[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§ 5. Question of Consideration]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9508-9519]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
        A.  INTRODUCTORY;  INITIATING  CONSIDERATION  AND DEBATE
 
Sec. 5. Question of Consideration

    Rule XVI clause 3 provides a method by which the House may protect 
itself against business that it does not wish to consider:

        When any motion or proposition is made, the question, Will the 
    House now consider it? shall not be put unless demanded by a 
    Member.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 778 (1995). See also Sec. Sec. 779-781 
        for raising the question, for the questions subject to the 
        question of consideration, and for the relation of the question 
        to points of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question of consideration is raised before debate on the motion 
or proposition, and since it is not itself debatable, has the effect if 
not agreed to of preventing all debate on the measure proposed to be 
considered in the House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 5.4, infra, for the nondebatability of the question and 
        Sec. Sec. 5.1-5.3, infra, for raising the question.

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

[[Page 9509]]

    The refusal to consider does not amount to the rejection of a bill 
or prevent its being brought before the House again,(18) and 
an affirmative vote does not prevent the question of consideration from 
being raised on a subsequent day when the bill is again called up 
as unfinished business.(19) It has once been held that a 
question of privilege which the House has refused to consider may be 
brought up again on the same day.(20) The question of 
consideration is not debatable,(1) and thus not subject to 
the motion to lay on the table.(2) It is not in order to 
reconsider the vote whereby the House refuses to consider a 
bill,(3) although it is in order to reconsider an 
affirmative vote on the question of consideration.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4940.
19. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2438.
20. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4942.
 1. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2447.
 2. See 140 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 4, 1994. 
        See also Rule XXV, which provides that questions relating to 
        the priority of business are not debatable.
 3. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5626, 5627.
 4. See 140 Cong. Rec. p. ______, 103d Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 4, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question of consideration cannot be raised against certain 
motions relating to the order of business.(5) For example, 
the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole is equivalent to 
the question of consideration and is therefore not subject to that 
question.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 5.5, 5.6, infra.
 6. See Sec. 5.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question of consideration should be distinguished from points 
of order against consideration, which may be based on various 
requirements of House rules and are ruled on by the Chair. A point of 
order against the eligibility for consideration of a bill which, if 
sustained, might prevent consideration, should be made and decided 
before the question of consideration is put,(7) but if the 
point relates merely to the manner of considering, it should be passed 
on afterwards.(8) In general, after the House has decided to 
consider, a point of order raised in order to prevent consideration, in 
whole or part, comes too late.(9) On a conference report, 
however, the question of consideration may be demanded before points of 
order are raised against the substance of the report.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4950, 4951; 
        8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2439, discussed in the note to 
        Sec. 5.12, infra.
 8. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4950.
 9. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4598; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4952, 
        6912-6914.
10. See Sec. 5.12, infra. See also 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Statutes may prescribe specific uses for the question of consider

[[Page 9510]]

ation. For example, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(11) added a new part B to title IV of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974 (12) imposing several requirements on 
committees with respect to ``federal mandates.'' (13) The 
provisions establish points of order 
to enforce those requirements,(14) and preclude the 
consideration of a rule or order waiving such points of order in the 
House.(15) The statute prescribes that such points of order 
be disposed of by putting the question of consideration with respect to 
the proposition against which they are lodged.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Pub. L. 104-4; 109 Stat. 48 et seq.
12. 2 USC Sec. 658.
13. Sections 423, 424; 2 USC Sec. Sec. 658b, c.
14. 2 USC Sec. 658d.
15. 2 USC Sec. 658e(a).
16. 2 USC Sec. 658e(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Forms

    Form of putting the question of consideration.

        Member: Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of consideration.
        The Speaker: The gentleman raises the question of 
    consideration. The question is, Will the House now consider it? As 
    many as favor. . . .(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives 141, H. Doc. No. 
        122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Methods of closing debate in the House, see Sec. 72, infra.
Motion to postpone consideration, see Ch. 23, supra.
Points of order, see Ch. 31, 
    infra.                          -------------------

When Question of Consideration May Be Raised

Sec. 5.1 The question of consideration may not be raised against a 
    resolution until the resolution is fully reported.

    On Dec. 13, 1932,(18) Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of 
Pennsylvania, arose to a question of ``constitutional privilege'' and 
offered a resolution to impeach President Hoover for high crimes and 
misdemeanors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 76 Cong. Rec. 399-402, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, interrupted the reading of 
the resolution to state a parliamentary inquiry which was answered by 
Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas:

        Mr. Stafford: Is it in order to raise the question of 
    consideration at this time?
        The Speaker: Not until the resolution is read.
        The Clerk concluded the reading of the resolution.

    The House agreed to a motion to lay the resolution on the table.
    On June 1, 1934,(19) a report was called up from the 
Committee

[[Page 9511]]

on Rules. Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, interrupted the reading of 
the accompanying resolution to make the point of order that a two-
thirds vote was required for the consideration of the resolution on the 
same day reported. Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, sustained a 
point of order that the question of consideration could not be raised 
until the resolution was read in full:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 78 Cong. Rec. 10239-41, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I raise 
    the point of order that the reading of the resolution should be 
    concluded before any point of order can be made against it.
        The Speaker: The point of order of the gentleman from Alabama 
    [Mr. Bankhead] is sustained. The Clerk will conclude the reading of 
    the resolution.

