Mr. GREENWOOD. May I offer this suggestion? There have been times when the mass of objections have been cleared up by debate, and some one having bills just ahead, and fearing adjournment, would call for "Regular order." It seems to me that it would be unjust to have them have to reach the place where the objector is satisfied, then this man called for the "Regular order" rises and destroys the effect of the objection which has been made up to that time.

Mr. PURNELL. Suppose it were known that twice a month the Private Calendar would be called.

Mr. GREENWOOD. That might do.

Mr. UNDERHILL. Conditions have improved tremendously in this regard. The first time I ever had charge of the floor, we had an afternoon-no evening sessions-and we had to wait our call until we were reached; and we had passed in that afternon 61 bills, I think. At 4 o'clock, Jim Mann arose and moved to adjourn. Then I asked, "Will the gentleman please defer that motion? There are but a dozen or 15 bills, and we can finish them in half an hour."

He said. "No; the gentleman will not withdraw. There have been more bills passed this afternoon than there have been in any whole session of Congress in my experience." In other words, up to that time there had not been more than 60 bills passed by Congress in any one session of Congress. That is a crime against the people of the United States. And so as we had passed enough, he moved to adjourn. And so to-day, let me say that the last year I was chairman of that committee we had passed some 1,600 bills in that session of Congress.

Mr. Cox. The chairman representing the subcommittee of the Committee on Claims is here, Mr. Ramspeck; and he would like to say a few words, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Pou. I would prefer that Judge Crisp explain his first Mr. CRISP. Mr. Chairman and gentleman, I appreciate your courtesy in inviting me to this meeting, and in inviting me to address you. I am confident this splendid committee is alive to the situation, so far as the desire of the House is concerned, to liberalize the manner in which the Private Calendar should be considered; and working together as they do, they certainly are more competent than I am to prescribe rules which will effectuate that purpose.

May I say here for your information, if you do not know it, that Mr. Collins of Mississippi, has introduced two bills dealing with this Private Calendar situation. In one of those I think claims up to a certain amount are left to the adjudication of the comptroller. You gentlemen might care to look into these bills.

While I have taken great interest in some rules where I thought the fundamental questions of majority-rule control was involved; that in no way is involved here in this consideration of the Private Calendar.

Now, under the rules here, from time immemorial, there was a rule providing for Friday of each week to go into the Committee of the Whole House to consider private bills, and under that rule they had to consider them, and there was no way in which such consideration could be displaced. Some time you would get a bill with a lot of opposition, and you might get through for the whole session; and the claims were not expedited at once, but they were heard when the

House went into the Committee of the Whole House to consider the Private Calendar. Then we had unanimous consent for the consideration of the Private Calendar, and when a bill was called up in that way, one objection would stop its consideration. And then there were many meritorious bills, studied and worked on and reported out after hours of labor, which were never given a hearing because one man objected to it.

I do not think such procedure is just to the House, or to the splendid committees which study and submit reports on these bills; and, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I think that is the feeling of the Members of the House.

During the last session, before Congress adjourned, some friends asked me to prepare some changes of the rules dealing with the Private Calendar. I hurriedly dictated the resolution before you, dealing with the situation. I think it has some merit, because I think where a committee has reported a bill to the House, the Member intro ducing the bill and the committee reporting it out, are entitled to have a hearing before the membership of the House as to the merits of that bill. And I do not think one Member should be permitted to prevent such a hearing.

Therefore, in the proposed amendment to the rules which I have prepared I provide that it should be heard when the House on motion resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole House to consider the business on the Private Calendar. The bills shall then be called up in the order in which they appear on the Private Calendar and general debate shall be limited to 20 minutes-10 minutes for and 10 against it; then it is to be considered under the 5-minute rule. When the bill is called up it shall be read by the Clerk, and unless objected to by five Members the bill shall be considered. If objected to by five Members the bill shall be passed over and not considered. When bills thus objected to are on a subsequent Friday called up for consideration under this rule, they shall be considered unless the question of consideration is raised. If the question of consideration is raised, it shall be decided by the Committee of the Whole House without debate; and if the House refuses to consider the bill, the bill is automatically recommitted to the standing committee of the House which reported the bill.

