ure, there are few adverse reports, unfavored measures usually being allowed to die without formal action; and in view of the common difficulty in discharging a committee this is the surest way to kill a bill. Where no legislation is permitted to die in committee a negative report recommends that "the bill do not pass" or that "the bill be indefinitely postponed," and is commonly adopted by unanimous consent. The question is, "Shall the bill be rejected?" or "Shall the report be adopted?" Vermont found that if the question were put "Shall the bill be read a third time?" as is usual for favorable reports, the indication being towards overturning an adverse judgment of the committee, a committee report was, by the mere inertia of members, often reversed without adequate reason.67 The Pennsylvania House used to allow a bill negatived in committee to go on the calendar at the request of sixty members (less than onethird), although the earlier practice had been that such bills came up for consideration as those reported favorably. In 1915 the sixty rule was changed to a majority on the ground that because it was easy to get sixty members to place a negatived bill on the calendar, it was crowded with bills which ultimately never passed. Sometimes the lower house has been known to surrender absolute veto power to the committees by making an unfavorable report final.68 On the other hand, the Senate of South Carolina permits a negatived bill to go on the calendar at the request of one member. In accordance with the principle to relegate all business which does not require deliberative action to hours when the house is not in session, and to publish disposition of same in the journals, it would be well to abolish the formal reading on the floor of reports of committees. There is no good reason why they should not be filed with the clerk, published in the journal and calendar, and opportunity 67 The form of the question was changed at the 1917 session. 68 The custom in Missouri is to pass such a resolution a few weeks before the close, e.g., 1913 H. J., p. 745. A similar resolution was presented in the Indiana House in 1915 in order to seal the fate of the female suffrage and prohibition measures then in committee. At first it was thought to have passed but, in consequence of the storm stirred up by the absolute surrender to a committee, the speaker reversed his decision on the ground that the resolution had not received the constitutional majority required by the rules. (Indianapolis News, February 24, 25, 1915; Chicago Tribune, February 24, 1915.) given to move rejection on the floor. If the report is favorable the bill could move automatically to second reading.69 STEERING COMMITTEES No discussion of the committee system would be complete without some attention to steering committees, which control the time of the legislature to a greater or less degree in approximately three-fourths of the states. Their function is to guide the house, especially during the last days of the session, through a calendar congested with bills too readily placed thereon. The theory is that, in the tumult of many measures competing for consideration, no important matter must be allowed to go by default. The confusion attending the closing days of the average legislature is notorious yet natural in so far as it arises from the indolence of the members and the spirit of procrastination which dominates the early days of the session. Indeed, the very existence of a sifting committee, designed as an escape from a crowded calendar, contributes toward the confusion and operates in turn to congest the calendar, since members, who are only human, know that a way out is easy and convenient. Furthermore the hesitancy or lack of courage displayed by the standing committees in killing the less worthy measures contributes to the final congestion and resultant demand for a steering committee. Just as the power of standing committees developed when the number of bills introduced had become too large for consideration by the whole house, so the steering committee emerged when measures approved by the standing committees increased until a further selective agency became an irresistible temptation. Complaint is common that too few bills are checked at the committee stage.70 Statistics of legislatures chosen at random demonstrate that in view of the hundreds of bills considered, committees are too lax in exercising their selective function and that many more 69 In Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts and Texas reports of committees are not read on the floor, appearing merely in the journals. In Congress bills reported favorably go automatically to the proper calendars; an adverse report is laid on the table unless a request to place the bill on a calendar is made within three days. (Rule XIII.) 70 Replies to the questionnaire of the Nebraska Legislative Reference Bureau (1913) of but five states could be understood as expressing that committees exercise courage in reporting adversely. bills reach the debate stage than the house can dispose of conscientiously. Sometimes the sentiment prevails that practically all deserve a fair trial on their merits before the assembled house.71 This shy attitude assumed by committees towards negative reports constitutes an evasion of an obligation. At the 1915 session the committees of the Ohio Senate killed but 26 per cent of bills introduced in that body, while only 49 per cent of House bills met their fate in the house committees. In Indiana and Kansas less than 50 per cent were stifled in committee and in Michigan less than 40 per cent.72 The percentage of committee executions to total number of bills considered in New York averages about thirty-five in the Assembly and thirty in the Senate. 