Sec. 5.2 Resolutions of inquiry are subject to the question of 
    consideration, but it is too late to raise such question after the 
    motion to table has been made.

    On Feb. 7, 1939,(20) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, 
presented a privileged report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
adversely reporting a resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 78) directed to 
the Secretary of State. Following the reading of the report, Mr. Bloom 
moved that the resolution be laid on the table. Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., 
of New York, then arose to a question of consideration, and Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that the question came too late, 
the motion to table having been made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 1181, 1182, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.3 During the Calendar Wednesday call of committees the question 
    of consideration on a bill called up by a committee is properly 
    raised after the Clerk reads the title of the bill and before the 
    House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 14, 1937,(1) the question of consideration 
against a bill called up by a committee under the Calendar Wednesday 
procedure was raised as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 81 Cong. Rec. 3455, 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence F.] Lea [of California] (when the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce was called): Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I 
    call up the bill (H.R. 1668) to amend paragraph (1) of section 4 of 
    the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended February 28, 1920 (U.S.C., 
    title 49, sec. 4).
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    raise the question of consideration.
        The Speaker: (2) The gentleman from North Carolina 
    raises the ques

[[Page 9512]]

    tion of consideration of the bill. The question is, Will the House 
    consider the bill H.R. 1668. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 278, nays 97, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 54, as follows: . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: The House automatically resolves itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill.

    On May 4, 1960,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
responded as follows to parliamentary inquiries on the proper raising 
of the question of consideration against a bill called up under the 
Calendar Wednesday procedure:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 106 Cong. Rec. 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. [James C.] 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.

Debate

Sec. 5.4 The question of consideration is not debatable.

    On June 1, 1934,(4) Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
moved for the immediate consideration of House Resolution 410, reported 
by the Committee on Rules on the same day reported and making in order 
during the remainder of the session motions to suspend the rules and 
waiving certain other rules during the remainder of the session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 78 Cong. Rec. 10239, 10240, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the yeas and nays were ordered on the question of 
consideration of the resolution, Mr. Clarence J. McLeod, of Michigan, 
made a point of order against the roll call:

        I make the point of order that this roll call is not in order, 
    because there has not been a chance to even explain the resolution 
    under consideration.

[[Page 9513]]

    Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, ruled:

        The Chair will state that the question of consideration is not 
    debatable.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent involved the automatic 
question of consideration on Rules Committee resolutions called up the 
same day reported, under clause 4(b) of Rule XI. The question of 
consideration if offered on other matters is likewise not debatable 
(see 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2447).

Matters Subject to Question of Consideration--Motions Relating to Order 
    of Business

Sec. 5.5 The question of consideration cannot be raised against certain 
    motions relating to the order of business.

    It is well established that the question of consideration may not 
be raised against a motion to 
resolve into Committee of the Whole.(5) Moreover, it has 
been held that the question of consideration is not in order against a 
motion to discharge a committee, the Chair citing as a general 
principle that the question of consideration may not be raised on a 
motion relating to the order of business.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 5.6, infra.
 6. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question of consideration is also not in order against a motion 
to lay on the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
House has passed a bill.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Resolve Into Committee of the Whole as Sufficient 
    Expression of Will of House

Sec. 5.6 The question of consideration may not be raised against a 
    motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole since the House 
    expresses its will concerning consideration by voting on the 
    motion.

    On May 21, 1958,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled 
that the question of consideration could not be raised against the 
motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration 
of a bill, the motion to resolve being itself a test of the will of the 
House on consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 104 Cong. Rec. 9216, 9217, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 51 and 4973-4976; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2442.
            As to the effect of adoption of a special rule on points of 
        order, see Sec. Sec. 2.13-2.16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: May I submit a parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker?

[[Page 9514]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman may.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Under what circumstances can the 
    question of consideration be raised?
        The Speaker: The Chair tried to say a moment ago that it cannot 
    be raised against the motion to go into the Committee of the Whole, 
    because that is tantamount to consideration, and the House will 
    have an opportunity to vote on that motion.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: In other words, if we demand a vote on 
    that question, then that will be tantamount to raising the question 
    of consideration?
        The Speaker:  That is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: It should be noted that 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.(9) A 
motion to suspend the rules, however, suspends all rules in conflict 
with the motion and precludes the point of order that a bill was 
reported from committee in the absence of a quorum.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 2.16, supra.
10. See Sec. Sec. 2.7, 2.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Resolution From Rules Committee on Same Day Reported

Sec. 5.7 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 Mem-bers present and voting, a 
    quorum being present.

    On Nov. 14, 1975,(11) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 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: (12) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).

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

[[Page 9515]]

        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.
        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 orderd to be read a third time, was read 
    the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on 
    the table.

