LegiStorm

Summary:

Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL30599 Summary Congress enacts expedited, or fast-track, procedures into law when it wants to increase the likelihood that one or both houses of Congress will vote in a timely way on a certain measure or kind of measure. These procedures are enacted as rule-making provisions of law pursuant to the constitutional power of each house to adopt its own rules. The house to which a set of expedited procedures applies may act unilaterally to waive, suspend, amend, or repeal them. Sets of expedited procedures, as they affect the House of Representatives, can have as many as eight components. These components address the definition of the measure to which the procedures apply, the measure's introduction and its referral, its consideration in committee, the priority the measure enjoys for House floor consideration, the process of debating and amending it on the floor, and coordination with the Senate. There are variations with respect to each of these components among the fast-track procedures now in force that can affect the legislative process in the House. Some of these variations can make it considerably more or less likely that the measures to which these procedures apply can progress through most or all stages of the House's legislative process within the time limits specified by law. For example, some expedited procedures place a time limit on House committee consideration of any measures subject to those procedures. Such a time limit ensures that the measures cannot be kept from the House floor because the committee to which they were referred chooses not to report them. Also of particular importance is whether or not fast-track procedures permit the measures in question to be amended. Allowing any amendments to be offered to a measure creates the possibility of a disagreement with the Senate that can delay or prevent the measure's enactment. Most sets of expedited procedures are incomplete in that they do not ensure that, if an eligible measure enjoys majority support in both houses, those majorities will be able to move the measure through the various stages of the legislative process, in committee and on the floor, and present it to the President within the time period permitted by law. However, such incomplete procedures are not necessarily defective. The House may deliberately choose to adopt fast-track procedures that preserve the usual discretion of its committees as well as the ability of its majority party leaders to control the House's floor agenda. Contents The Nature and Effects of Expedited Procedures 1 Components of Expedited Procedures 2 Variations Enacted Into Law 2 Definition 3 Introduction 4 Referral 5 Committee Consideration 5 Priority for Floor Consideration 7 House Floor Debate 8 House Floor Amendments 9 Coordination with the Senate 10 Complete and Incomplete Procedures 11 Contacts Author Contact Information 14 Acknowledgments 14 The Nature and Effects of Expedited Procedures Expedited parliamentary procedures, also known as "fast-track" procedures, are enacted into law to increase the likelihood that one or both houses of Congress will vote in a timely way on a certain measure or kind of measure. These procedures are enacted into law as what are sometimes called rule-making provisions of law. They are given this designation because Congress enacts them pursuant to the constitutional authority of each house to write its own rules. Even though expedited procedures are included in laws, they have the same force and effect as the standing rules that either house adopts by simple House or Senate resolution to govern its own organization and procedure. The house to which a set of expedited procedures applies may act unilaterally to waive, suspend, amend, or repeal them without the concurrence of the other house or the President. The House of Representatives may also agree to a special rule, reported by the House Rules Committee, that supersedes some or all of the elements that are included in a set of expedited procedures. Most measures that Representatives and Senators introduce every two years do not survive all the stages of the legislative process due to lack of time or political support or both. This result is generally accepted as an unavoidable and even desirable characteristic of how Congress does its business. From time to time, however, Congress has decided in advance that it will be important for one or both houses to have an opportunity to act within a limited period of time on a certain bill or resolution or on a certain kind of measure. In those cases, Congress has enacted special procedures that apply only to those measures and that are intended to put them on a legislative fast track—to expedite their progress through some or all of the stages of the legislative process. These procedures are most likely to be enacted when Congress delegates to the President or another executive branch official the authority to issue a regulation or take some other action. As part of this delegation of authority, Congress may reserve the right to pass its own judgment on the proposed regulation or action by passing a joint resolution to approve or disapprove it before it takes effect. To facilitate action on such a joint resolution, Congress may write into law special procedures for considering it. However, these special expedited procedures are available only for a limited period of time. Thereafter, Congress still can pass a joint resolution of approval or disapproval, but it must do so under its regular legislative procedures. Well-known examples of fast-track procedures are those appearing in the War Powers Act and the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Congress has also enacted the same kinds of procedures in other circumstances in which it chose to decide in advance how it would consider certain measures. A good example of this is the expedited procedures in the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, that govern House and Senate floor consideration of budget resolutions and reconciliation bills. This report focuses on the differences among various sets of expedited procedures that have been enacted into law and remain in force. This report is concerned only with fast-track procedures affecting the House of Representatives; it does not address such procedures as they affect the legislative process in the Senate. Components of Expedited Procedures Not all expedited procedures