[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[C. Special Rules or Orders]
[Â§ 18. Consideration in the House]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4053-4106]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       C. SPECIAL RULES OR ORDERS
 
Sec. 18. Consideration in the House

    Resolutions affecting the order of business, reported from the 
Committee on Rules, are considered in the House, are debatable under 
the hour rule (10) and require a majority vote for adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 758 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reports on orders of business are called up by a member of the 
committee who has been authorized to do so, unless the report has been 
on the House calendar for seven legislative days without being called 
up, in which case any member of the committee may call up the 
resolution.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 18.1-18.5, infra, for calling up special orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are other methods, rarely invoked, for obtaining 
consideration of special orders. Under Rule XI clause 
24,(12) in the event an adverse report is made by the 
Committee on Rules on an order of business resolution, any Member of 
the House may call up the report and move the adoption of the 
resolution on days when motions to discharge committees are in order 
under Rule XXVII clause 4.(13) The latter provision replaced 
the ``21-day'' discharge rule which was in effect in the 89th and in 
previous Congresses and which permitted calling up a special order 
either adversely reported by the Committee on Rules or not reported 
within 21 calendar days after reference.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 732 (1973) [now Rule XI clause 4(c), 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 730 (1979)].
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 908.
14. For the 21-day discharge rule, its history and effect, see 
        Sec. 18.52, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the ``21-day'' rule was deleted from the rules of the 90th 
Congress, Rule XXVII clause 4, the regular discharge rule, provides 
that the Committee on Rules may be discharged from the consideration of 
a resolution providing a special order of business or a special rule 
for the consideration of any public bill or resolution favorably 
reported by a standing committee.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For the application of the discharge rule to resolutions pending 
        before the Committee on Rules, see Sec. Sec. 18.44-18.50, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On most occasions, however, a report from the Committee on Rules 
reaches the floor by being called up by a member of that committee who 
has been so authorized. Such reports are privileged for consideration, 
as discussed in Sec. 17, supra. If the report is called up the same day 
reported, the House must by a two-

[[Page 4054]]

thirds vote (of those Members present and voting) agree to consider 
it.(16) Where a privileged report is called up from the 
Committee on Rules on the day reported, the Speaker first puts the 
question whether the House shall consider the resolution (after the 
report has been referred to the House Calendar and ordered printed), 
and no debate is in order until the question of consideration is 
determined.(17) If the House fails to determine the question 
of consideration in the affirmative, the report remains on the House 
Calendar.(18) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 18.6, 18.7, infra.
17. See Sec. Sec. 18.11-18.14, infra. The House may by unanimous 
        consent agree to consider the report the same day reported (see 
        Sec. 18.13, infra).
18. See Sec. 18.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two-thirds requirement does not apply during the last three 
days of a session,(19) and the two-thirds voting requirement 
for consideration on the same day reported does not affect the 
requirement that a majority actually adopt the 
resolution.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 18.8, 18.9, infra.
20. See Sec. 18.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Member who is recognized to call up a special order is 
recognized for one hour, which he may yield in his discretion; by 
custom of the Committee on Rules, the manager of the resolution yields 
half of the hour to the minority.(1) If the resolution is 
withdrawn by unanimous consent while under debate, the Member calling 
it up again is recognized for a full hour.(2) But no Member 
may speak on a resolution from the Committee on Rules unless the Member 
in control yields to him.(3) The hour of debate on such 
resolutions may be extended by unanimous consent.(4) And 
under Rule XIV clause 1,(5) debate on a special order must 
be confined to the question.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 18.15, infra. Where the manager loses control of the 
        resolution, the Member recognized has no compunction to divide 
        the time (see Sec. 18.17, infra, discussing circumstances 
        following rejection of the previous question). A Member calling 
        up a special order pursuant to the ``21-day'' discharge rule, 
        no longer in effect, was also under no compunction to yield to 
        the other side (see Sec. 18.52, infra).
 2. See Sec. 18.42, infra.
 3. See Sec. Sec. 18.15, 18.17, infra.
 4. See Sec. 18.16, infra.
 5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1979).
 6. See Sec. Sec. 18.39, 18.40, infra, for relevancy of debate on 
        special orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since a resolution from the Committee on Rules is considered in the 
House under the hour rule, amendments are in order only if: (1) 
committee amendments are

