[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[C. Recognition on Particular Questions]
[Â§ 18. As to Simple or Concurrent Resolutions; Special Rules]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9959-9980]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                 C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
 
Sec. 18. As to Simple or 
    Concurrent Resolutions; Special Rules

    Simple resolutions (headed ``H. Res.'') are used to express a fact, 
or to declare the principles, opinions, or purposes of the House. 
Rules, including ``special rules'' providing for consideration of 
bills, are adopted by simple resolution. Special committees are 
authorized and expenditures made from the contingent fund in this 
manner. Resolutions of inquiry or disapproval, including resolutions 
under congressional disapproval procedures prescribed by statute, are 
generally made by simple resolution; and such resolutions are used to 
express the sense of the House on various matters.
    Concurrent resolutions (headed, e.g., ``H. Con. Res.'') are used as 
a means by which the two Houses may concurrently express certain facts, 
opinions or purposes. A concurrent resolution is not binding on either 
House until agreed to by both, and is not sent to the President for 
approval.
    Rule XXII clause 2(b)(1) now provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 852 (1995).

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

[[Page 9960]]

        No bill or resolution, and no amendment to any bill or 
    resolution, establishing or expressing any commemoration may be 
    introduced or considered in the House.
        For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``commemoration'' 
    means any remembrance, celebration, or recognition for any purpose 
    through the designation of a specified period of time.

    Debate on a privileged resolution is under the hour rule, and the 
Member recognized to call it up has control of the time.(2) 
Thus, a Member offering a resolution presenting a question of the 
privilege of the House is recognized to control one hour of debate on 
the resolution.(3) Moreover, the Member calling up a 
privileged resolution from the Committee on Rules controls one hour of 
debate in the House, and the resolution is not subject to amendment 
from the floor unless the Member in charge yields for that 
purpose.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 18.1, infra.
 3. See Sec. 18.12, infra.
 4. See Sec. 18.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only a member of the Committee on Rules designated to call up a 
special rule from the committee may be recognized for that purpose, 
unless the rule has been on the calendar for seven legislative days 
without action.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 18.13, infra. 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) and 4(b) and 
        comments thereto, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 726-729d 
        (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the previous question on a privileged resolution reported by the 
Committee on Rules is voted down, the resolution is subject to further 
consideration, debate, and a motion to table, and the Member leading 
the opposition to the resolution is recognized under the hour 
rule.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 18.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a resolution from the Committee on Rules is called up the same 
day it is reported, recognition for debate is not in order until the 
House agrees by a two-thirds vote to consider the 
resolution.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 18.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Consideration and adoption of resolutions in general, see Ch. 24, 
    supra.
Distribution and alternation of time on certain resolutions, see 
    Sec. 25, infra.
Effect of special rules on control and distribution of debate, see 
    Sec. 28, infra.
Losing or surrendering control of resolutions, see Sec. Sec. 33, 34, 
    infra.
Management by reporting committee on resolutions, see Sec. 26, infra.
Prior recognition of members of reporting committee on resolutions, see 
    Sec. 13, supra.
Resolutions considered under hour rule, see Sec. 68, infra.
Special rules from the Committee on Rules, see Ch. 21, supra.

[[Page 9961]]

Special rules from Committee on Rules as effecting consideration, see 
    Sec. 2, supra.                          -------------------

Calling Up Privileged Resolution

Sec. 18.1 Debate on a privileged resolution is under the hour rule and 
    the Member recognized to call it up has control of the time.

    On Feb. 27, 1963,(8) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, 
called up by direction of the Committee on House Administration House 
Resolution 164, a privileged resolution providing funds for the 
Committee on Armed Services. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, then answered a parliamentary inquiry as to control of 
the time for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cong. Rec. 3051, 3052, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: As I understand it, the 
    gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] has said that he would yield 
    time to Members on the minority side, and that is what we want. If 
    there is another minority Member who wants to be recognized at this 
    time, it would be in order under the rules for that Member to be 
    granted time in order that he might make such statement as he might 
    want to make.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that under the rules of the 
    House and pursuant to custom that has existed from time immemorial, 
    on a resolution of this kind the Member in charge of the resolution 
    has control of the time and he, in turn, yields time. The gentleman 
    from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] in charge of the resolution has yielded 
    10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio. If the gentleman from Ohio 
    desires to yield to some other Member, he may do so but he may not 
    yield a specific amount of time.