are the same. Some sets of these procedures include provisions on certain subjects that other sets of fast-track procedures do not address. Even when different sets of expedited procedures address the same subject, they do not always deal with that subject in the same way. In some cases, the practical consequences of these differences are minimal. In other cases, there are important differences in how much assurance expedited procedures offer Members that they will be able to cast timely votes on whether to pass or defeat the measures to which those procedures apply. Sets of expedited procedures can have as many as eight components addressing the following subjects and questions (from the perspective of the House): Definition. How does the statute define the measure or measures to which the expedited procedures apply? Introduction. Does the statute provide for automatic, mandatory, or discretionary introduction of the measure (or each of the measures) to which the expedited procedures apply? Referral. Does the statute govern referral of each eligible measure to committee? Committee consideration. Does the statute ensure that the committee to which the measure is referred cannot kill it by inaction? Priority for floor consideration. Does the statute make the measure privileged for House floor consideration? House floor debate. Does the statute impose a time limit on how long the House may debate the measure if it is called up for consideration? House floor amendments. Does the statute bar or restrict floor amendments to the measure? Coordination with the Senate. Does the statute include provisions governing House action on a Senate measure that the Senate passes under its corresponding expedited procedures? There are several different ways in which expedited procedures can address each of these questions. Alternatively, fast-track procedures may fail to address one or more of these questions in any way. Variations Enacted Into Law Varieties of expedited procedures that Congress has enacted can be identified by examining those provisions that are reprinted in the section of the House Rules and Manual on "Statutory Legislative Procedures" This compilation includes, with several exceptions, all fast-track procedures affecting the House that have been enacted into law and that remain in force. Examining how these various procedures address each of the eight issues listed above reveals how sets of expedited procedures can and do differ, especially in the assurance they provide that a majority of Representatives can act—within the limited time available under the statute in question—on the measures that have been placed on the legislative fast track. Definition The first question that can arise in comparing different sets of expedited procedures is how each set of procedures identifies the bills or resolutions to which it applies. Each set of fast-track procedures is available for considering one or more specific measures or kinds of measures. Does the statute leave any ambiguity about the measures to which its expedited procedures apply? The House Rules and Manual for the 114th Congress (2011-2012) contains 54 sets of expedited procedures. Approximately half of them avoid definitional ambiguity by including in the law the exact text of each measure that can be considered under the expedited procedures the law creates. (This text usually includes one or more blanks to be filled in so as to identify the regulation or other matter to be approved or disapproved.) For example, the Pension Reform Act includes expedited procedures to consider certain resolutions and states that, for this purpose: resolution' means only a joint resolution, the matter after the resolving clauses of which is as follows: "The proposed revised schedule transmitted to Congress by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation on ________ is hereby approved," the blank space therein being filled with the date on which the corporation's message proposing the rate was delivered. It may be possible to define the content of a measure with clarity and precision but without actually presenting its text. However, failing to include the actual text of the measure may create uncertainty as to whether a specific measure does or does not qualify for consideration under expedited procedures. For example, the Marine Fisheries Conservation Act creates fast-track procedures for considering a "fishery agreement resolution," defined as a resolution "the effect of which is to prohibit the entering into force and effect of any governing international fishery agreement, bycatch reduction agreement, or Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement the text of which is transmitted to the Congress pursuant to subsection (a)." (Italics added.) The potential problem arises because of the phrase "the effect of which"; that phrase could be interpreted to encompass any resolution that would arguably have the indirect effect of making it impossible, perhaps for political or economic reasons, for the United States to enter into an international fishery agreement. Similarly, Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to implement presidential recommendations with respect to certain public lands unless the House and Senate agree, within a 90-day period, to a concurrent resolution "indicating otherwise." The statute is silent as to what kinds of provisions in a concurrent resolution would qualify as "indicating otherwise." Should there be disagreement as to whether a particular measure qualifies for consideration under expedited procedures, the Speaker would presumably resolve the question in ruling on a point of order or in deciding whether to recognize a Member for the purpose of invoking those procedures. The need for such determinations can be minimized by including in each law establishing expedited procedures as clear and precise a definition as possible of the measures to which those procedures are to apply. Introduction Most expedited procedures apply to certain measures, however defined, only if Members choose to introduce those measures. In the majority of sets of procedures found in the House Rules and Manual, the statute allows any Member to introduce the measure or presumes that a Member will do so. Some of the sets of fast-track procedures require that a measure be introduced. Section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974, for example, provides that bills implementing trade agreements are to be