.