[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[C. Special Rules or Orders]
[Â§ 17. Reports and Their Privilege]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4040-4052]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       C. SPECIAL RULES OR ORDERS
 
Sec. 17. Reports and Their Privilege

    Pursuant to Rule XI clause 23,(3) it is ``always'' in 
order to call up a report from the Committee on Rules; the privilege of 
such re
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973). [Rule XI clause 4(b), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4041]]

ports yields to questions of privilege, conference reports and 
resolving into the Committee of the Whole where the House has so 
voted.(4) And if a resolution providing an order of business 
is not called up by the member of the Committee on Rules who has 
reported it within seven legislative days, any member of the committee 
may call it up as a privileged question.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See note to Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) 
        (1979).
            A report from the Committee on Rules takes precedence over 
        a privileged motion to discharge a committee from further 
        consideration of a resolution of inquiry (see Sec. 17.7, 
        infra), and has been called up before District of Columbia 
        business which is privileged on District Day (see Sec. 17.8, 
        infra). However, the call of committees under the Calendar 
        Wednesday rule has been held of higher privilege than a report 
        from the Committee on Rules (see Sec. 17.10, infra).
 5. Rule XI clause 4(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1979). See 
        Sec. 17.9, infra. At various times the rules of the House have 
        included a special discharge rule applicable to orders of 
        business which the Committee on Rules has failed to report; for 
        discussion of the past provision, see Sec. 18.52, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A report from the Committee on Rules, however, may not be 
considered on the same day reported except by a two-thirds 
vote,(6) by unanimous consent or by adoption of another rule 
reported from the Committee on Rules permitting such consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979). See 
        generally, Ch. 17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XI clause 24 (~7~) provides that the Committee on 
Rules must report to the House within three legislative days of the 
time when the committee orders the report. If the committee makes an 
adverse report on a resolution providing an order of business, any 
Member of the House may call up for consideration such report on 
``discharge days'' (under Rule XXVII clause 4) and move its adoption 
notwithstanding the adverse report.(8)~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 732 (1973). [Rule XI clause 4(c), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1979).]
 8. Under the discharge rule, Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and 
        Manual 908 (1979), the Committee on Rules may be discharged 
        from the further consideration of a resolution providing an 
        order of business (see Sec. 18, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are few formal requirements governing reports by the 
Committee on Rules. A quorum must be present when a resolution is 
ordered reported,(9)~ and it has
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. Sec. 17.5, 17.6, infra. The quorum requirement applies to 
        all committees of the House. See Rule XI clause 27(e), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 735(e) (1973). [Now Rule XI clause 2(1) 
        (2) (A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713(c) (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4042]]

been held that the Committee on Rules may not file two reports on the 
same resolution.(10), The Ramseyer rule (requiring a 
comparative print on bills and resolutions repealing or amending 
statutes) does not apply to reports on order of business resolutions 
(although clause 4(d) of Rule XI, as added in the 93d Congress, 
requires a comparative print in a Rules Committee report on a 
resolution permanently repealing or amending any rule of the 
House).(11)~ The Committee on Rules is specifically excepted 
from the requirement in Rule XI that members wishing to file 
additional, supplemental, and minority views with a report have not 
less than three calendar days to do so.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 17.4, infra. This ruling does not prohibit the filing of a 
        supplemental report.
11. See Sec. 17.3, infra. The cost-estimate rule, Rule XIII clause 7, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 748b (1979), also does not apply, 
        since specifically limited to bills or joint resolutions of a 
        public character.
12. Rule XI clause 27(d)(3), House Rules and Manual Sec. 735(d) (3) 
        (1973). [Now Rule XI clause 2(1)(5), House Rule and Manual 
        Sec. 714 (1979)]. The subject of committee reports is also 
        discussed extensively in Ch. 17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing Reports

Sec. 17.1 The Committee on Rules must present to the House reports 
    concerning rules, joint rules, resolutions, and orders of business 
    within three legislature days of the time when ordered reported by 
    the committee (under Rule XI clause 24).

