[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 5, Chapters 18 - 20]
[Chapter 19. The Committee of the Whole]
[A. In General]
[Â§ 4. Resolving Into Committee of the Whole]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3270-3285]
 
                               CHAPTER 19
 
                       The Committee of the Whole
 
                             A. IN GENERAL
 
Sec. 4. Resolving Into Committee of the Whole

    The House may resolve into the Committee of the Whole pursuant

[[Page 3271]]

to a standing rule, a resolution (i.e., a special rule from the 
Committee on Rules) (16) or on motion.(17) The 
House automatically resolves into the Committee of the Whole in certain 
situations.(18) Thus, when a bill on the Union Calendar is 
called up at the proper time on Calendar Wednesday, the House 
automatically resolves into the Committee of the Whole. (1) 
And when a Union Calendar

[[Page 3272]]

bill is the unfinished business on Calendar Wednesday the Speaker 
declares the House in Committee of the Whole without 
motion.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sec. 4.1, infra. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3214, and 7 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 783, 794 for earlier precedents on 
        resolving into the Committee of the Whole pursuant to special 
        order.
17. Rule XVI clause 9, House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1979), permits 
        a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider 
        bills raising revenue or general appropriation bills anytime 
        after the Journal is read.
            Prior to the amendment to Rule XI clause 4(a) [House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 726 (1979)] effective Jan. 3, 1975 (H. Res. 
        988, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., 120 Cong. Rec. 34469, 34470), to 
        eliminate the authority of the Committee on Ways and Means to 
        report as privileged bills raising revenue, the motion to 
        resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider a general 
        appropriation bill were of equal privilege (4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 3075, 3076). However, the privileged nature of the 
        motion under Rule XVI clause 9 with respect to revenue bills 
        was derived from and was dependent upon the former privilege 
        conferred upon the Committee on Ways and Means under Rule XI 
        clause 4(a) to report revenue measures to the House at any time 
        (4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3076).
            Rule XXIV clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 891 (1979), 
        permits entertainment of a motion to resolve into the Committee 
        of the Whole after one hour of consideration of bills from 
        committees. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3072 et seq. and 
        6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 716 et seq. for earlier 
        precedents relating to timeliness of the motion to resolve into 
        the Committee of the Whole for consideration of revenue or 
        general appropriation measures, and Jefferson's manual, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 328 (1979), for the form of a motion to 
        resolve into the Committee of the Whole.
            Although it is the usual practice to designate the subject 
        to be considered, the House on occasion has resolved into the 
        Committee without designating a specific subject. See 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2318.
            The motion to go into the Committee of the Whole is in 
        order on District Mondays. House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 
        (1979); 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 716-718; and 7 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 876, 1123.
18. See Sec. 4.8, infra, for discussion of resolving into Committee 
        after a ruling by the Speaker on words taken down in Committee; 
        and see Sec. 10.9, infra, for a discussion of procedure in the 
        House after rejecting a recommendation of the Committee to 
        strike the enacting clause.
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 898 (1979); 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 939.
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 898 (1979); 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 940, 942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole is neither 
debatable (3) nor amendable; (4) it may not be 
laid on the table or indefinitely postponed,(5) and the 
previous question may not be demanded on it.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1979); 4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 3078; and 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 716.
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1979); and Sec. 725.
 5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1979); 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 726.
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1979); 4 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 3077-3079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole is listed 
seventh in the daily order of business, but the motion is usually given 
more preferential status by the adoption of a special order reported 
from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill 
``upon adoption of this resolution.'' (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XXIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolving Pursuant to Resolution

Sec. 4.1 Where the House adopts a resolution providing for the 
    immediate consideration of a measure in Committee of the Whole, the 
    House resolves itself into Committee without a motion being made 
    from the floor.

    On Mar. 17, 1970,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole without a motion from the floor after adoption 
of a resolution providing for consideration of a measure in the 
Committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 7690, 7691, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See also 118 Cong. 
        Rec. 28829, 28834, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 17, 1972, for 
        another illustration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 874 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 874

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the House shall resolve itself into the Committee of 
        the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
        of the bill (S. 858) to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act 
        of 1938 with respect to wheat. After general debate, which 
        shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 
        one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
        and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, 
        the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
        rule. At the

[[Page 3273]]

        conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment the 
        Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
        amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
        shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
        thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
        motion to recommit.

        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Sisk) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sisk: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        The Speaker: Pursuant to House Resolution 874, the House 
    resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union for the consideration of the bill (S. 858) to amend 
    the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 with respect to wheat.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill S. 858, with Mr. Flynt in the chair.

