[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[A. Introductory; Initiating Consideration and Debate]
[Â§ 2. Factors Bearing on Consideration; Points of Order Against Consideration; Special Rules and Unanimous-consent Agreements]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9426-9484]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
        A.  INTRODUCTORY;  INITIATING  CONSIDERATION  AND DEBATE
 
Sec. 2. Factors Bearing on Consideration; Points of Order Against 
    Consideration; Special Rules 
    and Unanimous-consent Agreements

    The term ``consideration'' as used herein means the process by 
which the House deliberates, while in session, on a proposition on 
which action is to be taken or refused by the House.(17) The 
pur

[[Page 9427]]

pose of this discussion is to summarize the general principles of 
consideration of any matter before the House or Committee of the Whole 
as well as the ways in which consideration may be prevented or 
postponed. The reader is advised to consult relevant chapters of this 
work for specific rules governing the consideration of particular 
resolutions, bills, motions, or other questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The scope of the term ``consideration'' as herein discussed is 
        narrower than the term ``debate'' as used in this chapter. 
        ``Debate'' refers to all discussion on the floor of the House, 
        whether or not related to a proposal for action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    How a matter is considered depends on the way it is brought to the 
floor, on the nature and precedence of the proposal, and on agreements 
reached by the membership and leadership on the method of 
consideration. Generally, questions are not considered on the floor 
unless reported or discharged from House committees.(18) 
Certain time periods are a condition precedent to consideration in the 
House after the committee has reported the matter in 
question.(19) And the House may reject a proposal to 
consider a matter by a final or temporary decision against 
consideration.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Matters not reported from committee may be considered by unanimous-
        consent request, suspension of the rules (see Ch. 21, supra), 
        by discharge procedures (see Ch. 18, supra), and by a 
        resolution from the Committee on Rules (see Sec. 2.28, infra).
19. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1995) 
        for layover requirements of committee reports, and Rule XXVIII 
        clause 2(a), Sec. 912a, for layover requirements of conference 
        reports. For committee consideration and reporting, see Ch. 17, 
        supra.
20. For the question of consideration as a method of refusing 
        consideration, see Sec. 5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first and most important element affecting how a matter is to 
be considered is the mandate of the standing rules and House precedents 
as they apply to any specific bill, resolution, or motion, or the 
mandate of statutory provisions (1) that may affect 
consideration of particular matters. Consideration of a measure may not 
be in order if certain rules have been ignored or violated as the bill 
progressed through the committee process and was reported to the House, 
and points of order against consideration may be sustained based on 
such violations.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, for example, proceedings as affected by provisions of the 
        Budget Act, discussed in Sec. Sec. 2.35 et seq., infra.
 2. See Sec. Sec. 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.15, 2.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another major factor affecting consideration is whether a special 
rule from the Committee on Rules

[[Page 9428]]

has been adopted which governs the procedures for consideration of the 
matter.(3) The following factors also bear heavily on 
consideration: whether the proposal has been referred to the House or 
Union Calendar; (4) whether the proposal is called up from 
the Private or Discharge Calendar or called up under suspension of the 
rules or on the District of Columbia day; (5) whether the 
proposal is privileged under a standing rule, by statute, or under the 
Constitution of the United States; (6) whether the proposal 
is considered by unanimous-consent agreement or under the general rules 
of the House; and whether such a unanimous-consent agreement includes a 
waiver of points of order against consideration.(7) As an 
example, where a unanimous-consent agreement has provided for 
consideration of a bill, the bill may nevertheless be subject to 
certain points of order directed against its consideration, unless the 
unanimous-consent agreement has specifically provided that ``all points 
of order against consideration of the bill'' be waived. Such provision 
will preclude points of order even directed against consideration of 
the bill.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Where a special rule adopted by the House prescribes the order of 
        consideration of amendments to a bill in Committee of the 
        Whole, the House (but not Committee of the Whole) may by 
        unanimous consent alter the order of consideration. See 133 
        Cong. Rec. 11829, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., May 8, 1987 (request 
        of Mr. Aspin).
            See forms, infra, for examples of special rules making 
        consideration in order and providing the method of 
        consideration. For the consideration of the special rule 
        itself, see Sec. Sec. 2.22-2.24, infra.
 4. See Ch. 19, supra, for consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
        (normally Union Calendar bills) and Ch. 24, supra, for 
        consideration of bills and resolutions.
 5. See Ch. 22, supra, for calendars. For the procedure under 
        suspension of the rules, see Ch. 21, supra.
 6. See Ch. 21, supra, for privileged motions and questions. Some 
        matters are privileged by statute, such as the disapproval of 
        reorganization plans submitted by the President (see Sec. 3.6, 
        infra).
 7. Unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of a proposal in a 
        certain way take forms too numerous to mention herein. For 
        examples, see Sec. Sec. 3.3-3.5, 4.3, 4.4, infra.
 8. See Sec. 2.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, it should be noted that, in addition to the points of 
order discussed in this section and the ``question of consideration'' 
discussed elsewhere,(9) the motions made in order by Rule 
XVI, clause 4,(10) can be utilized to stop or

[[Page 9429]]

delay consideration. A motion in the House to lay a proposition on the 
table cuts off debate and, if ordered, acts as a final adverse 
disposition of the matter before the House.(11) The motions 
to postpone and to refer may also be applied in the House to prevent 
immediate consideration; such motions are, however, debatable within 
narrow limits.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 5, infra.
10. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995).
11. See Sec. 7.11, infra. The motion to lay on the table takes 
        precedence over the question of consideration (see Sec. 5.2, 
        infra).
12. See Rule XVI, clause 4, and comments thereto, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. Sec. 782-789 (1995).
            A motion to postpone further consideration of a privileged 
        resolution (in this instance, to censure a Member) is debatable 
        for one hour controlled by the Member offering the motion. See 
        Sec. 24.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Forms

    Form of resolution making in order the consideration of a Union 
Calendar bill in the House under a procedure precluding amendment.

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the House shall proceed to the consideration of H.R. 
        3835, and any points of order against said bill or any 
        provisions contained therein are hereby waived. That after 
        general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
        continue not to exceed four hours, to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Agriculture, the previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
        intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    Note: H.R. 3835 was a bill on the Union Calendar providing 
agricultural relief.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 77 Cong. Rec. 665, 73d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 21, 1933. See also H. 
        Res. 111, 77 Cong. Rec. 2176, 73d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 22, 
        1933.

    Form of resolution making in order the consideration for general 
debate of a resolution in the Committee of the Whole under a procedure 
precluding amendment.

                                  H. Res. 738

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI to the 
        contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 735) confirming 
        the nomination of Gerald R. Ford, of the State of Michigan, to 
        be Vice President of the United States. After general debate, 
        which shall be confined to the resolution and shall continue 
        not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and controlled 
        by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
        the Judiciary, the Committee shall rise and report the 
        resolution to the House, and the previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the resolution to final 
        passage.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 39807, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 6, 1973.

    Form of resolution making in order the consideration of a joint 
resolution in the House.

                              House Resolution 872

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the

[[Page 9430]]

        House shall proceed to the consideration of (S.J. Res. 175), a 
        joint resolution to extend the time within which contracts may 
        be modified or canceled under the provisions of section 5 of 
        the Independent Office Appropriation Act 1935, and all points 
        of order against said joint resolution are hereby 
        waived.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 14652, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 24, 1935.

    Form of resolution making in order the consideration of a private 
Senate bill (on the Speaker's table) in Committee of the Whole.

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (S. 1173) to authorize the 
        appointment of Dwight David Eisenhower to the active list of 
        the Regular Army, and for other purposes. After general debate, 
        which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not to 
        exceed one hour to be equally divided and controlled by the 
        chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
        Services, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
        minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill 
        for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
        the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and 
        the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
        bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
        intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    Note: A private Senate bill requiring consideration in Committee of 
the Whole House, messaged to the House after a similar House bill has 
been reported and referred to the Private Calendar (the Calendar of the 
Committee of the Whole House), is not privileged under clause 2, Rule 
XXIV.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 3911, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 14, 1961.

    Form of resolution making in order the consideration of a private 
bill in Committee of the Whole.

                              House Resolution 511

            Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution 
        it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        consideration of H.R. 9766, a bill to authorize the deportation 
        of Harry Renton Bridges. That after general debate, which shall 
        be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 1 
        hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
        ranking minority member of the Committee on Immigration and 
        Naturalization, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 
        5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for 
        amendment the Committee shall rise and report the same to the 
        House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
        previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
        and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
        motion except one motion to recommit.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 86 Cong. Rec. 8181, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., June 13, 1940.

    Form of resolution making in order the consideration of a measure 
from the Committee on Rules in Committee of the Whole.

                                  H. Res. 1021

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for

[[Page 9431]]

        the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1117) to 
        establish a Joint Committee on Environment and Technology. 
        After general debate, which shall be confined to the joint 
        resolution and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be 
        equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
        minority member of the Committee on Rules, the joint resolution 
        shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the 
        conclusion of the consideration of the joint resolution for 
        amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the joint 
        resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been 
        adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final 
        passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 16973, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., May 25, 1970.

    Form of resolution waiving points of order against the 
consideration of a conference report and the disposition of an 
amendment in disagreement.

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any 
        point of order the conference report on the bill (H.R. 9499) 
        making appropriations for foreign aid and related agencies for 
        the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes, 
        and that during the consideration of the amendment of the 
        Senate numbered 20 to the bill, it shall be in order to 
        consider, without the intervention of any point of order, a 
        motion by the Chairman of the Managers on the part of the House 
        to recede and concur in said Senate amendment numbered 20 with 
        an amendment.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 25495, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 23, 1963.

    Form of resolution taking a House 
bill with Senate amendments from the Speaker's table and making in 
order the consideration of those amendments in the House.

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution, the bill H.R. 12740 making supplemental 
        appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, and 
        for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, shall 
        be taken from the Speaker's table and the Senate amendments 
        considered in the House.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 106 Cong. Rec. 15775, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., July 2, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
The Committee of the Whole generally, see Ch. 19, supra.
Control and distribution of debate on special orders from the Committee 
    on Rules, see Sec. 26, infra.
Effect of special orders on control and distribution of time for 
    debate, see Sec. 28, infra.
Effect of special orders and unanimous-consent agreements on duration 
    of debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 80, infra.
Passage and consideration of bills generally, see Ch. 24, supra.
Effect of special orders and unanimous-consent agreements on duration 
    of debate in the House, see Sec. 71, infra.
Recognition for consideration of bills, see Sec. 16, infra.
Recognition for consideration of resolutions and special orders, see 
    Sec. 18, infra.
Recognition for consideration of Senate amendments, conference reports, 
    and amendments in disagreement, see Sec. 17, infra.
Recognition for unanimous-consent consideration of bills, see Sec. 10, 
    infra.

[[Page 9432]]

Special orders, suspension of the rules, and the order of business, see 
    Ch. 21, supra.                          -------------------

Consideration of Matter Not Privileged as Requiring Special Rule or 
    Unanimous Consent

Sec. 2.1 The Speaker indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that he lacked authority to permit consideration in the House, 
    other than on a day when motions to suspend the rules were in 
    order, of a matter which was not privileged under the rules, in the 
    absence of action by the committee with legislative jurisdiction 
    and by the Committee on Rules.

    The Speaker,(1) in proceedings on Feb. 16, 
1977,(2) indicated that he could not on his own initiative 
effectuate House consideration of a resolution disapproving the 
President's recommendation for salary increases for certain government 
officials (including Members of Congress), there being no mechanism 
under the rules or under applicable law (3) permitting 
privileged consideration of such resolutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 2. 123 Cong. Rec. 4503, 4504, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Pub. L. 90-206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I 
    should like to personally appeal to the Speaker, since he is in the 
    chair--a gentleman for whom I have the greatest respect--if he in 
    any way could use the considerable powers at his command as the 
    leader of the majority party and as the Speaker of our House, this 
    one Member is asking him to do so in order to bring this 
    legislation to the floor for a vote.
        The Speaker: The Chair is sure that the gentleman from 
    Maryland, being one of the most erudite students of the laws and 
    the rules of this House, knows that there is no way that the 
    Speaker of the House personally can bring this legislation to the 
    floor. If there is, would the gentleman make the Chair aware of it? 
    . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to draft a resolution 
    this afternoon and send it to the Speaker's office for 
    introduction, directing the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
    Service to be discharged immediately from further consideration of 
    whichever appropriate disapproval resolution the Speaker chooses. 
    Such a resolution could be called up for action in the House under 
    a special rule, which I am sure the Speaker could direct the 
    Committee on Rules to adopt this afternoon. . . .
        [I recall] an occasion just a few years ago when the energy 
    legislation was being considered and within the space of one 
    evening we voted three or four times on special resolutions of this 
    nature that were rushed through the Committee on Rules, brought to 
    the

[[Page 9433]]

    floor of the House, brought up under a suspension procedure, I 
    believe, and then voted upon, when the bills the resolutions made 
    in order were not even on the floor in printed form.
        The Speaker: Those matters were brought up under suspension, 
    and motions to suspend the rules are not in order during the 
    balance of the week.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The President's salary increase 
recommendations were scheduled to become effective on Feb. 20, 1977, in 
the absence of adoption by either House of a resolution disapproving 
all or a part of those recommendations. Since the law provided no 
procedure for consideration of such resolutions in the absence of a 
report from the Committee on Rules of a special resolution permitting 
consideration, and since motions to suspend the rules were no longer in 
order that week, the Speaker had no authority save recognition for a 
unanimous-consent request. Pub. L. 95-19, subsequently enacted on Apr. 
12, 1977, now requires separate recorded votes within 60 calendar days 
on each of the President's recommendations in each House.

