[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 17. Committees]
[E. Committee on Rules]
[Â§ 57. Consideration and Adoption by House of Resolutions Reported From the Committee]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3104-3119]
 
                               CHAPTER 17
 
                               Committees
 
                         E. COMMITTEE ON RULES
 
Sec. 57. Consideration and Adoption by House of Resolutions Reported 
    From the Committee

Hour Rule for Debate on Resolutions and on Amendments

Sec. 57.1 Debate on resolutions reported by the Committee on Rules 
    providing for investigations is under the hour rule and no 
    amendments are in order [unless the Member in charge yields for 
    that purpose or the House votes down the previous question when 
    moved at the expiration of the hour].

[[Page 3105]]

    On Apr. 8, 1937,(10) Mr. Arthur H. Greenwood, of 
Indiana, a member of the Committee on Rules, called up for immediate 
consideration a resolution that would have authorized the Speaker to 
appoint a special committee to investigate subversive activities of 
groups or individuals operating within the United States. Mr. Carl E. 
Mapes, of Michigan, immediately propounded the following parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 3283, 3290, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, this resolution and the one to follow it, the Dies 
    resolution, provide for the appointment of investigating 
    committees. Each resolution is somewhat extensive and contains 
    separate paragraphs and sections that relate to different subject 
    matters. My inquiry is, Will there be opportunity to read the 
    resolutions section by section and to offer amendments to them?
        The Speaker: (11) The resolution is being considered 
    in the House under the rules and precedents, and it will be 
    considered in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mapes: To construe the Speaker's ruling----
        The Speaker: If the previous question is ordered, of course, 
    there will be no opportunity to offer amendments to the resolution.
        Mr. Mapes: There will be no opportunity for amendments?
        The Speaker: Not if the previous question is agreed to.
        The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Greenwood] is recognized.

    Following an hour of debate on the merits of the resolution, Mr. 
Greenwood then moved the previous question, which was defeated. In 
response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker pro tempore Fred M. 
Vinson, of Kentucky, had stated that this left the resolution open to 
amendment, but the House immediately agreed to a motion to lay the 
resolution on the table. A motion to reconsider the vote to table the 
resolution was also laid on the table.
    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. Greenwood: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Malley: If the motion for the previous question is 
    defeated, the resolution will then be open for amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is well informed.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: If we vote down the motion for the previous 
    question, then, the Speaker states, the resolution will be open for 
    amendment. Will we then be under the 5-minute rule? Will the rest 
    of us who are opposed to the reso

[[Page 3106]]

    lution be enabled to speak on it or offer amendments?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Being in the House, its consideration 
    will be under the 1-hour rule.
        Mr. Rankin: Then every Member who rose to speak would be 
    recognized for 1 hour? I am for that.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Any Member recognized by the Chair 
    would be entitled to recognition for 1 hour.
        The gentleman from Indiana moves the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    the noes seemed to have it.
        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to lay the resolution upon the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is upon the preferential 
    motion of the gentleman from North Carolina to lay the resolution 
    on the table.
        The question was taken; and there were on a division (demanded 
    by Mr. Greenwood)--ayes 184, nays 38.
        So the motion to lay the resolution on the table was agreed to.
        On motion of Mr. Warren, a motion to reconsider the vote by 
    which the resolution was tabled was laid on the table.

Offering Amendment by Direction of Committee

Sec. 57.2 By direction of the Committee on Rules, the Member who called 
    up the resolution offered an amendment.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(12) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, a Member called up a resolution creating a select committee and 
promptly offered an amendment to the resolution, also by direction of 
the Committee on Rules. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 27713, 27714, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1013) 
    creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, and ask for 
    its present consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution. . . .
        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the able 
    gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for the purpose of debate, 
    and to myself such time as I shall consume.
        Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Committee on Rules, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Pepper: Page 2, line 24, strike 
        out the semicolon and insert a period.
            Page 2, line 24, after the word ``occurred'', insert ``any 
        allegation referred to in paragraph (1) shall be made under 
        oath and shall specifically state the facts on the basis of 
        which it is made.''
            Page 2, line 25, capitalize the first word ``The''.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Without objection, the 
    committee amendment is agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Technical amendments to resolutions 
reported from the Committee on Rules are normally offered and disposed 
of immediately before debate proceeds under the hour rule.

