[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[A. General Principles]
[Â§ 4. Calendar Wednesday; Morning Hour Call of Committees]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3827-3860]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 
Sec. 4. Calendar Wednesday; Morning Hour Call of Committees

    Rule XXIV provides for two distinct calls of standing or select 
committees for the consideration of reported bills--the morning hour 
call of committees and the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday.
    Clause 1 of the rule indicates the place of the morning hour call 
in the order of business; \(10\) clause 4 
\(11\) governs the actual procedure for the 
morning hour call:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1979).
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 889 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        After the unfinished business has been disposed of, the Speaker 
    shall call each standing committee in regular order, and then 
    select committees, and each committee when named may call up for 
    consideration any bill reported by it on a previous day and on the 
    House Calendar, and if the Speaker shall not complete the call of 
    the Committees before the House passes to other business, he shall 
    resume the next call where he left off, giving preference to the 
    last bill under consideration: Provided, That whenever any 
    committee shall have occupied the morning hour on two days, it 
    shall not be in order to call up any other bill until the other 
    committees have been called in their turn.

    The morning hour call of committees is largely obsolete as a method 
for gaining consideration of reported bills; the procedure was last 
used in 1933.\(\12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 4.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XXIV clause 7 (13) provides for the Calendar 
Wednesday call of committees and for a motion to dispense with such 
proceedings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On Wednesday of each week no business shall be in order except 
    as provided by clause 4 of this rule unless the House by a two-
    thirds vote on motion to dispense therewith shall otherwise 
    determine. On such a motion there may be debate not to exceed five 
    minutes for and against. On a call of committees under this rule 
    bills may be called up from either the House or the Union Calendar, 
    excepting bills which are privileged under the rules; but bills 
    called up from the Union Calendar shall be considered in Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union. This rule shall not 
    apply during the last 2 weeks of the session. It shall not be in 
    order for the Speaker to entertain a motion for a re

[[Page 3828]]

    cess on any Wednesday except during the last 2 weeks of the 
    session: Provided, That no more than 2 hours of general debate 
    shall be permitted on any measure called up on Calendar Wednesday, 
    and all debate must be confined to the subject matter of the bill, 
    the time to be equally divided between those for and against the 
    bill: Provided further, That whenever any committee shall have 
    occupied one Wednesday it shall not be in order, unless the House 
    by a two-thirds vote shall otherwise determine, to consider any 
    unfinished business previously called up by such committee, unless 
    the previous question had been ordered thereon, upon any succeeding 
    Wednesday until the other committees have been called in their turn 
    under this rule; Provided, That when, during any one session of 
    Congress, all of the committees of the House are not called under 
    the Calendar Wednesday rule, at the next session of Congress the 
    call shall commence where it left off at the end of the preceding 
    session.

    The Calendar Wednesday procedure has been little utilized in recent 
years due to its cumbersome operation and to the fact that 
nonprivileged bills may be considered pursuant to a special order from 
the Committee on Rules, under suspension of the ru]es, or by unanimous 
consent.(14) But the refusal of the House to consider a bill 
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure does not preclude the bill's 
being brought up under another procedure, such as pursuant to a rule 
from the Committee on Rules.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Calendar Wednesday procedure was last used in the 87th 
        Congress, when the House refused to consider a bill called up 
        under the rule (see Sec. 4.18, infra).
15. See Sec. 4.19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The call of committees on Calendar Wednesday applies only to 
nonprivileged public bills, and when a bill othervise unprivileged is 
given a privileged status by unanimous-consent agreement or special 
order, it is automatically rendered ineligible for consideration under 
the Calendar Wednesday procedure.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 932935. See also Sec. 4.10, 
        infra, for the principle that the rule may not be used for the 
        consideration of private bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If Calendar Wednesday business has not been dispensed with, such 
business is highly privileged on Wednesdays, and takes precedence over 
other business privileged under the rules; however, questions involving 
the privileges of the House and veto messages privileged under the 
Constitution take precedence over Calendar Wednesday 
business.(17) The call
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 4.3-4.8, infra. Where the Calendar Wednesday call of 
        committees is concluded, business otherwise in order may be 
        called up. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3829]]

of committees follows routine unanimous-consent requests and one-minute 
speeches, but the Speaker may decline to recognize any such requests on 
Calendar Wednesday.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 4.21-4.23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated by Rule XXIV clauses 4 and 7, the standing committees 
are called in regular alphabetical order, and then the select 
committees (with legislative jurisdiction), and the call begins in a 
new session (but not a new Congress) where it left off in the prior 
session.(19) A bill unfinished on Calendar Wednesday goes 
over to the next Wednesday where the same committee has the call unless 
the previous question has been ordered, in which case the bill becomes 
the unfinished business on the next legislative day.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 4.11, infra.
20. See Sec. Sec. 4.27-4.29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Calendar Wednesday business is usually dispensed with by unanimous 
consent, pursuant to a request made by the Majority Leader during the 
previous week.(1) If the request is objected to, Rule XXIV 
clause 7 provides for a highly privileged motion to dispense with such 
business, which motion requires a two-thirds vote and is debatable for 
10 minutes, equally divided.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 4.40-4.42, infra.
 2. See Sec. Sec. 4.30-4.39, infra. The motion was made in the 93d 
        Congress when a unanimous-consent request was objected to (see 
        Sec. 4.33, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dispensing with Calendar Wednesday business by less than a two-
thirds vote (in the absence of unanimous consent) is one of the 
specified kinds of orders not permitted to be reported by the Committee 
on Rules, under Rule XI.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning Hour Call of Committees

Sec. 4.1 Where a motion that the House take a recess was defeated on 
    the last day of the session, the Chair directed the Clerk to call 
    the committees under the morning hour rule (Rule XXIV clause 4).

    On Mar. 3, 1931,(4) which was the last day of the third 
session of the 71st Congress, the House rejected a motion that the 
House recess (there was being awaited a report of a committee of 
conference). Speaker Nicholas Long
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 74 Cong. Rec. 7242-44, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3830]]

worth, of Ohio, directed the call of committees under the morning hour 
rule and the place of that largely obsolete procedure in the order of 
business was discussed:

        The Speaker: This is the morning hour, and the Clerk will call 
    the committees.
        The Clerk began the call of committees.
        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. The House has refused to recess, and that 
    leaves us in the same position as we were in the Sixty-first 
    Congress. I know the Speaker remembers that Uncle Joe Cannon said 
    that a majority can do anything it desires. Is it not within the 
    power of the House now to instruct the conferees to agree to the 
    Senate amendment on the hospitalization bill, provided the Speaker 
    will recognize anyone to make that motion?
        The Speaker: That is not in the power of the House.
        Mr. Sabath: Does the Chair rule that we can not instruct the 
    conferees?
        The Speaker: The Chair so rules. . . .
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker, the House has not adjourned or recessed from Tuesday. We 
    are still in the legislative day of Tuesday.
        Mr. [Fiorello H.] LaGuardia [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to address the House for five minutes.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York asks unanimous consent 
    to address the House for five minutes. Is there objection?
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. I made a 
    parliamentary inquiry that has not been answered. The House has 
    been legislating in Tuesday and it has not adjourned or recessed. 
    It is still in Tuesday. There is no Wednesday and therefore how can 
    the call of the committees be made?
        The Speaker: This is the legislative day of Tuesday. We have 
    been transacting business according to the rules. First, we had 
    prayer by the Chaplain on Tuesday. Second, we had the reading and 
    approving of the Journal. Third, we have had the reference of 
    public bills--that has been passed over. Next, we have disposed of 
    business on the Speaker's table, and next we have disposed of many 
    public bills. Now is the morning hour for the consideration of 
    bills called up by committees.