Sec. 2.2 Where there is no procedure under the rules permitting 
    privileged consideration of a resolution, and where motions to 
    suspend the rules are not in order, the resolution may be 
    considered only by unanimous consent.

    During the proceedings in the House on Feb. 17, 1977,(4) 
the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 4579-81, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Berkley] Bedell [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent for the immediate consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 
    115) disapproving the recommendations of the President with respect 
    to the rates of pay of Federal officials transmitted to the 
    Congress for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, which was 
    introduced by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Grassley).
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 115

            Resolved, That the House of Representatives, in accordance 
        with section 225(i) of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 (81 Stat. 
        643; Public Law 90-206), hereby disapproves all of the 
        recommendations of the President of the United States within 
        the purview of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E) of 
        section 225(f) of the Federal Salary Act of 1967, transmitted 
        by the President to the Congress in the budget for the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 1978.

        The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Iowa?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James A.] Burke of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Monday next.

[[Page 9434]]

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion.
        The question was taken and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman demand the yeas and nays or 
    object to the vote?
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: May the Chair announce so the Members may 
    understand, this is a question on adjourning to Monday next. If the 
    House fails to adjourn to Monday we will meet tomorrow at 11 a.m. 
    In the event there is no quorum tomorrow the House will meet on 
    Saturday at 11 a.m. I just want the Members to understand the 
    procedure and what may happen.
        The gentleman from Maryland has asked for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    109, nays 224, not voting 18, as follows: . . .
        So the motion was rejected. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I make this 
    parliamentary inquiry as a result of the vote not to adjourn over 
    until Monday and the announcement that the House would reconvene at 
    11 o'clock tomorrow. Are there any circumstances that the Chair 
    could perceive under which the pay raise legislation would be 
    considered by the House tomorrow?
        The Speaker: The only possibility would be if unanimous consent 
    were asked, and the Chair would recognize a gentleman or 
    gentlewoman for that purpose, and if there were not an objection, 
    then there would be a vote. That would be the only possibility. The 
    Chair has been informed that there will be objections.

Consideration of Bills by Unanimous Consent To Be Cleared With 
    Leadership

Sec. 2.3 The Speaker on occasion has reiterated his policy of 
    conferring recognition upon Members to permit consideration of 
    bills and resolutions by unanimous consent only when assured that 
    the ma-jority- and minority-elected floor leadership and committee 
    and subcommittee chairmen and ranking minority members have no 
    objection.

    Several Members having propounded unanimous-consent requests to 
permit consideration of various legislative measures by a day certain 
under an ``open rule'' procedure, the Speaker on Jan. 25, 
1984,(6) reiterated the Chair's policy of conferring 
recognition upon Members to permit consideration of bills and 
resolutions only when assured that the majority and minority floor and 
committee and subcommittee leaderships

[[Page 9435]]

have no objection. This policy was intended in part to prevent the 
practice whereby one side might force the other to go on record as 
objecting to propositions regarding which they have only procedural or 
technical objections rather than substantive opposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 130 Cong. Rec. 354, 355, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that an open rule permitting consideration of 
    House Joint Resolution 100, the voluntary school prayer 
    constitutional amendment, be called up for immediate consideration 
    within the next 10 legislative days.
        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: (7) Objection is heard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will read the following statement:

            As indicated on page 476 of the House Rules and Manual, the 
        Chair has established a policy of conferring recognition upon 
        Members to permit consideration of bills and resolutions by 
        unanimous consent only when assured that the majority and 
        minority floor leadership and committee and subcommittee 
        chairmen and ranking minority members have no objection. 
        Consistent with that policy, and with the Chair's inherent 
        power of recognition under clause 2, rule XIV, the Chair, and 
        any occupant of the Chair appointed as Speaker pro tempore 
        pursuant to clause 7, rule I, will decline recognition for 
        unanimous-consent requests for consideration of bills and 
        resolutions without assurances that the request has been 
        cleared by that leadership. This denial of recognition by the 
        Chair will not reflect, necessarily, any personal opposition on 
        the part of the Chair to orderly consideration of the matter in 
        question, but will reflect the determination upon the part of 
        the Chair that orderly procedures will be followed, that is, 
        procedures involving consultation and agreement between floor 
        and committee leadership on both sides of the aisle. . . .

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, do I understand now that the 
    unanimous-consent procedure cannot be used by anyone to bring 
    legislation to the floor unless that has been specifically cleared 
    by both the majority and the minority leadership; is that correct?
        The Speaker: That has been the custom and it will continue to 
    be the custom. . . .
        Mr. Walker: I just want to clarify then that the entire matter 
    then of utilizing unanimous-consent requests for any kind of 
    legislative business, such as bringing up legislation, will be 
    denied to all parties.
        The Speaker: Unless the Chair has assurances that proper 
    clearance has taken place. . . .
        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: . . . The Speaker mentioned 
    fairness on both sides and both sides be knowledgeable. . . . 
    [C]ould the Chair describe how fairness to both sides and how both 
    sides might be knowledgeable might proceed? . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair intends to go through the legitimate 
    leadership of the gentleman's side of the aisle, and the elected 
    leadership on the other side of the aisle.
        Mr. Gingrich: So in the future the legitimate leadership on our 
    side of the aisle might legitimately expect to be informed?
        The Speaker: The Chair considers the legitimate leadership as 
    the leader

[[Page 9436]]

    ship that was elected, not caucuses within the party.

Sec. 2.4 Pursuant to the Speaker's previously announced policy, the 
    Chair declined to recognize a Member to request unanimous consent 
    for the consideration of an unreported measure, where the request 
    had not been cleared with the minority leadership.

    On June 6, 1984,(8) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 130 Cong. Rec. 15174, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Katie] Hall of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service be 
    discharged from further consideration of House joint resolution 
    (H.J. Res. 247) to designate April 24, 1984, as National Day of 
    Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The Chair understands 
    that this has not been cleared by the leadership on the minority 
    side. Since the Speaker has made the statement that those types of 
    requests would not be entertained, under such circumstances the 
    Chair does not recognize the gentlewoman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Beginning in 1981, the Speaker enunciated a 
policy for the consideration by unanimous consent of bills not reported 
from committees.(10) The Speaker declines to recognize for 
such requests without assurances that the matter to be called up has 
been ``cleared'' by the Majority and Minority Leaders and the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the appropriate 
committees.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 127 Cong. Rec. 31590, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 15, 1981.
11. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 757 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Reported Bill

Sec. 2.5 Under an extension of guidelines announced by the Speaker on 
    the opening day of the Congress, the Chair will decline to 
    recognize for a unanimous-consent request for the consideration of 
    a (reported) bill unless assured 
    of clearances from both majority and minority floor 
    and committee leaderships (guidelines heretofore applicable to 
    consideration of unreported measures).

    On July 23, 1993,(12) the Chair discussed the role of 
the leadership in determining whether re

[[Page 9437]]

quests for the consideration of bills would be allowed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 139 Cong. Rec. ______, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steve] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is this: Is it possible to ask unanimous 
    consent to bring H.R. 2667 for its immediate consideration?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The leadership on both 
    sides of the aisle has to agree to allow that unanimous-consent 
    request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gunderson: . . . Is it possible to bring an appropriation 
    bill to the floor for consideration without a rule?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Yes, if it is privileged and it has 
    been reported and available for 3 days and is called up by the 
    committee.
        Mr. Gunderson: Can the 3-day rule be waived?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: By unanimous consent, yes.
        Mr. Gunderson: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to move that H.R. 
    2667 be brought up for immediate consideration? . . .
        Any member of the committee, Mr. Speaker, could make that 
    motion?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The chairman or a member authorized by 
    the committee. . . .
        Mr. Gunderson: Mr. Speaker, I have one further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Is it possible to ask unanimous consent at any time during the 
    day to bring up an appropriation bill for its immediate 
    consideration?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The chairman or his designee could 
    bring the bill up.
        Mr. Gunderson: . . . If, for example, I were to move or ask 
    unanimous consent to do that and the Chair did not recognize me, 
    would it be possible at that point to literally appeal the ruling 
    of the Chair for another Member to bring it up?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous agreement between the 
    leaderships of the Democrat and Republican side, only the chairman 
    of the committee would be recognized to bring up the bill after 
    agreement of both leaderships by a unanimous-consent request. 
    Another Member would not be recognized for that reason, and the 
    denial of recognition to make 
    a unanimous-consent request is not appealable.
        Mr. Gunderson: . . . The chairman of the Appropriations 
    Committee can bring up H.R. 2667 for immediate consideration at any 
    time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Prior to the 3-day availability, he 
    could bring it up by unanimous consent, but as the gentleman knows, 
    these things are traditionally handled with the concurrence of both 
    leaderships and very carefully orchestrated before unanimous 
    consent is requested in order to be sure that it is adhered to.

Sec. 2.6 Where unanimous consent has been given for the immediate 
    consideration of a bill, a point of order may nevertheless 
    subsequently be sustained based on the absence of a quorum in the 
    committee when the bill was reported, and in such case the bill is 
    recommitted.

[[Page 9438]]

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(14) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 30751, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.

        Mr. [Thaddeus J.] Dulski [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 
    1507) to include firefighters within the provisions of section 
    8336(c) of title 5, United States Code, relating to the retirement 
    of Government employees engaged in certain hazardous occupations. . 
    . .
        The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

    Mr. John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio, at this point made a point of order 
based in part on the absence of a quorum when the bill was passed by 
the Post Office and Civil Service Committee. The Speaker indicated that 
the proper time to make the point of order would be after unanimous 
consent was given (and before actual consideration began). After the 
point of order was subsequently made, the Speaker addressed the 
chairman of the committee as follows, and made his ruling:

        The Speaker: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from New 
    York if a quorum was present in his committee when the bill was 
    reported?
        Mr. Dulski: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio is correct. 
    There was no quorum present.
        The Speaker: Under those circumstances, the Chair sustains the 
    point of order and the bill is recommitted to the Committee on Post 
    Office and Civil Service.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A unanimous-consent request that explicitly 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill would 
preclude objections to consideration of the bill such as those raised 
by Mr. Ashbrook. In one instance,(16) in fact, the Chair 
ruled that, where the House granted unanimous consent for the 
consideration of a bill and specified that ``all points of order 
against the said bill'' be considered as waived, such waiver precluded 
various points of order based on objections to consideration of the 
bill. To ensure the broadest scope of such waiver, it is advisable that 
the waiver apply to ``all points of order against the bill and its 
consideration.'' In the Oct. 11, 1968, precedent above, the unanimous-
consent request for immediate consideration did not include waivers of 
points of order, but merely would have permitted privileged 
consideration immediately under the five-minute rule of a bill which 
was on the Union Calendar and would otherwise re

[[Page 9439]]

quire consideration in Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See 93 Cong. Rec. 9095, 9396, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 16 and 
        July 19, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Rules--Effect on Points of Order

Sec. 2.7 A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill suspends all 
    rules in conflict with the motion and points of order against 
    consideration on the grounds that the bill was reported from 
    committee without a quorum, or that the committee report 
    is unavailable, will not lie against a bill brought up under 
    suspension.

    On Sept. 16, 1968,(17) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled that a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
suspended all rules in conflict with the motion, and that a point of 
order against consideration because no committee report was available 
would not lie:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 26965, 26966, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against consideration of S. 3133.
        The Speaker: On what ground?
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, on the ground that there is no report 
    available for consideration of the Members, nor is there one 
    available after diligent search.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state the pending motion is to 
    suspend the rules, and, accordingly, that being so, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    Speaker McCormack later held on the same day (18) that a 
motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill suspended the rule 
requiring a quorum of a committee present when a bill is reported and 
precluded a point of order against consideration based on that defect:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 27030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, at the proper time I 
    ask to be recognized to make a point of order against consideration 
    of this bill.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that if the gentleman 
    proposed to make a point of order, this is the time to make it.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 19136) on the ground that it 
    violates rule XI, clause 26(e), in that it was reported from the 
    committee without a quorum being present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the motion to suspend 
    the rules suspends all rules, including the rule mentioned by the 
    gentleman from Iowa.

Sec. 2.8 A point of order that a bill was reported from committee in 
    the absence of a quorum is properly raised in the House when the 
    bill is called up for consideration,

[[Page 9440]]

    but the point of order does not lie when the bill is called up 
    under suspension of the rules.