Recognition for Motions to Resolve Provided for by Resolution

Sec. 4.2 The recognition by the Speaker of a designated Member to move 
    that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider 
    a particular bill may be provided for by resolution.

    On Sept. 27, 1965,(10)~ after the House agreed to a 
motion discharging a resolution from the Committee on Rules, Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized a Member who had been 
designated by the resolution to move that the House resolve itself into 
the Committee of the Whole for consideration of H. R. 4644, the 
District of Columbia home rule bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 25185-87, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution. [H. Res. 
    515].
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the 
        Speaker shall recognize Representative Abraham J. Multer, or 
        Representative Carlton R. Sickles, or Representative Charles 
        McC Mathias, Junior, or Representative Frank J. Horton to move 
        that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
        House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
        bill (H.R. 4644) to provide an elected mayor, city council, and 
        nonvoting Delegate to the House of Representatives for the 
        District of Columbia, and for other purposes, and all points of 
        order against said bill are hereby waived. After general 
        debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to 
        exceed five hours, to be equally divided and controlled by one 
        of the aforementioned Members and a Member who is opposed to 
        said bill to be designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be 
        read for amendment under the five-minute rule by titles instead 
        of by sections. . . .

        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.

[[Page 3274]]

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were-yeas 223, nays 179, not 
    voting 30. . . .
        So the resolution was agreed to. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Multer].
        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4644) to 
    provide an elected Mayor, City Council, and nonvoting Delegate to 
    the House of Representatives for the District of Columbia, and for 
    other purposes.

Speaker's Discretion in Recognize for Motions to Resolve

Sec. 4.3 Where two bills remain undisposed of by the Committee of the 
    Whole, the Speaker, by recognizing for motions to resolve into the 
    Committee for further consideration of those bills, determines in 
    his discretion the order of consideration of that unfinished 
    business, subject to the will of the House as manifested by the 
    vote on the motion.

    On Nov. 2, 1971,(11) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
indicated that the Chair has discretion to determine the order of 
consideration of unfinished business by recognizing for motions to 
resolve into the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 117 Cong. Rec. 38693, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [F. Edward] Herbert [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hebert: As I understand the situation as of now, and as 
    related to tomorrow, our understanding is that a continuation of 
    consideration of the bill H.R. 2 will be the first order of 
    business when the House meets tomorrow?
        The Speaker: Not under the program, the Chair will answer. 
    There are two unfinished matters pending before the House. One is 
    the Higher Education Act, which has been the unfinished business 
    for several days. It is a matter of discretion of the Chair, and 
    the Chair would like to discuss this matter with all parties 
    concerned.
        Mr. Hebert: I hope the Chair will, because it was my 
    understanding this would be the first order of business tomorrow. 
    That was the reason the committee rose, in deference to the wishes 
    of the Chair.
        The Speaker: The Chair will take that up with parties 
    concerned.

Effect of Refusal to Resolve

Sec. 4.4 Although the House may have agreed that an appropriation bill 
    is to take precedence over other legislation, the House may reach 
    the leg

[[Page 3275]]

    islation of lesser privilege by rejecting the motion to resolve 
    into the Committee of the Whole to consider the appropriation bill.

    On May 9, 1950,(12) during consideration of H.R. 7786, 
the general appropriations bill, 1951, Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated that the House could reach 
legislation of lesser privilege by rejecting the motion that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole on the appropriations 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 6720-24, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House had previously agreed by unanimous consent that 
consideration of the appropriations bill would take precedence over all 
business except conference reports. However, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, sought prior consideration of a resolution disapproving of a 
reorganization plan.

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for 
    the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order 
    that the House is not proceeding in the regular order because under 
    section 205a of the Reorganization Act, which is Public Law 109 of 
    the Eighty-first Congress, first session, any Member of the House 
    is privileged, and this is a highly privileged motion, to make the 
    motion that the House proceed to the consideration of House 
    Resolution 516.
        The gentleman from Michigan being on his feet to present this 
    highly privileged motion, the regular order is that he be 
    recognized for that purpose that the motion be entertained and the 
    question put before the House, and my motion is that the House 
    proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 516.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is the resolution disapproving 
    one of the reorganization plans?
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: That is right, House Resolution 516 
    disapproving plan No. 12. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Texas desire 
    to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, on April 5, 1950, as shown at page 4835 
    of the daily Record of that day, the chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] asked and 
    received unanimous consent that the appropriation bill should have 
    the right-of-way over other privileged business under the rules 
    until disposition, with the exception of conference reports. 
    Therefore. I believe the regular order would be to proceed with the 
    further consideration of H.R. 7786.
        Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Record would speak for itself. 
    . . .
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, may I be 
    heard on the point of order?