    On Jan. 25, 1944,(13)~~ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered parliamentary inquiry on reports from the Committee on Rules 
(under the provision that subsequently became Rule XI clause 4(c), 
House Rules and Manual Sec. 730 [1979]):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 675, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, on day 
    before yesterday the Committee on Rules voted, I understand 
    unanimously, to report to the House a rule on the soldiers' vote 
    bill, S. 1285. This rule has not been reported to the House.
        My parliamentary inquiry is whether if the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules declines further, or delays further, to report 
    this rule to the House so we may proceed with this legislation, 
    some other member of the Committee on Rules may do so without a 
    resolution.
        I may say to the Chair that it is my definite understanding 
    that unless the chairman of the Committee on Rules does report it, 
    a motion will be in order

[[Page 4043]]

    under the privilege of the House to require the resolution to be 
    brought to the floor of the House, but what I am trying to find out 
    is whether or not some other member of the committee would have the 
    right to report this rule and let us proceed with the legislation.
        The Speaker: The rule provides that the Committee on Rules 
    shall present to the House reports concerning joint resolutions and 
    other business within 3 legislative days of the time when ordered 
    reported by the committee.
        The Chair does not feel it necessary at this time to answer the 
    parliamentary inquiry further because the Chair believes that 
    action will provide the answer.

Sec. 17.2 The reporting of a special rule for the consideration of a 
    bill in the House does not preclude the committee from which the 
    bill is reported from obtaining unanimous consent to file a 
    supplemental report in which is advocated an amendment to the bill.

    On Feb. 29, 1940,(14) there was pending before the House 
a special order from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
consideration of a bill. A parliamentary inquiry was propounded 
relative to the fact that following the report from the Committee on 
Rules, the legislative committee reporting the bill reported a 
supplemental report recommending an amendment to the bill on the House 
floor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 2184, 2185, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: The Speaker was not in 
    the Chair when I raised my original point. The point was this, that 
    a legislative committee asked for a rule to consider a specific 
    piece of legislation dealing with a specific matter in a particular 
    way. I was not then a member of the committee. After consideration 
    the Rules Committee felt it wise to recommend a rule providing for 
    the consideration of this particular thing in this particular way. 
    Shortly after that the legislative committee secured unanimous 
    consent to file a supplemental report on this original bill, and in 
    their report the legislative committee adopted another bill dealing 
    with the same matter but in an entirely different way and in a way 
    that possibly--and probably--would not have been authorized when 
    the rule was asked for.

        A confidential copy is floating around here of the bill which 
    the committee intends to bring up. My inquiry is whether that can 
    be done under the rules of the House. If that can be done, it is a 
    simple matter for any committee to ask for a rule on a perfectly 
    harmless bill which everyone might be for, and then, after they get 
    the rule, bring in another bill in fact, under the same number. 
    This rule was granted on July 10 last year. Then in January, 7 
    months later, they introduce a new bill in a supplemental report 
    and are attempting to bring this new bill dealing with the same 
    subject matter in an entirely different manner before the

[[Page 4044]]

    House under the old rule. Can that be done?

    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, answered the inquiry as 
follows.