[[Page 3107]]

Germaneness of Amendments

Sec. 57.3 A resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
    consideration of a measure relating to a certain subject may not be 
    amended by a proposition providing for consideration of another 
    nongermane subject.

    On Sept. 14, 1950,(14) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, who called up House 
Resolution 842 from the Committee on Rules as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 14832, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 842 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill (H.R. 8920) to reduce excise taxes, and for 
        other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and the 
        same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table; that the Senate 
        amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to; that the 
        conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of 
        the two Houses on the said bill be, and hereby is, agreed to; 
        and that the Speaker shall immediately appoint conferees 
        without intervening motion.

    Following debate, Mr. Sabath moved the previous question on the 
resolution, which was rejected by a yea and nay vote. Thereupon, Mr. 
Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, offered an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 14842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Eberharter: Strike out all after the 
    word ``Resolved'' and insert in lieu thereof the following:
        ``That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
    bill H.R. 8920 with Senate amendments thereto be, and the same is 
    hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end--
        ``(1) That all Senate amendments other than amendment No. 191 
    be, and the same are hereby, disagreed to and the conference 
    requested thereon by the Senate is agreed to; and
        ``(2) That Senate amendment No. 191 be, and the same is hereby, 
    agreed to with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter 
    proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert the following:

                     `` `title vii--excess-profits tax

     `` `Sec. 701. Excess-profits tax applied to taxable years ending 
                            after June 30, 1950

        `` `Notwithstanding section 122(a) of the Revenue Act of 1945, 
    the provisions of subchapter E of chapter 2 of the Internal Revenue 
    Code shall apply to taxable years ending after June 30, 1950.

    `` `Sec. 701. Computation of tax in case of taxable year beginning 
            before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950

        `` `Section 710(a) (relating to imposition of excess-profits 
    tax) is hereby

[[Page 3108]]

    amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
        `` ` ``(8) Taxable years beginning before July 1, 1950, and 
    ending after June 30, 1950: In the case of a taxable year beginning 
    before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950, the tax shall 
    be an amount equal to that portion of a tentative tax, computed 
    without regard to this paragraph, which the number of days in such 
    taxable year after June 30, 1950, bears to the total number of days 
    in such taxable year.''

             `` `Sec. 703. Specific exemption reduced to 5,000

        `` `Paragraph (1) of section (b) (relating to definition of 
    adjusted excess profits net income) is hereby amended by striking 
    out ``$10,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$5,000.''

                  ``Sec. 704. Unused excess-profits credit

        `` `(a) Definition of unused excess-profits credit: Section 
    710(c)(2) (relating to definition of unused excess-profits credit) 
    is hereby amended to read as follows:
        `` ` ``(2) Definition of unused excess-profits credit: The term 
    `unused excess-profits credit' means the excess, if any, of the 
    excess-profits credit for any taxable year ending after June 30, 
    1950, over the excess-profits net income for such taxable year, 
    computed on the basis of the excess-profits credit applicable to 
    such taxable year. The unused excess-profits credit for a taxable 
    year of less than 12 months shall be an amount which is such part 
    of the unused excess-profits credit determined under the preceding 
    sentence as the number of days in the taxable year is of the number 
    of days in the 12 months ending with the close of the taxable year. 
    The unused excess-profits credit for a taxable year beginning 
    before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950, shall be an 
    amount which is such part of the unused excess-profits credit 
    determined under the preceding provisions of this paragraph as the 
    number of days in such taxable year after June 30, 1950, is of the 
    total number of days in such taxable year.''
        `` `(b) Computation of carry-over: Section 710(c)(4) is hereby 
    amended to read as follows: . . .' ''

    Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, made a point of order against the 
amendment and the following transpired: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at pp. 14843, 14844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that the amendment is neither germane to 
    the resolution sought to be amended, nor to the Senate amendment 
    No. 191. The language of the Senate amendment would direct the 
    Committee on Ways and Means of the House and the Finance Committee 
    of the Senate to conduct a study of excess-profits-tax legislation 
    during the Eighty-second Congress, ostensibly to report back to the 
    House and Senate for passage with a retroactive date of July 1, 
    1950, or October 1, 1950.
        The provision of the bill does not in any way attempt to 
    legislate an excess-profit tax in connection with H.R. 8920. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania proposes an 
    excess-profits tax in connection with

[[Page 3109]]

    H.R. 8920. The amendment is a specific provision for an excess-
    profits tax. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not in 
    order, that it is not germane either to the resolution before the 
    House or to the section of the bill on which the instructions are 
    sought to be given. . . .

        Mr. Eberharter: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, this amendment 
    seeks to amend the resolution reported out by the Committee on 
    Rules. This resolution waives points of order with respect to other 
    rules of the House. Under the rules of the House when a bill comes 
    from the other body with amendments containing matter which would 
    have been subject to a point of order in the House then the 
    amendments must be considered in the Committee of the Whole. The 
    resolution reported out by the Committee on Rules seeks to waive 
    that rule.
        If a resolution reported out by the Committee on Rules can 
    waive one rule of the House, why cannot the House by the adoption 
    of a substitute resolution, which this is, waive other rules? I 
    contend, Mr. Speaker, that this substitute for the resolution 
    reported out by the Committee on Rules is just as germane and just 
    as much in order as the actual resolution reported out by the 
    Committee on Rules; they are similar.
        Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules is to waive a rule requiring that matter subject 
    to a point of order in the first place in the House if put in the 
    Senate shall be considered in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union. The resolution of the Committee on Rules 
    waives that. It is our contention, Mr. Speaker, that this being so 
    the House has a right by its vote on this substitute resolution to 
    waive the rule pertaining to germaneness, which my substitute 
    amendment attempts to do. It refers to a specific amendment, 
    amendment No. 191. I call the Speaker's attention to the fact that 
    on page 252 of the bill the last heading is ``Excess-profits tax.''
        Mr. Speaker, there is an excess-profits tax Senate amendment in 
    the bill.
        All I seek to do is to amend the provision calling for 
    different language in respect to excess-profits taxation. I 
    believe, Mr. Speaker, that if the point of order is sustained that 
    in the future the Committee on Rules will be so bound by this 
    precedent that its authority will be very, very much restricted. It 
    seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that for years the Committee on Rules has 
    been reporting out resolutions waiving points of order. When you 
    come down to the last analysis this is the same thing. If the 
    Committee on Rules can waive a point to order, a substitute 
    amendment can waive a point of order. That is all I seek to do. I 
    say in all fairness, Mr. Speaker, if a point of order is sustained, 
    the authority of the Committee on Rules is going to be very, very 
    much restricted in the future.
        I hope the point of order will be overruled and that the 
    membership of the House will be permitted to express their decision 
    on the question of the imposition of an excess-profits tax 
    effective July 1, 1950.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair agrees with a great deal that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania

[[Page 3110]]

    and the gentleman from Colorado say about history, but that is not 
    the question before the Chair to decide at this time.
        It is a rule long established that a resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill 
    relating to a certain subject may not be amended by a proposition 
    providing for the consideration of another and not germane subject 
    or matter.
        It is true that in Senate amendment No. 191 to the bill, which 
    came from the Senate, there is a caption ``Title VII,'' which 
    states ``Excess Profits Tax.'' But in the amendment which the 
    Senate adopted to the House bill there is no excess-profits tax.
        The Chair is compelled to hold under a long line of rulings 
    that this matter, not being germane if offered to the Senate 
    amendment it is not germane here. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Majority Vote Required for Adoption

Sec. 57.4 Only a majority vote is required for the adoption of a 
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules whether or not such 
    vote is taken on the same day the resolution is reported.