        Mr. Rayburn: Does the Chair hold that this is Tuesday or 
    Wednesday?
        The Speaker: The legislative day of Tuesday. . . .
        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker and my 
    colleagues, the Speaker correctly ruled tonight when he directed 
    the Clerk to call the committees under the morning hour. That is in 
    the rule book. It is obsolete as far as the practical consideration 
    of measures under the rules of the House is concerned. This is the 
    first time the Speaker has called that since he has been Speaker; 
    but he was correct. Under the rules, it was in order

Sec. 4.2 The Speaker directed the Clerk to call the committees under 
    the morning hour rule and indicated that a Member calling up a bill 
    under the morning hour must be au

[[Page 3831]]

    thorized by the committee to do so.

    On June 12, 1933,(5) the morning hour call of committees 
was conducted as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 77 Cong. Rec. 5816, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William P.] Connery [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Connery: What is the regular order at this time, Mr. 
    Speaker?
        The Speaker: The calling of the committees.
        The Chair notes the time is now 3:33 o'clock p.m. The Clerk 
    will call the committees.
        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois] (when Committee on 
    Elections No. 2 was called): Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, as I understand, there are several 
    contests pending before the Committee on Elections No. 2. I wonder 
    whether the chairman or some other member of the committee is 
    present and can give the House some information relative to these 
    contests.
        The Speaker: There has been nothing reported by the committee.
        Mr. Connery: Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will call the next committee.
        Mr. [Gordon] Browning [of Tennessee] (when the Committee on the 
    Judiciary was called): Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
    on the Judiciary, I call up the bill (H.R. 5909) to transfer 
    Bedford County from the Nashville division to the Winchester 
    division of the middle Tennessee judicial district.
        Mr. [Edward W.] Goss [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve a 
    point of order. Did I understand the gentleman to say he is 
    directed by the committee to call this up?
        Mr. Browning: Yes.
        The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

            Be it enacted, etc., That Bedford County of the Nashville 
        division of the middle district of the State of Tennessee is 
        hereby detached from the Nashville division and attached to and 
        made a part of the Winchester division of the middle district 
        of such State.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Browning] is 
    recognized for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. Goss: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Goss: Do I understand this time is alloted for general 
    debate, or is the debate confined to the bill. under the rule?
        The Speaker: In the House debate must be confined to the bill 
    under consideration.

    After debate, the House passed the bill and then adjourned without 
further business.

Precedence of Calendar Wednesday Business

Sec. 4.3 The call of committees on Calendar Wednesday takes

[[Page 3832]]

    precedence of consideration of privileged business reported by the 
    Committee on Accounts.

    On June 5, 1946,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
sustained a point of order as to the order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 6351, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank W.] Boykin [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Accounts, I offer a resolution and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: This is Calendar Wednesday, Mr. Speaker. I 
    submit that the only business before the House that may be 
    considered is the call of committees.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The former Committee on Accounts was merged into the Committee on 
        House Administration by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
        1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.4 A subpena duces tecum served upon the Clerk of the House and 
    transmitted by the Clerk to the Speaker was held to be a matter of 
    the highest privilege and to supersede the continuation of the call 
    of committees under the Calendar Wednesday rule.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
overruled a point of order against the consideration of highly 
privileged business on Calendar Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 96 Cong. Rec. 1695, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, this is Calendar Wednesday, and I 
    ask that the business of Calendar Wednesday proceed. I submit that 
    the regular order is the continuation of the call of committees by 
    the Clerk.
        The Speaker: The Chair at this time is going to lay before the 
    House a matter of highest privilege.

    The Speaker laid before the House a communication from the Clerk 
transmitting a subpena issued to trim by a federal district court and 
directing the production of committee executive session material. There 
was offered and adopted a resolution in response to the subpena.

Sec. 4.5 A privileged report of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
    dealing with the contempt of a witness was considered on a Calendar 
    Wednesday.

    On June 26, 1946,(10) which was Calendar Wednesday under 
the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 7589-91, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3833]]

rule, Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, called up a privileged report from 
the Committee on Un-American Activities, dealing with the contempt of a 
witness before the committee.

    The report and accompanying resolution were considered as a 
privileged matter and were not called up under the Calendar Wednesday 
procedure. Although the House had not dispensed with Calendar Wednesday 
business on that day, the House did not consider such business, 
adjourning after disposition of the report from the Committee on Un-
American Activities.

Sec. 4.6 The consideration of a veto message is in order on Calendar 
    Wednesday.

    On May 11, 1932,(11) the House agreed to the motion to 
dispense with Calendar Wednesday business on that day, a veto message 
having been laid before the House. Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
indicated that the motion was not necessary, due to the constitutional 
privilege of a veto message:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 75 Cong. Rec. 10035-40, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair lays before the House the following 
    message from the President of the United States.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, this 
    being Calendar Wednesday, ought not further business be dispensed 
    with before we consider any other business?
        The Speaker: Not necessarily.
        Mr. Stafford: This is holy Wednesday.
        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Is there any other 
    business under Calendar Wednesday?
        Mr. Stafford. No.

        Mr. Crisp: Mr. Speaker, to save any question, I move that 
    further business under Calendar Wednesday be dispensed with.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: Let the Chair say, however, in connection with 
    this Calendar Wednesday rule, that it does not suspend the 
    Constitution of the United States, which provides that a veto 
    message of the President shall have immediate consideration. The 
    Clerk will read the message.

Sec. 4.7 The Speaker held that special orders from the Committee on 
    Rules were not privileged for consideration on Calendar Wednesday.

    On Aug. 21, 1935,(12) which was Calendar Wednesday under 
Rule XXIV clause 7, there was called up a resolution from the Committee 
on Rules, giving privilege to a motion to recess and waiving the two-
thirds voting requirement for consideration of certain reports from the 
Committee on Rules. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 79 Cong. Rec. 14038, 14039, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3834]]

objected that the resolution was not privileged on Calendar Wednesday 
and Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, sustained the objection.

Sec. 4.8 If the House dispenses with Calendar Wednesday business it can 
    consider what it pleases on that day.

    On June 5, 1946,(13) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
responded to an inquiry on the effect of dispensing with Calendar 
Wednesday business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 6357, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: My inquiry is 
    this: In the event that the House were to agree to dispense with 
    further proceedings under Calendar Wednesday, would it then be in 
    order for the remainder of the day for the other business on the 
    House program for the week and especially the river and harbor 
    bill, which was under consideration when the House adjourned 
    yesterday afternoon to be taken up immediately if so desired by the 
    leadership, including the Speaker and the chairmen of the 
    committees concerned?
        The Speaker: If the House dispenses with further proceedings 
    under Calendar Wednesday, then the House can do what it pleases.

Calendar Wednesday Bills Generally

Sec. 4.9 A motion that a Union Calendar bill be considered in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole is not in order, and if unanimous 
    consent is not granted for this purpose, the House automatically 
    resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole on Calendar 
    Wednesday.

    On July 12, 1939,(14) the House proceeded as follows on 
a Calendar Wednesday bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 8945, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (15) This is Calendar Wednesday. The 
    Clerk will call the roll of committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky] (when the Committee on 
    Military Affairs was called): Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Military Affairs, I call up the bill (H.R. 985) to 
    authorize the Secretary of War to furnish certain markers for 
    certain graves, and ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
    considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, will the gentleman explain the bill 
    before we grant this request?
        Mr. May: This is a bill to authorize the Secretary of War to 
    furnish certain markers for graves of persons who are entitled to 
    have them. Under the statute they are bronze markers or stone 
    markers.
        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I object.