        The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Michener], who raises this 
    question by parliamentary inquiry, of course, is familiar with the 
    general principle that all proposed action touching the rules, 
    joint rules, and orders of business shall be referred to the 
    Committee on Rules. Under a broad, uniform construction of that 
    jurisdiction, the Rules Committee, as the Chair understands it, has 
    practically plenary power, unreserved and unrestricted power, to 
    submit for the consideration of the House any order of business it 
    sees fit to submit, subject, of course, to the approval of the 
    House.
        The Chair, of course, knows nothing about what was in the minds 
    of the committee in reference to this legislation. The Chair can 
    only look at the face of the record as it is presented from a 
    parliamentary standpoint. As the Chair construes the resolution now 
    pending, it is very broad in its terms. It provides for the 
    consideration of a Senate bill pending on the Union Calendar and 
    the Chair assumes that the Committee on Rules was requested to give 
    a rule for the consideration of that bill, which was the original 
    basis for any legislation that may be passed touching this subject 
    of stream pollution.
        In conformance with the general power and jurisdiction of the 
    Rules Committee, it did report a resolution providing that in the 
    consideration of the Senate bill any germane amendments may be 
    offered; and, of course, it is not the province of the Chair, 
    presiding over the House, to determine the relevancy or germaneness 
    of any amendment that may be submitted in the Committee of the 
    Whole, whether by way of a substitute or by way of amendment.
        The Chair is clearly of the opinion that the Rules Committee 
    had a perfect right under the general authority conferred upon it 
    to report this resolution providing for this method of 
    consideration of the bill.

Form of Reports

Sec. 17.3 The Speaker held that reports of the Committee on Rules on 
    special orders providing for the consideration of bills were not 
    subject to the provisions of the Ramseyer rule (Rule XIII clause 3, 
    referring to comparative prints on bills and joint resolutions 
    repealing or amending statutes).

    On May 23, 1935,(15) there was pending a special order 
from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill 
reported from the Committee on Public Lands; Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, 
of Tennessee, overruled a point of order against the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 8094, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the report does not comply with the Ramseyer 
    rule.

[[Page 4045]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Rich: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    report does not comply with the Ramseyer rule because it does not 
    show the changes in the law by the proposed bill. I will read the 
    rule which will be found in the Manual on page 338, 2a:

            Whenever a committee reports a bill or joint resolution 
        repealing or amending any statute or part thereof it shall 
        include in its report or in an accompanying document--
            (1) The text of the statute or part thereof which is 
        proposed to be repealed; and
            (2) A comparative print of that part of the bill or joint 
        resolution making the amendment and of the statute or part 
        thereof proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through 
        type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typo 
        graphical devices the omissions and insertions proposed to be 
        made.

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair will state 
    that the point of order raised by the gentleman may be good as to 
    reports by a legislative committee. But this is a special rule from 
    the Committee on Rules which merely makes in order the 
    consideration of a bill. The Chair does not think the point is well 
    taken when made against the report of the Committee on Rules and 
    therefore overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Rich: Very well, I will make the point of order hen the 
    bill is taken up.

Sec. 17.4 The Speaker indicated that two reports may not be filed from 
    the Committee on Rules on the same resolution.

    On Jan. 17, 1950,(16) Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, 
reported to the House a resolution from the Committee on Rules 
(amending the rules of the House). In debate on the filing of the 
report, Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, who had been authorized by the 
committee to file the report, stated that he had stepped aside to allow 
Mr. Sabath to file the report. When Mr. Sabath indicated the probable 
time of calling up the report, Mr. Cox attempted to file another report 
on the resolution, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, expressed serious 
doubt whether two reports on the same resolution could be filed at the 
same time. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 499-501, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, that is not in accord with the agreement. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield to me, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules I file a privileged resolution; and permit 
    me to make this statement; these differences may be ironed out 
    later.
        The Speaker: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Georgia if 
    it is the same resolution that has already been reported to the 
    House.
        Mr. Cox: I presume it is the same resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair doubts very seriously whether two 
    reports on the same resolution can be filed at the same time.

[[Page 4046]]

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the filing of this rule at this time.
        The Speaker: Permit the Chair to handle this matter.
        Mr. Marcantonio: But I am making a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair was clarifying the situation. The Chair 
    is of opinion that two reports cannot be filed on the same 
    resolution at the same time. . . .
        The Chair is trying to carry out orderly procedure. If two 
    identical resolutions on the same subject matter can be reported, 
    than a number can be reported and the Record would be cluttered up. 
    The Chair hopes the gentleman from Virginia will not say that he 
    hopes the Chair will allow something to be done if he thinks it is 
    unnecessary because the report has already been filed.
        Mr. Cox did not persist in attempting to file another report on 
    the resolution.
        Parliamentarian's Note: While a second report should not be 
    filed on the same resolution, except to correct errors in the 
    first, the Committee on Rules may report more than one resolution 
    providing for the consideration of the same bill.