    On Oct. 7, 1968,(19) during special-order speeches, Mr. 
Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to 
points of order proposed to be made against the consideration of bills 
to be called up that day under suspension of the rules. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded that the proper time to raise a 
point of order that a quorum of the committee was not present when the 
bills were reported, was when the bills were called up for 
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 29764, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: . . . Mr. Speaker, I submit that the bills S. 1507, 
    S. 1190, H.R. 17954, and H.R. 7406 all were improperly reported. 
    Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: At what point in the 
    proceedings would it be in order to raise the question against 
    these bills as being in violation of rule XI, clause 26(e) inasmuch 
    as they are scheduled to be considered under suspension of the 
    rules, which would obviously suspend the rule I have cited?
        Mr. Speaker, I ask the guidance of the Chair in lodging my 
    point of order against these listed bills so that my objection may 
    be fairly considered, and so that my right to object will be 
    protected. Mr. Speaker, I intend to do so only because orderly 
    procedure must be based on compliance with the rules of the House 
    which we have adopted.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that any point of order would 
    have 
    to be made when the bill is called 
    up. . . .
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Would 
    it not be in order, prior to the House going into the Consent 
    Calendar or suspension of the rules, to lodge the point of order 
    against the bills at this time?
        The Speaker: The point of order could be directed against such 
    consideration when the bills are called up under the general rules 
    of the House. The rules we are operating under today as far as 
    these bills are concerned, concerns suspension of the rules, and 
    that motion will suspend all rules.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See also 72 Cong. Rec. 10593-96, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., June 12, 
        1930, where it was held that the proper time to raise a point 
        of order of noncompliance with the Ramseyer rule was when the 
        motion was made to go into the Committee of the Whole to 
        consider a bill under the provisions of an open rule already 
        adopted and not waiving points of order against the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous Consent To Consider Measure While Another Pending

Sec. 2.9 The House may by unanimous consent consider a legislative 
    proposition while another is pending.

    On Oct. 14, 1978,(1) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 38287, 38318, 38319, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9441]]

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 
    1439) providing for concurring in the Senate amendments to the bill 
    (H.R. 14279) with amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1439

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the 
        bill (H.R. 14279) to extend the authority for the flexible 
        regulation of interest rates on deposits and accounts in 
        depository institutions, with the Senate amendments thereto, is 
        taken from the Speaker's table to the end (1) that the House 
        concur, and it does hereby, in the Senate amendment to the 
        title with an amendment as follows: . . .

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a second.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) Without objection, a 
    second will be considered as ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object, 
    and on that I demand tellers. . . .
        So a second was ordered.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
    St Germain) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Rousselot) will be recognized for 20 minutes. 
    . . .
        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I send to 
    the desk a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 755) directing the 
    Secretary of the Senate to make a correction in the enrollment of 
    the Senate bill (S. 1487) to eliminate racketeering in the sale and 
    distribution of cigarettes, and for other purposes, and ask 
    unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:

                                H. Con. Res. 755

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That in the enrollment of the bill (S. 1487) to 
        eliminate racketeering in the sale and distribution of 
        cigarettes, and for other purposes, the Secretary of the Senate 
        shall make the following correction. . . .

        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, can we have another matter called 
    up with one matter pending?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from California that it has to be called up by unanimous consent, 
    which was the request.

Consideration of Bill on Following Day or Any Day Thereafter

Sec. 2.10 The House agreed to a unanimous-consent request propounded by 
    the Minority Leader providing for the consideration of a bill in 
    the House on the following day or any day thereafter.

[[Page 9442]]

    The following unanimous-consent request was agreed to in the House 
on Sept. 28, 1982: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 128 Cong. Rec. 25533, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that it be in order on Wednesday, September 29, 
    1982, or any day thereafter to consider in the House the bill, H.R. 
    6838.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John G. Fary (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Sept. 29, 1982,(5) the 
Speaker recognized the Minority Leader to call up the reported bill in 
the House for consideration under the hour rule, and subsequently 
recognized the Minority Leader in opposition to a motion to recommit 
with instructions offered by the ranking minority member of the 
reporting committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See the proceedings discussed in Sec. 8.22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuing Appropriations--Points of Order Waived Against Consideration

Sec. 2.11 A special rule has waived points of order against 
    consideration of a joint resolution making continuing 
    appropriations, particularly the point of order based on the three-
    day layover requirement, and has provided for its consideration in 
    the House, with not to exceed two hours of debate equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Appropriations.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Nov. 16, 1981: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 127 Cong. Rec. 27613, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Moakley [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 271 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 271

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to consider, clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI to the 
        contrary notwithstanding, the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 357) 
        making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
        1982, and for other purposes, in the House. Debate on said 
        joint resolution shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be 
        equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
        minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
        previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
        resolution to final passage without intervening motion except 
        one motion to recommit. . . .

[[Page 9443]]

        Mr. Moakley: Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 271 is the rule 
    providing for consideration of House Joint Resolution 357 which 
    makes further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1982. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 271 is a simple rule. It waives 
    clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI which would otherwise force this 
    continuing resolution to layover for 3 days, excluding Saturday and 
    Sunday. The committee has granted this waiver because it feels that 
    the Appropriations Committee report and the resolution are 
    straightforward and easily comprehended.

Unanimous Consent To Consider Private Senate Bill With Nongermane 
    Amendment

Sec. 2.12 By unanimous consent, the House agreed to consid-er a private 
    Senate bill reported from the Committee on the Judiciary with a 
    nongermane amendment in the nature of a substitute converting it 
    into a public bill.

    On Oct. 14, 1978,(7) during consideration of S. 2247 in 
the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 38217, 38218, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the Senate 
    bill (S. 2247) for the relief of Eugenia Cortes, as reported from 
    the Committee on the Judiciary. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from New Jersey?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the Senate bill as follows:

                                    S. 2247

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in 
        the administration of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
        Eugenia Cortes shall be held and considered to be within the 
        purview of the first proviso to section 312(1) of that Act and 
        may be naturalized upon compliance with all of the other 
        requirements of title III of that Act. . . .

        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Rodino: Strike all after the 
        enacting clause and insert: That the first proviso contained in 
        paragraph 1 of section 312 of the Immigration and Nationality 
        Act is amended by striking out ``or to any person who on the 
        effective date of this act is over 50 years of age''. . . .

        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read a 
    third time, and passed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The bill would ordinarily have been 
referred to the Private Calendar when reported, but was viewed as a 
public bill in essence since reported with an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute of a public character.

[[Page 9444]]

Points of Order Against Consideration When Special Rule for 
    Consideration Has Been Adopted

Sec. 2.13 The Speaker overruled a point of order against the 
    consideration of a bill based on its alleged inconsistency with 
    existing law, the House having adopted a resolution making in order 
    the consideration of the bill.

    On Mar. 27, 1958,(8) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of H.R. 8290, authorizing the construction of a 
national monument. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, objected to the 
consideration of the bill on the ground that it contradicted previous 
legislation passed in the 83d Congress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 104 Cong. Rec. 5631, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the consideration 
    of the proposed legislation, H.R. 8290, on the grounds that it does 
    not conform to, and is in fact violative of, Public Law 742, of the 
    83d Congress, volume 68, part I, United States Statutes. . . .

        Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is abundantly clear that the 
    legislation proposed for consideration at this time, H.R. 8290, 
    does not conform to and is in violation of Public Law 742 of the 
    83d Congress, for the reason that Public Law 742 provides and makes 
    mandatory that plans must be approved--there must be a meeting of 
    the minds--of the legally constituted agencies and commissions and 
    thereafter, and only thereafter, shall these plans be submitted to 
    Congress for legislative authorization.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, overruled the point of order:

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The occupant of the chair has been here a long time. He has 
    never had the conception that one Congress could tie the hands of a 
    later Congress and the Chair does not believe so in this case. If 
    that doctrine were followed, then it would mean the Congress could 
    pass a law saying, ``This law shall not be touched for a number of 
    years.'' Another Congress comes in and has a different idea. The 
    Chair thinks each Congress should have the opportunity to work its 
    will. . . . Furthermore, the House has already adopted a special 
    rule for the consideration of this bill.

Sec. 2.14 A resolution to consider a special and therefore 
    nonprivileged appropriation measure having been agreed to, a point 
    of order against consideration does not lie.

    On Aug. 21, 1951,(9) the House agreed to House 
Resolution 397, providing for the consideration 
of House Joint Resolution 320,

[[Page 9445]]

amending an act making temporary appropriations. Mr. Clarence Cannon, 
of Missouri, then moved that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the joint resolution. 
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a point of order against 
consideration, which was overruled by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 10481, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against 
    consideration of the joint resolution on the ground that the 
    authorization has expired, and that there is no authorization for 
    this appropriation.
        The Speaker: The resolution just adopted makes in order the 
    consideration of the joint resolution, and, therefore, the point of 
    order does not lie.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: General appropriation bills are privileged 
for consideration, under Rule XI, clause 4(a), and only such bills are 
subject to points of order for carrying unauthorized appropriations, 
under Rule XXI, clause 2. Such points of order must be made in 
Committee of the Whole when the offending paragraph is read, and not 
against consideration of the entire bill. ``Special'' appropriation 
bills are not privileged and require special rules, but no points of 
order lie under clause 2 of Rule XXI in the Committee of the Whole or 
against consideration.

Sec. 2.15 Where the House adopts a resolution providing for ``the 
    immediate consideration of a bill'' then pending before a House 
    committee, a point of order against consideration on the ground 
    that the Ramseyer rule has not been complied with does not lie, 
    since that rule pertains only to bills reported by a committee and 
    not 
    to bills brought before the House by other means.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(10) the House adopted House Resolution 
845, providing for the consideration of H.R. 11926, limiting the 
jurisdiction of federal courts in apportionment cases. The bill, which 
had been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, had not been 
reported from that committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 20221, 20222, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the adoption of the resolution, Mr. James G. O'Hara, of 
Michigan, made a point of order against consideration of the bill on 
the ground that no report had been made with a ``comparative print'' 
required by House rules showing changes made by the bill in existing 
law. Speaker John W.

[[Page 9446]]

McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled the point of order on the 
grounds that the rule applies only to bills reported out of committee:

        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
    against the consideration of the bill H.R. 11926.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
    against the consideration of H.R. 11926 on the ground that the bill 
    has not been properly reported in that it purports to amend title 
    28 of the United States Code, that is, the act of June 25, 1948, 
    chapter 646, but it fails to show in its report or in an 
    accompanying document a comparative print of that part of the bill 
    making and amending the statute or part thereof proposed to be 
    amended as required by part 3, rule XIII, of the House of 
    Representatives.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Rule XIII, clause 3, provides, ``whenever a committee reports a 
    bill or a joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or 
    part thereof it shall include in its report or in an accompanying 
    document the text of the statute or part thereof which is proposed 
    to be repealed;''. It will be noted that the rule only applies when 
    a committee reports a bill. In this case the Committee on the 
    Judiciary did not file a report on H.R. 11926. Therefore, that rule 
    does not apply to the present situation.
        In addition, the resolution before the House provides for the 
    House immediately to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the consideration of this 
    particular bill.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 2.16 A point of order that a bill was reported from committee in 
    the absence of a quorum is in order pending a vote on the motion 
    that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
    the consideration of the bill, where the bill is being considered 
    pursuant to a Committee on Rules resolution which does not waive 
    that point of order.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(11) after the House had adopted House 
Resolution 1256, providing for the consideration in the Committee of 
the Whole of S. 2511, Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, moved that the 
House resolve itself into Committee to consider the bill. Mr. Paul 
Findley, of Illinois, made a point of order against consideration of 
the bill on the grounds that the Committee on Agriculture had acted 
without a quorum when it had reported out the bill. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, sustained the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 30739, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9447]]

Resolution Directing Chairman To Request Special Rule Held Not 
    Privileged

Sec. 2.17 A resolution directing the chairman of the Select Committee 
    on Committees to request the Committee on Rules to report to the 
    House a special rule providing for the consideration of the 
    resolution reported by the select committee, and directing the 
    Committee on Rules to immediately consider such request, was held 
    not to present a question of the privileges of the House under Rule 
    IX as affecting the ``integrity of the proceedings of the House,'' 
    although it was alleged that the chairman of the select committee 
    had neglected to take all necessary steps to bring the measure to a 
    vote as required by Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A).

    On June 27, 1974,(12) it was demonstrated that a Member 
may not, by raising a question of the privileges of the House under 
Rule IX, attach privilege to a question not otherwise in order under 
the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 120 Cong. Rec. 21596-98, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    resolution (H. Res. 1203) involving a question of privileges of the 
    House, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1203

            Whereas on January 31, 1973, the House of Representatives 
        voted to establish a ten-member, bipartisan Select Committee on 
        Committees charged with conducting a ``thorough and complete 
        study of rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives; and
            Whereas the select committee was further ``authorized and 
        directed to report to the House . . .
            Whereas on March 21, 1974, the select committee reported 
        House Resolution 988 in conformance with its mandate; and
            Whereas the chairman of the select committee has failed to 
        seek a rule making House Resolution 988 in order for 
        consideration by the House; and
            Whereas, clause 27(d)(1) [now clause 2(l)(1)(A)] of House 
        Rule XI states, ``It shall be the duty of the chairman of each 
        committee to report or cause to be reported promptly to the 
        House any measure approved by his committee and to take or 
        cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a 
        vote;'' . . .
            Resolved, That the chairman of the select committee be 
        directed to forthwith seek a rule making in order for 
        consideration by the House, House Resolution 988; and be it 
        further
            Resolved, That the House Committee on Rules be directed to 
        give immediate consideration to such request. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    make the point of order that the resolution offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois does not raise the question of privilege. . 
    . .

[[Page 9448]]

        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard on 
    the point of order. My question of privilege arises under rule IX 
    which provides that, and I quote:

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of 
        the House collectively, its safety, dignity and the integrity 
        of its pro-ceedings. . . .