    On Feb. 25, 1954,(9) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control of 
debate on a privileged resolution (authorizing the payment of certain 
committee expenses) called up by Karl M. LeCompte, of Iowa, Chairman of 
the Committee on House Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 100 Cong. Rec. 2282, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. LeCompte: Under the rules the Chairman has control of the 
    time.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has 1 hour to yield to whomsoever he 
    desires.
        Mr. LeCompte: And he has control of the matter of offering 
    amendments.
        The Speaker: A committee amendment is now pending. No other 
    amendment can be offered unless the gentleman yields the floor for 
    that purpose.
        Mr. LeCompte: A motion to recommit, of course, belongs to some 
    member of the minority opposed to the resolution. Would any motion 
    except a motion to recommit be in order except by the gentleman in 
    charge of the bill?

[[Page 9962]]

        The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman yields for that purpose.
        The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 1 hour.

Offering Privileged Resolution Prior to Adoption of the Rules

Sec. 18.2 Prior to the adoption of the rules, a Member offering a 
    privileged resolution on the seating of a Member-elect is 
    recognized for one hour of debate.

    On Jan. 10, 1967, prior to the adoption of the rules, Mr. Morris K. 
Udall, of Arizona, offered as privileged House Resolution 1, 
authorizing Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, to administer 
the oath of office to challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New 
York, and referring the question of his final right to a seat to a 
select committee. Speaker McCormack ruled that Mr. Udall was entitled 
to recognition for one hour.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
            As to the privilege and disposition of resolutions before 
        the adoption of rules, see Ch. 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous Question Rejected on Resolution Providing for Seating of 
    Member-elect

Sec. 18.3 Recognition to offer an amendment to a resolution called up 
    prior to the adoption of rules and relating to the seat of a 
    Member-elect passes to a Member leading the opposition to the 
    resolution if the previous question thereon is rejected.

    On Jan. 10, 1967,(11) at the convening of the 90th 
Congress and before the adoption of standing rules, Mr. Morris K. 
Udall, of Arizona, called up a resolution (H. Res. 1), authorizing 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, to administer the oath of 
office to challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New York, and 
referring the question of his final right to a seat to a select 
committee. Pending debate on the resolution, Speaker McCormack answered 
parliamentary inquiries on the procedure for consideration of and 
recognition on the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    previous question is voted down would, then, under the rules of the 
    House, amendments or substitutes be in order to the resolution 
    offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Udall]?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Louisiana [Mr. Waggonner] that any germane amendment may be in 
    order to that particular amendment. . . .
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, un-der the rules of the House would 
    the

[[Page 9963]]

    option or priority or a subsequent amendment or a substitute motion 
    lie with the minority?
        The Speaker: The Chair will pass upon that question based upon 
    the rules of the House. That would be a question that would present 
    itself to the Chair at that particular time. . . . However, the 
    usual procedure of the Chair has been to the effect that the Member 
    who led the fight against the resolution will be recognized.

    Mr. Udall moved the previous question on the resolution, and the 
motion was rejected.
    Speaker McCormack then recognized Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, the 
Minority Leader, to offer an amendment to the 
resolution.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 24-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.4 A minority Member, who had led the opposition, was recognized 
    after the House had refused to order the previous question on a 
    resolution offered by the majority and providing for the seating of 
    a Member-elect.

    On Mar. 1, 1967,(13) Emanuel Celler, of New York, a 
Member of the majority, moved the previous question on House Resolution 
278, which he had offered, and which provided for the seating of 
challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New York. The previous 
question was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 5019, 5020, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then recognized Thomas 
B. Curtis, of Missouri, a Member of the minority, to offer an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute excluding Member-elect Powell from 
membership in the House.

Rejection of Previous Question on Resolution From Committee on Rules

Sec. 18.5 If the previous question is voted down on a Committee on 
    Rules resolution authorizing an investigation, recognition passes 
    to the opponents of the resolution, and the Chair first recognizes 
    a Member of the minority party, if opposed.