[[Page 4055]]

submitted in the report; (7) (2) the Member who has called 
up the resolution offers an amendment to the resolution; (8) 
(3) the manager of the resolution yields for an amendment; 
(9) or (4) the previous question is rejected.(10) 
But if amendments are offered in one of the ways specified, such 
amendments must be germane to the resolution.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. Sec. 18.21, 18.22, infra.
 8. See Sec. Sec. 18.19 (generally), 18.23-18.26 (amendments offered by 
        manager), infra.
 9. See Sec. Sec. 18.19, 18.27-18.29, infra. If the manager yields for 
        amendment, he loses control and the Member offering the 
        amendment is recognized for one hour (see Sec. 18.28, infra).
10. See Sec. Sec. 18.19, 18.32-18.36, infra.
11. See Sec. Sec. 18.30, 18.31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event that the previous question is rejected, the Member who 
led the opposition to the motion will be recognized by the Chair for 
one hour; the Member recognized may yield such time as he desires, may 
offer an amendment to the resolution, and may move the previous 
question on the resolution as amended. A motion to table may also be 
offered following the rejection of the previous 
question.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 18.33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the resolution is under debate, it may be postponed only by 
unanimous consent (although it may be withdrawn before action 
thereon).(13) And the motion to recommit, after the previous 
question is ordered, is not in order on a resolution from the Committee 
on Rules, although the resolution may be recommitted by unanimous 
consent.(14) As to the motion to adjourn, Rule XI clause 23 
provides that pending the consideration of a privileged report from the 
Committee on Rules, only one motion to adjourn is in 
order.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 18.37 (postponement), 18.41, 18.42 (withdrawal), 
        infra.
14. See Sec. 18.38, infra. Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 782 (1979), generally provides for a motion to recommit, 
        after the previous question is ordered, on a bill or joint 
        resolution.
15. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973) [now Rule XI clause 
        4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule XVI clause 6,(16) any resolution or 
order reported from the Committee on Rules and providing a special 
order of business is not subject to a division of the question but must 
be voted on in its entirety.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 791.
17. See Sec. 18.43, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calling Up Rules Committee Reports

Sec. 18.1 Only a member of the Committee on Rules author

[[Page 4056]]

    ized by the committee to do so may call up a report from the 
    committee providing for a special order of business, unless the 
    rule has been on the calendar seven legislative days without 
    action, where any member of the committee may call it up as a 
    privileged matter.

    On June 6, 1940, (18) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New 
York, sought recognition to call up, ``pursuant to Rule XI, paragraph 
2, chapter 45'' [Rule XI clause 4(c), House Rules and Manual Sec. 730 
(1979)] a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, providing a 
special order of business for the consideration of a bill. Mr. William 
M. Colmer, of Mississippi, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, 
had reported the resolution to the House on the same day. Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that Mr. Fish, not having been 
authorized by the committee, could not call up the rule for 
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 7706, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman from New 
    York to call up the resolution unless the Record shows he was 
    authorized to do so by the Rules Committee. The Chair would be 
    authorized to recognize the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] 
    to call up the rule in the event the resolution offered by the 
    gentleman from New York, which was the unfinished business, is not 
    called up.
        Mr. Fish: Will the Chair permit me to read this rule?
        The Speaker: The Chair would be glad to hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Fish: Rule XI reads as follows:

            It shall always be in order to call up for consideration a 
        report from the Committee on Rules (except it shall not be 
        called up for consideration on the same day it is presented to 
        the House, unless so determined by a vote of not less than two-
        thirds of the Members voting).