        Mr. Speaker, I rest my question of privilege on that clause 
    which declares those questions privileged which relate to the 
    integrity of the proceedings of the House. It is my contention that 
    there has been a deliberate attempt to delay House consideration of 
    House Resolution 988, the so-called Bolling-Martin Committee Reform 
    Amendments of 1974, and that this intentional delay not only 
    interferes with and flouts the integrity of the proceedings of this 
    body, but is in clear violation of clause 27(d)(1) of rule XI of 
    the Rules of the House.
        Under that rule, and I quote:

            It shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee to 
        report or cause to be reported promptly to the House any 
        measure approved by his committee and to take or cause to be 
        taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. . . .

        The Speaker: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) has submitted a 
    resolution which he asserts involves a question of the privileges 
    of the House under rule IX. Following the preamble of the 
    resolution, the resolution provides that:

            Resolved, That the chairman of the Select Committee be 
        directed to forthwith seek a rule making in order for 
        consideration by the House, House Resolution 988, and be it 
        further
            Resolved, That the House Committee on Rules be directed to 
        give immediate consideration to such request.

        As indicated in ``Hinds' Precedents,'' volume III, section 
    2678, Speakers are authorized to make a preliminary determination 
    as to those questions presented which may involve privileges. As 
    reaffirmed by Speaker McCormack on October 8, 1968 (Record p. 30214 
    to 30216) when a Member asserts that he rises to a question of the 
    privileges of the House, the Speaker may hear the question and 
    then, if the matter is not one admissible as a question of 
    privilege of the House he can refuse recognition.
        The Chair has listened to the arguments concerning the 
    privileged status of this resolution and has examined the 
    precedents of the House in this regard. It will be noted that the 
    gentleman from Illinois has relied heavily on section 2609, volume 
    III of ``Hinds' Precedents,'' in which it was held by Speaker Reed 
    that a report having been ordered to be made by a select committee 
    but not being made within a reasonable time, a resolution directing 
    the report to be made raised a question of the privileges of the 
    House.
        That case is distinguishable from the present instance in that 
    in this instance the chairman has made the report and the 
    resolution is pending on the calendar of the House and it does not 
    become privileged until the House has adopted a resolution reported 
    from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of 
    House Resolution

[[Page 9449]]

    988. The Chair does not feel that a question of privilege of the 
    House under rule IX should be used as a mechanism for giving 
    privilege to a motion which would not otherwise be in order under 
    the Rules of the House, in this case, namely, a motion to direct 
    the Committee on Rules to take a certain action.
        The Chair now would refer to Hinds' Precedents, volume III, 
    section 2610, wherein Speaker Crisp ruled that a charge that a 
    committee had been inactive in regard to a subject committed to it 
    did not constitute a question of privilege of the House. . . .
        The rules did not provide at the time of Speaker Reed's ruling, 
    as is now the case in clause 27(d)(2) of Rule XI, for a mandatory 
    filing of the reports within 7 calendar days after the measure has 
    been ordered reported upon signed request by a committee majority.
        In the instant case, however, the Select Committee on 
    Committees has filed its report and the Chair is not aware that the 
    chairman of the Select Committee on Committees has in any sense 
    violated the rule cited by the gentleman from Illinois. For these 
    reasons, the Chair holds that the gentleman's resolution does not 
    present a question of the privileges of the House under [rule] IX 
    and the resolution may not be considered.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Other Business May Be Precluded by Special Rule

Sec. 2.18 A resolution providing that on a certain day the Speaker 
    shall recognize a Member to call up a bill for consideration may by 
    its provisions preclude the consideration of other business on that 
    day.

    On May 12, 1936,(14) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, construed the effect of House Resolution 123, adopted on the 
preceding day and making in order on May 12, the consideration of a 
bill not reported from the Committee on Agriculture:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 7097, 7098, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution stated: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 7026, 7027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              House Resolution 123

            Resolved, That upon the day succeeding the adoption of this 
        resolution, a special order be, and is hereby, created by the 
        House of Representatives, for the consideration of H.R. 2066, a 
        public bill which has remained in the Committee on Agriculture 
        for 30 or more days, without action. That such special order 
        be, and is hereby, created, notwithstanding any further action 
        on said bill by the Committee on Agriculture, or any rule of 
        the House. That on said day the Speaker shall recognize the 
        Representative at Large from North Dakota, William Lemke, to 
        call up H.R. 2066, a bill to liquidate and refinance existing 
        agricultural indebtedness at a reduced rate of interest, by 
        establishing an efficient credit system, through the use of the 
        Farm Credit Administration, the Federal Reserve banking system, 
        and creating a Board of Agriculture to supervise the same, as a 
        special order of business, and to

[[Page 9450]]

        move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of 
        said H.R. 2066. After general debate, which shall be confined 
        to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 6 hours, to be 
        equally divided and controlled by the Member of the House 
        requesting the rule for the consideration of said H.R. 2066 and 
        the Member of the House who is opposed to the said H.R. 2066, 
        to be designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be read for 
        amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the 
        reading of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and 
        report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
        been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the bill, and the amendments thereto, to final 
        passage, without intervening motion, except one motion to 
        recommit. The special order shall be a continuing order until 
        the bill is finally disposed of.

    The proceedings on May 12 were as follows:

        The Speaker: The Chair may say that under the rule nothing is 
    in order this morning except the consideration of the bill which 
    was provided for by rule yesterday. However, with the unanimous 
    consent of the House, the Chair will recognize Members to correct 
    the Record. The Chair does not believe that, technically speaking, 
    anything is in order this morning except the consideration of the 
    bill just mentioned. . . .
        Under the express provisions of the rule there is nothing in 
    order this morning except a motion by the gentleman from North 
    Dakota to go into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration 
    of the bill. The Chair is not responsible for the rule, but it is 
    up to the Chair to construe it.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For the privilege and precedence of reports from the Committee on 
        Rules related to the order of business and consideration, see 
        Rule XI clauses 4(a)-4(e) and comments thereto, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. Sec. 726-731(a) (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question of Consideration Determined by House

Sec. 2.19 The question as to whether the House will consider a 
    resolution making in order the consideration of a bill is a matter 
    for the House to decide and not the Chair.

    On May 13, 1953,(17) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, ruled that a point of order against a resolution 
providing for the consideration of a bill, on the ground that the bill 
sought to amend a nonexisting act, was a matter for the House to 
determine:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 99 Cong. Rec. 4877, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the consideration of this rule [H. Res. 233] 
    because it attempts to make in order the consideration of the bill 
    H.R. 5134, which is a bill to amend a nonexisting act. [The 
    ``Submerged Lands Act''.]
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the point of order that 
    has been

[[Page 9451]]

    raised by the gentleman from Ohio is not one within the 
    jurisdiction of the Chair, but is a question for the House to 
    decide, whether it wants to consider such legislation.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Also, dilatory motions including the 
question of consideration, may not be raised against a privileged 
report from the Committee on Rules.

Two-thirds Vote To Consider Special Rule on Same Day Reported

Sec. 2.20 A resolution from the Committee on Rules may be considered on 
    the same day as reported if the question of consideration is 
    supported by two-thirds of the Members present and voting, a quorum 
    being present.

    On Nov. 14, 1975,(18) a resolution from the Committee on 
Rules was reported, providing that upon the adoption of the resolution 
it would be in order to take a Senate bill from the Speaker's table and 
consider it in the House. Following the adoption of the resolution 
making the consideration of the Senate bill in order, the Member 
calling up the Senate bill was recognized for one hour:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 36638, 36641, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri], from the Committee on 
    Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 866, 
    Rept. No. 94-666), which was referred to the House Calendar and 
    ordered to be printed.

                                  H. Res. 866

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's 
        table the bill S. 2667, to extend the Emergency Petroleum 
        Allocation Act of 1973, and to consider said bill in the House.

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 866 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Speaker: (19) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider House 
    Resolution 866?
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I object 
    to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair is certain that a quorum is present. The 
    Chair will count.
        Two hundred and forty-one Members are present, a quorum.
        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.

[[Page 9452]]

        On a division (demanded by Mr. Rousselot) there were--yeas 171, 
    noes 14.
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof), the House agreed 
    to consider House Resolution 866.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West 
    Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, 
    pursuant to House Resolution 866, I call up the Senate bill (S. 
    2667) and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        The Clerk read the Senate bill as follows:

                                    S. 2667

        A Bill to Extend the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 4(g)(1) of the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 
        1973 is amended by striking out each date specified therein and 
        inserting in lieu thereof in each case ``December 15, 1975''. . 
        . .

        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    Senate bill.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read 
    the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on 
    the table.

Sec. 2.21 The House, by a two-thirds vote, agreed to consider a 
    privileged resolution reported from the Committee on Rules on the 
    same day reported.

    On Oct. 17, 1974,(20) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized John Young, of Texas, to call up House Resolution 1456. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 36020, 36021, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young of Texas, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
    following privileged resolution (H. Res. 1456, Rept. No. 93-1470) 
    which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed:

                                  H. Res. 1456

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the House shall consider the joint resolution (H.J. 
        Res. 1167) making further continuing appropriations for the 
        fiscal year 1975, and for other purposes. After general debate, 
        which shall be confined to the joint resolution and shall 
        continue not to exceed one hour, the previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage 
        without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

        Mr. Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
    on Rules I call up House Resolution 1456 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider House 
    Resolution 1456?

[[Page 9453]]

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, does not consideration of this rule 
    require unanimous consent?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa 
    that it requires a two-thirds vote to consider the resolution. The 
    Chair was about to put the question. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I am a little 
    curious as to how this resolution got out of the Committee on 
    Appropriations, since I understand the committee did not meet. How 
    did it get before the Committee on Rules?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that a request was made that 
    the Committee on Rules consider a rule on the introduced version.
        Mr. Hays: But how did it get before the Committee on Rules?
        The Speaker: Because House Resolution 1456 was reported by the 
    Committee on Rules, and the Committee on Rules has authority to 
    report as privileged a resolution discharging another committee 
    from a measure referred to that committee. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . Shall the House consider the resolution?
        The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Hays: I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is 
    not present, and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    210, nays 14, not voting 210, as follows: . . . 
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House agreed 
    to consider House Resolution 1456. . . .
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Young), is 
    recognized for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question 
    on the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to Rule XI clause 4(a), the 
Committee on Rules may report as privileged a resolution on the ``order 
of business'' which has the effect of discharging another committee 
from consideration of a measure referred to it.

Sec. 2.22 Under the rules of the House, objection to consideration of a 
    report from the Committee on Rules on the same day reported will 
    not lie where such consideration has been agreed to by an 
    affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members voting.

    On Dec. 21, 1963,(1) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, 
called up by the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 
598, providing for the consideration of a

[[Page 9454]]

conference report. Mr. Madden asked for the immediate consideration of 
the resolution, and Mr. Frank T. Bow, of Ohio, objected to such 
consideration on the grounds ``that under rule XI, section 22, of the 
rules of the House this rule is not laid over before the House for 24 
hours.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 109 Cong. Rec. 25408, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated that 
objection to consideration of the resolution would not lie:

        The Chair will state that clause 22 of Rule XI provides, in 
    substance, that the House may consider a resolution on the same day 
    reported, if by a two-thirds vote.

    The Speaker put the question on the immediate consideration of the 
resolution to the House, which agreed thereto.
    On May 26, 1964, Speaker McCormack ruled that where immediate 
consideration was asked for the consideration of a Committee on Rules 
resolution (H. Res. 736) on the same day reported, a vote on 
consideration was immediately in order: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 110 Cong. Rec. 11951, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Does this require unanimous consent?
        The Speaker: It requires a two-thirds vote.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, is there any way to ascertain the 
    reason for this request?
        The Speaker: If the House decides to consider it, then the 
    debate will be under the 1-hour rule on the resolution.
        Mr. Gross: Is there no way of ascertaining what is being done 
    here, Mr. Speaker? Is there no time available?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state at this point that it is a 
    matter of consideration. If consideration is granted, which 
    requires a two-thirds vote, then the resolution will be considered 
    under the 1-hour rule.
        The question is, Will the House now consider House Resolution 
    736?

Sec. 2.23 When a resolution from the Committee on Rules is called up 
    the same day it is reported, no debate thereon is in order until 
    the House agrees to consider the resolution.

    On May 26, 1964,(3) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
called up a resolution from the Committee on Rules reported on the same 
day and asked for its immediate consideration. In response to a 
parliamentary inquiry, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
ruled that the pending question was the consideration of the reso

[[Page 9455]]

lution, such consideration to be determined by a two-thirds vote, and 
that no debate was in order until the House agreed to consider the 
resolution, at which time one hour's debate would be had on the 
resolution itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 110 Cong. Rec. 11951, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.24 Where the Committee on Rules reports a resolution making a 
    bill a special order of business, a two-thirds vote is required to 
    consider the resolution on the same day reported.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See for example 113 Cong. Rec. 31904-06, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 
        9, 1967; 110 Cong. Rec. 11951, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 
        1964; 108 Cong. Rec. 16759, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 16, 1962; 
        90 Cong. Rec. 8999, 9000, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 7, 1944.
            Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729a 
        (1995) provides as follows: ``It shall always be in order to 
        call up for consideration a report from the Committee on Rules 
        on a rule, joint rule, or the order of business (except it 
        shall not be called up for consideration on the same day it is 
        presented to the House, unless so determined by a vote of not 
        less than two-thirds of the Members voting, but this provision 
        shall not apply during the last three days of the session).''
            A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules may 
        suspend the requirements of a two-thirds vote to consider 
        Committee on Rules reports on the same day reported. See, for 
        example, 78 Cong. Rec. 10239-41, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., June 1, 
        1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Report From Committee on Rules Filed Before House Convenes May Be 
    Considered

Sec. 2.25 Pursuant to Rule XI clause 4(b), a privileged report from the 
    Committee on Rules may be considered on the same legislative day as 
    reported only by a two-thirds vote, but a report filed by that 
    committee, pursuant to unanimous-consent permission, at any time 
    prior to convening of the House on the next legislative day may be 
    called up for immediate consideration on that new legislative day, 
    and a two-thirds vote is not then required.