    On July 20, 1939,(14) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
managing a resolution from the Committee on Rules to authorize an 
investigation, moved the previous question on the resolution. Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, answered parliamentary inquiries on 
the order of recognition to be followed should the previous question be 
rejected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 9591, 9592, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: If the previous question 
    is voted down, will that open up the resolution to amendment?
        The Speaker: Undoubtedly.

[[Page 9964]]

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: If I understand the situation correctly, 
    if the previous question is voted down, the control of the measure 
    would pass to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Keller]; and the 
    resolution would not be open to amendment generally, but only to 
    such amendments as the gentleman from Illinois might yield for. Is 
    my understanding correct, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down, it would 
    not necessarily pass to the gentleman from Illinois; it would pass 
    to the opponents of the resolution. Of course, a representative of 
    the minority would have the first right of recognition.

    On Mar. 13, 1939,(15) Mr. Smith called up at the 
direction of the Committee on the District of Columbia House Resolution 
113, authorizing an investigation of the milk industry in the District 
of Columbia. Mr. Smith moved the previous question on the resolution, 
and the motion was rejected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 2663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Bankhead then stated:

        Under the rules of procedure, the recognition passes to the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Mapes] if he desires to claim it.

    The Speaker added, in response to parliamentary inquiries, that Mr. 
Carl E. Mapes, who was leading the opposition to the resolution, would 
control one hour of debate and would lose the floor if he yielded to 
another Member to offer an amendment.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Pending a vote on ordering the previous question, the Chair may 
        decline to indicate whom he might recognize or what form of 
        amendment might be in order if the previous question were 
        rejected. See 115 Cong. Rec. 29219, 29220, 91st Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Oct. 8, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Member Opposed to Resolution Offers Motion To Table

Sec. 18.6 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised 
    that if the previous question on a privileged resolution reported 
    by the Committee on Rules were voted down, the resolution would be 
    subject to further consideration, debate, and a motion to table, 
    and that he would recognize under the hour rule the Member who 
    appeared to be leading the opposition.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(17) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, 
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, House Resolution 
1013, establishing a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Mr. 
Pepper was recognized for one hour

[[Page 9965]]

and offered a committee amendment to the resolution, which amendment 
was agreed to. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then 
answered a series of parliamentary inquiries on the order of 
recognition should Mr. Pepper move the previous question and should the 
motion be defeated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, if the previous 
    question is refused, is it true that then amendments may be offered 
    and further debate may be had on the resolution?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the 
    resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, under the 
    rules of the House, is it not equally so that a motion to table 
    would then be in order?
        The Speaker: At that particular point, that would be a 
    preferential motion. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    previous question is refused and the resolution is then open for 
    amendment, under what parliamentary procedure will the debate 
    continue? Or what would be the time limit?
        The Speaker: The Chair would recognize whoever appeared to be 
    the leading Member in opposition to the resolution.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: What would be the time for debate?
        The Speaker: Under those circumstances the Member recognized in 
    opposition would have 1 hour at his disposal, or such portion of it 
    as he might desire to exercise.

    Subsequently, after the previous question had been rejected, the 
Speaker recognized a Member who qualified as being opposed to the 
resolution, to offer a motion to table the resolution. The Speaker's 
determination as to whether the Member qualified, and the subsequent 
recognition, were as follows:

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Louisiana opposed to the 
    resolution?
        Mr. Waggonner: I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Has the gentleman participated actively in the 
    debate in opposition?
        Mr. Waggonner: I did, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Waggonner moves to lay House Resolution 1013 on the 
        table.

Recognition After Defeat of Motion by Member in Charge To Table 
    Resolution of Inquiry

Sec. 18.7 Where the motion to lay a resolution of inquiry on the table 
    is made by the Member in charge of the resolution, and that motion 
    is defeated, the right to prior recognition passes to the Member 
    lead

[[Page 9966]]

    ing the opposition to the motion.

    On Feb. 20, 1952,(18) Mr. James P. Richards, of South 
Carolina, called up by direction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
House Resolution 514, a privileged resolution of inquiry directed to 
the Secretary of State. Mr. Richards sent to the Clerk's desk the 
adverse report of the committee, recommending that the resolution not 
pass. Mr. Richards immediately moved to lay the resolution on the 
table. The motion was defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 98 Cong. Rec. 1205-07, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    John M. Vorys, of Ohio, the Member leading the opposition to the 
motion, was then recognized by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, who 
explained the parliamentary situation:

        The gentleman from Ohio is in charge of the time, the gentleman 
    being with the majority in this instance, and on that side of the 
    issue which received the most votes.