[[Page 3835]]

        Mr. May: To what is the gentleman objecting?
        Mr. Hobbs: I am objecting to the consideration of the bill.
        Mr. May: Then I move, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be considered 
    in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that could not be 
    permitted under the rules of the House. The gentleman may submit a 
    unanimous consent request, but not a motion.
        The gentleman from Kentucky asks unanimous consent to consider 
    the bill in the House as in Committee of the Whole. Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
        Mr. Hobbs: I object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: This bill is on the Union Calendar.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into Committee of the 
    Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill (H.R. 985) to authorize the Secretary of War to furnish 
    certain markers for certain graves, with Mr. Tarver in the chair.

Sec. 4.10 Calendar Wednesday business is confined strictly to 
    consideration of public bills and a committee may not call up a 
    private bill when business of that committee is in order.

    On June 5, 1940,(16) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, declined to recognize a member of the Committee on Immigration 
and Naturalization to call up a private bill under the Calendar 
Wednesday procedure:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 7629, 7630, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel] Dickstein [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have one 
    more bill, which I have designated the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Lesinski] to handle, and I ask the Chair to recognize the gentleman 
    at this time.
        Mr. [John] Lesinski [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, by authority of 
    the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization I call up the bill 
    (H.R. 9766) to authorize the deportation of Harry Renton Bridges.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the bill.
        The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

            Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of Labor be, and is 
        hereby, authorized and directed to take into custody and deport 
        to Australia, the country of which he is a citizen or subject, 
        the alien, Harry Renton Bridges, in the manner provided by 
        sections 155 and 156, title 8, United States Code.

        The Speaker: The Chair feels that it is solemn duty of the 
    presiding officer of the House to enforce the rules of the House 
    under all circumstances. There is no question about bills that may 
    and may not be called up on Calendar Wednesday. The rules 
    specifically provide that on a call of committees under this rule 
    bills may be called up from either the House or the Union 
    Calendars, except bills which are privileged under the rules. This 
    bill which the gentleman from Michigan has called up is on the 
    Private Calendar, and in the opinion of the Chair, under the rules, 
    it is not eligible for consideration on Calendar Wednesday.

[[Page 3836]]

Order of Call on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.11 Under the Calendar Wednesday rule, where all the committees 
    have been called during a session of Congress, then at the 
    commencement of a new session the call begins with the head of the 
    committee list.

    On Nov. 24, 1937,(17) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, made a statement on the order of business under the Calendar 
Wednesday rule, where the calendar was being called for the first time 
during the session:

        The Speaker: Under the rules of the House this is Calendar 
    Wednesday. The Chair directs the Clerk to call the list of 
    committees, beginning with the head of the list, and in order that 
    there may be no confusion about the matter of what committee shall 
    be called first on this call, the Chair directs attention of the 
    House to the last proviso of the Calendar Wednesday rule, in the 
    following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 82 Cong. Rec. 357, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Provided, That when, during any one session of Congress, 
        all of the committees of the House are not called under the 
        Calendar Wednesday rule, at the next session of Congress the 
        call shall commence where it left off at the end of the 
        preceding session.

        The fact is, as disclosed by the Record, that during the last 
    session of Congress not only were all of the committees of the 
    House called once but at least twice. Under this proviso, which the 
    Chair is bound to follow, the Chair directs the Clerk to call the 
    committees beginning at the head of the list.
        The Clerk called the following committees: Committee on 
    Elections No. l, Committee on Elections No. 2, Committee on 
    Elections No. 3, Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on 
    Appropriations, Committee on the Judiciary.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The committees were called in the order 
listed in the Rules of the House (Rule X, clause 1) of the 75th 
Congress.

Authority and Recognition to Call Up Calendar Wednesday Business

Sec. 4.12 Any member of a committee, and not only the chairman thereof, 
    may call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday if authorized to do so by 
    the committee.

    On Dec. 13, 1963,(18) Speaker pro tempore John J. 
Rooney, of New York, answered a parliamentary inquiry on who may call 
up Calendar Wednesday business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 24570, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, may I address that 
    question to the Chair: If a committee chairman does not choose to 
    call a bill up on Cal

[[Page 3837]]

    endar Wednesday, may a member of the committee then call up a bill 
    which has been passed out by the committee?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is possible if the chairman has 
    been specifically authorized by the members of his committee to do 
    so.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: I am sorry I did not understand the 
    Speaker's reply. My question was: If the chairman chooses not to 
    call up a bill, may a member of that committee then call it up?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Only if the committee has specifically 
    authorized that member to do so.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: I thank the Speaker.

Sec. 4.13 On one occasion, a letter from the chairman of a committee 
    was evidence of the authority of another member of the committee to 
    call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday.

    On July 10, 1946,(l9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the requirement that a Member be 
authorized by the committee to call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 92 Cong. Rec. 8590, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: As I understand the rules, the person who 
    calls up a bill from a committee must be authorized and directed by 
    the committee to call up the bill.
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Marcantonio: I now propound the parliamentary inquiry as to 
    whether or not the gentleman from Mississippi was actually directed 
    by his committee to call up this bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi so stated when he 
    called up the bill.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Yes; and I have a letter 
    from the chairman to that effect.
        The Speaker: The bill, being on the Union Calendar, the House 
    automatically resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 4.14 Only the member authorized by the committee reporting a bill 
    may call up such bill on Calendar Wednesday and where a committee 
    designates a member thereof to call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday 
    no other Member may take such action.

    On Feb. 24, 1937,(20) Speaker pro tempore William J. 
Driver, of Arkansas, answered an inquiry during Calendar Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 1562, 1563, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there any further business from the 
    Committee on the Judiciary?
        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: No, Mr. Speaker.

[[Page 3838]]

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, this is the 
    Judiciary Committee's day, and the committee instructed its 
    chairman to call up the bill (H.R. 2260) providing for appeals when 
    constitutional questions are raised, which is a part of the 
    President's proposal.
        This bill was introduced in the Congress January 8, before the 
    President made any suggestions. It was given thorough consideration 
    by the Committee on the Judiciary and was to be considered on our 
    last Calendar Wednesday day, when suddenly the House was adjourned 
    in the middle of the afternoon. This is our next day, and it is 
    possibly the last day we will get this session. I hope the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter] will call up this bill 
    that the President wants considered. It has the approval of the 
    committee and would have passed the House on last Calendar 
    Wednesday if the majority leader had not adjourned the House.
        Mr. Walter: Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The regular order is demanded. The 
    Clerk will call the roll of committees.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, where a bill has been reported 
    favorably by a committee, and the chairman of the committee is 
    authorized to call the bill up on Calendar Wednesday, when the 
    chairman absents himself from the floor, and when other members of 
    the committee are present, is it proper for one of the other 
    members to call up the bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman 
    that under the rules only the chairman or the member designated by 
    the committee is authorized to call up a bill.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also 78 Cong. Rec. 2138, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 7, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.15 Only a member authorized to do so by a committee may call up 
    a bill on Calendar Wednesday and this matter is entirely within the 
    discretion of the committee.