Quorum of Committee Required to Report Resolutions

Sec. 17.5 A report from the Committee on Rules was withdrawn because of 
    a question as to whether or not a quorum of the committee was 
    present at the time the resolution was ordered reported.

    On Feb. 2, 1951,(17) Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, 
filed a report from the Committee on Rules. A colloquy ensued as to 
whether a quorum was present at the time the report was ordered 
reported. Mr. Sabath therefore withdrew the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 97 Cong. Rec. 876, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regularity of Meeting

Sec. 17.6 In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Chair has no 
    right to assume that the Committee on Rules had anything but a 
    formal session in reporting a special order making in order a 
    motion to consider a particular bill.

    On July 23, 1942,(18) Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 528, 
making in order the consideration of a bill. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, overruled a point of order against the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 6541, 6542, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the rule.

[[Page 4047]]

        I make the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that this rule was 
    obtained by fraud; that it was represented to the Rules Committee 
    that the Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and 
    Representatives in Congress had held a meeting and reported this 
    bill. No such meeting was ever held. The chairman of the committee 
    was in New York, sick, and a majority of the rest of the members 
    was not even notified that any such meeting was contemplated. Fraud 
    vitiates everything, and I cannot believe that the Rules Committee 
    would report this rule out knowing that they were being defrauded. 
    If they did not know it, the fraud vitiates the rule. That is a 
    well-known legal maxim that every lawyer is familiar with. So I 
    make the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that this proposition is not 
    legally before the House because it was never legally reported. The 
    members of the Rules Committee were misled into believing it had 
    been reported and therefore were defrauded into reporting this 
    rule, which vitiates the whole proceeding.
        The Speaker: The only thing that interests the Chair is whether 
    or not the Committee on Rules had a formal meeting and reported 
    this resolution. The Chair has no right, as the Chair thinks, in 
    the absence of some evidence to the contrary, to assume that the 
    Committee on Rules had anything but a formal session and reported 
    this special rule. Therefore the Chair overrules the point of order 
    of the gentleman from Mississippi.

Privilege and Precedence of Reports

Sec. 17.7 A report from the Committee on Rules, making an order of 
    business, takes precedence over a privileged motion to discharge a 
    committee from further consideration of a resolution of inquiry.

    On Feb. 2, 1923, Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, sought 
recognition to move to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from 
further consideration of a resolution of inquiry directed to the 
Secretary of the Treasury, such motion having privileged status under 
Rule XXII clause 5 [House Rules and Manual Sec. 855 (1979)]. Mr. Philip 
P. Campbell, of Kansas, also arose seeking recognition to call up from 
the Committee on Rules a privileged report making an order of business. 
Speaker Frederick H. Gillett, of Massachusetts, ruled as follows on the 
question of precedence between the two privileged matters:

        The Chair very often recognizes a person without knowing what 
    motion that person is going to make. But that, the Chair thinks, 
    does not give them any right. The question always is, Which 
    gentleman has the motion of higher privilege? And every recognition 
    of the Chair is provisional and subject to some other Member having 
    a matter of higher privilege. The question on which the Chair would 
    like to hear from the gentleman is, Which has the higher 
    privilege--a resolution from the Committee on Rules or a motion to 
    discharge a committee? . . . The Chair

[[Page 4048]]

    finds no precedent on the matter except one by Speaker Reed in 
    which he said, `This is a privileged question, but not a question 
    of privilege.' Now, if it were a question of privilege the Chair 
    would be disposed to think that the reason it was privileged was 
    because it affected the privileges of the House, but this seems to 
    negative that. If it is a privileged question, it is, as the 
    gentleman from Tennessee suggests-- . . . It is on a level with a 
    report from a privileged committee. Now, a report from the 
    Committee on Rules always has precedence over that, because the 
    rule expressly says that it shall always be in order to call up a 
    report from the Committee on Rules. The Chair thinks the Committee 
    on Rules has precedence, and the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
    Campbell] is recognized.