    Mr. Vorys controlled debate on the resolution, which was agreed to 
by the House.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Resolutions of inquiry addressed to heads 
of executive departments are privileged. If the committee to which the 
resolution is referred makes an adverse decision on the resolution, the 
resolution is usually reported and the committee manager moves to lay 
the resolution on the table.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Resolutions of inquiry generally, see Ch. 24, supra, and Rule XXII 
        clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 855 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution Disapproving Reorganization Plan

--Member Opposed Moved That House Proceed to Consideration

Sec. 18.8 After a committee had reported to the House a resolution 
    disapproving a reorganization plan (under the Reorganization Act of 
    1949), a Member could be recognized to move that the House proceed 
    to the consideration thereof although he was not in favor of the 
    resolution.

    On July 19, 1961,(20) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, 
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of House Resolution 328, disapproving Reorganization 
Plan No. 5, which resolution was reported from the Committee on 
Government Operations. Mr. Fascell made a unanimous-consent request 
that debate be limited to five hours, to be equally divided

[[Page 9967]]

and controlled by himself and by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan. Mr. 
Hoffman objected to the latter request and Mr. Fascell moved simply 
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 12905, 12906, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to 
whether Mr. Fascell had to qualify to make the motion by stating he was 
in favor of the resolution. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that 
he did not have to so qualify since under the statute, any Member could 
call up a disapproval resolution reported from committee. In the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chairman stated that Mr. Fascell would be 
recognized for up to five hours, and Mr. Hoffman, the gentleman opposed 
to the resolution, would be recognized for five hours.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The Reorganization Act of 1949 (Public Law 
81-109, 63 Stat. 203) provided that in the consideration of a 
resolution relating to a reorganization plan, there be not to exceed 10 
hours of debate, to be equally divided between those favoring and those 
opposing the resolution (5 USC Sec. 912). However, the statute as it 
related to the procedures of the House and Senate was enacted with 
recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change its 
rules at any time (5 USC Sec. 908).

    There are a variety of statutes providing for the privileged 
consideration of simple, concurrent, and joint resolutions to approve 
or disapprove certain proposals of the executive branch. Each such 
statute should be consulted to determine the procedure for 
consideration and recognition.

Debate on Motion To Discharge Committee From Consideration

Sec. 18.9 Debate on a motion to discharge a committee from further 
    consideration of a resolution (under the Reorganization Act of 
    1949) disapproving a reorganization plan was limited to one hour 
    and was equally divided between the Member making the motion and a 
    Member opposed thereto; and the Chair recognized the Member making 
    the motion to open and close debate.

    On Aug. 3, 1961,(1) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, moved to 
discharge the Committee on Government Operations from the further 
consideration of House Resolution 335, disapproving Reorganization

[[Page 9968]]

Plan No. 6, transmitted by the President to Congress. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, inquired whether Mr. Gross was in favor 
of the resolution and when Mr. Gross assured the Speaker he was, the 
Speaker recognized Mr. Gross to open debate and to control 30 minutes 
on the motion. The Speaker recognized a Member in opposition for 30 
minutes and then recognized Mr. Gross to close debate.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 107 Cong. Rec. 14548, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 13084, 13095, 13096, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 20, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The time for debate and the division of 
time between those favoring and those opposing the resolution, on a 
motion to discharge a committee from the further consideration of a 
resolution disapproving a reorganization plan, was specifically 
provided in the Reorganization Act of 1949.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Public Law 81-109, 63 Stat. 203. The Act has subsequently been 
        amended. See the current text of 5 USC Sec. 911, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amending Privileged Resolution From Committee on Rules

Sec. 18.10 The Member calling up a privileged resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules controls one hour of debate in the House, and 
    the resolution is not subject to amendment unless the Member in 
    charge yields for that purpose.