    On June 11, 1941,(2) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered an inquiry on the operation of the Calendar Wednesday rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 87 Cong. Rec. 5047, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    Committee on Agriculture has had the call today. There are other 
    bills on the calendar that the committee has reported out and that 
    are very important, but which have not been called up. For 
    instance, there is the Coffee sugar bill, in which a great many 
    people are interested and upon which the beet-sugar industry is 
    looking for aid during the coming year. This is the Agriculture 
    Committee's day. The rules intend that the committee shall call up 
    all its bills on the calendar. There is not a rule of the House, 
    and the Committee on Rules cannot even bring in a resolution, 
    taking away from a legislative committee the right to call up its 
    bills on the calendar on its Calendar Wednesday. The Agriculture 
    Committee calendar has not been completed today, and the

[[Page 3839]]

    committee has the remainder of the day. Is it in order for any 
    member of the committee to call up a bill reported by the committee 
    in order that the democratic processes of the House shall obtain? 
    That is, can a chairman of a committee thwart the will of a 
    committee and refuse to exhaust the calendar of eligible bills?
        The Speaker: That matter is not in the hands of the Chair. 
    However, the Chair may state that no member of a committee may call 
    up a bill on Calendar Wednesday unless he has been specifically 
    authorized by the committee to do so. The Chair would not know 
    whether or not the committee has instructed another member of the 
    committee to call up any other hill.
        Mr. Michener: The one sacred day of all calendar days is 
    Calendar Wednesday. The rights of people of the country repose in 
    these committees. Calendar Wednesday is known as the people's day 
    because no arbitrary power can deprive a committee from the 
    privilege of calling up its bills on this day. It can only be 
    dispensed with by unanimous consent. Even the leadership of the 
    House cannot take away from a committee the right of the people to 
    have their legislation considered on this day. Now, a majority of 
    the Committee on Agriculture have reported out that sugar bill 
    favorably, and they are asking for its consideration. Is it 
    possible that somebody within that committee which has reported the 
    bill favorably can deny the people their right to have their 
    legislation considered? A rule is not necessary today. If that 
    Coffee sugar bill is not brought up today when there is plenty of 
    time, the fault certainly rests, not with the Speaker, not with the 
    majority leadership, not with the Rules Committee, but with a 
    recalcitrant Committee on Agriculture or the controlling members 
    thereof. Why should the sugarbeet interests be discriminated 
    against in this arbitrary way?
        The Speaker: The Chair answered the gentleman's parliamentary 
    inquiry some time ago.

Sec. 4.16 Section 133(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 
    now incorporated in Rule XI, providing that it shall be the duty of 
    the chairman of each committee to report or cause to be reported 
    promptly any measure approved by his committee and to take or cause 
    to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote, is 
    sufficient authority to call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
overruled a point of order against recognition of a committee chairman 
to call up a bill on Calender Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 2162, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: This is Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will call 
    the committees.
        Mr. [John] Lesinski [of Michigan] (when the Committee on 
    Education and Labor was called): Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Edu

[[Page 3840]]

    cation and Labor I call up the bill (H.R. 4453) to prohibit 
    discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, or 
    national origin.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Tom] Pickett [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Pickett: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor has not been 
    properly directed to call up the bill under the rules and 
    precedents that are required to be followed in keeping with the 
    practice on Calendar Wednesday, and on that I should like to be 
    heard.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has been heard.
        Mr. Lesinski: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of 
    order?
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman briefly.
        Mr. Lesinski: Mr. Speaker, I was authorized by the committee to 
    use all parliamentary means to bring the bill before the House.
        Mr. Pickett: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman very briefly. 
    The Chair has the most recent rules of the House before him and 
    desires to read them. The Chair feels that possibly their reading 
    will satisfy the gentleman.
        Mr. Pickett: If I am not satisfied with what the Speaker reads 
    may I be heard on the point of order?
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman briefly now.

        Mr. Pickett: My point of order is based on the precedents of 
    the House annotated on page 460, paragraph 898, of the House Rules 
    and Manual, where it is stated that authority to call up a bill on 
    Calendar Wednesday must have been given by the committee, and a 
    member not authorized to do so may not call up such bill. The 
    annotations refer to Hinds' Precedents, volume 4, paragraphs 3127 
    and 3128; and [Cannon's] Precedents, volume 7, paragraphs 928 and 
    929. I wish to call these paragraphs to the attention of the 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: Those paragraphs have already been called to the 
    attention of the Speaker.
        Mr. Pickett: Mr. Speaker, further in reference to the point of 
    order, if it be contended that the Reorganization Act of 1946 which 
    became effective on January 3, 1947, at section 133 thereof, 
    paragraph (c), empowers the chairman of this committee to call up 
    the bill, in view of the language that it directs him to take or 
    cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote, 
    then my response to that would be that one of the necessary steps 
    to cause this bill to be brought to the attention of the House for 
    a vote is to comply with the requisites and get his committee to 
    give him specific directions to call this bill up on Calendar 
    Wednesday.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Lesinski] has already stated 
    that the committee did give him this authority. The present 
    occupant of the chair has read the minutes of the committee and 
    thinks the gentleman from Michigan is correct.
        Also the latest rule on this matter is section 133, paragraph 
    (c), of the Leg

[[Page 3841]]

    islative Reorganization Act, and there is very good reason for this 
    rule because in times past the chairmen of committees have been 
    known to carry bills around in their pockets for quite a while and 
    not present them.
        The rule is as follows:

            It shall be the duty of the chairman of each such committee 
        to report or cause to be reported promptly to the Senate or 
        House of Representatives, as the case may be, any measure 
        approved by his committee and to take or cause to be taken 
        necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote.

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 133(c) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946, cited by the Speaker, was adopted as part 
of the rules of the House in 1953 [Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A) 
Sec. 713(a), in the 1979 House Rules and Manual].

Sec. 4.17 The Speaker, on a Calendar Wednesday, recognized the chairman 
    of a committee to call up a bill in spite of repeated motions to 
    adjourn.

    On Feb. 15, 1950,(4) which was Calendar Wednesday, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, declined to recognize for motions to 
adjourn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 1811, 1812, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Clerk will call the committees.
        The Clerk called the Committee on the District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not yield to the gentleman for a 
    parliamentary inquiry at this time.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The Clerk has called the Committee on the District 
    of Columbia. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina 
    [Mr. McMillan].
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do 
    now adjourn. That motion is always in order.
        The Speaker: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from South 
    Carolina [Mr. McMillan].
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan] 
    has been recognized.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan] 
    has been recognized.
        Mr. [John L.] McMillan of South Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the bill (H.R. 6670) to incorporate the Girl Scouts of the 
    United States of America, and for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Repeated roll calls were had on this day, 
in an attempt to delay business under the Calendar Wednes

[[Page 3842]]

day rule. The ``filibuster'' attempt was not actually designed to delay 
District of Columbia bills but to delay the call of the Committee on 
Education and Labor the following Wednesday, when the Federal Fair 
Employment Practices bill was to be called up.

Question of Consideration on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.18 The question of consideration may be demanded in the House on 
    a bill called up under the Calendar Wednesday rule.

    On May 4, 1960, Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, of the Committee on 
Banking and Currency called up a bill from that committee under the 
Calendar Wednesday rule when the committee was called. Mr. Charles A. 
Halleck, of Indiana, raised the question of consideration against the 
bill and on a yea and nay vote the House agreed to consider 
it.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 106 Cong. Rec. 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 30, 1961, Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, called up under 
authority from the Committee on Education and Labor, H.R. 8890 (the 
Emergency Educational Act of 1961) when the committee was called under 
the Calendar Wednesday rule. Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, raised 
the question of consideration and the House refused to consider the 
bill on a yea and nay vote.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 17577, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.19 The refusal of the House to consider a bill called up under 
    the Calendar Wednesday rule would not prevent the reporting of a 
    resolution by the Committee on Rules making the bill a special 
    order of business.

    On May 4, 1960,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered an inquiry on the status of a bill should the House refuse to 
consider it if called up under the Calendar Wednesday rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: In the event that the 
    motion to consider the bill should not prevail in the House, would 
    it still be possible if a rule were reported by the Rules Committee 
    for the bill to be brought before the House at a later date under a 
    rule?
        The Speaker: The Chair would think the House could adopt any 
    rule reported by the Committee on Rules.