    On July 31, 1975,(5) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
responded to several parliamentary inquiries relating to the situation 
described above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 121 Cong. Rec. 26243-47, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker . . . it is my 
    understanding the other body will probably vote on this matter by 
    9:30 or 9:40. . . . If that is the situation, we can expect the 
    matter to be messaged over here sometime soon after 10:00, and it 
    would be my hope at that time the matter would be given attention

[[Page 9456]]

    immediately by the Rules Committee. . . . Mr. Speaker, if I may 
    address a parliamentary inquiry, is my understanding correct that 
    if the House recesses subject to the call of the Chair, that bills 
    can be received from the other body, and the matter referred to the 
    Rules Committee without calling the House back into session? . . .
        The Speaker: If [the bill] comes over it can be referred to the 
    Committee on International Relations or held at the table but not 
    referred to the Committee on Rules. . . .
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, could not the Rules Committee meet 
    immediately and report a resolution, taking the matter from the 
    Speaker's table, bypassing the Committee on International Affairs 
    and reporting the matter directly. Is it not possible?
        The Speaker: That is a possible procedure. . . .
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: . . . Mr. Speaker, 
    is it not correct to say that if a unanimous-consent request to 
    allow the Committee on Rules until midnight to file a report on the 
    Turkish aid issue now being debated by the other body, was granted, 
    that the House could then adjourn and at the same time work its 
    will because then, if the Committee on Rules files a report, it 
    could be considered then under the rules of the House, and if they 
    did not file a report, the issue would be moot?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that that is an 
    accurate statement of the situation, as the Chair understands it. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, there have 
    been some remarks made that the House would be denied its will and 
    there would be no way to consider the matter in the event the other 
    body agreed to some legislation tonight. Am I correct in the 
    proposition that if a bill is passed by the other body tonight, 
    there is a procedure under the rules whereby the matter could be 
    considered tomorrow? . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will state this. The regular rule is 
    that a report from the Rules Committee has to go over 1 day or it 
    takes a two-thirds vote for consideration on the day reported. The 
    other way is that a unanimous-consent request can be made, and if 
    the Committee on Rules can file it by 10 o'clock tomorrow, and the 
    House adjourns tonight, then it will take a majority vote for 
    consideration tomorrow after the House meets, just as it always 
    does on a subsequent legislative day.

--Point of Order That Report Not Printed Does Not Lie

Sec. 2.26 Under Rule XI clause 4(b), it is in order to call up a 
    privileged report from the Committee on Rules relating to the order 
    of business on the same day reported if consideration is granted by 
    a two-thirds vote, and a point of order that the report has not 
    been printed does not lie.

    On Feb. 2, 1977,(6) the follow-ing proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 3344, 3349, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9457]]

        Mr. [James J.] Delaney [of New York], from the Committee on 
    Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 231, 
    Rept. No. 95-6), which was referred to the House Calendar and 
    ordered to be printed: . . .
        Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 231 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Speaker: (7) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider House 
    Resolution 231? . . .
        Mr. [W. Hensen] Moore [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the resolution has not been printed.
        Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, this is 
    merely to consider taking up the rule.
        Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point of order 
    that I believe under this rule we are waiving all points of order; 
    is that not correct?
        Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, 
    that matter will be taken up at the proper time. This is merely for 
    consideration, at this particular time, of House Resolution 231.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the point of order of 
    the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Moore) is not well taken and is 
    therefore overruled.
        There is no requirement that this resolution be printed before 
    it can be called up, although the Chair ordered the resolution 
    printed when it was filed and referred to the House Calendar.
        The question is, Will the House now consider House Resolution 
    231?
        The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof) the House agreed to consider House Resolution 231.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Delaney) is 
    recognized for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. Delaney: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Moore: Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was refused.
        So the resolution was agreed to.

Special Rule Reported Where House Refused To Consider Bill Called Up 
    Under Motion Procedure

Sec. 2.27 Refusal of the House to consider a bill called up under a 
    motion procedure would not prevent the reporting of a resolution by 
    the Committee on Rules making the bill a special order of business.

    On May 4, 1960,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
responded as

[[Page 9458]]

follows to a parliamentary inquiry prior to the call of committees 
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 106 Cong. Rec. 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: In the event that the 
    motion to consider the bill should not prevail in the House, would 
    it still be possible if a rule were reported by the Rules Committee 
    for the bill to be brought before the House at a later date under a 
    rule?
        The Speaker: The Chair would think the House could adopt any 
    rule reported by the Committee on Rules.

Special Rule for Consideration of Unreported Bills

Sec. 2.28 The Committee on Rules has reported and the House has adopted 
    resolutions making in order the immediate consideration of bills 
    which had not been reported by the committee to which referred.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(9) the Committee on Rules reported a 
resolution, which was adopted by the House with an amendment, providing 
for immediate consideration of a bill pending before the Committee on 
the Judiciary but not yet reported:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 20213, 20221, 88th Cong. 2d Sess. For other 
        examples, see Ch. 18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 11926) to limit jurisdiction of Federal courts in 
    reapportionment cases. After general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall 
    be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion 
    of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
    rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
    have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (10) The Clerk will report the 
    committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments: Lines 1 and 2, page 1, strike the 
        words ``it shall be in order to move that,'' and line 2, page 
        1, after the word ``House'' insert ``shall immediately''.

        The Speaker: Without objection, the committee amendments are 
    agreed to.
        There was no objection.

    On June 24, 1965,(11) the Committee on Rules reported 
and the House adopted House Resolution 433, making in order the 
immediate consideration of a joint reso

[[Page 9459]]

lution referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency but not yet 
reported:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 14705, 14706, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That, upon the adoption of this resolution, the House 
    shall immediately resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the House 
    joint resolution (H.J. Res. 541) to extend the Area Redevelopment 
    Act for a period of two months. After general debate, which shall 
    be confined to the resolution and shall continue not to exceed one 
    hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking and Currency, 
    the resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
    rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the resolution for 
    amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the resolution to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution 
    and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Banking and Currency was 
in agreement on consideration of the joint resolution (although it had 
not been reported) and had requested the special rule from the 
Committee on Rules.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 2.15, supra, for the ruling that points of order against 
        consideration of a bill based on defects in reporting 
        procedures may not be made where the bill was not reported from 
        committee but made in order by a special rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Rule for Consideration of Resolution on Confirmation of Vice 
    President

Sec. 2.29 A resolution was reported from the Committee on Rules, 
    providing for consideration in the Committee of the Whole of a 
    resolution reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, on 
    confirmation of the nomination of the Vice President, waiving 
    points of order against consideration of the resolution for not 
    having been reported for three calendar days and providing that the 
    previous question be ordered in the House upon completion of 
    general debate in the Committee of the Whole.

    The following resolution was reported on Dec. 19, 1974: 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 41419, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1519

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move, clause 28(d)(4) of rule XI to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the resolution (H. Res. 1511) confirming Nelson A. Rockefeller 
    as Vice President of the United States.

[[Page 9460]]

    After general debate, which shall be confined to the resolution and 
    shall continue not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, and Representative Robert W. 
    Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    resolution to the House, and the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption or 
    rejection.

Measure Called Up Without Motion, Under Special Rule

Sec. 2.30 Where the House adopts a special rule providing for the 
    immediate consideration of a measure in the House, the Speaker 
    directs the Clerk to report the measure without its being called up 
    by motion.

    On Oct. 17, 1974,(14) the following resolution was 
agreed to, for purposes of providing for immediate consideration of a 
joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 120 Cong. Rec. 36020, 36021, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. For further 
        discussion of proceedings relating to consideration of the 
        special rule, see Sec. 2.21, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1456

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall consider the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1167) 
    making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1975, 
    and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the joint resolution and shall continue not to exceed 
    one hour, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
    the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit. . . .
        Mr. [John] Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question on the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        The Speaker: (15) The Clerk will read the joint 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 1167

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) clause 
        (c) of section 102 of the joint resolution of June 30, 1974 
        (Public Law 93-324), is hereby amended by striking out 
        ``September 30, 1974''. . . .

Order of Consideration of Amendments Under Special Rule

Sec. 2.31 Where a special rule does not specify the order in which two 
    amendments in the nature of a substitute, allowed by the rule, are 
    to be considered, the Chair determines the order through his power 
    of recognition.

[[Page 9461]]

    For an illustration of a special rule not specifying the order in 
which amendments in the nature of a substitute are to be considered, 
and the subsequent action of the Chair in exercising his power of 
recognition, see the proceedings of July 17, 1974,(16) 
relating to a resolution (17) providing for consideration of 
H.R. 11500, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 23642, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
17. H. Res. 1230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1230 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1230

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        consideration of the bill (H.R. 11500) to provide for the 
        regulation of surface coal mining operations in the United 
        States, to authorize the Secretary of Interior to make grants 
        to States to encourage the State regulation of surface mining, 
        and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be 
        confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed four 
        hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
        ranking minority member of the Committee on Interior and 
        Insular Affairs, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 
        five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider the 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
        Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs now printed in the 
        bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
        five-minute rule, said substitute shall be read for amendment 
        by titles instead of by sections, and all points of order 
        against title IV and against section 701(a) of said substitute 
        for failure to comply with the provisions of clause 4, rule XXI 
        are hereby waived. It shall be in order to consider without the 
        intervention of any point of order the text of the bill H.R. 
        12898 if offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
        for said amendment recommended by the Committee on Interior and 
        Insular Affairs for the bill H.R. 11500. It shall also be in 
        order to consider without the intervention of any point of 
        order the text of the bill H.R. 11500 if offered as an 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute for said amendment 
        recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 
        for the bill H.R. 11500. At the conclusion of the consideration 
        of the bill H.R. 11500 for amendment, the Committee shall rise 
        and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
        have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in 
        the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
        Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular 
        Affairs. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
        on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
        intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
        without instructions. After the passage of H.R. 11500, the 
        Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs shall be discharged 
        from the further consideration of the bill S. 425, and it shall 
        then be in order in the House

[[Page 9462]]

        to move to strike out all after the enacting clause of the said 
        Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof the provisions contained 
        in H.R. 11500 as passed by the House.

        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition for Committee Amendments to First Title--Bill Open to 
    Amendment at Any Point

Sec. 2.32 Where a bill consisting of several titles was considered as 
    read and open to amendment at any point under a special ``modified 
    closed rule'' permitting germane amendments only to certain 
    portions of titles 
    but permitting committee amendments to any portion of the bill, the 
    Chair first recognized a Member to offer committee amendments to 
    title I and then recognized other Members to offer amendments to 
    that title.

    On Aug. 7, 1974,(19) during consideration of the Federal 
Election Campaign Act of 1974 (H.R. 16090) in the Committee of the 
Whole, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 27258, 27259, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: No amendments, including any amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the bill, are in order to the bill 
    except the following:
        In title 1: Germane amendments to subsection 101(a) proposing 
    solely to change the money amounts contained in said subsection, 
    providing they have been printed in the Congressional Record at 
    least 1 calendar day before being offered; and the text of the 
    amendment to be offered on page 13, following line 4, inserted in 
    the Congressional Record of August 5, 1974, by Mr. Butler.
        In title 2: Germane amendments to the provisions contained on 
    page 33, line 17, through page 35, line 11, providing they have 
    been printed in the Record at least 1 calendar day before being 
    offered; and the amendment printed on page E5246 in the Record of 
    August 2, 1974.
        In title 4: Germane amendments which have been printed in the 
    Record at least 1 calendar day before they are offered, except that 
    sections 401, 402, 407, 409 and 410 shall not be subject to 
    amendment; and the text of the amendment printed on page H7597 in 
    the Congressional Record of August 2, 1974.
        Amendments are in order to any portion of the bill if offered 
    by direction of the Committee on House Administration, but said 
    amendments shall not be subject to amendment.
        Are there any Committee on House Administration amendments to 
    title I?
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    three

[[Page 9463]]

    committee amendments to title I of the bill and I ask unanimous 
    consent that they be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New Jersey?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the committee amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments: . . . 

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Thompson).
        The committee amendments were agreed to.
        The Chairman: Are there further committee amendments to title 
    I?
        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to title I.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. du Pont: Page 2, line 16, strike 
        ``$5,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$2,500''.

        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, as required by the rule adopted by 
    the House today, my amendment was published at pages E5306 and 
    E5307 of yesterday's Record.

Amendment, Made in Order by Special Rule, Offered From Floor

Sec. 2.33 Pursuant to a special rule providing for the consideration of 
    the text of a bill as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
    to be read by titles as an original bill immediately after the 
    reading of the enacting clause of the bill to which offered, the 
    Chair recognized a Member to offer the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute from the floor before it could be considered under the 
    rule.

    On Sept. 19, 1974,(20) Chairman Thomas M. Rees, of 
California, recognized James T. Broyhill, of North Carolina, who then 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 120 Cong. Rec. 31727, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: When the Committee rose on Tuesday, September 17, 
    1974, all time for general debate had expired.
        Pursuant to the rule, immediately after the reading of the 
    enacting clause, it shall be in order to consider the text of the 
    bill H.R. 16327 as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
    the bill, and said substitute shall be read for amendment by title.
        The Clerk will read the enacting clause.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled. . . .