    On Feb. 26, 1976,(4) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House relative to calling up a resolution from the Committee on 
Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 4625, 4626, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 868

            Resolved, That Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new clause:
            ``7. It shall not be in order to consider any report of a 
        committee unless copies or reproductions of such report have 
        been available to the Members on the floor for at least two 
        hours before the beginning of such consideration. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is to be considered in 
    the House which would preclude an amendment from being offered by 
    any Member.
        The Speaker: It is a rule that comes from the Committee on 
    Rules. It is

[[Page 9969]]

    under the charge of the gentleman handling the resolution.
        Mr. Bauman: So unless the gentleman yields for the purpose of 
    an amendment, none would be in order?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, what unanimous-consent request might 
    be entertained in order to allow amendments to be offered 
    generally? Would it be a request to consider it in the House as in 
    the Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker: No. The gentleman from Florida controls the floor 
    under the 1-hour rule in the House because this is a change in the 
    rules brought to the floor by the Committee on Rules as privileged. 
    Rules changes can be considered in the House.

Rule IX--Questions of Privilege

Sec. 18.11 When a Member asserts that he rises to a question of the 
    privileges of the House, the Speaker may hear the question and may 
    then refuse recognition if the resolution is not admissible as a 
    question of privilege under Rule IX.

    On June 27, 1974,(6) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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) 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 9970]]

        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 proceed-ings. . . .

        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: (7) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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 9971]]

    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.

Sec. 18.12 Under the former rule, a Member offering a resolution 
    presenting a question of the privilege of the House is recognized 
    to control one hour of debate on the resolution.

    On Feb. 19, 1976,(8) Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New 
York, offered a privileged resolution as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 3914, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. Rule IX was amended in the 
        103d Congress to divide debate time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: I rise to a question involving the privileges of 
    the House, and I offer a privileged resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1042

            Resolution requiring that the Committee on Standards of 
        Official Conduct inquire into the circumstances leading to the 
         public publication of a report containing classified material 
             prepared by the House Select Committee on Intelligence

            Whereas the February 16, 1976, issue of the Village Voice, 
        a New York City newspaper, contains the partial text of a 
        report or a preliminary report prepared by the Select Committee 
        on Intelligence of the House, pursuant to H. Res. 591, which 
        relates to the foreign activities of the intelligence agencies 
        of the United States and which contains sensitive classified 
        information . . . Now, therefore, be it
            Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct be and it is hereby authorized and directed to inquire 
        into the circumstances surrounding the publication of the text 
        and of any part of the report 
        of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and to report back to 
        the House in a timely fashion its findings and recommendations 
        thereon.

        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).

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

[[Page 9972]]

Calling Up Special Rule

Sec. 18.13 Only a member of the Committee on Rules designated to call 
    up a report from the committee may be recognized for that purpose, 
    unless the rule has been on the calendar for seven legislative days 
    without action.

    On June 6, 1940,(10) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New 
York, sought recognition to call up for consideration a special 
resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration 
of a measure. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, inquired whether 
Mr. Fish had been authorized to call up the resolution and Mr. Fish 
stated he had not. He asserted that calling up such a resolution was 
``the privilege of any member of the Rules Committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 86 Cong. Rec. 7706, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. See Rule XI, cl. 4(c), 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1995), as to calling up 
        special rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker declined to recognize Mr. Fish for that purpose, 
saying:

        The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman from New York to call 
    up the resolution unless the Record shows he was authorized to do 
    so by the Rules Committee. . . .
        The precedents are all to the effect that only a Member 
    authorized by the Rules Committee can call up a rule, unless the 
    rule has been on the calendar for 7 legislative days without 
    action.

Sec. 18.14 If a resolution providing a special order of business is not 
    called up for 
    consideration by the Member reporting the resolution within seven 
    legislative days, any member of the Committee on Rules may call it 
    up for consideration [Rule XI, cl. 4(c)]; and since the motion to 
    call up such a resolution is privileged, the Speaker would be 
    obliged to recognize for this purpose unless a matter of equal or 
    higher privilege was also pending, in which case the order of 
    consideration would be determined by the Speaker's recognition.