Sec. 4.20 When a bill is called up by a committee under the Calendar 
    Wednesday rule, the question of consideration

[[Page 3843]]

    is properly raised after the Clerk has read the title of the bill; 
    and if the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative, 
    when raised against a bill on the Union Calendar, the House 
    automatically resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole.

    On May 4, 1960,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered parliamentary inquiries on consideration of Calendar Wednesday 
business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 106 Cong. Rec. 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: One further 
    parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: In the event that the motion to consider the bill 
    should not prevail in the House, would it still be possible if a 
    rule were reported by the Rules Committee for the bill to be 
    brought before the House at a later date under a rule?
        The Speaker: The Chair would think the House could adopt any 
    rule reported by the Committee on Rules.
        The Chair will state to the gentleman from Indiana and to the 
    House that when we reach the point of approving the Journal, the 
    Chair will then order a call of the committees; and when the 
    Committee on Banking and Currency is recognized and the gentleman 
    from Kentucky [Mr. Spence] presents his bill, when the title of the 
    bill is read the House automatically resolves itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Halleck: But is a motion necessary to consider the bill?
        The Speaker: The question of consideration can always be 
    raised.
        Mr. Halleck: And on that, of course, it would be possible to 
    have a record vote in the House.
        The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, that would be 
    correct.
        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: The Chair has just stated--I believe I 
    understood it this way--that when the bill is called up by the 
    chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency and the title is 
    read the House automatically resolves itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole.
        The Speaker: That is the rule.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: But the motion raising the question must 
    come before the title of the bill is read.
        The Speaker: After the title is read.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Sir?
        The Speaker: After the title is read.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: There would still be time enough for it 
    before the House automatically goes into the Committee of the 
    Whole.
        The Speaker: That is correct.

    On Apr. 14, 1937,(9) the House proceeded as follows on 
the question of consideration raised
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 3455, 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3844]]

against a Calendar Wednesday bill:

        The Speaker: (10) Today is Calendar Wednesday. The 
    Clerk will call the roll of committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence F.] Lea [of California] (when the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce was called): Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I 
    call up the bill (H.R. 1668) to amend paragraph (1) of section 4 of 
    the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended February 28, 1920 (U.S.C., 
    title 49, sec. 4).
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    raise the question of consideration.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from North Carolina raises the 
    question of consideration of the bill. The question is, Will the 
    House consider the bill H.R. 1668.
        The question was taken: and on a division (demanded by Mr. Lea) 
    there were--ayes 152, noes 73.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House consider the bill 
    (H.R. 1668) to amend paragraph (1) of section 4 of the Interstate 
    Commerce Act, as amended February 28 1920 (U.S.C., title 49, sec. 
    4)?
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 278, nays 97, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 54, as follows:
        The Speaker: The House automatically resolves itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill.

Unanimous-consent Requests on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.21 Calendar Wednesday business follows the one-minute speeches 
    and special orders granted to take place before the business of the 
    day.

    On May 22, 1946,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered an inquiry on the order of business where a Member had been 
granted a special order to address the House prior to business: 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 5439, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to 
    revise and extend my remarks.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from North Carolina?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Will that vitiate the call of the calendar 
    on Calendar Wednesday, if the Speaker recognizes Members for 1-
    minute speeches?
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to recognize Members to proceed 
    for a minute and to extend their remarks and then will recognize 
    the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bland], who has an hour for 
    Maritime Day.

[[Page 3845]]

        Mr. Marcantonio: I understand that after that the call of the 
    Calendar of Committees under the Calendar Wednesday rule will be in 
    order.
        The Speaker: Then the Chair will announce the call of the 
    Calendar of Committees.
        The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.

Sec. 4.22 Objection was made to any extension of remarks, one-minute 
    speeches, or any business except the call of committees under the 
    Calendar Wednesday rule.

    On Feb. 1, 1950,(12) objection was made to the 
delivering of speeches or the transaction of business before the call 
of committees under the Calendar Wednesday rule (Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, presiding):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 1311, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, this is Calendar Wednesday. I 
    make a point of order against the transaction of any business 
    except the call of the committees.
        The Speaker: The gentleman objects to any extension of remarks 
    or any other business except the call of the committees.

Sec. 4.23 In construing the Calendar Wednesday rule, the Speaker 
    announced the policy that he would follow in the future would be 
    not to recognize any Member to ask unanimous consent to speak prior 
    to business on Calendar Wednesday.

    On Feb. 26, 1930,(13) Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of 
Ohio, announced some guidelines for recognition of Members on Calendar 
Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 72 Cong. Rec. 4303, 4304, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is in some doubt as to whether it is his duty to 
    recognize, first, those gentlemen who have obtained unanimous 
    consent to address the House today, this being Calendar Wednesday, 
    or to direct the call of committees, Calendar Wednesday business 
    has not been formally dispensed with, either by unanimous consent 
    or, as it could be now, by a two-thirds vote of the House. The 
    present occupant of the Chair has made it a general practice not to 
    recognize for unanimous consent a request to address the House on 
    Calendar Wednesday. However, the consent has been given while some 
    one else was temporarily in the chair. The Chair thinks that under 
    the circumstances perhaps the best mode of procedure would be to 
    recognize those gentlemen who have obtained unanimous consent to 
    address the House, but the Chair states that he will not consider 
    this as a precedent in the future. . . .
        The Chair desires to state that in recognizing the special 
    orders in this

[[Page 3846]]

    instance he will not regard this as a precedent which should govern 
    his ruling on the subject on some future occasion.
        Mr. [John N.] Garner [of Texas]: Then if I understand the 
    Speaker, in the future the Speaker would probably hold that in case 
    he should be absent from the chair and some other Speaker pro 
    tempore did not take care of Calendar Wednesday, as he so wisely 
    does, that he would hold that the special order made by the House, 
    in his absence, could be vacated by virtue of it being Calendar 
    Wednesday.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not go so far as to say that, but 
    Calendar Wednesday from the beginning-and the Chair remembers when 
    it was adopted-was for the purpose of preventing any other business 
    being transacted on that day, leaving the day free for the call of 
    committees and the rule is very strong on that subject. The rule 
    provides--

            On Wednesday of each week no business shall be in order 
        except as provided by paragraph 4 of this rule unless the House 
        by a two-thirds vote on motion to dispense therewith shall 
        otherwise determine.

        Now, the Chair is in some doubt, where unanimous consent is 
    given to some Member to address the House on Calendar Wednesday, 
    whether that abolishes Calendar Wednesday to the extent of that 
    time or whether it abolishes altogether. The Chair wants to give 
    some consideration to that point, and therefore the Chair desires 
    to state that he will not feel that he will be bound by this 
    precedent in the future.

Debate on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.24 Debate on bills considered in the Committee of the Whole 
    under the Calendar Wednesday rule is limited to two hours, one hour 
    controlled by the Member in charge of the bill and one hour by a 
    Member in opposition; and in recognizing a Member to control the 
    time in opposition to the bill, the Chair recognizes minority 
    members on the committee reporting the bill in the order of their 
    seniority on the committee.

