[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§ 3. Consideration in the Committee of the Whole]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9484-9501]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
        A.  INTRODUCTORY;  INITIATING  CONSIDERATION  AND DEBATE
 
Sec. 3. Consideration in the Committee of the Whole

    All bills on the Union Calendar must be considered in the Committee 
of the Whole unless otherwise provided for by the House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For examples of Union Calendar bills considered in the House as in 
        the Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent, see Sec. 4, 
        infra. For the requirement of considering certain bills in the 
        Committee of the Whole, see Ch. 19, supra. For the duration of 
        debate in the Committee, see Sec. Sec. 74 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consideration of business in the Committee of the Whole is 
initiated when the House agrees to resolve into the Committee for the 
purpose of such consideration pursuant to a resolution,(15) 
by unanimous-consent agreement,(16) by 
motion,(17) or by declaration of the Speaker pursuant to 
Rule XXIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 3.2, infra.
16. See Sec. Sec. 3.3, 3.4, infra.
17. See Sec. Sec. 3.10, 3.12-3.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XXIII, clause (1)(b) provides: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 862 (1995). This authority was first 
        provided in rules adopted for the 98th Congress. H. Res. 5, 
        Jan. 3, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        After the House has adopted a special order of business 
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules providing for the 
    consideration of a measure in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union, the Speaker may at any time within his 
    discretion, when no question is pending before the House, declare 
    the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    state of the Union for the consideration of that measure without 
    intervening motion, unless the resolution in question provides 
    otherwise.

    The motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole is not 
subject to the question of consideration, the motion itself being a 
test of the will of the House on the matter.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 3.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rejection by the House of the motion to resolve into the 
Committee for the consideration of a particular matter does not 
preclude the making of the same motion at a later time.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. Sec. 3.12, 3.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (1) (but not the Committee of the Whole) may by 
unanimous consent alter the order of consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 133 Cong. Rec. 11829, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., May 8, 1987 
        (request of Mr. Aspin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Control and distribution of time for debate in the Committee of the 
    Whole, see Sec. Sec. 24-34, infra.

[[Page 9485]]

Duration of debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. Sec. 74-79, 
    infra.
Procedure as to disorderly words in the Committee of the Whole, see 
    Sec. 48, infra.
Recognition on bills in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 16, infra.
Recognition under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole, 
    see Sec. 21, infra.
Recognition where five-minute debate has been limited in the Committee 
    of the Whole, see Sec. 22, infra.
Relevancy of debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. Sec. 37-39, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Special Rule Providing for House Calendar Resolution in the Committee 
    of the Whole

Sec. 3.1 The Committee on Rules reported a resolution to the House 
    providing for the consideration of a House resolution, also 
    reported from the Committee on Rules, in the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On Apr. 3, 1968,(2) the Committee on Rules offered the 
following resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 8776, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1119

        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 resolution (H. Res. 1099) amending H. Res. 418, Ninetieth 
    Congress, to continue the Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct as a permanent standing committee of the House of 
    Representatives, and for other purposes. After general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the resolution and continue not to 
    exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Standards 
    of Official Conduct, 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.

--Immediate Consideration

Sec. 3.2 Upon the adoption of a resolution providing for the immediate 
    consideration of a bill in the Committee of the Whole, the House 
    resolves itself into the Committee without a motion being made from 
    the floor.

    On Aug. 17, 1972,(3) Mr. William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi,

[[Page 9486]]

called up at the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 
1090, providing as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 28829, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. See also Rule XXIII, 
        clause (b), discussed in the introduction to this section, 
        supra, concerning the Speaker's discretion in declaring the 
        House resolved into the Committee of the Whole after the House 
        has adopted a special rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, clause 
    27(d)(4) of rule XI to the contrary notwithstanding, the House 
    shall immediately resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
    (H.R. 13915) to further the achievement of equal educational 
    opportunities, and all points of order against said bill are hereby 
    waived. . . .

The bill provided for had not yet been reported from the Committee on 
Education and Labor when the resolution was offered.

    The House adopted the resolution, and Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, immediately directed the House to resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole, without the motion to resolve being made.