    On Sept. 22, 1966,(11) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition of 
members of the Committee on Rules to call up a special rule reported 
from that committee but not yet called up at the direction of the 
committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 9973]]

        Under the rules of the House, as I understand them, this rule, 
    House Resolution 1007, to bring up the so-called House Un-American 
    Activities Committee bill, is a privileged matter, and if it is not 
    programed, then the gentleman handling the rule or any member of 
    the Rules Committee, may call it up as a privileged matter. Is my 
    understanding correct about that?
        The Speaker: The gentleman's understanding is correct. Of 
    course, the question of recognition is with the Chair, where there 
    are two similar preferential matters, but the gentleman's 
    understanding is correct that after 7 legislative days a member of 
    the Rules Committee could call it up.
        If it were a question of recognition, if the same preferential 
    status existed at the same time, recognition rests with the 
    Chair.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XI clause 4(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1995), 
        for the procedure where a special rule has been on the calendar 
        for seven legislative days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.15 If a resolution providing a special order of business is 
    reported from the Committee on Rules and is not called up by the 
    Member making the report within seven legislative days thereafter, 
    any member of the Rules Committee may call the resolution up, and 
    the Speaker shall recognize the Member seeking recognition for that 
    purpose as a matter of highest privilege.

    On Sept. 25, 1980,(13) the following proceedings 
occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 27417-24, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of privilege, and pursuant to clause 4(c) of House rule 
    XI, I call up House Resolution 675 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, section 402(a) of the Congressional 
        Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) 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 bill (H.R. 6674) to amend the National 
        Visitor Center Facilities Act of 1968 to authorize additional 
        funds, and for other purposes, and the first reading of the 
        bill shall be dispensed with. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Under the rule, this 
    resolution is a highly privileged one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) is recognized for 1 
    hour. . . .
        Mr. Lott: Mr. Speaker, I yield the usual 30 minutes to a 
    majority member of the Committee on Rules, should the majority 
    choose to use its time, but I reserve to myself the balance of the 
    time not used by the majority.
        Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, I have invoked this rarely used House rule, clause 
    4(c) of

[[Page 9974]]

    rule XI, because I think there comes a time when we must invoke the 
    House rules in order to call to the attention of the House and the 
    American people the fact that we are ignoring, even violating, a 
    far more important law and House rule which should be binding 
    on this Congress. I am referring, of course, to the Congressional 
    Budget Act of 1974 . . . .
        Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by just asking my colleagues to 
    vote no on the previous question. It is a vote against violating 
    the Budget Act. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.

Special Rule Withdrawn From Consideration

Sec. 18.16 Where a special rule providing for the consideration of a 
    measure was pending when a recess was declared to await the receipt 
    of an engrossed bill (when the rules allowed any Member to demand 
    the reading in full of an engrossed bill), the manager of the 
    special rule withdrew it from consideration since no action had 
    been taken thereon.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(15) the House was considering House 
Resolution 665, offered by Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, from the 
Committee on Rules, providing for taking a bill from the Speaker's 
table and agreeing to Senate amendments thereto. Before a vote was had 
on the resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
declared a recess pending the receipt of the engrossed copy of another 
bill, H.R. 10222, the Food Stamp Act of 1964. When the House 
reconvened, the Speaker announced that the unfinished business was the 
reading of the latter bill. Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the status of the resolution pending at the 
recess. The Speaker, without responding to the inquiry, recognized Mr. 
Bolling, the manager of the resolution, who then withdrew the 
resolution from consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member Who Withdrew Resolution Recognized Again

Sec. 18.17 A Member calling up a privileged resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules is recognized for a full hour notwithstanding 
    the fact that he has previously called up the resolution and 
    temporarily withdrawn it after debate.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(16) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
called up at

[[Page 9975]]

the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 665, making in 
order the consideration of a wheat-cotton measure. While the resolution 
was pending, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a 
recess to await the receipt of the engrossed copy of a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 7303-08, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the recess, Mr. Bolling withdrew House Resolution 665 in 
order that the engrossed copy of the bill could be taken up as 
unfinished business. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the 
Speaker stated that when the Committee on Rules resolution was again 
brought up, the Member calling it up would be recognized for a full 
period of debate despite the fact he had previously brought it up, 
debated and withdrew it:

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, in view of 
    the withdrawal of the resolution by the gentleman from Missouri 
    [Mr. Bolling] do I understand that we start all over again on the 
    consideration of the rule for the wheat-cotton bill?
        The Speaker: When the gentleman calls it up, the understanding 
    of the gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Halleck: We will start all over again with 30 minutes on a 
    side?
        The Speaker: That is correct.