Mr. PURNELL. Did your bill provide for bringing it up later?

Mr. CRISP. I should say to the gentleman from Indiana, if it were recommitted to the committee reporting it out, that was the end of it. And unless reported again-

Mr. PURNELL. They could not report the bill again during that same session.

Mr. CRISP. I think where the House has acted on it once, it should be res adjudicata.

Mr. PURNELL. Your bill provides that it should not again be reported in the House?

Mr. CRISP. Yes. When I introduced this Resolution I showed it to Mr. Dascher, the parliamentarian of the House, and I think the rule which Mr. Purnell has already made is the rule which I introduced with several perfecting suggestions added to my work.

My rule said, if the Committee of the Whole House refused to consider the bill then it stood recommitted. It was not as finished a product as this one of Mr. Purnell. I did not go so fully into all the

details that they should recommit it, and then that they should recommit it. I think those rules are very much alike, and I am frank to say that the one offered by Mr. Purnell is more polished and finished than my own.

Mr. PURNELL. In justice to the parliamentarian of the House it was largely through his experience and the suggestions which he offered, that it was finally brought to this form in which it is submitted here.

Mr. CRISP. Now, my good friend from Massachusetts objects to the requirement that five men be required to object to a given claim in order to prevent the consideration of that bill, saying that it is unjust to the taxpayers of the country to have that requirement.

can not subscribe to that doctrine, because you know, gentlemen, before any bill can pass the House it must receive the vote of a majority of the Members present and voting; and if the point is made by any Member there must be a quorum of the House voting, and a majority of those voting must be in favor of the bill.

This requirement or regulation of the five Members, is a provision inserted to prevent the House considering it; but when the House is considering it, it takes a majority of those present to pass the bill. That is in keeping with our Democratic form of government.

I think it would be an improvement, and it is certainly well worth the experiment; and if it is tried and found to be not workable, then then committee has a right and opportunity to change it.

There is no question of party politics involved in this change at all. There is no question of controlling the affairs of the house. It is just a question of getting a workable rule whereby the members of the House can get their bills considered when a standing committee of the House has reported the bill out: and I think this committee is better qualified to prepare a rule for that purpose than I am.

Mr. BANKHEAD. It seems to me there is some inconsistency in both your bill and the bill of Mr. Purnell. Each side here is to get 10 minutes for discussion, and then if five Members object the bill shall not be considered; that is, the bill should be passed over and not considered. Does that mean that it stays on the calendar?

Mr. CRISP. Yes.

Mr. BANKHEAD. When it is called on a subsequent Friday, it shall be considered then unless this question is raised.

Mr. CRISP. Yes.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Would that not seem to abandon the objection of the five objectors?

Mr. CRISP. No. You raised the question; would the House consider the bill?

Mr.BANKHEAD. Those five men might be there, they could object to this bill which had been rejected. This seems to be the situation: When first called up five men can stop its consideration, and hoping that there are others on the calendar and you can pass the others and dispose of the number of bills at that session of the Congress.

Mr. PURNELL. Just one moment. If five objections are heard, it shall remain on the calendar and not be again called up until the bills on the calendar for that day shall have been called. Do you provide for that, Mr. Crisp?

Mr. CRISP. No.

Mr. PURNELL. Do you think that is a wise provision?

Mr. CRISP. As I said, the one I drafted, when I drafted it I thought when you started the Private Calendar call, it would take all the time.

Now, as to Mr. Bankhead's question. My idea has been where a committee has made a favorable report on a bill there should be some hearing by the House-each Member is entitled to that, and the committee which reports it out is entitled to that consideration. But if five Members object, it goes over until that calendar call again; and then, on the second time, the second call, that bill is entitled to its hearing, entitled to its day in court, and when it is called up, notwithstanding the objection of these five gentlemen, after 20 minutes discussion-10 minutes to each side-then the House shall consider it, if the House decides on consideration.