Unanimous-consent Request To Resolve Into Committee

Sec. 3.3 The House agreed to a unanimous-consent request that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
    consideration of a Senate concurrent resolution on the House 
    Calendar.

    On June 22, 1965,(4) the House agreed to the following 
unanimous-consent request for the consideration of a Senate concurrent 
resolution on the House Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 14400, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of Senate Concurrent Resolution 36 expressing the sense of the 
    Congress with respect to the 20th anniversary of the United Nations 
    during International Cooperation Year, and for other purposes, and 
    that general debate thereon be limited to 1 hour, one-half hour to 
    be controlled by myself and one-half hour to be controlled by the 
    gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. Bolton].

    The House agreed to the request.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate concurrent resolution was thus 
amendable under the five-minute rule.

--Unanimous Consent To Consider Bill in Committee Under General Rules 
    of the House

Sec. 3.4 The House agreed to a unanimous-consent request to consider a 
    Union Calendar bill in Committee of the Whole ``under the general 
    rules of the House'' and to limit general debate in the Committee 
    of the Whole to one hour.

[[Page 9487]]

    On Sept. 7, 1959,(5) the House agreed to the following 
request by Mr. Armistead I. Selden, Jr., of Alabama, to consider a 
Union Calendar bill in the Committee of the Whole under the rules of 
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 18442, 18443, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Selden: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be 
    in order to consider under the general rules of the House the bill 
    (H.R. 9069) to provide standards for the issuance of passports, and 
    for other purposes; that general debate continue for not to exceed 
    1 hour, one-half to be controlled by myself and one-half controlled 
    by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Without the adoption of the request as 
stated, a unanimous-consent request for the immediate consideration of 
a bill on the Union Calendar normally would result in 
its consideration under the five-minute rule in the House as in the 
Committee of the Whole, without general debate and under a procedure 
permitting all motions available in the House. The term ``under general 
rules of the House'' implies consideration in Committee of the Whole 
for a Union Calendar bill.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 14050, 14051, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., July 
        31, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objection to Unanimous-consent Request Followed by Motion To Resolve 
    Into Committee

Sec. 3.5 Objection having been made to a unanimous-consent request to 
    resolve into the Committee of the Whole for consideration on 
    District of Columbia Day of a bill reported from the District of 
    Columbia Committee and referred to the Union Calendar, a motion to 
    resolve into Committee was offered as privileged and was rejected.

    On Aug. 11, 1964,(7) (a District of Columbia Monday) Mr. 
John V. Dowdy, of Texas, called up H.R. 9774, terminating the District 
of Columbia Plaza Urban Renewal Project. The bill had been on the Union 
Calendar. Mr. Dowdy asked unanimous consent that the House resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
for the consideration of the bill and asked unanimous consent that 
debate on the bill be limited to one hour. Objection was made to the 
request and the House then rejected a motion to resolve into the 
Committee

[[Page 9488]]

of the Whole for consideration of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 18949, 18950, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Resolve Into Committee--Consideration of Disapproval 
    Resolution

Sec. 3.6 The motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole for the consideration of a resolution, favorably reported 
    from the Committee on Government Operations, disapproving a 
    reorganization plan (under the Reorganization Act of 1949), was 
    highly privileged and could be moved by any Member.

    On July 19, 1961,(8) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, 
made the following privileged motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 12905, 12906, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 resolution (H. Res. 328) disapproving 
    Reorganization Plan No. 5 transmitted to the Congress by the 
    President on May 24, 1961; and pending that motion, I ask unanimous 
    consent that debate on the resolution may continue not to exceed 5 
    hours, the time to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] and myself.

    When Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, objected, Mr. Fascell moved 
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of the resolution. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, then 
answered a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, under title 2, 
    section 204 of the public law [Pub. L. No. 81-109], paragraph (b) 
    provides that such a motion may be made only by a person favoring 
    the resolution. Is the gentleman from Florida in favor of the 
    resolution, or does he disfavor the resolution?
        The Speaker: Under the rules, the gentleman does not have to 
    qualify in that respect on this particular motion.