    On Aug. 16, 1962,(17) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, who by 
direction of the Committee on Rules was about to offer a privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 763), and to ask for its immediate consideration 
when the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 16759, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that the 
    gentleman from California is moving for the consideration of the 
    rule,(18) and if this is approved by a two-thirds vote, 
    then we will consider the rule, which also has to be approved by a 
    two-thirds vote. Also is the rule granted by the Committee on Rules 
    in reference to H.R. 12333 a closed rule with a motion to recommit 
    with instructions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Reference to ``the rule,'' in this context, actually denotes the 
        resolution since its purpose was to prescribe the framework 
        within which the House would consider a bill (H.R. 12333), to 
        amend title 38, United States Code, to permit the granting of 
        national service life insurance to certain veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The resolution has not been reported as yet, and 
    the gentleman from California has not yet made a motion; but, 
    assuming the gentleman from California offers a motion for the 
    present consideration of the resolution, the question of 
    consideration would be submitted to the membership without debate 
    and a two-thirds vote would be necessary to consider the 
    resolution. If the question of consideration was decided in the af

[[Page 3111]]

    firmative the resolution would then be considered under the regular 
    rules of the House, providing 1 hour of debate, one-half of the 
    time to be assigned to the member of the Rules Committee on the 
    minority side in charge. At the termination of the hour, there 
    would be a majority vote on the adoption of the 
    rule.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. For a similar instance, see 92 Cong. Rec. 5924, 79th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., May 29, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 57.5 The Speaker indicated that a majority vote and not a two-
    thirds vote would be required for the adoption of a resolution 
    reported by the Committee on Rules providing a special order of 
    business, despite provisions in that resolution which were 
    inconsistent with the standing rules and procedure of the House.

    On Oct. 27, 1971,(20) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, who, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, called up House Resolution 661 and asked for its 
immediate consideration. The measure provided that upon its adoption, 
it would be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 7248), to 
amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other acts 
dealing with higher education. Among the provisions of the resolution 
was the following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 37765, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education 
    and Labor now printed in the bill as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, said substitute 
    shall be read for amendment by titles instead of by sections . . . 
    and further, all titles, parts, or sections of the said substitute, 
    the subject matter of which is properly within the jurisdiction of 
    any other standing committee of the House of Representatives, shall 
    be subject to a point of order for such reason if such point of 
    order is properly raised during the consideration of H.R. 7248.

    As discussion on the resolution proceeded, Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, 
of Hawaii, addressed the following question to Mr. Bolling: 
(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id. at p. 37767.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When a bill containing matters belonging properly to the 
    jurisdiction of two committees is referred to one of the two 
    committees, and that committee does act upon the bill and reports 
    such bill out on to the floor of the House, the House rules as they 
    now exist provides that jurisdiction was properly exercised over 
    all matter in the bill by the committee to which the bill was 
    referred.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1973), 
        where the commentary provides, in part, that ``According to the 
        later practice the erroneous reference of a public bill, if it 
        remains uncorrected, in effect gives jurisdiction to the 
        committee receiving it (4 [Hinds' Precedents] Sec. Sec. 4365-
        4371; 7 [Cannon's Precedents] Sec. Sec. 1489, 2108-2113; 8 
        [Cannon's Precedents] Sec. 2312). And it is too late to move a 
        change of reference after such committee has reported the bill 
        (7 [Cannon's Precedents] Sec. 2110; 8 [Cannon's Precedents] 
        Sec. 2312).''