        I submit, according to that rule and the reading of that rule, 
    Mr. Speaker, that any member of the Rules Committee can call up the 
    rule, but it would require the membership of the House to act upon 
    it by a two-third vote in order to obtain consideration.
        The Speaker: The precedents are all to the effect that only a 
    Member authorized by the Rules Committee can call up a rule, unless 
    the rule has been on the calendar for 7 legislative days without 
    action.
        Mr. Fish: Of course, there is nothing to that effect in the 
    reading of the rule.
        The Speaker: The Chair is relying upon the precedents in such 
    instances.

Sec. 18.2 A member of the Committee on Rules announced his intention to 
    call up for consideration, under Rule XI clause 24, a report from 
    that committee which had been reported for more than seven 
    legislative days but not scheduled for consideration.

[[Page 4057]]

    On Sept. 22, 1966,(19) Mr. William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, propounded a parliamentary inquiry whether a resolution 
reported from the Committee on Rules and not called up within seven 
legislative days (H. Res. 1007, providing for consideration of the 
``House Un-American Activities bill'') could be called up by any member 
of the committee. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
responded in the affirmative and Mr. Colmer stated that if the 
resolution was not ``programed at a[n] . . . early date,'' he would 
``exercise that privilege as the one who is designated to handle this 
rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
            Rule XI clause 24 is now Rule XI clause 4(c), House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 730 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.3 The ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, 
    pursuant to Rule XI clause 24, which authorizes any member of that 
    committee to call up a rule reported seven days or more without 
    being called up, called up a resolution providing for the 
    consideration of a bill.

    On July 27, 1956,(20) Mr. Leo E. Allen, of Illinois, the 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, called up a 
resolution providing for the consideration of a bill; the resolution 
had been reported to the House and had not been called up by the member 
making the report within seven legislative days. The Majority Leader 
commented on the procedure:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 102 Cong. Rec. 15195, 15196, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
            Rule XI clause 24 is now Rule Xl clause 4(c), House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 730 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I want 
    the House to understand what the situation is. Our Republican 
    friends are trying to take over control of the House by this 
    motion. I want my Democratic friends to understand just what this 
    means. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Allen] under the rules 
    called up the resolution, which he is entitled to do when a rule is 
    reported out for 7 days and he is within his rights in doing so. 
    But, I want the House to know just what has happened. It is the 
    first time in all my years of service in the House of 
    Representatives, no matter what party was in control of the House, 
    that a motion of this kind has been made to call up a rule which 
    has a preferential status under the rules of the House. The bill is 
    on the program and it might have been reached.

    Subsequently, the resolution was adopted and the Majority Leader 
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of the bill, which was agreed to.

[[Page 4058]]

Sec. 18.4 A minority member of the Committee on Rules called up and 
    obtained consideration of a resolution reported by that committee 
    providing a special order of business.

    On July 14, 1949,(1) a resolution providing a special 
order of business, reported by the Committee on Rules, was called up 
for consideration as follows by a minority member of the committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 9511, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James W.] Wadsworth [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, under 
    rather unusual circumstances and in violation of some of the 
    traditions of the House, as a minority Member I venture to call up 
    House Resolution 278, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Wadsworth: Mr. Speaker, in further explanation of this 
    unusual performance, of a member of the minority of the Committee 
    on Rules calling up a rule, may I say I can see no member of the 
    majority party of the Committee on Rules here present to take 
    charge of the rule. I have, however, consulted with the gentleman 
    from Tennessee who, I am informed on infallible authority, is the 
    Democratic whip, and I have his consent to behave in this atrocious 
    manner.
        I understand under the rules 1 hour of debate is in order. On 
    this side of the aisle no requests for time have been made to speak 
    on the rule. I now inquire if there are any requests for time on 
    the majority side?
        Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    gentleman will yield, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, who 
    had this rule under consideration, I believe understood that 
    perhaps the bill would be passed over today. So if there is no 
    request for time on the rule, if the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Wadsworth] will move the previous question, since he has called the 
    rule up, I believe that would be in order and we could proceed with 
    the consideration of the bill.
        Mr. Wadsworth: Mr. Speaker, it is with great cheerfulness that 
    I move the previous question on the rule.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The question is on the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 18.5 The Majority Leader called up by unanimous consent a 
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules providing a special 
    order of business on behalf of that committee.