    The House agreed to the motion to resolve into the Committee.
    On June 8, 1961,(9) Mr. Gross submitted the ``highly 
privileged motion'' that the House resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for the consideration of House Resolution 303 disapproving a 
reorganization plan; the resolution had been favorably reported from 
the Committee on Government Operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 9775-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion was rejected, but Speaker Pro Tempore Oren Harris, of 
Arkansas, stated that such rejection would not preclude later 
consideration of the resolution.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under the 1949 statute, a Member moving to 
discharge the Government

[[Page 9489]]

Operations Committee was required to qualify as favoring the 
disapproval resolution, but once that committee had reported either 
favorably or adversely, any Member could call up the resolution, which 
was then on the Union Calendar, by moving to go into Committee of the 
Whole.

Sec. 3.7 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 offered 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,(10) a motion was made, pursuant to 
section 21(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Improvements 
Act,(11) for consideration of a concurrent resolution 
disapproving a rule promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 128 Cong. Rec. 12027, 12028, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. 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.''

[[Page 9490]]

        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 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: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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

[[Page 9491]]

    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 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.

--Motion That Committee of the Whole Be Discharged and Bill Laid on 
    Table Not in Order

Sec. 3.8 To a motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole for the consideration of a bill, a motion that the 
    Committee be discharged and that the bill be laid on the table is 
    not preferential and is not in order.

    On Apr. 2, 1938,(13) Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, 
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of a bill. Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, then 
made the following motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 83 Cong. Rec. 4621, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Connor of New York moves that the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union be discharged from further 
    consideration of the bill S. 3331 and that said bill be laid on the 
    table.

    Mr. Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, made the point of order 
that the motion was dilatory, and Mr. O'Connor asserted that under the 
rules of the House the motion was preferential, both as to discharge 
and as to laying on the table.
    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled as follows:

        The gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] offers what he 
    states is a preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union be discharged from consideration of 
    the bill S. 3331, and said bill be laid on the table.
        The Chair is of the opinion that under the rules of the House a 
    motion of this sort is not a preferential motion, and therefore not 
    in order. The matter now pending is a simple motion that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, and under 
    the precedents a motion to discharge the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union from the further consideration of a 
    bill is not a privileged motion.

[[Page 9492]]

        The Chair sustains the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to go into Committee of the 
Whole is not debatable and therefore not subject to the motion to lay 
on the table (see 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 726).

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

Sec. 3.9 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,(14) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 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. . . .
        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: (15) 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

[[Page 9493]]

    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. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 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 . . . 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.

Question of Consideration Inapplicable to Motion To Resolve

Sec. 3.10 The question of consideration cannot be raised against the 
    motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the 
    consideration of a proposition.

    It is well established that the question of consideration may not 
be raised against a motion to 
resolve into Committee of the Whole. This principle is discussed in 
more detail in Sec. Sec. 5.5, 5.6, infra.

Motion To Postpone--When Applicable to Motion To Resolve

Sec. 3.11 Although the motion to postpone is not ordinarily applicable 
    to a motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole, the motion to resolve into the Committee may be sub

[[Page 9494]]

    ject to such a motion where a statute (16) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See, for example, the Trade Act of 1974, section 152(d)(1) and 
        (d)(3), Pub. L. 93-618, 88 Stat. 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(17) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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: (18) The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Steiger).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 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.

    Similarly, on Mar. 10, 1977,(19) the House had 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 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 7021, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    section

[[Page 9495]]

    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: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 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.

    On Aug. 18, 1982,(1) 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,(2) thereby approving extension of presidential 
authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 128 Cong. Rec. 21934, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. 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: (3) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

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

[[Page 9496]]

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

    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.

Effect of Rejecting Motion To Resolve

Sec. 3.12 Where the House has agreed that consideration of a bill takes 
    precedence over other legislation, other legislation of lesser 
    privilege may be considered by rejecting the motion that the House 
    resolve into the Committee of the Whole.

    On May 9, 1950,(4) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
made the following point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 6720-24, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.