73 The lower house in Illinois is an exception, for at the 1915 session committees checked more than 75 per cent of the bills referred to them. The full significance of committee slackness is clear when it is remembered that it means that each house has on its calendars from four hundred to fifteen hundred bills which presumably must be debated and disposed of in addition to those which come from the other branch of the legislature. Under these circumstances, the raison d'être of the steering committee is obvious.74 Steering committees vary widely in the several commonwealths. In some they are a mere servant occasionally employed as a means by which the house can more readily express its will. In others they are in fact masters of the legislature's destiny, in which case they are often called sifting committees. Steering committees exist in the most innocuous form in those states in which the function rests, as it does in Congress, with the regularly appointed rules committee, which may report a special order to facilitate the progress of a measure. If they are sensitive to the will of the house they merely construct an expeditious plan by which legislative business may be advanced without undue obstruction. They therefore introduce elasticity into the daily program by proposing special 71 In South Dakota all bills except those of the most trivial character are reported favorably from the committees. (Statement of Dr. Doane Robinson, State Historian.) 72 Compiled from indices of the several journals of 1915. 73 Colvin, "The Bicameral System," pp. 77 et seq. 74 Committees deal more gently still with bills from the other house. In Ohio scarcely 20 per cent of Senate bills failed in house committees, and but 7 per cent of House bills in senate committees. orders altering the regular routine of business, since the house is able with the help of the rules committee to suspend the regular order of business without the delay necessary if a member in his individual capacity should propose the same.75 In Pennsylvania and Massachusetts reports by the rules committees are unusual, must be confined to a single measure, and must be adopted by a majority vote. The California House retains its control over "rules" by requiring a two-thirds affirmative vote to adopt any modifications brought in by this committee. On the other hand, the Illinois House has gone to the opposite extreme by providing that any special order proposed by the rules committee stands unless overthrown by a majority of all members elected,76 and the same is true of New York. The rules committee thus becomes a very powerful group. Several states have gone further than a mere steering committee, which controls discussion occasionally when time is precious, by creating what is known as a sifting committee to determine what measures shall be discussed on the floor. The latter is made the custodian of practically all bills, the house restricting itself to those measures which it submits. Usually towards the close of the session the practice is to adopt a resolution by which the make-up of the daily calendar is delegated to a committee. All bills accordingly owe their advancement to this committee, the house having virtually surrendered its selective power. The Washington House gives complete control of the calendar to a sifting committee which takes charge the first week of the session. In Montana after the fortieth day the steering committee reports the order of consideration of all bills as they come from committee.77 Even broader are the powers of the calendar committee of the Kansas House, for not 75 The rules committee of the New York Senate has in the last few years assumed this function when the minority has proved obstinate. The first time that it interfered in the order of business seems to have been at the session of 1897, when a special order limiting debate was brought in. The point of order that the proposed change would require one day's notice was not sustained. From this the power of the committee soon extended to reporting special programs for the progress of a measure. For an account of the evolution of the Rules Committee in Congress see Alexander, "History and Procedure of House of Representatives," Chapter X, and 4 Hinds 3152, et seq. 76 House Rule 12. 77 Montana H. J., 1915, p. 353, and statement from State Library. only does it arrange bills on the calendar but the "fixing of times for the consideration of bills" is entrusted to it.78 In Missouri and Nebraska the sifting committees name only those bills which take precedence on the calendar,79 and at the last session the Missouri committee was restricted to naming for advancement five general bills and sixteen private bills daily. Formerly the number had been unlimited.80 The power of the sifting committee of the Iowa House has been similarly reduced at the last few sessions by exempting from their authority appropriation bills, special orders and bills already on the calendar when the committee takes charge. As pointed out in a recent study of the Iowa Legislature these restrictions make the committee an agency for preventing rather than promoting legislation in that it customarily holds bills until withdrawn by the House. 81 The House does its own selecting through the power to make any measure a special order. A most extreme example of a sifting committee has been developed in the New York Assembly through the augmented power conferred upon the rules committee throughout the last days of the session. The system is so notorious that a brief review of its development may be of interest. As early as 1832, a committee of nine was created with unusual selective functions. It could by unanimous vote refer a bill awaiting action by the committee of the whole to a select committee to report complete, i.e., ready for final passage, 82 and in this manner a bill might escape debate until it came up for final vote. This, however, does not constitute an exact precedent for the present rules committee, for as yet standing committees had not been developed to remove unworthy measures from consideration by the house. The purpose was merely to relieve the calendar of the committee of the whole upon which were placed all bills introduced by private members, but nevertheless the arrangement did not escape criticism. In 1857 the select committee on rules deprecated the practice and condemned the transaction of business through "guiding com 78 Kansas H. J., 1915, p. 540, Resolution 37. It is common for the committee to limit debate to twenty minutes on one measure. 79 Missouri H. Res. p. 884, Journal 1915. Statement of Nebraska Legislative Reference Bureau. 80 Missouri H. J., 1913, pp. 1301-1308. 81 Shambaugh, "Statute Law Making in Iowa," pp. 545 et seq. 82 Assembly Journal, 1832, p. 363. |