introduced (by request) by the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate or their designees. In another exception, the nuclear non-proliferation provisions of the Atomic Energy Act (Section 130) mandate introduction by directing the committees of jurisdiction to report resolutions of approval or disapproval: Not later than forty-five days of continuous session of Congress after the date of transmittal to the Congress of any submission of the President ... , the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives, shall each submit a report to its respective House on its views and recommendations respecting such Presidential submission together with a resolution ... stating in substance that the Congress approves or disapproves such submission, as the case may be.... Presumably, one reason for omitting a mandatory introduction requirement is that there is no need for either or both houses to invest time in acting on a measure under expedited procedures if no Member is interested enough to introduce it voluntarily. On the other hand, requiring introduction can assure that Congress has the maximum time to consider and act on a measure under expedited procedures. When the time period available for congressional action under those procedures is triggered by an event, such as receipt of a presidential message (as in the case just quoted), requiring that the measure be introduced on the same day or the first day of session thereafter (as in the case of Section 151 of the Trade Act) leaves as much time as possible for both houses and their committees to consider it. Referral Once a measure is introduced, it is to be referred to, and considered by, the appropriate House committee or committees. In the largest number of cases (roughly 40% of the total), expedited procedures provide for eligible measures to be referred to committee in accordance with the House's normal procedures. In other words, the Speaker is to refer these measures on the basis of committee jurisdictions as defined in the House's standing rules and as supplemented by well-established referral precedents and practices. In about another one-quarter of the cases, the statutes are silent on the matter of committee referral, which arguably has the same effect: leaving the measures in question to be referred by the same means and on the basis of the same criteria applicable to all other bills and resolutions. In roughly one-third of the cases, however, fast-track procedures specifically identify the House (and often the Senate) committees to which eligible measures are to be referred. Committee Consideration Among the most significant elements of expedited procedures are those governing committee consideration. Under the House's regular procedures, its committees can usually choose not to act on measures referred to them; this is the case with the vast majority of introduced measures. In such cases, those measures die at the end of the Congress. A majority of the House can prevent this from happening by invoking a procedure by which it can vote to discharge a committee from further consideration of a measure that was referred to it. However, this procedure can be time consuming, is not invoked very often, and has rarely been used successfully. Thus, if expedited procedures do not prevent committees from killing eligible measures by inaction, the procedures fail to ensure the ability of a majority of the House to vote in a timely way on passing those measures. Roughly three-quarters of the expedited procedures in the House Rules and Manual prevent committees from effectively killing eligible measures by failing to act on them. These procedures generally impose a deadline for committee action and either require the committee to report the measure in question by that deadline or provide a mechanism for the committee to be discharged if it fails to report in a timely way. The War Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act are unique in directing the House committee of jurisdiction to report the measure in question within a specified number of days (though not necessarily with a favorable recommendation) and in presuming that the committee will comply with this requirement. For example, Section 6 of the War Powers Act provides for certain measures to be referred to the House Committee on International Relations (or the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations), and then directs that such committee shall report one such joint resolution or bill, together with its commendations, not later than twenty-four calendar days before the expiration of the sixty-day period ..., unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays. Both of these laws were enacted in the mid-1970s and are among the earliest fast-track procedures that remain in force. Many of the expedited procedures that have been enacted since then impose similar time limits on committee action but also deal with a question that the War Powers and National Emergency Acts fail to address: What happens if the committee of jurisdiction does not report an eligible measure within the time allowed for that committee to act? Almost two-thirds of the sets of expedited procedures anticipate this possibility by providing for the committee of jurisdiction to be discharged without recourse to the difficult discharge procedures of House Rule XV. In a few instances, committee discharge is automatic. If a committee fails to report, within a specified number of days, an eligible measure that was referred to it, that committee is automatically discharged from further consideration of the measure. For example, Section 115 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 provides: Upon the expiration of 60 days of continuous session after the introduction of the first resolution of repository siting approval with respect to any site, each committee to which such resolution was referred shall be discharged from further consideration of such resolution, and such resolution shall be referred to the appropriate calendar, unless such resolution or an identical resolution was previously reported by each committee to which it was referred. A more common provision found in sets of expedited procedures is to allow the House to decide by majority vote whether to discharge a committee from further consideration of an eligible measure that the committee failed to report within the time period allowed by law. This motion may be nondebatable or it may be debatable for an