        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the House is not 
    proceeding in the regular order because under section 205a of the 
    Reorganization Act, which is Public Law 109 of the Eighty-first 
    Congress, first session, any Member of the House is privileged, and 
    this is a highly privileged motion, to make the motion that the 
    House proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 516.
        The gentleman from Michigan being on his feet to present this 
    highly privileged motion, the regular order is that he be 
    recognized for that purpose that the motion be entertained and the 
    question put before the House, and my motion is that the House 
    proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 516.

    Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, was recognized to speak on the point 
of order:

        Mr. Speaker, on April 5, 1950, as shown at page 4835 of the 
    daily Record of that day, the chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] asked and 
    received unanimous consent that the appropriation bill should have 
    the right-of-way over other privileged business under the rules 
    until disposition, with the exception of conference reports. 
    Therefore, I believe the regular order would be to proceed with the 
    further consideration of H.R. 7786.

[[Page 9497]]

        Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Record would speak for itself.

    Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as 
follows:

        The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order, the 
    substance of which is that the motion he desires to make or that 
    someone else should make in relation to the consideration of a 
    disapproving resolution of one of the reorganization plans takes 
    precedence over the appropriation bill insofar as recognition by 
    the Chair is concerned. The gentleman from Michigan raises a very 
    serious question and the Chair feels at this particular time that 
    it is well that he did so.
        The question involved is not a constitutional question but one 
    relating to the rules of the House and to the Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1949 which has been alluded to by the 
    gentleman from Michigan and other Members when addressing the Chair 
    on this point of order. The Chair calls attention to the language 
    of paragraph (b) of section 201 of title II of the Reorganization 
    Act of 1949 which reads as follows: ``with full recognition of the 
    constitutional right of either House to change such rules so far as 
    relating to procedure in such House at any time in the same manner 
    and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such 
    House.''
        It is very plain from that language that the intent of Congress 
    was to recognize the reservation to each House of certain inherent 
    powers which are necessary for either House to function to meet a 
    particular situation or to carry out its will.
        On April 5, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], chairman 
    of the Committee on Appropriations, submitted a unanimous-consent 
    request to the House, which was granted, which has the force of a 
    rule, and which relates to the rules of the House governing the 
    consideration of the omnibus appropriation bill while it is before 
    the House and, of course, incidentally affecting other legislation. 
    The consent request submitted by the gentleman from Missouri was 
    ``that the general appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1951 have 
    right-of-way over all other privileged business under the rules 
    until disposition, with the exception of conference reports.''
        That request was granted by unanimous consent. On the next day 
    the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], in correcting and 
    interpreting the consent request granted on April 5, submitted a 
    further unanimous-consent request.
        The daily Record shows, on page 4976, April 6, that the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] said:

            Mr. Speaker, on page 4835 of the daily Record of yesterday, 
        the first column carrying the special order made by the House 
        last night reads that the general appropriation bill shall be a 
        special order privileged above all other business of the House 
        under the rule until disposition. The order made was until 
        final disposition. I ask unanimous consent that the Record and 
        Journal be corrected to conform with the proceedings on the 
        floor of the House yesterday.

        The Record further shows that the Speaker put the request and 
    there was no objection. . . .

        The Chair will state that the House always has a constitutional 
    right and

[[Page 9498]]

    power to refuse to go into the Committee of the Whole on any motion 
    made by any Member, so that the House is capable of carrying out 
    its will, whatever may be the will of the majority of the House.

        Continuing, the Chair will state that in the opinion of the 
    present occupant, in view of the unanimous-consent request made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri and granted by the House, if any member 
    of the Appropriations Committee moves that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union to 
    consider the appropriation bill, that motion has preference over 
    any other preferential motion. It is a matter that the House 
    decides when the motion is made as to what it wants to do and it 
    has an opportunity when that motion is made to carry out its will.

Sec. 3.13 The rejection of a motion that the House resolve itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a resolution 
    disapproving a reorganization plan does not preclude a subsequent 
    motion to the same effect.