[[Page 3276]]

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

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

        The Record further shows that the Speaker put the request and 
    there was no objection.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman.

        Mr. Rankin: We for the first time this year have all the 
    appropriations in one bill. Now, if they drag out consideration 
    under the 5-minute rule beyond the 24th, would that not shut the 
    Congress off entirely from voting on any of these recommendations? 
    So we do have a constitutional right to consider these propositions 
    without having them smothered in this way.

[[Page 3277]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the House 
    always has a constitutional right and power to refuse to go into 
    the Committee of the Whole on any motion made by any Member, so 
    that the House is capable of carrying out its will, whatever may be 
    the will of the majority of the House.
        Continuing, the Chair will state that in the opinion of the 
    present occupant, in view of the unanimous-consent request made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri and granted by the House, if any member 
    of the Appropriations Committee moves that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union to 
    consider the appropriation bill, that motion has preference over 
    any other preferential motion. It is a matter that the House 
    decides when the motion is made as to what it wants to do and it 
    has an opportunity when that motion is made to carry out its will. 
    . . .
        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Priest: My parliamentary inquiry simply is this, that 
    notwithstanding the question of recognition under the unanimous-
    consent request ordered by the House at the request of the 
    gentleman from Missouri, the matter of consideration still is in 
    the House, is it not? If the House refuses to go into the Committee 
    of the Whole it still is a question for the House to decide; is 
    that not correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Exactly, and the gentleman from 
    Michigan or anyone else making the motion could address the 
    question to the Chair, which question the Chair would then have to 
    pass upon.

Resolving to Consider Resolution of Disapproval

Sec. 4.5 A motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the 
    Whole for the consideration of a resolution disapproving a 
    reorganization plan is highly privileged and may be called up by 
    any Member, and the Member is not required to qualify as being in 
    favor of the resolution.

    On June 8, 1961,(13) Speaker pro tempore Oren Harris, of 
Arkansas, indicated that a motion, made pursuant to the Reorganization 
Act of 1949 [5 USC Sec. 912(a)], that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for consideration of a resolution (H. Res. 303) 
disapproving a reorganization plan was privileged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 9775-77, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 107 Cong. 
        Rec. 12905, 12906, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. H. R. Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, is it in order and 
    proper at this time to submit a highly privileged motion?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the matter to which the gentleman 
    refers is highly privileged, it would be in order.

[[Page 3278]]

        Mr. Gross: Then, Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of section 
    205(a) Public Law 109, the Reorganization Act of 1949, I submit a 
    motion. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown [of Ohio]: As I understand the 
    parliamentary situation the motion would be to take up the 
    resolution of rejection; is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to state that the 
    motion has not yet been reported; but the Chair understands that 
    the motion is for the House to go into Committee of the Whole House 
    for the consideration of it.
        Mr. Brown: If that should be defeated, of course, we would not 
    have the resolution of rejection before us.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The Clerk will report the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Iowa.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Gross moves that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of H. Res. 303 introduced by Mr. Monagan 
        disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2 transmitted to the 
        Congress by the President on April 27, 1961.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross].
        The motion was rejected.

Sec. 4.6 The rejection of a motion that the House resolve itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a disapproval 
    resolution does not preclude a subsequent motion to the same 
    effect.

    On June 8, 1961,(14) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, submitted 
a motion that the House resolve into the Committee of the Whole to 
consider a resolution disapproving of a reorganization plan. Speaker 
pro tempore Oren Harris, of Arkansas, indicated that a subsequent 
motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
for consideration of a resolution disapproving the same plan would not 
be precluded by the rejection of the pending motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 107 Cong. Rec. 9775-77, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: As I understand, there is a motion pending to call 
    up what is known as Reorganization Plan No. 2.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state that the 
    gentleman from Iowa indicated he would submit such a motion, but it 
    has not been reported.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it. . . .
        Mr. Halleck: If the pending motion is voted down, would it 
    still be in order

[[Page 3279]]

    at a subsequent date to call up a motion rejecting plan No. 2 for 
    another vote? I ask that because I am opposed to plan No. 2. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The opinion of the Chair, under the 
    Reorganization Act, it could be called up at a subsequent 
    date.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Under 5 USC Sec. 912(a), it is provided: ``When the committee has 
        reported, or has been discharged from further consideration of, 
        a resolution with respect to a reorganization plan, it is at 
        any time thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to 
        the same effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to 
        the consideration of the resolution. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: In other words, the action that would be taken 
    today would not be final?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Halleck: In view of the fact that there was no notice to 
    the membership of the House of Representatives on either side that 
    this matter would come on for action today, if plan No. 2 is not 
    voted on today it would subsequently be voted on?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.