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

[[Page 3112]]

        Now, my question is: Because the rule, now being proposed by 
    House Resolution 661, in effect contravenes that House rule and in 
    effect is an amendment to the House rules, would it not take a two-
    thirds majority for the passage of the resolution,(2) in 
    order that the section pertaining to jurisdiction might be legally 
    effective?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Rule XXVII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (1973) 
        which provides, in part, that ``No rule shall be suspended 
        except by a vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum 
        being present.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Bolling yielded, at Mr. Matsunaga's request, for the following 
parliamentary inquiry:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 37768, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Speaker, at this point is it proper for the 
    Speaker to determine whether a two-thirds veto would be required 
    for the passage of this resolution, House Resolution 661, or merely 
    a majority?
        The Speaker: The resolution from the Committee on Rules makes 
    in order the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7248) and a majority 
    vote is required for that purpose.
        Mr. Matsunaga: Even with the reference to the last section, Mr. 
    Speaker, relating to the raising of a point of order on a bill 
    which is properly reported out by a committee to which the bill was 
    referred, which would in effect contravene an existing rule of the 
    House?
        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules proposes to make in order 
    in its resolution (H. Res. 661) the opportunity to raise points of 
    order against the bill on committee jurisdictional grounds, but as 
    is the case with any resolution reported by the Committee on Rules 
    making a bill a special order of business, only a majority vote is 
    required.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. It should be noted, however, that a vote of not less than two-
        thirds of the Members voting (a quorum being present), is 
        required for the consideration of a resolution on the same day 
        that it is reported by the Committee on Rules (except during 
        the last three days of a session). See Sec. Sec. 56.1, 56.2, 
        supra, and Rule XI clause 23, House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 
        (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Recommit

Sec. 57.6 A motion to recommit a resolution reported by the Committee 
    on Rules is not in order after the previous question has been 
    ordered.

    On Feb. 2, 1955,(5) Speaker pro tempore Robert C. Byrd, 
of West
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 1076, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3113]]

Virginia, recognized Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, who, acting by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up a resolution (H. Res. 
63), and asked for its immediate consideration. House Resolution 63 
authorized the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to conduct an 
investigation into various programs benefiting veterans, their 
survivors and dependents. The proposed committee amendment to the 
resolution contained language intended to prevent any duplication of 
investigatory work undertaken by other House committees.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p.1077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the course of the measure's consideration, time allocated to Mr. 
Madden was yielded to Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts,(7) who sought an amendment striking out the 
language relating to investigatory duplication. Mr. Madden then 
indicated, however, that it was not his intent to yield to Mrs. Rogers 
for the purpose of an amendment. Debate resumed, the previous question 
was ordered, and the Chair put the question on the committee amendment 
which was agreed to. The Chair then recognized Mrs. Rogers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 1079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a motion to recommit 
    striking out the language on line 15 beginning with ``The 
    committee'' and ending with ``House.'' (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The language proposed to be struck was that segment of the 
        committee amendment which stated: ``The committee shall not 
        undertake any investigation of any matter which is under 
        investigation by another committee of the House.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) Under the rules, a motion to 
    recommit a resolution from the Committee on Rules is not in 
    order.(10)

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rules (11) provide that ``It 
shall always be in order to call up for consideration a report from the 
Committee on Rules on a rule, joint rule, or the order of business . . 
. and, pending the consideration thereof, the Speaker may entertain one 
motion that the House adjourn; but after the result is announced the 
Speaker shall not entertain any other dilatory motion until the report 
shall have been fully disposed. . . .'' The motion to commit or 
recommit after the ordering of the previous question has been excluded 
in the later practice, based upon the initial ruling of Speaker
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
10. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2753. See also 97 Cong. Rec. 11398, 
        82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 14, 1951, for a similar ruling.
11. Rule XI clause 4 (b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3114]]

Charles F. Crisp,(12) of Georgia, to the effect that this 
rule requires the House to vote directly on the report of the Committee 
on Rules since the previous question has been ordered. But earlier 
rulings were to the contrary.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5594, as affirmed by 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5597, 5601, and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2750-
        54.
13. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5593, 5595, 5596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 57.7 A motion to recommit a joint resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules, creating a joint committee of Congress, can be 
    made in order by a special order reported by that committee, 
    whether or not the joint resolution is privileged under Rule XI 
    clause 23 (prohibiting a motion to recommit).