    On June 3, 1948,(3) Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, the 
Majority Leader, asked unanimous consent to call up on behalf of the 
Committee on Rules House Resolution 621, providing for the 
consideration of a bill. The unanimous-consent request was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 94 Cong. Rec. 7108, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4059]]

Consideration on Same Day Reported by Two-thirds Vote

Sec. 18.6 Objection to the consideration of a report from the Committee 
    on Rules on the same day reported will not lie, since Rule XI 
    clause 23 [Rule XI clause 4(b) in the 1979 House Rules and Manual] 
    provides for such consideration upon an affirmative vote of two-
    thirds of the Members voting.

    On Dec. 23, 1963,(4) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
called up a resolution, providing an order of business, which the 
Committee on Rules had reported the same day; Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, held that objection to the consideration 
of the resolution was not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 25495, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, in view of 
    the fact that the rule has just been granted and there are no other 
    copies available, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be 
    read.
        The Speaker: Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider the 
    resolution?
        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I object. 
    Section 22 of rule 11 provides that the rule shall lie on the 
    Speaker's desk for 24 hours.
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that he passed 
    upon this question the other day and a two-thirds vote would make 
    the resolution in order.
        The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?

    The Speaker referred to an occasion on Dec. 21, 1963 (legislative 
day of Dec. 20) where he had held similar objection not in order to the 
consideration of a Committee on Rules report.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 25249.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.7 When a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules is 
    called up the same day it is reported, a two-thirds vote is 
    required to consider it, but merely a majority to adopt it.

    On Aug. 16, 1962,(6) Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, 
reported from the Committee on Rules a resolution providing for the 
consideration of a bill; Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the procedure should the resolution 
be called up immediately:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 108 Cong. Rec. 16759, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The. Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 4060]]

        Mr. Ford: Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that the 
    gentleman from California is moving for the consideration of the 
    rule, and if this is approved by a two-thirds vote, then we will 
    consider the rule, which also has to be approved by a two-thirds 
    vote. Also is the rule granted by the Committee on Rules in 
    reference to H.R. 12333 a closed rule with a motion to recommit 
    with instructions?
        The Speaker: The resolution has not been reported as yet, and 
    the gentleman from California has not yet made a motion; but, 
    assuming the gentleman from California offers a motion for the 
    present consideration of the resolution, the question of 
    consideration would be submitted to the membership without debate 
    and a two-thirds vote would be necessary to consider the 
    resolution. If the question of consideration was decided in the 
    affirmative the resolution would then be considered under the 
    regular rules of the House, providing 1 hour of debate, one-half of 
    the time to be assigned to the member of the Rules Committee on the 
    minority side in charge. At the termination of the hour, there 
    would be a majority vote on the adoption of the rule.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a similar parliamentary 
inquiry on May 29, 1946: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 5924, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: Am I correct in stating that the procedure will 
    be as follows: When the rule is called up, there will be a vote 
    immediately on the question of the present consideration of the 
    rule without any debate. If two-thirds of the Members vote for 
    immediate consideration of the rule, then we are in exactly the 
    same position as when a rule is reported to the House, that is, 
    there will be 1 hour's debate, one-half to be controlled by the 
    majority and one-half by the minority. Then those who are opposed 
    to the Senate amendment may vote against that rule. A vote for 
    consideration is not a vote for the rule. It requires two-thirds to 
    get consideration today. It requires a majority only to pass the 
    rule.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has correctly stated the 
    parliamentary situation.