hour. In either case, the motion is a privileged one, so Members supporting the measure are able to secure a vote on whether the committee in question should be prevented from killing the measure by failing to report it. What is perhaps more interesting is that more than one-quarter of the compiled expedited procedures do allow committee inaction to kill measures that could otherwise receive fast-track consideration. These sets of procedures do not require the committee of jurisdiction to report an eligible measure that was referred to it. Furthermore, the same procedures do not include any provisions that enable a majority of the House to remove that measure from the committee's jurisdiction and bring it to the floor for consideration. For example, the Marine Fisheries Conservation Act defines an eligible measure as one that contains certain provisions and is reported by what is now the House Committee on Natural Resources within 45 days after the House receives a certain document from the President. However, the statute does not direct the committee to report any measure within that 45-day period. Instead it simply provides that "[a]ny fishery agreement resolution upon being reported shall immediately be placed on the appropriate calendar." (Italics added). The statute provides no special means to take such a resolution from the custody of the committee if the committee fails to report it. This omission creates the possibility that the resolution will die at the end of the Congress without the full House having had an opportunity to vote on it. Similarly, the Arms Export Control Act contains five identical sets of expedited procedures for considering measures to prohibit various proposed actions by the executive branch. With respect to the House, these procedures state: For the purpose of expediting the consideration and enactment of joint resolutions under this subsection [or paragraph], a motion to proceed to the consideration of any such joint resolution after it has been reported by the appropriate committee shall be treated as highly privileged in the House of Representatives. (Italics added.) If the committee fails to report such a joint resolution, that measure enjoys no procedural advantage over any other measures on which committees have not acted. Thus, a key question to ask of any expedited procedures is whether they give the full House an opportunity to vote on (or at least vote to consider) eligible measures without regard to whether those measures are supported by the committee(s) with jurisdiction over them. More often than not, the expedited procedures now in force provide this opportunity, but roughly one in four do not. Priority for Floor Consideration To ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate and vote on an eligible measure, it is necessary but not sufficient for expedited procedures to prevent that measure from being killed by committee inaction. Those procedures must also make it possible for the measure to reach the House floor after the committee has reported it or has been discharged from considering it further. Most bills and resolutions that House committees report cannot simply be raised on the floor for consideration at any time, because those measures are not privileged to interrupt the House's regular daily order of business. In practice, measures reach the House floor either by unanimous consent or as privileged interruptions of this order of business. The most common way for measures to become privileged is to be called up under a motion to suspend the rules or by a special rule from the Rules Committee. If expedited procedures do not give an eligible measure priority access to the floor, that measure must rely on reaching the floor in one of these ways, just like other reported bills and resolutions. Consequently, there is a real possibility that the House may not consider the measure at all and an even greater possibility that the House may not act on it within the deadline imposed by law. The War Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act again are unique in providing that eligible measures reported from committee "shall become the pending business of the House in question." Instead, most fast-track procedures authorize any Member to make a privileged motion to take up an eligible measure that is no longer in the custody of a House committee. In some cases, this motion may be made as soon as the committee of jurisdiction has reported the measure or has been discharged. In others, a day or more must elapse before the motion is in order. In some cases, the motion is not debatable; in others, it is debatable for an hour. Whatever these minor differences may be, most expedited procedures enable the House, by simple majority vote, to decide whether it wishes to act on an eligible measure. The exceptions are the sets of expedited procedures that do not provide for calling up eligible measures on the House floor by majority vote. In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the committee of jurisdiction is discharged automatically if it fails to report an eligible measure within a specified number of days. The act then goes on to provide, "It shall be in order for the Speaker to recognize a Member favoring a resolution to call up a resolution of repository siting approval after it has been on the appropriate calendar for 5 legislative days." The Speaker is empowered to decide whether the House will consider such a resolution; the House cannot decide by majority vote to call it up if the Speaker does not arrange for its consideration. The nuclear non-proliferation provisions of the Atomic Energy Act provide for motions to consider certain measures but not others. Section 130 of the act makes in order privileged and nondebatable motions to consider certain concurrent resolutions. However, the same section includes different procedures for considering certain joint resolutions. Such a joint resolution is to be considered in the Senate under the provisions of Section 601(b)(4) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, which provides for a privileged motion to consider a measure to which it applies. But Section 130 does not apply these same provisions to the House. Instead, Section 130 states: For the purpose of expediting the consideration and passage of joint resolutions reported or discharged pursuant to the provisions of this subsection, it shall be in order for the Committee on Rules of the House of Representatives