Mr. GREENWOOD. On the second hearing it is whether the House shall consider it.

Mr. CRISP. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Mr. Ramspeck, the chairman of the committee.

Mr. RAMSPECK. The committee of which I am chairman, wishes me to bring to the attention of the Rules Committee our view on this matter.

I have no personal objection to any Member who thinks it his duty to object to any bill under these conditions; but I think it places a hardship on the Claims Committee that is unfair. We have at the present time before the Claims Committee 1,500 bills. As Mr. Underhill has stated, each member of the committee acts as a subcommittee. While my experience goes back but a short time, I want to say that the chairman of that committee is one of the hardest working Members I have ever seen. I think that committee tries to give careful consideration to every bill which is presented to it. They not only contact with the Members introducing the bill, but they get all the information about it and then it is discussed by the committee until the bill is either approved or disapproved.

Now, after all that work has been done by the committee as a whole as well as by the individual members, I do not think it is fair to have a rule which permits any single Member of Congress that it is his right to make an objection so effective that all this previous work is nothing. However conscientious any Member may be he will make objections some time that are not well founded.

The members of the Claims Committee are anxious to discharge their duty and there is the feeling among the members of the committee that their time and their services are being uselessly consumed. There is a useless waste of time in that procedure unless there is some change to be made in the procedure on these private claims. There are some who take several hours each week hunting up data on the claims handed to them and then the committee meets every Friday. It occupies not only that one morning out of the week for consideration of its bills, but it takes many hours out of the week when each member is investigating and looking into the claims which are referred to him personally for study and report. Therefore, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Rules Committee, it is not fair to ask the members of the committee to consider these bills unless the

House will consider the bills when they are presented to the House on the floor, on the merits of the bills. It is a useless consumption of the time of the committee as a whole and of the Members individually and a useless expense to the Government.

We have bills there which have been before that committee for 10 years and they have been reported, and reported, and reported; and they have gone on the calendar but were never reached and if reached they were knocked out. Each Congress has the bill introduced into it, and the bill goes to the printer and is reprinted and the departments are called on for the information which they have prepared on the matter. Many of those bills have gone through that procedure, consuming the time of the committees and the Members of Congress and of the governmental departments.

It seems to me it is well now to adopt these provisions contained in these two rules. If there are five Members opposed to a bill after it has had 20 minutes of debate, why then it should not be passed or acted upon. When a committee of 21 men have passed on it and says that the bill or claim has merit, then when it is presented to the House for consideration, it should receive proper attention and the vote of no one member should be permitted to prevent action upon it.

It seems to me that the Rules Committee should make these changes which are offered here for the procedure of the House in the consideration of these claims, many of which are highly meritorious.

In the last Congress Doctor Irwin appointed a subcommittee to work on these claims that are to go before the Congress. They went over the matter, but nothing was reported. A subcommittee has been appointed this year, and it has redrafted that bill and presented to the Congress. I think many of those bills should be taken out of that class. It is not fair to the claimants. The committee recognizes that the Federal Government now contacts with a great many more people than it reached 10 years ago. We have now upon the streets of the cities of this country thousands of motor mail trucks with drivers of many types, and there are people who receive injuries from these vehicles, and the only way they have to receive consideration for their claims is when they are on the Private Claims Calendar. And it is not fair, I say, to have one Member rise and say: "Mr. Speaker, I object."-and that throws the bill out. I contend that is absolutely unfair.

Mr. BANKHEAD. The suggestion of Mr. Underhill was that the department having jurisdiction of the parties involved might handle those. Does your committee consider that at all in its bill? Or does it make it mandator yto refer all claims to the Court of Claims? Mr. RAMSPECK. My recollection is that it did make such a provision on claims up to a thousand dollars; and that claimants who refused to settle for that amount

Mr. UNDERHILL. Up to what amount did you say?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I think it was up to $5,000. Mr. Underhill, as I understood him, said if a claimant was not satisfied with the settlement he made with the department, he could go into Congress and present a bill. Well, if he goes into Congress, he must turn down flat and without recourse the settlement already made with the department.