Sec. 18.8 The requirement that two-thirds of the Members voting agree 
    to consider a resolution from the Committee on Rules on the same 
    day reported does not apply to resolutions called up during the 
    last three days of a session.

    On Dec. 31, 1970,(8) a resolution from the Committee on 
Rules, providing for the consideration of a joint resolution containing 
continuing appropriations, was called up on the same day that it was 
reported. In response to a par
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 44292, 44293, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4061]]

liamentary inquiry, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated 
that a two-thirds vote for the consideration of the resolution was not 
necessary under Rule XI clause 23 [now Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules 
and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)] since the resolution was called up 
during the last three days of the session.

Sec. 18.9 Where a session of Congress is required by the 20th amendment 
    to the Constitution to end at noon on Sunday, Jan. 3, that Sunday 
    is considered a ``dies non'' and not counted in computing the final 
    three days within which the Committee on Rules may call up a 
    resolution on the same day reported under Rule XI clause 23.

    On Dec. 31, 1970 where the term of the 91st Congress was to end 
pursuant to the 20th amendment to the Constitution at noon on Sunday, 
Jan. 3, 1971),(9~) Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, 
reported from the Committee on Rules a special order providing for the 
consideration of a bill, and then called up the resolution for 
consideration. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered 
parliamentary inquiries relative to the provision in Rule XI clause 23 
[Rule XI clause 4(b), Sec. 729(a) in the 1979 House Rules and Manual] 
that a report from the Committee on Rules may be considered on the same 
day reported, without a two-thirds vote, during the last three days of 
a session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 44292, 44293, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this is a rule that 
    was reported by the Committee on Rules today.
        In view of rule XI, section 22, will approval of this rule 
    require a two- thirds vote, in view of the fact that the rule 
    provides as follows:

            It shall always be in order to call up for consideration a 
        report from the Committee on Rules (except it shall not be 
        called up for consideration on the same day it is presented to 
        the House, unless so determined by a vote of not less than two-
        thirds of the Members voting, but this provision shall not 
        apply during the last three days of the session).

        The parliamentary inquiry I address to the Chair is: Are we 
    within the last 3 days of the session or without them, and is this 
    rule subject to approval by a majority vote or a two-thirds vote?
        The Speaker: The Chair is holding that we are within the last 3 
    days of the session and that consideration of this resolution is 
    not subject to the two-thirds vote requirement.
        Mr. Yates: Rather than a two-thirds vote?

[[Page 4062]]

        The Speaker: In answer to the gentleman's inquiry, a two-thirds 
    vote is not required to consider the resolution during the last 3 
    days of a session of Congress.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Yates: Will the Chair enlighten me by defining the 3-day 
    period? Are they 3 legislative days or 3 calendar days?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Illinois in response to his parliamentary inquiry that there are 
    only 3 days remaining; which would be Thursday, Friday, and 
    Saturday.
        Mr. Yates: Well, it is not within the 3 days end under that 
    definition, is it, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that Sundays 
    are not counted within the purview of the rule. Former Speaker 
    Longworth held that Sunday was ``non dies'' in a ruling in 1929--
    see also Cannon's Precedents, vol. VII, 944 and 995.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, for the edification of the membership 
    and as a further parliamentary inquiry, are holidays considered to 
    be Sundays for the purpose of that rule at this point?
        The Speaker: The Chair does not have to pass upon the question 
    of holidays. The Chair answered the gentleman's parliamentary 
    inquiry which the gentleman very frankly presented and which the 
    Chair answered to the effect that we are within the last 3 days of 
    this session.

Sec. 18.10 Where the House refuses to consider a report from the 
    Committee on Rules on the day reported by failing to authorize such 
    consideration by a two-thirds vote, the report remains on the House 
    Calendar.