Majority Leader by Unanimous Consent Called Up Special Rule

Sec. 18.18 The Majority Leader, by unanimous consent, called up on 
    behalf of the Committee on Rules a resolution providing for the 
    consideration of a bill.

    On June 3, 1948,(17) Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, the 
Majority Leader, called up by unanimous consent, and on behalf of the 
Committee on Rules, House Resolution 621, providing for the 
consideration of a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 7108, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minority Member of Committee on Rules Called Up Special Rule

Sec. 18.19 A minority member of the Committee on Rules called up and 
    obtained consideration of a resolution reported by that committee 
    providing a special order of business.

    On July 14, 1949,(18) James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New 
York, a minority member of the Committee on Rules, called up House 
Resolution 278, making in order the consideration of a bill. Mr. 
Wadsworth delivered the remarks below in explanation of his action, 
which was contrary to usual practice:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 95 Cong. Rec. 9511, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wadsworth: Mr. Speaker, un-der rather unusual circumstances 
    and

[[Page 9976]]

    in violation of some of the traditions of the House, as a minority 
    Member I venture to call up House Resolution 278, and ask for its 
    immediate consideration. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, in further explanation of this unusual 
    performance, of a member of the minority of the Committee on Rules 
    calling up a rule, may I say I can see no member of the majority 
    party of the Committee on Rules here present to take charge of the 
    rule. I have, however, consulted with the gentleman from Tennessee 
    who, I am informed on infallible authority, is the Democratic whip, 
    and I have his consent to behave in this atrocious manner.
        I understand under the rules 1 hour of debate is in order. On 
    this side of the aisle no requests for time have been made to speak 
    on the rule. I now inquire if there are any requests for time on 
    the majority side?
        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker . . . if 
    there is no request for time on the rule, if the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Wadsworth] will move the previous question, since he has 
    called the rule up, I believe that would be in order and we could 
    proceed with the consideration of the bill.
        Mr. Wadsworth: Mr. Speaker, it is with great cheerfulness that 
    I move the previous question on the rule.

Special Rule Called Up on Same Day Reported

Sec. 18.20 When a resolution from the Committee on Rules is called up 
    the same day it is reported, recognition for debate is not in order 
    until the House agrees by a two-thirds vote to consider the 
    resolution.

    On May 26, 1964,(19) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
reported at the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 
726, making in order the consideration of an appropriation bill, and 
asked for its consideration. In answer to parliamentary inquiries by 
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
advised that a two-thirds vote was required to consider the resolution 
on the same day reported, and that no debate was in order until the 
House decided whether to consider the resolution.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 11951, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. For consideration of Committee on Rules reports on the same day 
        reported, see Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 729(a) (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Amendments Were Agreed to Before Member Reporting Special 
    Rule Recognized for Debate

Sec. 18.21 Where a privileged resolution is reported by the Committee 
    on Rules, with committee amendments, the amendments are reported 
    (and in some cases acted

[[Page 9977]]

    upon) before the Member reporting the resolution is recognized for 
    debate thereon.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(1) the Committee on Rules reported 
House Resolution 845, providing for the consideration of H.R. 11926, 
limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts in apportionment cases, 
although that bill had not been reported by the committee to which it 
had been referred. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
directed the Clerk, after the reading of the resolution, to read the 
committee amendments. The amendments were then agreed to and the 
Speaker recognized Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, the manager of the 
resolution, for one hour of debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 110 Cong. Rec. 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Generally the Chair puts the question on 
minor perfecting committee amendments to a special rule before 
recognizing the Member calling it up for debate. But where the 
amendments are more substantive (as in the case of a 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute), the manager 
may be recognized to debate the amendment(s) and the resolution under 
the hour rule.

Special Rule (and Bill Made in Order) Called Up on District Monday

Sec. 18.22 On a District of Columbia Monday, the Speaker recognized a 
    member of the Committee on Rules to call up a privileged resolution 
    relating to the order of business, and later recognized the 
    chairman of another committee to call up the business made in order 
    thereby, prior to recognizing the chairman of the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia to call up District business.