to present for consideration a resolution of the House of Representatives providing procedures for the immediate consideration of a joint resolution under this subsection which may be similar, if applicable, to the procedures set forth in section 601(b)(4) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976. (Italics added.) In effect, this provision states only that the House Rules Committee may (or may not) do what it would be empowered to do anyway. House Floor Debate Unlike in the Senate, measures cannot be filibustered on the House floor. In one way or another, the House can, by majority vote, control how long it chooses to debate a bill or resolution. Nonetheless, expedited procedures that provide for calling up eligible measures on the House floor typically limit how long Members can debate each of them. With only a few exceptions, this limit takes the form of a maximum number of hours that are to be available for debating a measure on the House floor. The War Powers and National Emergencies Acts, on the other hand, provide that eligible measures shall, when reported from committee, "become the pending business" of the House (or Senate) and "shall be voted on within three calendar days thereafter," without establishing minimum or maximum times for debate during that three-day period. Section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 contains both kinds of time limits. That section limits to not more than 20 hours the House floor debate on certain trade-related bills and resolutions. The same section also states that a "vote on final passage of the bill or resolution shall be taken [on the House floor] on or before the close of the 15th day after the bill or resolution is reported by the committee or committees ... to which it was referred, or after such committee or committees have been discharged from further consideration of the bill or resolution." It bears emphasizing that, even if time limits on debate are not included in expedited procedures, the House can, by majority vote, end debate on eligible measures, either by agreeing to a motion to order the previous question or by agreeing to a special rule from the Rules Committee that limits the time for general debate and the amending process in the Committee of the Whole. Thus, the failure of some expedited procedures to include time limits on debate does not necessarily mean that measures considered under those procedures will be debated for longer than measures considered under fast-track procedures that do include such time limits. House Floor Amendments Expedited procedures are often designed to do more than ensure that Members of the House can vote within a limited time on passing eligible bills or resolutions. These procedures are often intended to enable both houses of Congress to complete the entire legislative process with respect to those measures within a fixed number of days. For this purpose, whether expedited procedures prohibit amendments to eligible bills or resolutions is particularly important. If a set of fast-track procedures permits the House (or the Senate, or both) to amend an eligible measure on the floor, those procedures cannot assure that both houses will be able to complete the legislative process within a set time. This remains true even if there are limits on floor debate, ensuring that each house can vote promptly on whether to pass that measure, even if majorities in both houses favor it. Once either house amends any measure, that action creates the likelihood of a legislative difference between the two houses that may be resolved either through an exchange of amendments or through negotiations in a conference committee. There is no way in which any expedited procedures can compel the House and Senate to reach an agreement by either means within a certain time (or at all, for that matter). Naturally, expedited procedures that neither provide for motions to take up eligible measures on the House floor nor limit floor debate on them also do not govern whether those measures are subject to floor amendments. On the other hand, fast-track procedures that limit floor debate on eligible bills and resolutions almost always prohibit amendments to those measures as well. When expedited procedures do explicitly permit House floor amendments, the procedures typically impose narrow limits and strict definitions on the amendments that Members may offer. For example, Section 153 of the Trade Act of 1974 governs House floor consideration of joint resolutions disapproving certain presidential recommendations with respect to one or more countries. Section 153 also bars floor amendments to any such joint resolution, except that the prohibition "shall not apply to any amendment to a resolution which is limited to striking out or inserting the names of one or more countries or to striking out or inserting a with-respect-to clause." The only House floor amendments permitted under several other statutes are those that reverse the effect of the measure that the House is considering. Section 130 of the Atomic Energy Act governs congressional consideration of joint resolutions by which Congress can either approve or disapprove certain presidential submissions. No floor amendments are in order, except that during consideration of a joint resolution of approval, the majority leader or a designee can offer an amendment to replace "does" with "does not," thereby transforming the measure into a joint resolution of disapproval. In similar fashion, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act governs House consideration of resolutions, stating that the House either "does not favor" or "does not object" to certain proposed energy actions. The only floor amendment permitted to such a resolution is an amendment in the nature of a substitute that replaces the text of the resolution with the alternate text, thereby reversing the measure's effect. Coordination with the Senate Even when expedited procedures bar floor amendments in both houses to concurrent or joint resolutions or to bills, they may still contain additional procedures to coordinate action between the two houses. To understand the potential problem these additional procedures address, imagine a set of expedited procedures that provides maximum time for committee consideration and then for floor action in each house on a joint resolution of disapproval. Assume that the House passes H.J.Res. 1 under these procedures shortly before the end of the period