    On June 12, 1933,(10) the House refused to consider a 
report from the Committee on Rules on the same day reported, the 
question of consideration not obtaining a two-thirds vote. The 
resolution had been referred to the House Calendar and ordered printed 
when filed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 77 Cong. Rec. 5814, 5815, 73d Cong.1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Putting Question of Consideration on Same Day Reported

Sec. 18.11 Before a special order from the Committee on Rules may be 
    acted upon on the day reported, the question of consideration must 
    be decided in the affirmative by a two-thirds vote, and the Speaker 
    first puts the question whether the House shall consider the 
    resolution.

    On July 15, 1932,(11) Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, 
reported by direction of the Committee on Rules a special order 
(allowing Members to extend re
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 75 Cong. Rec. 15468, 15469, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4063]]

marks until the end of the session) and then sought recognition to call 
up the resolution. Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, made the point of 
order that calling up the resolution required unanimous consent, and 
Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, referred to the rule [Rule XI clause 
23 (Rule XI clause 4(b), Sec. 729(a) in the 1979 House Rules and 
Manual)] allowing consideration by a two-thirds vote. Mr. O'Connor then 
sought recognition to move the previous question on the resolution. In 
response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker discussed the proper 
procedure for considering a Committee on Rules report on the same day 
reported and determined that the question of consideration should be 
first put by the Speaker to the House:

        Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mapes: It would seem to me the House should take action on 
    the specific motion as to whether or not it will consider the 
    resolution as reported by the Rules Committee before the resolution 
    is called up for a vote. That motion might carry by two-thirds vote 
    and then the House could act upon the resolution reported by the 
    committee; but if the Speaker may place before the House 
    immediately any resolution reported from the Committee on Rules 
    without any notice, then the membership of the House is not 
    protected at all, because in that case any rule or resolution that 
    is brought out by the Committee on Rules may be placed upon its 
    immediate passage.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman is asking a parliamentary 
    inquiry, the Chair will attempt to answer it; but if the gentleman 
    intends to make an argument, the Chair will not recognize him for 
    that purpose.
        Mr. Mapes: I made a point of order. If the Speaker has ruled, 
    that is all there is to it.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks he could recognize any member of 
    the Committee on Rules to call up any resolution reported by that 
    committee and if two-thirds of the Members voted for its 
    consideration it would become the order of the House.
        Mr. Mapes: But, if the Speaker will permit, the rule expressly 
    provides that during the last six days of the session the Speaker 
    is authorized to recognize anyone to move to suspend the rules.
        Now, it does not seem to me this rule is the same as that.
        The Speaker: The Chair will again read that provision of the 
    rule, and the membership of the House can determine.

            (Except it shall not be called up for consideration on the 
        same day it is presented to the House, unless so determined by 
        a vote of not less than two-thirds of the Members voting, but 
        this provision shall not apply during the last three days of 
        the session.)

        Mr. Mapes: I do not want to appear to be contentious about the 
    matter, but let me make sure that I make my point clear. The rule 
    provides that it shall

[[Page 4064]]

    not be called up unless two-thirds of the House determine that it 
    shall be. Now, my point is that the Speaker himself is determining 
    that it shall be called up when he puts the question before the 
    House and that the House ought to determine in advance whether it 
    is to be called up or not.
        The Speaker: That seems to the Chair easily settled. The 
    question is, Shall the House consider the resolution? That will 
    satisfy the gentleman, I suppose.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I waive 
    my right to the floor and yield it to the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, I want to make myself clear. I am not 
    opposing this resolution at all, but I do think we ought not to 
    establish a precedent which will allow the Speaker to put a 
    resolution or a report from the Committee on Rules until the House 
    itself decides that it should be put.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the same opinion. The question is, 
    Shall the House consider this resolution?
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Schafer) there were--ayes 201, noes 20.
        So two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the question was 
    decided in the affirmative.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution. The 
    resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 18.12 Where objection is made to a unanimous-consent request for 
    the immediate consideration of a resolution on the day reported by 
    the Committee on Rules, the Speaker puts the question to the House 
    to determine whether two-thirds favor such consideration.