    On Sept. 24, 1962,(2) which was District of Columbia 
Monday, the Committee on the District of Columbia did not assert its 
right to call up District business. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, of the 
Committee on Rules to call up House Resolution 804 (a privileged 
resolution making in order the consideration of S.J. Res. 224, 
authorizing the President to call up armed forces reservists). 
Following the adoption of the resolution, the Speaker recognized Carl 
Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman of

[[Page 9978]]

the Committee on Armed Services, to control debate on and call up the 
bill made in order by the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 20489, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the adoption of the bill, the Speaker announced it was 
District of Columbia day and then recognized John L. McMillan, of South 
Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, to 
call up District business.

Immediate Vote on Resolution After Motion To Discharge Agreed To

Sec. 18.23 Prior to the 102d Congress, where the Committee on Rules was 
    discharged from further consideration of a resolution providing a 
    special order of business, the vote then came immediately on the 
    adoption of the resolution, and recognition to debate the 
    resolution was not in order.

    On June 11, 1945,(3) the House agreed to a motion to 
discharge the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of 
House Resolution 7, making in order the consideration of a bill. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, advised Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, that the vote would then be taken immediately on the 
resolution itself, without debate.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 5896, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. See Rule XXVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1995) for 
        the current procedure when a special rule is discharged from 
        the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair Declined Recognition for Unanimous-consent Request To Revoke 
    Special Rule

Sec. 18.24 The Speaker Pro Tempore declined to recognize a Member to 
    ask unanimous consent for the revocation of a special rule, 
    previously agreed to, permitting the consideration of conference 
    reports on the same day reported.

    On Sept. 25, 1961,(5) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made the 
following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 21183, 21184, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous-consent request to make 
    concerning the procedure of the House. I ask unanimous consent that 
    the action by which clause 2 of Rule XXVIII was suspended a week 
    ago last Saturday be revoked, and that clause 2, Rule XXVIII of the 
    Rules of the House of Representatives be restored.

    Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declined 
to recognize Mr. Gross for that request.

[[Page 9979]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVIII clause 2 provides a three-day 
layover of conference reports before they are considered. The special 
rule sought to be revoked by Mr. Gross provided for consideration of 
conference reports on the same day reported.

Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 18.25 While the House customarily does not consider legislation 
    after the Speaker has begun to recognize 
    Members for ``special-order speeches,'' there is no House rule 
    prohibiting consideration of legislative business at any time the 
    House is in session; thus, on one occasion, the Speaker recognized 
    a Member between ``special-order speeches'' to request 
    consideration of a House concurrent resolution by unanimous 
    consent.

    On Mar. 9, 1976,(6) the proceedings in the House after a 
special-order speech had concluded, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 122 Cong. Rec. 5897-99, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) Without objection, the remaining 
    special orders will be postponed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Speaker, will this have the effect of permitting other 
    legislation to be brought up?
        The Speaker: Yes.
        Mr. Bauman: Under the rules, after special orders begin, 
    legislation cannot be brought up.
        The Speaker: There is not a rule to that effect.
        Mr. Bauman: Reserving the right to object to the request for 
    suspending the special orders, Mr. Speaker, is that not correct?
        The Speaker: No. Normally we do not consider business after the 
    beginning of special orders, but there is no rule of the House 
    which prohibits such consideration. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent for the immediate consideration of the concurrent 
    resolution (H. Con. Res. 577). . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the concurrent resolution.
        The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:

                                H. Con. Res. 577

            Whereas, in recognition of the Bicentennial celebrations of 
        the United States of America, the House of Lords and the House 
        of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great 
        Britain and Northern Ireland have unanimously adopted motions 
        respectfully praying that Her Majesty, the Queen, direct that 
        an original copy of the Magna Carta be placed on loan to the 
        people of the United States for a period of one year . . . Now, 
        therefore, be it
            Resolved, by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That (a) a delegation of Members of Congress shall 
        be appointed to proceed at the invitation of the two Houses of

[[Page 9980]]

        Parliament, to the United Kingdom, there to attend the 
        presentation of the Magna Carta, under suitable auspices, to 
        the people of the United States . . . .

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker took the floor on this 
occasion to express his strong 
support for the consideration 
by unanimous consent of a concurrent resolution authorizing appointment 
of a delegation to accept the British Parliament's loan of the Magna 
Carta (a resolution similar to one previously rejected by the House 
without extended debate).