After Motion to Discharge

Sec. 4.7 The House may resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    to consider a bill before the House as a result of a motion to 
    discharge.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(16) after agreeing to discharge H.R. 
2245, to repeal the tax on oleomargarine from the Committee on 
Agriculture, the House agreed to resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for consideration of that bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 94 Cong. Rec. 4835, 4841, 4842, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the motion to discharge the Committee on Agriculture from the 
    further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2245) to repeal the tax on 
    oleomargarine.
        The Speaker:(l7) Did the gentleman sign the 
    petition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rivers: I did, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.

    After conclusion of the debate on the motion to discharge, the 
following proceedings occurred:

        The Speaker: All time has expired.
        The question is, Shall the Committee on Agriculture be 
    discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 2245?
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and 
    there were--yeas 235, nays 121, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 
    72. . . .
        The Speaker: Without interfering with the rights of the 
    gentleman from South Carolina to move to go into the Committee of 
    the Whole,(18) the Chair
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979) 
        provides: ``If the motion prevails to discharge one of the 
        standing committees of the House from any public bill or 
        resolution pending before the committee, it shall then be in 
        order for any Member who signed the motion to move that the 
        House proceed to the immediate consideration of such bill or 
        resolution (such motion not being debatable), and such motion 
        is hereby made of high privilege. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3280]]

    will entertain consent requests for extensions of remarks only. . . 


        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
    the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2245) to repeal the tax on 
    oleomargarine; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that general debate be limited to 3 hours, the 
    time to be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from 
    Kansas [Mr. Hope] and myself.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from South Carolina?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from South Carolina.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill H.R. 2245, with Mr. Arends in the chair.

Resolving After Ruling on Words Taken Down

Sec. 4.8 After the Speaker has ruled on words taken down in Committee, 
    the House automatically again resolves into the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(19) during consideration of H.R. 2362, 
the elementary and secondary education bill of 1965, and after Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled on words taken down in the 
Committee of the Whole, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
indicated that a motion that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee was not necessary because that procedure is automatic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 6107, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 
        18441, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1965, for another example 
        of the automatic resolution into the Committee of theWhole 
        following the Speaker's ruling on words taken down in the 
        Committee. Generally, the procedure for taking down words in 
        the Committee of the Whole is discussed at Ch. 29 Sec. Sec. 48-
        62, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings in the House were as follows:

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the words objected to.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            I might suggest further you can beat this dog all you want 
        for political purposes; you can demagog however subtly and try 
        to scare people off at the expense of the Nation's 
        schoolchildren with your demagoguery(20)--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. The weight of authority now supports the view that allegations of a 
        Member's ``demagoguery'' do constitute disorderly language in 
        debate. See Ch. 29, Consideration and Debate, Sec. 60, infra.

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

[[Page 3281]]

        The Speaker: The Chair feels that Members in debate have 
    reasonable flexibility in expressing their thoughts.
        The Chair sees nothing about the words that contravene the 
    rules of the House. The point of order is not sustained.
        The Committee will resume its sitting.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 2362) with Mr. Bolling in the 
    chair. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Thompson].
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
        Mr. [Robert P.] Griffin [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I object.

        There has been no motion to resolve the House into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union. The 
    gentleman is out of order at this point.
        The Chairman: The House automatically goes back into the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell].

Automatic Call of House on Motion to Resolve

Sec. 4.9 An automatic roll call was had on a motion to go into the 
    Committee of the Whole to consider an appropriation bill after an 
    intervening motion to adjourn was decided in the negative by 
    division vote.

    On Feb. 14, 1946,(21) an automatic roll call was had on 
the motion to go into the Committee of the Whole to consider H.R. 5452, 
making appropriations for the Departments of the Treasury and the Post 
Office after rejection of a motion to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 21. 92 Cong. Rec. 1324, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis] Ludlow [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    5452) making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
    Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, and for other 
    purposes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(22) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Indiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 22. John J. Sparkman (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Cochran) there were--ayes 103, no 1.
        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will count. [After 
    counting.] One hundred and seventy-four Members present; not a 
    quorum.