    On Apr. 14, 1937,(14) Chairman J. Mark Wilcox, of 
Florida, answered a parliamentary inquiry in the Committee of the Whole 
relative to the duration and distribution of debate on a bill called up 
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure (H.R. 1668, to amend the 
Interstate Commerce Act, called up by the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 81 Cong. Rec. 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Under the rules of the House, the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Lea] is recognized for] hour.
        Mr. [Pehr G.] Holmes [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 3847]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Holmes: As I understand the rules of the House, in the 
    consideration of this bill 2 hours of general debate is allowed on 
    the bill?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Holmes: Am I to understand that 1 hour will be extended me 
    in opposition to the bill as a minority member, of the committee?
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts, opposed to 
    the bill?
        Mr. Holmes: I am, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts the ranking 
    minority member of the committee?
        Mr. Holmes: I am the ranking minority member opposed to the 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is entitled to recognition in 
    opposition to the bill unless a minority member of the committee 
    outranking the gentleman desires recognition.
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts [Mr. Holmes] is the only minority member of the 
    committee who is opposed to the bill.
        The Chairman: Then the gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
    recognized in opposition to the bill.
        Mr. [Compton I.] White of Idaho: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. White of Idaho: It is my understanding an arrangement has 
    been made so that the opponents of the bill on the majority side 
    will be given 30 minutes of time. I should like to know if that 
    understanding is going to hold.
        The Chairman: Under the rules of the House, general debate is 
    limited to 2 hours, l hour to be controlled by the chairman of the 
    committee and l hour to be controlled by a minority member in 
    opposition to the bill. These two gentlemen, of course, will have 
    control of the assignment of time, and I assume, of course, it will 
    be assigned to those in opposition to the bill.
        Mr. White of Idaho: What opportunity will the opponents of the 
    bill on the majority side have to be heard on the measure?
        The Chairman: The Chair has stated to the gentleman that under 
    the rules l hour of the debate will be controlled by the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts in opposition to the bill, the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts having been recognized for that purpose.
        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bulwinkle: I understand that if the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. Holmes] should see fit to yield part of the time 
    to this side of the House to be used by those in opposition, he can 
    do so, and I should like to inquire of the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts about that.
        The Chairman: That, of course, is within the discretion of the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts. He can yield the time as he sees fit, 
    and the Chair will recognize those who are designated by the 
    gentleman.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a similar parliamentary 
inquiry on July 10, 1946: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 92 Cong. Rec. 8590, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3848]]

        The Speaker: This is Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will call 
    the committees.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi] (when the Committee on 
    Rivers and Harbors was called): Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
    Committee on Rivers and Harbors, I call up the bill (H.R. 6024) 
    relating to the prevention and control of water pollution, and for 
    other purposes.
        Mr. Speaker, I would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: As I understand it, there are 2 hours of debate, l 
    hour on each side, to be controlled by the ranking majority and 
    minority members.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.

Reconsideration Not in Order on Question of Consideration on Calendar 
    Wednesday

Sec. 4.25 It is not in order to reconsider the vote whereby the House 
    has declined to consider a proposition under the Calendar Wednesday 
    rule.

    On Apr. 7, 1937,(16) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, ruled that the motion to reconsider was not in order on the 
refusal of the House to consider a Calendar Wednesday bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 3253, 3254, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Hamilton Fish, 
    Jr.] raises the question of consideration.
        The question is, Will the House consider the bill (H.R. 2251) 
    to assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the 
    equal protection of the laws, and to punish the crime of lynching?

    The House refused to consider the bill.

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
    the House refused to consider the bill and lay that motion on the 
    table.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks that that motion is not in order 
    on a vote of this character.

Unfinished Business on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.26 When the Committee of the Whole during consideration of a 
    bill on Calendar Wednesday votes to rise and the House then rejects 
    a motion to adjourn, Calendar Wednesday business is still before 
    the House, and if the chairman of the committee having the call 
    calls up the same bill, the House automatically resolves itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole and resumes consideration of the 
    bill where it left off.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(17) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment Practice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 2238-40, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3849]]

Act, which had been called up by the Committee on Education and Labor 
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure. The Committee agreed to a 
motion to rise, and the House rejected a motion to adjourn; pending a 
demand for the yeas and nays on the motion to adjourn, Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows:

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harris: As I understand, the roll call now is on the motion 
    to adjourn.
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Harris: If the motion to adjourn is not agreed to, then 
    what will be the parliamentary situation?
        The Speaker: It will be Calendar Wednesday business.
        Mr. Harris: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harris: Do we automatically then go back into Committee?
        The Speaker: If the gentleman from Michigan calls the bill up 
    again, yes.

    Following the rejection of the motion to adjourn, Mr. John 
Lesinski, of Michigan, called up, by direction of the Committee on 
Education and Labor, the same bill. After the House decided the 
question of consideration in the affirmative, the Speaker directed that 
the House automatically resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
for the consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4.27 Where the House adjourns after ordering the previous question 
    on a bill and amendments thereto on a Calendar Wednesday, the bill 
    becomes the unfinished business the next day and separate votes may 
    be demanded on amendments the next day.

    On May 17, 1939,(18) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of adjournment 
on a pending Calendar Wednesday bill with amendments thereto, where the 
previous question has been ordered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 5682, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph] Mansfield [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the bill and all amendments to final passage.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rayburn: Were the House to adjourn at this time, would the 
    present bill be the pending business tomorrow?
        The Speaker: Answering the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman

[[Page 3850]]

    from Texas, the Chair will state that the previous question having 
    been ordered on the bill and all amendments to final passage, it 
    would be the unfinished and privileged order of business tomorrow 
    morning.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Can these individual amendments then be voted on?
        The Speaker: A separate vote can be demanded on them when that 
    question is reached.

Sec. 4.28 The previous question having been ordered on a bill on 
    Calendar Wednesday, the bill becomes the unfinished business after 
    the reading of the Journal on the next legislative day or on any 
    day thereafter.

    On Apr. 25, 1930,(19) the previous question was ordered 
on a Calendar Wednesday bill, and then a Member demanded the reading of 
the engrossed copy, which was not yet prepared. Speaker Nicholas 
Longworth, of Ohio, answered a parliamentary inquiry on when the bill 
would come up as unfinished business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 72 Cong. Rec. 7774, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.
        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    reading of the engrossed bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Minnesota demands the reading 
    of the engrossed bill. It is plainly impossible to read the 
    engrossed bill at this time.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Snell: As I understand the situation, there is a decision 
    by Speaker Gillett that, if the reading of the engrossed copy of 
    the bill at this time is demanded, it will be in order to take this 
    up on the next legislative day.
        The Speaker: The Chair would consider it the unfinished 
    business.
        Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the bill by title for the 
    third time.

    Similarly, Speaker Longworth answered a parliamentary inquiry on 
May 14, 1930, as to the status of Calendar Wednesday business as 
unfinished business:

        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Crisp: Mr. Speaker, the previous question having been 
    ordered on the bill and amendments to final passage, if the House 
    adjourns now, ordinarily would not the matter come up the next day, 
    and tomorrow being set apart under special order for memorial

[[Page 3851]]

    exercises, if the House adjourns now, will not this matter, the 
    previous question having been ordered, come up after the reading of 
    the Journal on Friday?
        The Speaker: On Friday, tomorrow not being a legislative 
    day.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 8964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Feb. 22, 1950, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry after the House had ordered the previous question 
on a Calendar Wednesday bill and after a Member had demanded the 
reading of the engrossed copy thereof:

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, that means the House will have to stay 
    in session until the engrossed copy is secured?
        The Speaker: It does not.
        Mr. Rankin: We cannot take a recess on Calendar Wednesday?
        The Speaker: The House can adjourn.
        Mr. Rankin: We can adjourn but that ends Calendar Wednesday.
        The Speaker: The previous question has been ordered and the 
    next time the House meets, whether this week or any other week, it 
    is the pending business.
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Colmer: Can the Speaker advise us when the engrossed copy 
    will be available and when the vote will be taken?
        The, Speaker: Not until the gentleman from Massachusetts makes 
    a request about adjournment or offers a motion.
        The Chair wants all Members to understand that on the convening 
    of the House at its next session, the final disposition of this 
    matter is the pending business.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 96 Cong. Rec. 2264, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.29 Where a quorum fails on ordering the previous question on a 
    bill under consideration on a Calendar Wednesday, and the House 
    adjourns, the vote goes over until the next Calendar Wednesday day 
    of the committee reporting the bill.