    On May 25, 1970,(14) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, called up as privileged House 
Resolution 1021, which resolution provided as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 16973, 16994, 16995, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1117) to establish a Joint 
    Committee on Environment and Technology. After general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the joint resolution and shall continue 
    not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the 
    joint resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
    rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the joint 
    resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    joint resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered 
    on the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    After the House agreed to the adoption of the preceding resolution, 
Mr. Sisk then moved that the House resolve into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 1117 and the 
House agreed to the motion. At the conclusion of consideration and 
amendment in the Committee of the Whole, the Committee rose and the 
House agreed to the amendments and adopted the joint resolution.

Voting Down Previous Question on Privileged Resolution; Effect

Sec. 57.8 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised 
    that if the

[[Page 3115]]

    previous question of a privileged resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules were voted down: (1) the resolution would be 
    open to further consideration, amendment, and debate; (2) a motion 
    to table would be in order and would be preferential; and (3) the 
    Chair, under the hour rule, would recognize the Member who appeared 
    to be leading the opposition.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(15) by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, called up House Resolution 
1013, creating a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. After an 
hour of debate on the resolution, Mr. Pepper moved the previous 
question. Prior to putting the question, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered several parliamentary inquiries as to the 
effect of defeating the motion for the previous question. The 
proceedings were as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 27713, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Id. at p. 27725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Hays: 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 [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Waggonner: 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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the previous question is rejected, the 
motions specified in Rule XVI clause 4 are in order in the order 
specified.
    Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania, then sought recognition for a 
further parliamentary inquiry:

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Chair would suggest that parliamentary inquiries be in the 
    nature of inquiries seeking information as to the parliamentary 
    procedure. Of course, the statement of the Chair is not directed to 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton] will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the previous 
    question is re

[[Page 3116]]

    fused 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.
        Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gallagher: If the previous question is voted down we will 
    have the option to reopen debate, the resolution will be open for 
    amendment, or it can be tabled. Is that the situation as the Chair 
    understands it?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down on the 
    resolution, the time will be in control of some Member in 
    opposition to it, and itwould be open to amendment or to a motion 
    to table.

    Ultimately, the previous question was refused on House Resolution 
1013, and, after an unsuccessful motion by Mr. Waggonner to lay the 
resolution on the table, the Speaker recognized Mr. Hays for one hour 
of debate on the resolution. The House subsequently agreed to an 
amendment offered by Mr. Hays to the resolution and adopted the 
resolution as Amended.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 27725-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 57.9 Where the previous question was voted down on a resolution 
    reported by the Committee on Rules providing for an investigation 
    of sit-down strikes, a motion to lay the resolution on the table 
    was agreed to.

    On April 8, 1937,(18) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, 
called up a resolution from the Committee on Rules, which resolution 
provided for an investigation of an ``epidemic of sit-down strikes . . 
. sweeping the Nation. . . .'' At the conclusion of debate on the 
resolution, Mr. Cox moved the previous question on the resolution, but 
the motion was defeated. The House agreed to a subsequent preferential 
motion to lay the resolution on the table. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 3291, 3301, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(19) The question is on 
    ordering the previous question on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Fred M. Vinson (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Dies) there were--ayes 117, noes 179.

[[Page 3117]]

        Mr. [Dewey J.] Short [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move the resolution be laid on the table.
        Mr. [Martin] Dies [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. [Thomas] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Malley: This vote is on ordering the previous question 
    and not on the resolution?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The vote is on ordering the previous 
    question.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 150, nays 236, not 
    voting 44 . . . .
        So the motion to order the previous question was rejected.
        The Clerk announced the following pairs: . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. Warren: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
        Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution (H. Res. 162) upon 
    the table.
        The motion to lay the resolution (H. Res. 162) on the table was 
    agreed to.