    An appeal was taken from the Chair's decision but was laid on the 
table.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Jour. 225, 67th Cong. 4th Sess., Feb. 15, 1923.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.8 On a District Day, the Speaker recognized a member of the 
    Committee on Rules to call up a privileged resolution relating to 
    the order of business, and later recognized the chairman of another 
    committee to call up the business made in order thereby, prior to 
    recognizing the Chairman of the Committee on the District of 
    Columbia to call up District business under Rule XXIV clause X.

    On Sept. 24, 1962,(20) which was District of Columbia 
Day under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, first recognized Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, 
to call up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 804, 
making in order and providing for the consideration of Senate Joint 
Resolution 224, authorizing the President to call up armed forces 
reservists. The House having agreed to the resolution, the Speaker 
recognized Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services and manager of the joint resolution, to move that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of 
the joint resolution, which was after debate agreed to be the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 20489--94, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then stated that it was District of Columbia Day and 
recognized Chairman John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, of the 
Committee on the District of Columbia for District 
business.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 20522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.9 If a resolution providing a special order of business is not 
    called up for consider

[[Page 4049]]

    ation by the Member reporting the resolution within seven days, any 
    member of the committee may call it up for consideration as a 
    privileged matter, for which purpose the Speaker would be obliged 
    to recognize such member, unless a matter of equal or higher 
    privilege was pending. In the latter case the order of 
    consideration would be determined by the Speaker's recognition.

    On Sept. 22, 1966,(2) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of 
business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Under the rules of the House, as I understand them, this rule, 
    House Resolution 1007, to bring up the so-called House Un-American 
    Activities Committee bill, is a privileged matter, and if it is not 
    programed, then the gentleman handling the rule or any member of 
    the Rules Committee, may call it up as a privileged matter. Is my 
    understanding correct about that?
        The Speaker: The gentleman's understanding is correct. Of 
    course, the question of recognition is with the Chair, where there 
    are two similar preferential matters, but the gentleman's 
    understanding is correct that after 7 legislative days a member of 
    the Rules Committee could call it up.
        If it were a question of recognition, if the same preferential 
    status existed at the same time, recognition rests with the Chair.
        Mr. Colmer: I thank the Speaker for his ruling.
        Mr. Speaker, in view of that, if the gentleman will continue to 
    yield to me, I should like to serve notice now on the majority 
    leadership that if this resolution is not programed at a reasonably 
    early date, I shall exercise that privilege as the one who is 
    designated to handle this rule.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I should like to 
    announce further that the program for next week will be announced 
    later in the day.

Sec. 17.10 The Speaker held that special orders from the Committee on 
    Rules were not privileged for consideration on Calendar Wednesday.

    On Aug. 21, 1935,(3) 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, objected that 
the resolution was not privileged on Calendar Wednesday and Speaker 
Joseph

[[Page 4050]]

W. Byrns, of Tennessee, sustained the objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 79 Cong. Rec. 14038, 14039, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.11 Under Rule XI clause 23, the calling up of a resolution 
    reported from the Committee on Rules is a matter of high privilege, 
    and when consideration has begun and the resolution is under 
    debate, the House can postpone further consideration and proceed to 
    other business only by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 29, 1969, Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, called up, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, a special order providing for the 
consideration of a bill. After consideration had begun and the 
resolution was under debate, Mr. Young asked unanimous consent ``that 
further consideration of this resolution be postponed until tomorrow.'' 
The House agreed to the request.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 115 Cong. Rec. 32076-83, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
            Rule XI clause 23 is now Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: A privileged resolution called up in the 
House may be withdrawn from consideration before action thereon, and if 
the resolution is later reoffered, debate under the hour rule begins 
anew. But if the House desires to use part of the hour's debate on one 
day and resume consideration on the next, it may by unanimous consent 
postpone further consideration or, if there is no further business or 
special orders to follow, it may simply adjourn so that the resolution 
would become unfinished business on the following day.