[[Page 3282]]

        Mr. [Compton I.] White [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    White) there were--ayes 31, no 103.
        So the motion was rejected.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Ludlow].
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant-at-Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were-yeas 243, nays 16, not 
    voting 171, as follows: . . .

Motion to Resolve as Related to Question of Consideration

Sec. 4.10 The question of consideration may not be raised against a 
    motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the 
    consideration of a proposition.

    On May 21, 1958,(23) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
ruled that the question of consideration could not be raised against 
the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of a bill, the motion to resolve being itself a test of 
the will of the House on consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 23. 104 Cong. Rec. 9216, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Withdrawing Motion to Resolve

Sec. 4.11 A Member may withdraw his motion that the House resolve 
    itself into the Committee of the Whole at any time before the 
    motion is acted upon, and unaumous consent is not required.

    On Mar. 17, 1971,(24) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
stated that a motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
of the Whole could be withdrawn without House permission at any time 
before the motion is acted upon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 24. 117 Cong. Rec.  6847, 6848, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Com

[[Page 3283]]

    mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 223) proposing an 
    amendment to the Constitution of the United States, extending the 
    right to vote to citizens 18 years of age or older.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York.
        For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa rise?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Is it proposed to take up this joint resolution at 
    this hour?
        The Speaker: For general debate only.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a point of order that 
    a quorum is not present.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the motion.

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, does that not require unanimous 
    consent?
        The Speaker: The gentleman has the authority of withdrawing his 
    motion before it is acted upon by the House.
        The gentleman has withdrawn his motion.

Sec. 4.12 The chairman of the committee, at the request of the Speaker, 
    withdrew his motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider a 
    bill reported by his committee, in order that the House might 
    consider emergency legislation reported by another committee.

    On Dec. 9, 1970,(25) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, at the request of 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, withdrew his motion that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole. This motion 
was withdrawn to enable the House immediately to consider emergency 
railroad strike legislation reported by the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 25. 116 Cong. Rec. 40688--91, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
    the consideration of the bill (H.R. 19911) to amend the Foreign 
    Assistance Act of 1961, and for other purposes. . . .
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) 
    withdraw his motion for the consideration of the bill H.R. 19911.
        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the motion to go into 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill H.R. 19911. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi], from the Committee on 
    Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 1300, 
    Rept. No. 91-1687), which was referred to the House Calendar and 
    ordered to be printed:

                                  H. Res. 1300

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

[[Page 3284]]

        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. 1413) to provide for a 
        temporary prohibition of strikes or lockouts with respect to 
        the current railway labor-management dispute. . . .

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 1300 and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.

Procedure of Motion to Resolve Over Motion to Discharge

Sec. 4.13 To a motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of a 
    bill, a motion that the Committee of the Whole be discharged and 
    that the bill be laid on the table is not preferential and not in 
    order.

    On Apr. 2, 1938,(26) during consideration of S. 3331, 
regarding government reorganization, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, ruled that a motion that the Committee of the Whole be 
discharged and that the bill be laid on the table is not preferential 
to a motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for consideration of a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26.  83 Cong. Rec. 4621, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill 
    (S. 3331) to provide for reorganizing agencies of the Government, 
    extending the classified civil service, establishing a General 
    Auditing Office and a Department of Welfare, and for other 
    purposes.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri moves that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
    of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (S. 3331) to 
    provide for reorganizing agencies of the Government, extending the 
    classified civil service, establishing a General Auditing Office 
    and a Department of Welfare, and for other purposes.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker--
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York 
    rise?
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: To offer a preferential motion.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. [Lindsay C.] Warren [of North Carolina]: A point of order, 
    Mr. Speaker.

[[Page 3285]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Warren: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, of course, even to the 
    gentleman from New York, great parliamentarian that he is, that 
    this motion is merely dilatory. The motion pending before the House 
    is that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union. This is the only motion now 
    pending. A motion to lay the bill on the table when it is not even 
    up for consideration is entirely out of order.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, under clause 4, rule 
    XVI,(1) the motion I offer is a preferential motion. It 
    must be made in the House, it cannot be made in the Committee of 
    the Whole. A motion has been made to consider the bill. A motion to 
    lay the bill on the table is preferential, I submit, according to 
    the authorities I have examined and under the exact language of 
    clause 4, rule XVI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Parliamentarian's Note: Even if the motion had been a straight 
motion to lay on the table, it would not have been in order since the 
bill was not ``under debate'' and therefore not subject to motions 
under clause 4, Rule XVI.