Use of Special Rule Following Defeat of Motion to Suspend Rules

Sec. 57.10 The failure of a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
    does not prejudice the status of a bill and the Committee on Rules 
    may subsequently bring in a special rule providing for its 
    consideration and requiring only a majority vote for its passage.

    On June 5, 1933,(20) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 5767, to authorize 
the appointment of the Governor of the Territory of Hawaii without 
regard to his residency or citizenship there. At the conclusion of 40 
minutes' debate, the yeas and nays were ordered upon demand and there 
were less than two-thirds voting, in favor of the motion to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill. The motion having been rejected, Mr. Thomas L. 
Blanton, of Texas, then inquired as to whether the Committee on Rules 
could nevertheless bring in a rule to take up consideration of H.R. 
5767. Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, assured him that the 
Committee on Rules could report such a rule.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 77 Cong. Rec. 5015, 5022, 5023, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
21. Parliamentarian's Note: On June 6, 1933, the following day, the 
        Committee on Rules reported out a special rule [H. Res. 176], 
        providing for the consideration of H.R. 5767, which was adopted 
        by the House. The bill itself was passed by a majority of the 
        House on June 7, 1933.

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

[[Page 3118]]

Sec. 57.11 The Committee on Rules may report a special rule making in 
    order the consideration of a joint resolution previously defeated 
    the same day on a motion to suspend the rules.

    On Aug. 24 (legislative day of Aug. 23), 1935,(1) 
Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, recognized Mr. Schuyler Otis 
Bland, of Virginia, who moved to suspend the rules and pass Senate 
Joint Resolution 175, which read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 1. 79 Cong. Rec. 14593, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That section 5 of the Independent Offices 
    Appropriation Act, 1934, as amended, be amended by striking out 
    ``October 31, 1935,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``March 31, 
    1936'': Provided That the right of the United States to annul any 
    fraudulent or illegal contract or to institute suit to recover sums 
    paid thereon is in no manner affected by this joint resolution.

    After debate, however, the question was taken, and on a roll call 
vote, the motion to suspend the rules was lost.(2) The House 
then moved to other business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 14600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later in the day, the Speaker recognized Mr. John J. O'Connor, of 
New York, who by direction of the Committee on Rules, presented a 
privileged report on House Resolution 372 and asked for its immediate 
consideration. The resolution read as follows:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 14652.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of (S.J. Res. 175), a 
    joint resolution to extend the time within which contracts may be 
    modified or canceled under the provisions of section 5 of the 
    Independent Offices Appropriation Act 1935, and all points of order 
    against said joint resolution are hereby waived.

    Mr. O'Connor then proceeded to explain the measure, leading to the 
following discussion and resultant response from the Speaker:

        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which was 
    considered today under suspension of the rules but failed of 
    passage. It is a matter about which there was some confusion. It is 
    a very simple matter and has nothing to do with ship subsidies. It 
    merely extends the time within which the President can determine 
    whether or not to cancel or modify the contracts. The President has 
    before him this important situation: Many of these contracts will 
    expire between October of this year and January of next year. I am 
    authorized to say that the President feels he needs this authority.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page 3119]]

        Mr. [Maury] Maverick [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Maverick: After a bill has been passed on, can it be 
    brought up again the same day? What about the Puerto Rico bill, 
    which failed? If we can again bring up the bill made in order by 
    this resolution, we can do it with the Puerto Rico bill, or with 
    any other bill that has been defeated once duringthe day. This bill 
    was defeated a few hours ago.
        The Speaker: The Chair will answer the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry. This is an effort on the part of the 
    gentleman from New York, Chairman of the Rules Committee, to bring 
    this bill up under a special rule.
        The question is up to the House as to whether or not that can 
    be done.
        Mr. Maverick: I did not hear the Chair.
        The Speaker: This is a special rule which is under 
    consideration and is in order.

    Parliamenitarian's Note: Under Rule XI clause 4, the two Houses 
having agreed to a sine die adjournment resolution and the last three 
days of the session being in effect, the requirement of a two-thirds 
vote to consider the rule the same day reported was inapplicable.