Sec. 17.12 The consideration of a privileged report from the Committee 
    on Rules was held to take precedence over the calling of the 
    Consent Calender.

    On Dec. 15, 1919, Mr. Philip P. Campbell, of Kansas, a member of 
the Committee on Rules, called up for consideration unfinished business 
coming over from a previous day, House Resolution 416, reported from 
the Committee on Rules and providing a special order of business. Mr. 
Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made a point of order against the 
consideration of the resolution, on the grounds that the consideration 
of the Consent Calendar (termed at that time bills ``under suspension 
of the rules'') took precedence on that day, being an eligible Monday 
for the Consent Calendar. Speaker Frederick H. Gillett, of 
Massachusetts, overruled the point of order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H. Jour. 46, 66th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 4051]]

Nonprivileged Reports

Sec. 17.13 Although the Committee on Rules has authority to report as 
    privileged a resolution creating a select House committee, the 
    inclusion therein of a subject coming within the jurisdiction of 
    another standing committee destroys its privilege, and it is 
    therefore necessary for the committee to report a privileged 
    resolution making in order the consideration of the nonprivileged 
    matter reported by it.

    On Jan. 31, 1973,(6) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, 
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, House Resolution 
176, a privileged order of business making in order the consideration 
of House Resolution 132, another resolution reported from the Committee 
on Rules creating a select committee. The first resolution was 
necessary because House Resolution 132 was not a privileged resolution 
under Rule XI clause 22 [now Rule X clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 726 (1979)], since it related to payment of money from the 
contingent fund on vouchers approved by the Speaker (a matter within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 2804, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    House Resolution 176, which was adopted by the House, read as 
follows:

                                H. Res. 176

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of the resolution (H. 
    Res. 132) to create a select committee to study the operation and 
    implementation of rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives. After general debate, which shall be confined to 
    the resolution and shall continue not to exceed one hour, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Rules, the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption or 
    rejection.

    Similarly, on June 8, 1937, the House adopted a resolution from the 
Committee on Rules making in order the consideration of a bill from the 
Committee on Rules creating a joint committee, where the bill was not 
privileged for consideration:(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 5442, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 226

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration 
    of S.J. Res. 155, a joint resolution

[[Page 4052]]

    to create a Joint Congressional Committee on Tax Evasion and 
    Avoidance, and all points of order against said joint resolution 
    are hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the joint resolution and continue not to exceed 1 hour, 
    to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Rules, the joint resolution 
    shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the 
    conclusion of the reading of the joint resolution for amendment, 
    the Committee shall rise and report the same to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Sec. 17.14 A motion to recommit a privileged or nonprivileged 
    proposition reported by the Committee on Rules may be made in order 
    by a special rule reported from that committee.

    On May 25, 1970, the House adopted the following resolution 
reported from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of 
(and allowing a motion to recommit) a joint resolution also reported 
from that committee, where the joint resolution was not privileged 
under Rule XI clause 22.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 726, 728 (1973) [now Rule XI 
        clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1021

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1117) to establish a Joint 
    Committee on Environment and Technology. After general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the joint resolution and shall continue 
    not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the 
    joint resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
    rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the joint 
    resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    joint resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered 
    on the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 16973 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: A privileged report from the Committee on 
Rules, when considered under the hour rule in the House pursuant to 
Rule XI, clause 4(b) (96th Congress), is not subject to a motion to 
recommit; but the Rules Committee may waive that restriction by 
otherwise providing for consideration in a special order.

[[Page 4053]]