    On Mar. 7, 1935,(2) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, answered an inquiry on the status of unfinished Calendar 
Wednesday business on which the previous question was not ordered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 79 Cong. Rec. 3121, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frederick R.] Lehlbach [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Lehlbach: Yesterday the previous question was moved on a 
    bill

[[Page 3852]]

    then pending, and upon a division the vote was 36 to 16, whereupon 
    a point of no quorum was made. Under the rules of the House there 
    would follow an automatic roll call on the question of ordering the 
    previous question, but before proceedings could be had the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] moved that the House 
    adjourn, and the House accordingly adjourned. My inquiry is, is the 
    motion for the previous question still pending?
        The Speaker: The motion is pending and the vote will again be 
    taken the next time the committee is called under the Calendar 
    Wednesday rule; that will be the first business in order when the 
    Judiciary Committee is again called on Calendar Wednesday.

Privileged Motion to Dispense With Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.30 The privileged motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday 
    business in order on a particular Wednesday may be made and 
    considered on a previous day.

    On Monday, June 11, 1973,(3) Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, recognized Mr. John J. McFall, of California, to move that 
the House dispense with Calendar Wednesday business in order on 
Wednesday, June 13 (objection had been made to a unanimous-consent 
request on June 8 to dispense with such business on June 13). The House 
agreed to the motion by a two-thirds vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 19028-30, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.; see also 7 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 916 and Sec. 4.38, infra, for the proposition 
        that the motion may be made on a previous day. On one occasion, 
        the Speaker suggested that a Member withhold offering the 
        motion until the Wednesday in question. 96 Cong. Rec. 959, 960, 
        81st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 26, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: There is no prohibition in the rules 
against repeating the motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday 
business, whether made on the same or a succeeding day.

Sec. 4.31 The motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business is in 
    order at any time of the day on Wednesdays and need not be made 
    early in the day.

    On June 5, 1946,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled 
that a motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business could be 
made on Calendar Wednesday, after the call had begun, and that the 
motion required a two-thirds vote. He answered a further inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. (6357, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair will read the rule so that there will be 
    no misunderstanding:

            On Wednesday of each week no business shall be in order 
        except as

[[Page 3853]]

        provided by paragraph 4 of this rule unless the House, by a 
        two-thirds vote on motion to suspend therewith, shall otherwise 
        determine.

        The question is on the motion to dispense with further 
    proceedings under Calendar Wednesday.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Does that motion not have to be made at the 
    very beginning of the day?
        The Speaker: The Chair holds otherwise.

    Similarly, on Aug. 17, 1949,(5) Speaker Rayburn ruled 
that the motion to dispense with further proceedings under the Calendar 
Wednesday rule was in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 11658, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that further call of the committees on Calendar 
    Wednesday today be dispensed with.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Tennessee?
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        Mr. Priest: Mr. Speaker, I move that further call of the 
    committees on Calendar Wednesday for today be dispensed with.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, this is Calendar Wednesday and I 
    submit the motion offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
    Priest] is not in order, that it can only be dispensed with by 
    unanimous consent.
        The Speaker: It would require a two-thirds vote, but the rules 
    provide for dispensing with further call of the committees by 
    motion.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Tennessee.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 4.32 The Speaker is constrained to recognize on Wednesdays any 
    Member proposing a motion to dispense with further proceedings on 
    that day and a two-thirds vote is required to adopt the motion.

    On June 5, 1946,(6) the following discussion and ruling 
by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, took place in relation to the motion 
to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business, made on Calendar 
Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 92 Cong. Rec. 6357, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: That was my 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, I therefore move that the House dispense with 
    further proceedings under Calendar Wednesday.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order. That can only be done by unanimous consent.

[[Page 3854]]

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Marcantonto: Mr. Speaker, that motion is not in order. To 
    dispense with Calendar Wednesday requires the unanimous consent of 
    the House.
        Mr. Whittington: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, may I say 
    that I agree that to dispense with Calendar Wednesday entirely can 
    only be done by unanimous consent, but when there has been a call, 
    and the Committee on Banking and Currency has been called, I 
    respectfully submit that dispensing with the remainder of the 
    proceedings under Calendar Wednesday is in order and that the point 
    of order does not lie.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Marcantonio: I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. Michener: Without reference to the current controversy, may 
    I call the Speaker's attention to the fact that Calendar Wednesday 
    is presumed to be the people's day; that is, all committees are 
    called in order, and whether a bill comes up for consideration 
    rests entirely within the control of the committee having the call, 
    the majority leadership and the Rules Committee to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.
        Calendar Wednesday is usually dispensed with only by unanimous 
    consent. There would be very little use for such a day if this were 
    not the case. General legislation on other days is programed by the 
    leadership; not so on Calendar Wednesday. It would, therefore, seem 
    fundamental if the purposes of the rule are to be carried out, that 
    the committees should be called in order. Were it otherwise, the 
    majority which controls other programs could control proceedings on 
    Calendar Wednesday.
        It would seem fair to proceed with the call of committees, and 
    that no motion to dispense with further proceedings under the 
    Calendar Wednesday rule should be in order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, may I say further that the motion 
    is not in order because the call of the calendar is mandatory. That 
    motion cannot have preference over the call of the Calendar. The 
    only motion that can be considered, as I understand, would be a 
    motion to adjourn, upon which the House has just voted.
        Mr. Whittington: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I have no 
    disposition to delay proceedings, but permit me to say it has been 
    the general and practically universal practice with respect to 
    dispensing with further proceedings under Calendar Wednesday, that 
    motion has frequently been made when one committee of this House 
    has been called. I submit that to the recollection and to the 
    judgment not only of the Speaker but to the Members of the House.
        I respectfully maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the point of order 
    does not lie.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Whittington: If I have the floor.
        Mr. Rankin: If you will go back and search the Record of 
    Calendar Wednesday proceedings, you will find that time and time 
    again when one com

[[Page 3855]]

    mittee has been called, then a motion has been made to dispense 
    with further proceedings under Calendar Wednesday, and that motion 
    carried.
        Mr. Whittington: If further proceedings are dispensed with, 
    then the House can proceed to transact other business for the 
    remainder of the day, including the unfinished river and harbor 
    bill that is pending.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the following was held 
    by Speaker Gillett, who has been quoted today, as follows:
        The Speaker is constrained to recognize on Wednesdays any 
    Member proposing a motion to dispense with further proceedings in 
    order on that day.
        The motion is in order, but it takes a two-thirds vote to pass 
    it.
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennslyvania]: Mr. Speaker, does 
    that motion require a two-thirds vote?
        The Speaker: It does.
        Mr. Whittington; I did not understand the Speaker's answer.
        The Speaker: The answer was that to suspend the call of the 
    calendar on Wednesday requires a two-thirds vote.
        Mr. Whittington: Is a mere motion now to dispense with further 
    proceedings the same as a motion to suspend the rules altogether? 
    My motion is to simply-suspend further proceedings under the call 
    of Calendar Wednesday. I maintain there is a distinction between 
    dispensing with the call altogether and dispensing with further 
    proceedings under the call.
        The Speaker: The Chair will read the rule so that there will be 
    no misunderstanding:

            On Wednesday of each week no business shall be in order 
        except as provided by paragraph 4 of this rule unless the 
        House, by a two-thirds vote on motion to suspend therewith, 
        shall otherwise determine.