        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, under the rule, I 
    offer the following amendment in the nature of a substitute, which 
    is to the text of the bill (H.R. 7917).

[[Page 9464]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Broyhill of North Carolina: That this Act may be cited as the 
        ``Consumer Product Warranties-Federal Trade Commission 
        Improvements Act''.

                      TITLE I--CONSUMER PRODUCT WARRANTIES

                                   definition

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Broyhill was a minority member of the 
committee and had introduced the bill made in order by the rule. The 
Chair recognized him when the chairman of the then Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce did not immediately seek recognition.

Equal Privilege of Motions To Resolve Into Committee of Whole Pursuant 
    to Separate Special Rules

Sec. 2.34 Motions that the House resolve into the Committee of the 
    Whole for initial or further consideration of separate bills 
    pursuant to separate special rules adopted by the House are of 
    equal privilege, and the Speaker may exercise his discretionary 
    power of recognition as to which bill shall be next eligible for 
    consideration.

    On Sept. 22, 1982,(1) where the Committee of the Whole 
had risen following completion of general debate but prior to reading 
of a bill for amendment under the five-minute rule, the Speaker Pro 
Tempore indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that he would 
exercise his power of recognition to permit consideration of another 
bill, rather than return to that bill under the five-minute rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 128 Cong. Rec. 24690, 24691, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter B.] Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my 
    time.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman wish to make a motion at this 
    point?
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion 
    that the Committee do now rise.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore 
    (Mr. Bennett) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simon, Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
    that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
    5543) to establish an ocean and coastal resources management and 
    development fund and to require the Secretary of Commerce to 
    provide to coastal States national ocean and resources management 
    and development block grants from sums in the fund, had come to no 
    resolution thereon.
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .

[[Page 9465]]

        Was not the bill supposed to have been read while we were 
    sitting in the Committee of the Whole, read for amendments? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Committee has risen 
    now, and the Chair does not know of any way of automatically going 
    back at this point to do that. If the Committee of the Whole had 
    proceeded to consider the bill for amendment, it would have 
    conflicted with a determination made by the leadership as to the 
    legislative schedule, so the House should not resume consideration 
    of the bill anyway at this point. In other words, the leadership 
    had indicated that we would have general debate only today. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, another parliamentary 
    inquiry, or statement. I was assured by the leadership that if 
    there were no amendments, we would conclude the bill. I do not 
    anticipate any amendments. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Committee of the Whole has risen. 
    There is nothing in a parliamentary way the House could do to 
    reserve consideration except to consider a motion to resolve into 
    the Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of the 
    bill.
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker. Would I have the privilege as the Chairman of this 
    committee to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    once again?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . Somebody has sent for the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who will make a motion of 
    equal privilege to arrive, and he is undoubtedly on his way. The 
    Chair would be glad to respond to any further conversation that the 
    gentleman would want to have on this subject which would be in 
    order, until the gentleman arrives. . . .
        The Chair is following the wishes of the leadership and, 
    therefore, would not recognize any Member for the purpose of moving 
    that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
    further consideration of the bill at this time. . . .
        The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has now arrived, and 
    he is recognized.
        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    6173) to amend the Public Health Service Act.

Special Rule for Consideration of Budget Resolution

Sec. 2.35 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules provided 
    for consideration at any time in Committee of the Whole of the 
    concurrent resolution containing not only targets for aggregates 
    and functional categories for the ensuing fiscal year and revisions 
    of the second budget resolution for the present fiscal year (as 
    contemplated by then section 3(a)(4) of the Congressional Budget 
    Act), but also containing binding

[[Page 9466]]

    reconciliation instructions for two future fiscal years (thereby 
    destroying any privilege under section 305(a)); incorporated 
    procedures applicable to consideration of privileged budget 
    resolutions; made in order specified amendments, to be considered 
    in a certain order and all to be in order even if previous 
    amendments to the same portion of the resolution had been adopted; 
    and made in order amendments to achieve mathematical consistency 
    pursuant to section 305(a) of the Budget Act; and provided that if 
    more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute were adopted, 
    only the last would be reported to the House.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Apr. 30, 1981: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 127 Cong. Rec. 7993, 8003, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 134 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                H. Res. 134

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve 
        itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
        the Union for the consideration of the concurrent resolution 
        (H. Con. Res. 115) revising the congressional budget for the 
        United States Government for the fiscal year 1981 and setting 
        forth the congressional budget for the United States Government 
        for the fiscal years 1982, 1983, and 1984, and the first 
        reading of the resolution shall be dispensed with. The 
        provisions of subsection 305(a) of the Congressional Budget Act 
        of 1974 and rule XXIII, clause 8,(4) of the Rules of 
        the House of Representatives shall apply during the 
        consideration of the concurrent resolution in the House and in 
        the Committee of the Whole: Provided, however, That no 
        amendment to the resolution shall be in order except the 
        following amendments, which shall be considered only in the 
        following order if offered, which shall all be in order even if 
        previous amendments to the same portion of the concurrent 
        resolution have been adopted, and which shall not be subject to 
        amendment except pro forma amendments for the purpose of 
        debate: (1) an amendment printed in the Congressional Record of 
        April 29, 1981, by, and if offered by, Representative Hefner of 
        North Carolina . . . (3) the amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 
        1981, by, and if offered by, Representative Obey of Wisconsin; 
        and (4) the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 
        the Congres

[[Page 9467]]

        sional Record of April 29, 1981, by, and if offered by, 
        Representative Latta of Ohio. It shall also be in order to 
        consider the amendment or amendments provided for in section 
        305(a)(6) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 necessary to 
        achieve mathematical consistency. If more than one of the 
        amendments in the nature of a substitute made in order by this 
        resolution have been adopted, only the last such amendment 
        which has been adopted shall be considered as having been 
        finally adopted and reported back to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The applicability of these provisions made it unnecessary to write 
        a complete rule for consideration, since they provided that the 
        resolution be considered as having been read and the previous 
        question be considered as ordered on final adoption without 
        intervening motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (5) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 6. See Ch. 13, Sec. 21, supra, for detailed discussion of procedures 
        under the Congressional Budget Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The right of the Budget Committee to file 
privileged reports and to call them up (under clause 4(a), Rule XI and 
section 305(a)(1) of the Budget Act) extends only to concurrent 
resolutions on the budget as defined in section 3 subsection (4) and 
section 301(a) of that Act. The inclusion of reconciliation 
instructions directing changes in entitlements and in spending for 
ensuing fiscal years was considered to have destroyed the privilege of 
the concurrent resolution in the above instance because going beyond 
the scope of the concurrent resolution as prescribed by the Budget Act. 
The current section 301 of the Budget Act has enlarged the scope of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget.

Point of Order Under Budget Act

Sec. 2.36 It is not in order to consider an amendment, including an 
    amendment recommended in a conference report, which provides new 
    entitlement authority to become effective before the first day of 
    the fiscal year 
    beginning in the calendar 
    year in which the bill was 
    reported, under section 401(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act 
    (Public Law 93-344).

    During consideration of H.R. 10339 (Farmer-to-Consumer Direct 
Marketing Act of 1976) in the House on Sept. 23, 1976,(7) 
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 32099, 32100, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Vigorito [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 10339) to encourage the 
    direct marketing of agricultural commodities from farmers to 
    consumers. . . .
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order. . . .
        Section 401(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
    Control Act (Public Law 93-344) provides as follows:

[[Page 9468]]

            (b) Legislation Providing Entitlement Authority.--
            (1) It shall not be in order in either the House of 
        Representatives 
        or the Senate to consider any bill 
        or resolution which provides new spending authority described 
        in subsection (c)(2)(C) (or any amendment which provides such 
        new spending authority) which is to become effective before the 
        first day of the fiscal year which begins during the calendar 
        year in which such bill or resolution is reported.

        The text of the conference agreement as set forth in the 
    amendment adding a new section 8 is as follows:

                             emergency hay program

            Sec. 8. In carrying out any emergency hay program for 
        farmers or ranchers in any area of the United States under 
        section 305 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 because of an 
        emergency or major disaster in such area, the President shall 
        direct the Secretary of Agriculture to pay 80 percent of the 
        cost of transporting hay (not to exceed $50 per ton) from areas 
        in which hay is in plentiful supply to the area in which such 
        farmers or ranchers are located. The provisions of this section 
        shall expire on October 1, 1977.

        It is clear from a literal reading of this proposed language 
    that certain livestock owners will be entitled to a hay subsidy 
    immediately upon enactment of this bill. . . .
        In any event it is a new spending authority effective before 
    October 1, 1976, which marks the beginning of fiscal year 1977 but 
    occurs in the calendar year in which the conference report is being 
    called up in the House. . . .
        Mr. Vigorito: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that if this 
    program is an entitlement program under section 401 of the Budget 
    Act, the funding could not be given an authorization in this bill 
    until the beginning of the next fiscal year, or, in this case, 
    October 1, 1976. If that is the case, I would think that we could 
    develop legislative intent here in that none of the funding would 
    begin in this bill until fiscal year 1977. As a practical matter, 
    the bill will probably not have cleared the President prior to that 
    time, anyway, and consequently we will not be delaying the impact 
    of the bill for any substantial length of time. We have less than a 
    week before October 1 comes about. . . .
        The Speaker: (8) The Chair is having difficulty with 
    the argument made by the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
    because, as the Chair understands it, theoretically and legally it 
    would be possible to begin the payments before October 1, 1976, 
    which would be in violation of the Budget . . . Control Act, as the 
    entitlement to those payments might vest prior to October 1. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair thinks that under the present circumstances he should 
    insist that the gentleman consider another procedure, because he 
    thinks it can be worked out. Therefore, the Chair must sustain the 
    point of order. . . .
        The conference report is no longer before the House. The 
    gentleman can dispose of the Senate amendments under another 
    procedure.

    Parliamentarian's Note: When a conference report is ruled out on a 
point of order, the Chair directs the Clerk to report the Senate

[[Page 9469]]

amendments remaining in disagreement for disposition by motion. The 
above conference report having been ruled out on a point of order, the 
House subsequently adopted a privileged motion to recede and concur 
with an amendment which postponed the effectiveness of the entitlement 
until after the commencement of the fiscal year beginning in the 
calendar year in which the bill had been reported.

Sec. 2.37 Section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act prohibits the 
    consideration in either House of any bill or amendment thereto 
    (including a conference report) containing ``new spending 
    (entitlement) authority'' which becomes effective during a fiscal 
    year prior to the adoption of the first concurrent resolution on 
    the budget for that fiscal year; and a conference report containing 
    new spending ``entitlement'' authorities to become effective in 
    fiscal years 1978-1980 in amounts increased over fiscal year 1977 
    was ruled out on a point of order under that section, since the 
    first concurrent resolutions on the budget for those future fiscal 
    years had not yet been adopted and the increased entitlements could 
    not be considered merely continuations of entitlement authority 
    which became effective in the fiscal year (1977) for which a 
    concurrent resolution had been adopted.

    The definition of new spending ``entitlement'' authority contained 
in section 401(c)(2)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act (and 
incorporated by reference into the prohibition in section 303(a) 
against consideration of future year entitlement bills and amendments) 
includes revenue sharing spending authority in the form of 
entitlements, as the exception from the definition of new spending 
authority accorded to revenue sharing programs in section 401(d)(2) 
does not apply to new ``entitlement'' authority for future fiscal years 
but only to entitlements immediately vesting as defined in section 
401(c)(2)(C). A ruling by the Speaker to such effect was made on Sept. 
30, 1976: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 34074-76, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 13367) to extend and amend the 
    State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, and for other 
    purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report.

[[Page 9470]]

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.

    A portion of the conference report was as follows:
        sec. 5. extension of program and funding.

            (a) In General.--Section 105 (relating to funding for 
        revenue sharing) is amended. . . .
            (3) by inserting immediately after subsection (b) the 
        following new subsection:
            ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations for Entitlements.--
            ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
        to the Trust Fund to pay the entitlements hereinafter 
        provided--
            ``(A) for the period beginning January 1, 1977, and ending 
        September 30, 1977, $4,987,500,000; and
            ``(B) for each of the fiscal years beginning October 1 of 
        1977, 1978, and 1979, $6,850,000,000.
            ``(2) Noncontiguous states adjustment amounts.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated to the Trust Fund to pay the 
        entitlements hereinafter provided--
            ``(A) for the period beginning January 1, 1977, and ending 
        September 30, 1977, $3,585,000; and
            ``(B) for each of the fiscal years beginning on October 1 
        of 1977, 1978, and 1979, $4,923,759.''; and
            (4) by inserting ``; authorizations for entitlements'' in 
        the heading of such section immediately after 
        ``appropriations''. . . .

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point 
    of order against the conference agreement on H.R. 13367, to extend 
    the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. The conference 
    agreement contains a provision, not included in the House bill, 
    which provides new spending authority for fiscal years 1978 and 
    1979 over the amounts provided for fiscal year 1977. This new 
    entitlement increment for succeeding fiscal years violates section 
    303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act which provides in part:

            It shall not be in order in either the House of 
        Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or 
        resolution (or amendment thereto) which provides-- . . . new 
        spending authority described in section 401 (c)(2)(C) to become 
        effective during a fiscal year . . . until the first concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for such year has been agreed to 
        pursuant to section 301.