    On June 8, 1961,(5) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, indicated 
his intention to move that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider a resolution 
disapproving a reorganization plan. Before the motion was made and 
rejected by the House, Speaker Pro Tempore Oren Harris, of Arkansas, 
answered parliamentary inquiries on the effect of a rejection of the 
motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 9775-77, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: If the pending motion is 
    voted down, would it still be in order at a subsequent date to call 
    up a motion rejecting plan No. 2 for another vote? I ask that 
    because I am opposed to plan No. 2. The committee has reported 
    adversely in respect to plan No. 2. I am going to vote against that 
    plan and in support of the resolution of the committee. But under 
    my responsibility as the minority leader and under my agreement 
    with the majority leader, I do not see how I could vote today 
    unless, under the situation as it exists, that vote today would be 
    conclusive as to plan No. 2. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In the opinion of the Chair, under the 
    Reorganization Act, it could be called up at a subsequent date.
        Mr. Halleck: In other words, the action that would be taken 
    today would not be final?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.

Automatic Resolution Into Committee on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 3.14 The question of consideration being decided in 
    the affirmative, when raised against a bill on the Union

[[Page 9499]]

    Calendar called up under the Calendar Wednesday rule, the House 
    automatically resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole.

    On May 4, 1960,(6) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
responded as follows to parliamentary inquiries on the Calendar 
Wednesday call of committees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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.
        The Chair will state to the gentleman from Indiana and to the 
    House that when we reach the point of approving the Journal, the 
    Chair will then order a call of the committees; and when the 
    Committee on Banking and Currency is recognized and the gentleman 
    from Kentucky [Mr. Spence] presents his bill, when the title of the 
    bill is read the House automatically resolves itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Halleck: But is a motion necessary to consider the bill?
        The Speaker: The question of consideration can always be 
    raised.
        Mr. Halleck: And on that, of course, it would be possible to 
    have a record vote in the House.
        The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, that would be 
    correct.
        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: The Chair has just stated--I believe I 
    understood it this way--that when the bill is called up by the 
    chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency and the title is 
    read the House automatically resolves itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole.
        The Speaker: That is the rule.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: But the motion raising the question must 
    come before the title of the bill is read.
        The Speaker: After the title is read.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Sir?
        The Speaker: After the title is read.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: There would still be time enough for it 
    before the House automatically goes into the Committee of the 
    Whole.
        The Speaker: That is correct.

    Following the parliamentary inquiries, the call of committees began 
and the question of consideration was raised against a bill called up 
by the Committee on Banking and Currency (S. 722, the Area Development 
Act). The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative, and 
the Speaker directed the House to automatically resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at pp. 9417, 9418.

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

[[Page 9500]]

Consideration by Motion To Discharge

Sec. 3.15 The House may resolve into the Committee of the Whole to 
    consider a bill brought before the House by adoption of a motion to 
    discharge the committee to which the bill had been referred.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(8) the following procedure was used 
for consideration in the Committee of the Whole of a bill brought 
before the House by a motion to discharge a committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 94 Cong. Rec. 4835, 4840-42, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the motion to discharge the Committee on Agriculture from the 
    further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2245) to repeal the tax on 
    oleomargarine.
        The Speaker: (9) Did the gentleman sign the 
    petition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rivers: I did, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina is entitled to 
    10 minutes.
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask to be 
    recognized in opposition to the motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Hope] is recognized 
    for 10 minutes.
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rivers: The proponents of the motion have 10 minutes and 
    the opponents have 10 minutes, and the proponents have the right to 
    close the debate?
        The Speaker: The gentleman has stated the situation accurately. 
    He has the right to close debate. . . .
        All time has expired.
        The question is, Shall the Committee on Agriculture be 
    discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 2245?
        Mr. Hope: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 235, nays 121, 
    answered ``present'' 2, not voting 72. . . .
        Mr. Rivers: 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. 2245) to repeal the tax on 
    oleomargarine; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that general debate be limited to 3 hours, the 
    time to be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from 
    Kansas [Mr. Hope] and myself.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from South Carolina?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from South Carolina.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole

[[Page 9501]]

    House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
    H.R. 2245.