        The question is on the motion to dispense with further 
    proceedings under Calendar Wednesday.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Does that motion not have to be made at the 
    very, beginning of the day?
        The Speaker: The Chair holds otherwise.

Sec. 4.33 A privileged motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday 
    business preceded District of Columbia business under Rule XXIV 
    clause 8.

    On June 11, 1973,(7) which was District of Columbia 
Monday, Mr. John J. McFall, of California, was first recognized by 
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to offer the privileged motion (under 
Rule XXIV clause 7) to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business, 
before Chairman John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, of the Committee 
on the District of Columbia was recognized to call up District 
business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 19028-30, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Objection had been made on the pre

[[Page 3856]]

vious week, on June 8, to a unanimous consent request to dispense with 
Calendar Wednesday business on June 13.

Debate on Motion to Dispense With Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.34 Ten minutes of debate (five minutes in favor and five minutes 
    in opposition) are permitted on a motion to dispense with Calendar 
    Wednesday business.

    On June 11, 1973,(8) Mr. John J. McFall, of California, 
moved to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business; he was recognized 
for five minutes and a Member in opposition was recognized for five 
minutes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8.119 Cong. Rec. 19028-30, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McFall: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. McFall moves that business under clause 7, rule XXIV, 
        the Calendar Wednesday rule, be dispensed with on Wednesday, 
        June 13, 1973. . . .

        The Speaker:(9) The gentleman from California (Mr. 
    McFall) is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Gross) for five minutes. . . .
        The motion was rejected.

Sec. 4.35 In recognizing a Member for the five minutes in opposition to 
    a motion to dispense with business under the Calendar Wednesday 
    rule the Speaker extends preference to a member of the committee 
    having the call.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(10) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
extended recognition as follows, in opposition to a motion to dispense 
with Calendar Wednesday business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 2157-59, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rogers of Florida moves to dispense for the day with 
        the operation of clause 7, rule XXIV, providing for the call of 
        committees on Calendar Wednesday.

        Mr. [Dwight L.] Rogers of Florida: Mr. Speaker, do the rules 
    provide for recognition on the motion?
        The Speaker: Yes; 5 minutes for and 5 minutes against. The 
    Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 5 minutes.

Sec. 4.36 A motion to dispense with business under the Calendar 
    Wednesday rule must be in writing if the point of order is made; on 
    such motion there is five minutes' debate for and five minutes 
    against the motion, and such motion may not be laid upon the table.

[[Page 3857]]

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered inquiries relative to debate on the motion to dispense with 
Calendar Wednesday business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 2157-59, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dwight L.] Rogers of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    dispense for the day with the operation of clause 7, rule XXIV, 
    providing for the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Must not the motion be in writing?
        Mr. Rogers of Florida: The motion is in writing.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rogers of Florida moves to dispense for the day with 
        the operation of clause 7, rule XXIV, providing for the call of 
        committees on Calendar Wednesday.

        Mr. Rogers of Florida: Mr. Speaker, do the rules provide for 
    recognition on the motion?
        The Speaker: Yes; 5 minutes for and 5 minutes against. The 
    Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Is not that motion subject to a motion to 
    table?
        The Speaker: The Chair would not think so.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Motions relating to the order of business 
are not subject to the motion to lay on the table. In the case of the 
motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business, which requires a 
two-thirds vote for adoption, it is clear that such motion should not 
be subject to disposition by a motion to table, which requires only a 
majority vote.

Vote on Motion to Dispense With Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.37 A two-thirds vote is required to adopt a motion to dispense 
    with business under the Calendar Wednesday rule.

    On Jan. 25, 1950,(12) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
indicated the vote required to adopt a motion to dispense with Calendar 
Wednesday business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 920, 921, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: This is Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will call 
    the committees.
        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    dispense with further proceedings under the Calendar Wednesday 
    rule.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 3858]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McConmack: This motion in order to succeed must receive a 
    two-thirds vote, if I remember the rules correctly.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(13~) Speaker Rayburn answered a 
similar inquiry and the voting on the motion proceeded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 2159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Florida.

        Mr. [Tom] Pickett [of Texas]: On that motion, Mr.. Speaker. I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. [Donald W.] Nicholson [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Nicholson: Does it take a two-thirds vote on this motion?
        The Speaker: It does.
        The question was taken; and there were-yeas 121, nays 286, not 
    voting 25, as follows: . . .
        So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof), the motion 
    was rejected.

    On June 20, 1951,(14) the House refused by division vote 
to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 6816, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (15) The question is on the motion of 
    the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack] that Calendar 
    Wednesday business be dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demand by Mr. 
    Rankin) there were--ayes 138, nays 72.
        So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the motion 
    was rejected.
        The Speaker: This is Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will call 
    the committees.
        The Clerk proceeded to call the committees.

Sec. 4.38 The House by a two thirds vote dispensed with business on 
    Calendar Wednesday.

    On July 16, 1946,(16) the House agreed to dispense with 
Calendar Wednesday business in order to expedite certain legislation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 9153, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, in view of the 
    experience we have had over the past several weeks on Calendar 
    Wednesdays and the delay in legislation resulting from the action 
    we have taken on those days and in view of the importance of the 
    legislation that is now pending, I believe it would he wise on the 
    part of the Membership if we dispense with the business in order on 
    Calendar Wednesday tomorrow and take up the atomic bomb bill for 
    general debate. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move that the business in 
    order on Calendar Wednesday be dispensed with.
        The Speaker: (17) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. May].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3859]]

        The question was taken; and two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof, the motion was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 4.39 The House rejected the motion to dispense with Calendar 
    Wednesday business in order to consider conference reports.

    On July 10, 1946,(18) a motion to dispense with Calendar 
Wednesday business (made on Calendar Wednesday) was rejected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 8588, 8589, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    preferential motion. Mr. Speaker, we have several conference 
    reports----
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order; that is not a motion.
        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman from Mississippi 
    will state his motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I move that proceedings under Calendar 
    Wednesday be dispensed with.
        We have conference reports that should be considered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion. . . .
        So two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the motion was 
    rejected.

Unanimous Consent to Dispense With Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.40 Calendar Wednesday business is customarily dispensed with by 
    unanimous-consent request made at the conclusion of business on the 
    preceding week.

    The Majority Leader or Majority Whip announces, at the conclusion 
of the scheduled business for the week, the legislative program for the 
following week. Also at that time he makes a unanimous-consent request 
relative to Calendar Wednesday business on the following week:

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar 
    Wednesday rule on Wednesday of next week be dispensed with.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Neal Smith ( Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 110 Cong. Rec. 11691, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., May 21, 1964 (request 
        made by the Speaker in the absence of the Majority Leader and 
        Whip).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.41 The Majority Leader was recognized, prior to the approval of 
    the Journal, to ask unanimous consent to dispense with Calendar 
    Wednesday business on that day.

    On Sept. 19, 1962,(2) Majority Leader Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3860]]

was recognized before the approval of the Journal by Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts. Mr. Albert asked unanimous consent ``that 
the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule may be 
dispensed with, today.''

    The request was objected to.

Sec. 4.42 Calendar Wednesday business may be dispensed with by 
    unanimous consent but not by motion before the approval of the 
    Journal.

    On Sept. 19, 1962,(3) Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, the 
Majority Leader, asked unanimous consent, before the reading and 
approval of the Journal, that Calendar Wednesday business on that day 
be dispensed with. Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, objected to the 
request. Mr. Albert then moved that Calendar Wednesday business be 
dispensed with, and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled 
that the motion was not in order before the reading and approval of the 
Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------