        By increasing the fiscal year 1978 entitlement by $200 million 
    over the amounts for fiscal year 1977, H.R. 13367 does provide new 
    spending authority to become effective for a fiscal year for which 
    a budget resolution has not been adopted. It would thereby allow 
    that new spending increment to escape the scrutiny of the fiscal 
    year 1978 budget process. While section 303 provides an exception 
    for new budget authority and revenue changes for a succeeding 
    fiscal year, entitlement programs were expressly omitted from the 
    exception by the House-Senate conference on the Congressional 
    Budget Act.
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
    opposition to the point of order.
        The applicable provision of the Budget Act in this matter 
    concerns section 303(d)(1). This provision provides an exception 
    for any bills on the full fiscal year for which the current 
    resolution applies. The $200 million increase contained in the 
    conference report begins in fiscal year 1978, the next fiscal year 
    beyond 1977, the year for which our present budget resolution 
    applies.

[[Page 9471]]

        The $200 million increase, since it begins in fiscal year 1978, 
    technically conforms with the Budget Act and deserves to be 
    retained in the conference report. I might say to the membership 
    that in making this point of order, this was brought up in the 
    conference and we purposely did not provide for any increase in 
    fiscal year 1977. We purposely skipped the first three-quarters. We 
    agreed upon a term of 3\3/4\ years for the Revenue Sharing Act to 
    be in effect, but we skipped the first three-quarter year and 
    applied a $200 million increment for the first fiscal year 
    thereafter, namely, 1978, and for each of the 3 years subsequent 
    thereto; or a total of $600 million. So, we purposely skipped this 
    fiscal year 1977 so that we would not violate the budget 
    resolution. . . .
        Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, in response to the comments made by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton), the provision that he refers 
    to regards new budget authority, not entitlement programs where 
    there is a reference over to the Committee on Appropriations and it 
    is controlled in that fashion. This committee in its wisdom and the 
    vote of the House was that this should be an entitlement program, 
    and the violation is to the budget statute and process. We have 
    applied this to all other committees of the House, that entitlement 
    programs for the fiscal year, where we are changing the 
    entitlement--and we have had this come up before--must be 
    considered in the budget resolution for the fiscal year involved. 
    This committee wishes for fiscal year 1978 to bring forth something 
    for fiscal year 1978 that can be done in the budget cycle of that 
    year. But it is out of order to bring it up and try to put it into 
    the process at this point. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I refer to Public 
    Law 93-344 of the 93d Congress which was enacted July 12, 1974, and 
    I refer to page 22 of that legislation, section 401(d)(2). Section 
    401(d) is entitled ``Exceptions.'' Subsection (d)(2), under 
    ``Exceptions,'' says as follows:

            Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to new spending 
        authority which is an amendment to or extension of the State 
        and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, or a continuation of 
        the program of fiscal assistance to State and local governments 
        provided by that Act,''--meaning the Local Fiscal Assistance 
        Act of 1972--``to the extent so provided in the bill or 
        resolution providing such authority.

        Mr. Speaker, it seems to me clearly designed in that 
    legislation that the Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 was meant 
    to contain an exception from the entitlement procedure, a procedure 
    which was in fact used in that legislation of 1972, the first 
    Revenue Sharing Act, and I see no other way to read it except that 
    we would provide an exception to sections 401 (a) and (b) in 
    accordance with the legislation that the Congress previously 
    passed.
        The act provides--and this is what the conference provided 
    for--an entitlement, and the entitlement is in fact both an 
    authorization and an appropriation. It provided for the funds for 
    that purpose into the future. For the first year it did not result 
    in any breaking of the Budget Resolution passed by this House in 
    accordance with the Committee on the Budget.
        So, Mr. Speaker, I see no way by which the extension of the 
    Revenue

[[Page 9472]]

    Sharing Act could be prohibited, because this exemption which was 
    provided is in the law. . . .
        The Speaker: (10) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Adams) makes a point of 
    order against the conference report on the bill H.R. 13367 on the 
    ground that section 5(a) of the conference report provides new 
    spending authority and entitlement increment for fiscal years 1978 
    and 1979 over the amounts provided for in fiscal year 1977, in 
    violation of section 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
    1974.
        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) and the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Brown) rebut this argument by contending that a mere 
    incremental increase in an entitlement for subsequent fiscal years 
    is not new spending authority as prescribed in section 401(c)(2)(C) 
    to become effective during the subsequent fiscal years, but rather, 
    a continuation of the spending authority for fiscal year 1977, 
    which is permitted under section 303(a).
        The Chair has examined the conference report, and section 5(a) 
    is structured so as to provide separate authorization for 
    entitlement payments for each of the fiscal years 1977, 1978, and 
    1979, with a higher authorization for 1978 and 1979 than for 1977.
        In the opinion of the Chair, such a separate increase in 
    entitlement authorizations is new spending authority to become 
    effective during those subsequent fiscal years, which may not be 
    included in a bill or an amendment prior to the adoption of the 
    first concurrent resolution for fiscal years 1978 and 1979, which 
    does not come within the exception contained in section 303(b) for 
    new budget authority, and which does not come within the section 
    401(d) revenue-sharing exception--applicable only to . . . spending 
    authority as defined in subsections (a) and (b) of section 401(c)--
    cited by the gentleman from Ohio.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order against the 
    conference report.

Special Rule Waiving Provisions of Budget Act

Sec. 2.38 By special rule, the House can waive the various provisions 
    of the Budget Act which would otherwise prohibit consideration of 
    an authorization bill, conference report, or appropriation bill.

    For an example of a special rule waiving points of order against a 
bill authorizing new budget authority, see H. Res. 355, considered on 
Nov. 4, 1983.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 30925, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. See Ch. 13, Sec. 21, 
        supra, for discussion of the Congressional Budget Act 
        generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gillis W.] Long of Louisiana: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 355 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 355

            Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
        resolution the

[[Page 9473]]

        Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the 
        House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
        State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        4196) to stabilize a temporary imbalance in the supply and 
        demand for dairy products. . . . All points of order against 
        the consideration of the bill for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of section 402(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974 (Public Law 93-344) are hereby waived, and all points of 
        order against the bill for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clause 5, rule XXI are hereby waived. . . .

    On July 31, 1981,(12) a special rule, H. Res. 203 
provided for a waiver of points of order against consideration of a 
conference report on the budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 127 Cong. Rec. 18872, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 203 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 203

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4331) 
        to amend the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 to restore 
        minimum benefits under the Social Security Act. . . . After the 
        disposition of H.R. 4331, it shall be in order to consider, any 
        rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, the 
        conference report on the bill (H.R. 3982) to provide for 
        reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1982, said conference 
        report shall be considered as having been read and shall be 
        debatable for not to exceed two hours, equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on the Budget, and all points of order against said 
        conference report are hereby waived.

    The proceedings of Feb. 9, 1982,(13) also related to the 
waiver of points of order under the Budget Act. The special rule agreed 
to on that day waived points of order against initial consideration of 
two special appropriation bills containing new budget authority and 
outlays in excess of the ceiling in the second concurrent resolution in 
the budget for the current fiscal year, and waived the same points of 
order against consideration of conference reports thereon if not in 
excess of total budget authority and outlays contained in the joint 
resolutions as initially reported to the House by the Committee on 
Appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 128 Cong. Rec. 1263, 1264, 1270, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 355 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 355

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order

[[Page 9474]]

        to consider, section 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974 (Public Law 93-344) to the contrary notwithstanding, the 
        following joint resolutions: H.J. Res. 389, making an urgent 
        supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year ending September 
        30, 1982, for the Department of Agriculture, and H.J. Res. 391, 
        making an urgent supplemental appropriation for the Department 
        of Labor for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982. It 
        shall be in order to consider, section 311(a) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the contrary 
        notwithstanding, a conference report on either of said joint 
        resolutions if the report does not provide budget authority in 
        excess of that provided by the joint resolution as reported to 
        the House by the Committee on Appropriations and if the report 
        would not cause budget outlays to exceed the budget outlays 
        which would be caused by the joint resolution as reported to 
        the House by the Committee on Appropriations.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For a similar resolution relating to appropriations for the 
        Department of Health and Human Services, see Id. at pp. 1270, 
        1271 (H. Res. 356).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bolling: . . . Section 311(a) of the Budget Act prohibits 
    the consideration of any bill, resolution, amendment or conference 
    report providing additional new budget or spending authority that 
    would result in the breach of the ceiling of total new budget 
    authority or total budget outlays set forth in the most recently 
    agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the current 
    fiscal year.
        Yesterday, the Committee on the Budget, as required by section 
    311(b) of the Budget Act, certified to the Speaker the current 
    level of spending. These current level estimates indicate that 
    there is some $4.4 billion in budget authority under the ceiling 
    set forth in Senate Concurrent Resolution 50, the second budget 
    resolution agreed to by the House on December 10, 1981. Outlays are 
    some $42.8 billion in excess of the ceiling already. Consequently, 
    the urgent supplemental appropriation bills for the Commodity 
    Credit Corporation and the employment services portion of the 
    unemployment compensation bill would breech the ceilings set forth 
    in the second budget resolution. Without the waivers, the 
    appropriation bills would be subject to a point of order and the 
    House could be prevented from considering these critical matters.

        The rule waives section 311(a) of the Budget Act against the 
    initial consideration of the two joint resolutions by the House. It 
    would further provide for a waiver of the same section of the 
    Budget Act against consideration of any conference report on either 
    of the resolutions provided that the conference report figures do 
    not exceed the budget authority of or outlays resulting from the 
    joint resolutions as they were reported from the House Committee on 
    Appropriations. In other words, to expedite consideration of these 
    matters, the Rules Committee proposes to grant waivers to the 
    conference reports in advance, but only so long as the figures in 
    the bills are not increased beyond the levels as reported from 
    committee.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Parliamentarian's Note: Although points of order under the Budget 
        Act are waived, points of order under the standing rules of the 
        House may be available unless they are also specifically 
        waived.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9475]]

Sec. 2.39 By unanimous consent, the House agreed to consider (prior to 
    the stage of disagreement) a motion in the House to concur in a 
    Senate amendment to a special appropriation bill without 
    intervening motion and to waive all points of order against 
    consideration of the Senate amendment, which contained new budget 
    authority in excess of the ceiling established by the second 
    concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 1982, in violation 
    of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act.

    On Feb. 10, 1982,(17) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 1462, 1463, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that it shall be in order today or any day 
    thereafter, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
    to consider a motion in the House to take from the Speaker's table 
    the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 389) making an urgent supplemental 
    appropriation for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 
    ending September 30, 1982, with the Senate amendment thereto, and 
    to concur in said Senate amendment, and that the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on said motion to final adoption 
    without intervening motion. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the unanimous-consent request just granted, I move to take from 
    the Speaker's table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 389) making an 
    urgent supplemental appropriation for the fiscal year ending 
    September 30, 1982, for the Department of Agriculture, with a 
    Senate amendment thereto and concur in the Senate amendment.
        The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

            Senate amendment: Page 1, after line 12, insert:
            Sec. 2. (a) The following sum is appropriated, out of any 
        money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the 
        fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, namely: . . .
            For an additional amount for ``Low Income Energy 
        Assistance'', $123,000,000.
            (b) None of the funds appropriated under this joint 
        resolution shall be used, obligated, or expended for the 
        purposes of section 2604(f), 2605(k), 2607(b)(1), or 2607(b)(2) 
        of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981.

        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    (Mr. Whitten) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate amendment contained the text of 
a separate House-passed urgent supplemental appropriation (H.J. Res. 
392) against which points of order under section 311 of the Budget Act 
had been sepa

[[Page 9476]]

rately waived during initial consideration in the House.

Amendment Striking Out Rescission as Causing New Authority To Exceed 
    Limit

Sec. 2.40 Section 311(a) of the Budget Act precluding any amendment 
    ``providing additional new budget authority'' which would cause the 
    appropriate level of total new budget authority or budget outlays 
    to be exceeded has been interpreted to prohibit consideration of an 
    amendment striking out a rescission of existing budget authority 
    where its effect is to increase the net total new budget authority 
    in the bill (an amount calculated by offsetting rescissions in the 
    bill against new appropriations).

    Where an appropriation bill already contained new budget outlays in 
excess of the total level permitted by the applicable second concurrent 
resolution on the budget for that fiscal year, but was permitted to be 
considered by a waiver of section 311(a) of the Budget Act, an 
amendment striking out a proposed rescission of existing budget 
authority, which had the effect of causing the net total new budget 
authority in the bill to be increased, was ruled out in violation of 
section 311(a), as further exceeding the total outlay ceiling in the 
second budget resolution. The proceedings of May 
12, 1981,(19) during consideration 
of H.R. 3512, supplemental and 
continuing appropriations, rescissions, and deferrals for fiscal 1981, 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 9314, 9315, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. For discussion of 
        the Congressional Budget Act, see Ch. 13, Sec. 21, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                           payments in lieu of taxes

                                  (rescission)

            Of the funds appropriated under this head in the Interior 
        and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1981 (Public Law 96-
        514) and previous Interior Department Appropriations Acts 
        $108,000,000 are rescinded.

        Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Lujan: Page 57 strike out line 7 
        through line 12.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        I make a point of order against the gentleman's amendment 
    because it

[[Page 9477]]

    provides additional budget authority and budget outlays in excess 
    of the budget authority and budget outlay totals agreed to in the 
    latest concurrent budget resolution and is in violation of section 
    311 of the Congressional Budget Act (Public Law 93-344).
        The gentleman's amendment proposes to delete language (to 
    reduce an amount) in the bill which has the effect of providing 
    budget authority and budget outlays in excess of the current budget 
    ceilings for fiscal year 1981. Section 311 of the Congressional 
    Budget Act states that it shall not be in order to consider any 
    amendment providing additional budget authority or spending 
    authority the adoption of which would cause the appropriate level 
    of total budget authority of total budget outlays set forth in the 
    most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget to be 
    exceeded.
        As we all know, on March 18, 1981, Mr. Jones, chairman of the 
    House Budget Committee, placed in the Congressional Record the 
    reestimates of budget authority and budget outlays required of him 
    by the Congressional Budget Act which indicate that the fiscal year 
    1981 budget authority ceiling has been exceeded by $19.6 billion 
    and the budget outlay ceiling has been exceeded by $27.6 billion. 
    The House has recently passed a measure adjusting those ceilings 
    upward but that measure must still be worked out in conference with 
    the Senate.
        With these reestimates in place and in the absence of a new 
    resolution having been agreed to raising these ceilings, there is 
    no room left to provide any additional budget authority or outlays. 
    In fact, these budget levels are currently in deficit by billions 
    of dollars.

        The gentleman's amendment therefore exceeds the current budget 
    ceilings and is in violation of section 311 of the Congressional 
    Budget Act. It is out of order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from New Mexico 
    care to respond to the point of order?
        Mr. Lujan: I would like to address the point of order; I 
    certainly would, Mr. Chairman.
        What the gentleman says is absolutely correct, but I think we 
    are forgetting one fact here. The previous amendment that just 
    passed reduced that budget amount by $376 million. Certainly, $108 
    million would fit very nicely under that figure of $376 million.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico proposes to 
    strike a rescission of funds contained in the bill.
        The amendment, by striking the amount of the rescission in the 
    bill, has the effect of increasing the net amount of new budget 
    authority contained in the bill as a whole, and also has the 
    obvious effect of increasing total outlay levels further above the 
    ceiling currently in place for fiscal year 1981, contained in House 
    Concurrent Resolution 448 of the 96th Congress. As indicated in the 
    letter from the Budget Committee to the Speaker inserted in the 
    Record of March 18, 1981, the outlay ceiling for fiscal year 1981 
    as of that date had already been exceeded by $27 billion: Thus, 
    despite adoption of the prior amendment, the amendment falls within 
    the prohibition stated in section 311 of the Budget Act, as 
    indicated in a ruling by the Pre

[[Page 9478]]

    siding Officer in the other body on June 27, 1980, wherein an 
    attempt was made to reduce a rescission in last year's supplemental 
    appropriation bill.
        The Chair, therefore, sustains the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).

    Parliamentarian's Note: Amendments which propose to strike out 
rescissions of existing budget authority arguably do not technically 
provide additional new budget authority (since the original 
appropriation was presumably accrued as new budget authority); but 
because they were calculated to offset new budget authority in the bill 
under consideration in determining the total amount of new budget 
authority and outlays, it was considered advisable to interpret them as 
covered by section 311(a).

Motion To Postpone Consideration

Sec. 2.41 A motion to postpone consideration of a measure being 
    considered in the House is in order after the measure is under 
    consideration but before the mana-ger has been recognized to 
    control debate thereon (the measure being ``under debate'' within 
    the meaning of clause 4, Rule XVI, and the Member in charge not 
    being taken from the floor).

    On May 30, 1980,(20) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 554 (supplemental Feder-al Trade Commission appropria-tion 
for fiscal year 1980) in the 
House, the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 12821, 12822, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the rule adopted a few moments ago, I call up the joint 
    resolution (H.J. Res. 554) making an appropriation for the Federal 
    Trade Commission for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, for 
    consideration in the House.
        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 554

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        following sum is ap-propriated . . . for the fiscal year ending 
        September 30, 1980. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ashbrook moves to postpone further consideration of 
        House Joint Resolution 554 until June 10, 1980.

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) be laid on the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The question is on the 
    motion to table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Michael L. Synar (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it. . . .

[[Page 9479]]

        [T]he motion to table the motion to postpone consideration was 
    agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under clause 4, Rule XVI, all the motions 
except the motion to amend may be made in the House after consideration 
of a measure has begun and before the Member in charge has control of 
the floor. An amendment may not be offered until the Member in charge 
yields the floor for that purpose or the previous question is voted 
down.

Disapproval Resolutions Under Statute--Motion To Postpone Motion To 
    Resolve Into Committee of Whole

Sec. 2.42 Although a motion that the House resolve itself into 
    Committee of the Whole is not ordinarily subject to the motion to 
    postpone indefinitely,(2) the motion may be offered 
    pursuant to the provisions of a statute, enacted under the 
    rulemaking power of the House, which allows such a motion in the 
    consideration of a resolution disapproving a certain executive 
    action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 18, 1982,(3) the House adopted a motion to 
postpone indefinitely a motion to resolve into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of a resolution, reported adversely by the 
Committee on Ways and Means, disapproving extension of presidential 
authority to waive freedom of emigration requirements affecting re. 
Romania, pursuant to section 152(d) of the Trade Act of 
1974,(4) thereby approving extension of presidential 
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 128 Cong. Rec. 21934, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Public Law 93-618, 88 Stat. 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    section 152(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union for immediate consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 
    521), disapproving extension of Presidential authority to waive 
    freedom of emigration requirements with respect to the Socialist 
    Republic of Romania.
        The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    section 152(d)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move that 
    consideration of House Resolution 521 be postponed indefinitely.
        The Speaker: (5) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        The Speaker: The matter is postponed.

    Similarly, on Mar. 10, 1977,(6) the House had adopted a 
motion

[[Page 9480]]

to postpone indefinitely a motion to resolve into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration 
of a resolution, reported adversely 
by the Committee on Ways and Means, disapproving a presidential 
determination denying import relief to the United States honey 
industry, pursuant to section 152(d)(1) and (d)(3) of the Trade Act of 
1974:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 123 Cong. Rec. 7021, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    section 152(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union for the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 
    80, to disapprove the determination of the President denying import 
    relief under the Trade Act of 1974 to the U.S. honey industry.
        The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to section 152(d)(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move to postpone 
    indefinitely the motion that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 80.
        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
    House for 1 minute before we proceed.
        The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Speaker, on February 9 the Subcommittee on Trade 
    ordered that House Concurrent Resolution 80 be reported unfavorably 
    to the full committee. House Concurrent Resolution 80 provides for 
    congressional disapproval of the determination by the President not 
    to provide import relief to the U.S. honey industry under section 
    203 of the Trade Act of 1974. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steiger).
        The motion was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 152(d)(3) of the Trade Act, like a 
number of other statutes providing privileged procedures for 
consideration of legislative disapproval measures, states: ``Motions to 
postpone, made in the House of Representatives with respect to the 
consideration of a resolution, and motions to proceed to the 
consideration of other business, shall be decided without debate.'' 
Since resolutions of disapproval under the Trade Act, as well as most 
other disapproval resolutions, require consideration in Committee of 
the Whole, it is clear that the subsection requires the motion to 
postpone to be applicable to the motion to resolve into the Committee 
of the Whole.

Sec. 2.43 Although the motion to postpone is not ordinarily

[[Page 9481]]

    applicable to a motion that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole, the motion to resolve into the Committee 
    may be postponed indefinitely where a statute (8) 
    enacted under the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives 
    accords privilege to the motion to resolve into the Committee of 
    the Whole for consideration of matters specified in the statute and 
    allows a motion to postpone in the House with respect to such 
    consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Trade Act of 1974, section 152(d)(1) and (d)(3), Pub. L. 93-618.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(9) the follow-ing proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 26528, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    section 152(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, I move that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union for the consideration of House Resolution 653, to 
    disapprove the recommendation of the President to extend the 
    authority in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect 
    to the Socialist Republic of Romania for an additional 12 months.
        The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 653

            Resolved, That the House of Representatives does not 
        approve the extension of the authority contained in section 
        402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to 
        the Congress on June 3, 1977, with respect to the Socialist 
        Republic of Romania.

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Steiger moves, pursuant to section 152(d)(3) of the 
        Trade Act of 1974, to postpone indefinitely the motion that the 
        House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
        the State of the Union for the consideration of House 
        Resolution 653.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Steiger).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Ashbrook) there were--ayes 149, noes 33. . . .
        So the preferential motion was agreed to.

--Three-day Layover Requirement Not Applicable to Consideration of 
    Disapproval Resolution

Sec. 2.44 A motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole for 
    consideration of a concurrent resolution disapproving an agency 
    action is highly privileged and may be of

[[Page 9482]]

    fered before the third day on which a report thereon is available, 
    since, under an exception now contained in Rule XI, the requirement 
    of clause 2(l)(6) of that rule that committee reports be available 
    to Members for three days is not applicable to 
    a measure disapproving a 
    decision by a government agency.

    On May 26, 1982,(11) a motion was made, pursuant to 
section 21(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Improvements 
Act,(12) for consideration of a concurrent resolution 
disapproving a rule promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 128 Cong. Rec. 12027, 12028, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. 15 U.S.C. 57a-1(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    the provisions of section 21(b) of Public Law 96-252, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the Senate 
    concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 60) disapproving the Federal 
    Trade Commission trade regulation rule relating to the sale of used 
    motor vehicles; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    general debate on the Senate concurrent resolution be limited to 
    not to exceed 2 hours, 1 hour to be controlled by the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) and 1 hour to be controlled by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee). . . .
        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against consideration of this concurrent 
    resolution on the ground that it violates subsection 6 of section 
    715, which in essence requires a 3-day layover of the matter under 
    consideration. The rule says:

            Nor shall it be in order to consider any measure or matter 
        reported by any committee unless copies of such report and 
        reported measure have been available to the Members for at 
        least three calendar days.

        There is no report available, Mr. Speaker, to the members of 
    the committee or the Members of the House in this matter under 
    consideration, and therefore it would be in violation of the rules 
    to consider it. I am very much aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is an 
    additional paragraph under the rule which says: ``The subparagraph 
    shall not apply to two exceptions.''
        In other words, there are two exceptions under which the 3-day 
    layover and requirement that a report is necessary can be waived. . 
    . .
        The second section, subsection (b) says:

            Any decision, determination or action by a government 
        agency which would become or continue to be effective unless 
        disapproved or otherwise invalidated by one or both Houses of 
        Congress.

        Now, I am assuming, Mr. Speaker, that the proponents of the 
    resolution under consideration would suggest that the waiver 
    provision of section (b) would apply to the matter under 
    consideration, and they would suggest that the Federal Trade 
    Commission is

[[Page 9483]]

    a Government agency in the common parlance of what is a Government 
    agency. . . . The point that I make in support of my point of order 
    is that in the House rules the definition of a Government agency 
    has traditionally been that of an executive branch agency, not a 
    quasi-judicial commission, such as the Federal Trade Commission. . 
    . .
        The Speaker: (13) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rosenthal), makes the point of 
    order against the consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 60 
    on the ground that the report accompanying that resolution has not 
    been available for 3 days as required by clause 2(l)(6), rule XI. 
    The report from the Committee on Energy and Commerce was filed 
    yesterday and will be available to members during the debate, but 
    was not available for 3 days.
        Section 21(b)(3)A of the Federal Trade Commission Improvements 
    Act of 1980 provided that:

            When a committee has reported a concurrent resolution, it 
        shall be in order at any time thereafter (even though a 
        previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to 
        move to proceed to the consideration of the concurrent 
        resolution. The motion shall be highly privileged in the House 
        of Representatives and shall not be debatable.

        Now the Chair has consistently endeavored to interpret such 
    provisions of law in conjunction with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI, 
    both of which are readopted as rules of the 97th Congress at the 
    beginning of this Congress, so as to require that Members have 3 
    days to read accompanying reports unless the exception contained in 
    clause 2(l)(6), rule XI, becomes applicable. In this case, the 
    Chair believes that the exception contained in that rule is 
    applicable, and the Chair will read the exception in relevant part:

            This subparagraph shall not apply to . . . (B) any 
        decision, determination or action by a Government agency which 
        would become or continue to be, effective unless disapproved or 
        otherwise invalidated by one or both Houses of Congress. For 
        the purposes of the preceding sentence, a Government agency 
        includes any 
        department, agency, establishment, wholly owned Government 
        corporation, or instrumentality of the Federal Government or 
        the Government of the District of Columbia.

        15 U.S.C. 41 establishes the Federal Trade Commission as a 
    ``commission.'' In the opinion of the Chair, the Federal Trade 
    Commission is an instrumentality of the U.S. Government. The 
    President's budget on page 1-v45 lists the Federal Trade Commission 
    as an independent agency. It is agreed that the proposed FTC 
    regulation in question becomes effective at midnight tonight, the 
    expiration of the 90 calendar day period pursuant to sec. 21(a)(2) 
    of the act, unless disapproved by adoption of a concurrent 
    resolution of disapproval.
        The report accompanying the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
    1970 which first incorporated the 3-day rule describes the 
    intention of the exception to the rule to apply to ``legislative 
    veto procedures''.
        Thus the Chair rules that the exception from the 3-day rule is 
    applicable in the instant case and the availability

[[Page 9484]]

    of the report on Senate Concurrent Resolution 60 is not a 
    prerequisite for the consideration of the concurrent resolution. 
    The Chair overrules the point of order.