Sec. 5.8 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,(13) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 3344, 3349, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Delaney [of New York], from the Committee on 
    Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 231, 
    Rept. No. 95-6),

[[Page 9516]]

    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: (14) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 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.

House Automatically Resolves Into Committee of the Whole After Vote To 
    Consider Bill on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 5.9 The question of consideration being decided in 
    the affirmative, when raised against a bill on the Union Calendar 
    called up under the Calendar Wednesday rule, the House 
    automatically resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole.

    On May 4, 1960,(15) the ques-tion of consideration was 
raised against a bill called up by 


[[Page 9517]]

the Committee on Banking and 
Currency under the Calendar Wednesday procedure. The bill had been on 
the Union Calendar. When the House voted to consider the bill, Speaker 
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, directed the House to automatically resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the 
bill.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 106 Cong. Rec. 9417, 9418, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. See also 75 Cong. Rec. 2815, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 27, 1932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second Question of Consideration on Same Bill on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 5.10 A second question of consideration was voted on the same day 
    on the same bill on Calendar Wednesday (after the Committee of the 
    Whole rose and the House refused to adjourn).

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(17) the question of consideration was 
raised against H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment Practice Act, 
called up under the Calendar Wednesday rule by the Committee on 
Education and Labor. When the question was decided in the affirmative, 
the House automatically resolved into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 2162, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After intervening debate, the Committee voted to rise without 
having agreed to the bill. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, moved that 
the House adjourn, which was defeated by the yeas and nays. The 
Committee on Education and Labor again called up the bill and Mr. Smith 
raised the question of consideration against the bill. The House 
affirmatively decided the second question of consideration and the 
House resolved again into the Committee of the Whole.

Motion To Adjourn Not in Order After Vote To Consider Bill on Calendar 
    Wednesday

Sec. 5.11 A motion to adjourn is not in order after the House has voted 
    to consider a proposition brought up under the Calendar Wednesday 
    rule and before the House has resolved into Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 14, 1937,(18) the Clerk called the roll of 
committees for reporting propositions under the Calendar Wednesday 
rule. At the direction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce, Mr. Clarence F. Lea, of California, called up H.R. 1668, to 
amend the Interstate Commerce Act. Mr. Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North 
Caro

[[Page 9518]]

lina, raised the question of consideration, and the House by the yeas 
and nays voted to consider the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 3455, 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, directed the House to 
automatically resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of the bill. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved 
that the House adjourn, and the Speaker ruled ``The Chair cannot 
entertain that motion at this time.''

Question of Consideration Raised Against Conference Report Before 
    Points of Order

Sec. 5.12 The question of consideration may be raised against a 
    conference report before the Chair entertains points of order 
    against the report.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(19) a demand for the question of 
consideration resulting in the ordering of consideration of a 
conference report, points of order were next entertained, as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 33018, 33019, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (20) The unfinished business is the 
    further consideration of the conference report on the Senate bill 
    S. 521, which the Clerk will report by title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the question of consideration.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider the 
    conference report on the Senate bill S. 521.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered. . . .
        So consideration of the conference report was ordered. . . .
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is as to 
    whether my reserved points of order are in order at this time?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that they are.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    conference report on grounds that it has been reported in violation 
    of rule XXVIII, clause 6, which requires that conference meetings 
    be open to the public except when ordered closed by rollcall vote 
    in open session. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from New York has made a point of order directed 
    against conference procedure alleging a violation of clause 6, rule 
    XXVIII.
        The gentleman's point of order is that the form of the 
    conference report does not conform to his understanding as to which 
    motion was agreed to by the House conferees. The gentleman

[[Page 9519]]

    contends that there was [presumably a subsequent] meeting of the 
    conferees which was closed and unannounced.
        The chief manager of the conference report has reported that in 
    a meeting of the conferees which was open to the public, pursuant 
    to the provisions of clause 6, rule XXVIII, a proper motion was 
    made to agree to an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the 
    House amendment to the Senate bill, and the signatures of a 
    majority of the conferees of both Houses reflecting this agreement 
    appear on the conference report.
        The Chair does not feel that a violation of conference rules 
    has been shown, and the Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The is-sue as to which comes first on a 
conference report, the question of consideration or a point of order, 
is discussed in 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2439, wherein Speaker Clark 
ruled that the question of consideration should be put first on the 
grounds that it was useless to argue points of order if the House 
wasn't going to consider the report. Conflicting precedents which stand 
for the proposition that points of order should be decided before the 
question of consideration is raised involved circumstances in which the 
point of order was directed not to the substance of the report or 
proposition but to the issue whether the matter was privileged to come 
up for consideration in the first instance. In 5 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 4950, the issue was whether a bill called up under the morning 
hour call of committees was eligible as a bill properly on the House 
Calendar, and in 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4951, the issue was whether a 
resolution could be presented as a question of privilege. But since a 
conference report is privileged for consideration under Rule XXVIII, 
the threshold question is not presented and the question of 
consideration should come before points of order against the substance 
of the report.