Members and leaders of both parties have questioned whether practices, while consistent with House rules, have gotten out of balance, with too much deliberation sacrificed to efficiency or electioneering. They have made speeches, introduced resolutions, and, when in the minority, issued critiques of the House's legislative management. Practices targeted have included waivers of layover rules, use of structured and closed special rules, and waivers of committee assignment limitations. The purpose of this report is to provide Members with an analysis of House legislative rules and practices, and committee organization and procedures, that could be changed in the 112 th Congress. Some analyses respond to bipartisan Member concerns over the House's legislative management, others to the needs of leaders in managing such a large body. Mechanisms to Effect Changes to Rules andTheir Implementation

Change to legislative procedures and to committee organization in the House of Representatives can be achieved in a number of ways. Perspectives on Standing Rules

A House rule or set of rules might be analyzed in a number of ways. What is the balance being sought between deliberation and decision making? What leader or group of Members will be empowered by a change, or will the House be the decision maker? Will an action be allowed, forbidden, or made conditional? How might party rules supplement or supplant an existing or new rule? In addition to providing a process, a rule may—
Disallow an action, such as the proscription in Rule XIII on the Rules Committee from reporting a special rule prohibiting the motion to recommit; Allow an action, such as the demand for the division of a question in Rule XVI; Require an action to be taken, such as the referral of legislation by the Speaker in Rule XII; Establish conditions precedent for an action, such as placing a motion to discharge on the Discharge Calendar only after a majority of the membership has signed the motion, as provided in Rule XV; Establish consequences for an action, such as the call to order ("words taken down") in Rule XVII; Determine who may take an action, such as the authorization of the majority leader in Rule XXI to make a motion for the Committee of the Whole to rise and report a general appropriations bill that has been read for amendment; Determine whether, how, and when an individual or entity may make a decision on an action, such as the authority of the Speaker in Rule 1 to approve the Journal, subject to a demand by a Member for a vote by the House for its approval; Create a rigid process, such as that under Rule XI that allows a committee to report a measure only when a majority of the committee's membership is physically present; Create a flexible process, with discretion vested in an individual or an entity, such as the discretion vested in the Speaker in Rule XX to postpone votes and, after the first vote in a series is taken, to reduce the time for voting to five minutes; Make an exception to a process, such as the requirement for a so-called one-day layover of a special rule reported by the Rules Committee unless, as provided in Rule XIII, the House by a two-thirds vote waives the requirement; Allow a motion and attach conditions to it, such as the motion in Rule XI to dispense with the first reading of a bill or resolution in a committee if printed copies are available, which motion is privileged and nondebatable; Disallow a motion, such as the motion to reconsider on an affirmative vote to approve the Journal in Rule I; Create an entity and give responsibility or authority, or both, to it, such as the officers and officials of the House in Rule II; Establish requirements, such as those in Rule XIII on the contents of committees' reports on legislation; Bestow privilege, such as to measures listed in Rule XIII; or Bring deliberation to an end, such as the motion for the previous question allowed under rule XIX. Committee System Overview

Numerous House rules address the committee system, including committee and subcommittee membership, and committee jurisdiction and referral. Many Democratic Caucus and Republican Conference rules also govern the organization, structure, and procedures of House committees, and many party rules, in addition, supplement or even circumvent House rules to reflect, for example, the size of the majority and the political and other needs of both the majority party and its members. As the number of committees, subcommittees, and informal groups and task forces have increased, and the number of waivers and temporary assignments has expanded, the average number of assignments for Members has also risen. Committee Party Ratios .") Regular Order and Committee Processing of Legislation

The means by which legislation is developed has become an issue in and of itself in recent Congresses. Members of both parties, whether their party has been in the majority or the minority, have criticized departures from "regular order" and the development of leadership alternatives outside of and subsequent to the committee process. The evolution of rules and practices in the House in the past 25 years, however, has favored decision making and efficiency. Members might ask whether the House in recent years has favored decision making too much over deliberation? Whether the minority has been excluded too much from influencing legislative outcomes? Change, if desired, could be accomplished through a rules change, party rules or guidelines, or leadership commitments.
Members and leaders of both parties have questioned whether legislative practices, while consistent with House rules, have gotten out of balance, with too much deliberation sacrificed to efficiency or electioneering. They have made speeches, introduced resolutions, and, when in the minority, issued critiques of the House's legislative management. Practices targeted have included waivers of layover rules, use of structured and closed special rules, and waivers of committee assignment limitations. The purpose of this report is to provide Members with an analysis of House legislative rules and practices, and committee organization and procedures, that could be changed in the 112th Congress. Some analyses respond to bipartisan Member concerns over the House's legislative management, others to the needs of leaders in managing such a large body.
Change to legislative procedures and to committee organization in the House of Representatives can be achieved in a number of ways, including the opening-day rules resolution, freestanding resolutions, the Speaker's announced policies, party rules, and majority-party leadership commitments.
A House rule or set of rules might be drafted a number of ways. Questions for a proponent of a rules change include: What is the balance being sought between deliberation and decision making? What leader or group of Members will be empowered by a change, or will the House be the decision maker? Will an action be allowed, forbidden, or made conditional? How will the rule be enforced? How could party rules supplement or supplant an existing or new rule?
Numerous House rules address the committee system, including structure, membership, jurisdiction and referral, and procedures. Numerous Democratic Caucus and Republican Conference rules and decisions on committees supplement or even circumvent House rules to ensure the majority party's dominance of committees' policymaking and to organize committees to reflect the majority party's values. The number, jurisdiction, size, and party ratios of committees are important for these reasons. In addition, as the number of waivers and temporary assignments has expanded, the average number of assignments for Members has risen. These attributes of the committee system, and others, could be changed if Members wish to do so.
The means by which legislation is developed has become an issue in and of itself in recent Congresses. Members of both parties, whether their party has been in the majority or the minority, have criticized departures from "regular order" and the development of leadership alternatives outside of and subsequent to the committee process. The evolution of rules and practices in the House in the past 25 years, however, has favored decision making and efficiency. Members seem now to be asking whether the House favors decision making too much over deliberation? Whether the minority has been excluded too much from influencing legislative outcomes?
Because important legislation, including conference reports and amendments between the houses, is almost always considered in the House chamber under a special rule reported by the Rules Committee—the "arm of the leadership"—the use of structured and closed rules has become the principal means by which the House makes decisions efficiently. If the House wishes to rebalance decision making and deliberation, numerous options exist for working within the special rules process to increase deliberation and Member participation in policymaking.
This report will not be updated.