    On May 19, 1949, Mr. John E. Lyle, Jr., of Texas, asked unanimous 
consent for the immediate consideration of a resolution from the 
Committee on Rules providing an order of business, where Mr. Lyle had 
reported the resolution to the House on the same day. Objection was 
made to the request, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, put the 
question on the consideration of the resolution. Two-thirds voted in 
favor of consideration.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 6474, 6475, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
            See also 104 Cong. Rec. 7630, 7631, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Apr. 29, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.13 The House may by unanimous consent (and without a two-thirds 
    vote) consider a report from the Committee on the Rules on the same 
    day reported.

    On Jan. 24, 1955,(13) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request relating to the order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 101 Cong. Rec. 625, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent

[[Page 4065]]

    that it may be in order on tomorrow to consider a report from the 
    Committee on Rules as provided in clause 21, rule XI, except that 
    the provision requiring a two-thirds vote to consider said reports 
    is hereby waived.
        The Speaker: (14) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    On Sept. 23, 1940, the House, by unanimous consent, considered and 
adopted on the same day reported a special order from the Committee on 
Rules waiving points of order against legislative provisions in an 
appropriation bill.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 12480, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.14 When a resolution from the Committee on Rules is called up 
    the same day it is reported, no debate thereon is in order until 
    the House agrees to consider the resolution by a two-thirds vote.

    On May 26, 1964,(16) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
reported from the Committee on Rules a privileged resolution waiving 
points of order against a bill and asked for its immediate 
consideration. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, immediately 
put the question on whether the House would then consider the 
resolution and answered a parliamentary inquiry in relation to the 
procedure being followed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 11951, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 736 and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution. The Clerk 
    read the resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider House 
    Resolution 736?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Does this require unanimous consent?
        The Speaker: It requires a two-thirds vote.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, is there any way to ascertain the 
    reason for this request?
        The Speaker: If the House decides to consider it, then the 
    debate will be under the 1-hour rule on the resolution.
        Mr. Gross: Is there no way of ascertaining what is being done 
    here, Mr. Speaker? Is there no time available?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state at this point that it is a 
    matter of consideration. If consideration is granted, which 
    requires a two-thirds vote, then the resolution will be considered 
    under the 1-hour rule.
        The question is, Will the House now consider House Resolution 
    736?
        The question was taken.

[[Page 4066]]

Debate Under the Hour Rule

Sec. 18.15 A Member calling up a privileged report from the Committee 
    on Rules has one hour at his command and other Members may be 
    recognized only if yielded time by him.

    On Oct. 9, 1968,(17) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, 
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, House Resolution 
1315 (providing for the consideration of S.J. Res. 175, suspending 
equal-time requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 for the 1968 
Presidential and Vice Presidential campaigns). Mr. Madden was 
recognized for one hour and Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, indicated that the hour was within his control, and that 
parliamentary inquiries could not be propounded without his so 
yielding:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 30217, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 1 
    hour.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Indiana yield to the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Madden: I do not yield.
        The Speaker: The Chair is asking the gentleman from Indiana if 
    he yields to the gentleman from Michigan for the purpose of making 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Madden: No.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I demand the right to make a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Madden: I yield.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I make a demand of personal 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: Just a minute. The gentleman from Indiana has 
    yielded to the gentleman from Michigan for the purpose of making a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A Member calling up an order of business 
resolution by direction of the Committee on Rules customarily yields 
one-half of his hour of debate to the minority, to be controlled and 
yielded by them.
    If the manager of the resolution yields for amendment, or if the 
previous question is voted down, the Member who is then recognized 
controls one hour of debate.

Sec. 18.16 Debate in the House on a resolution reported from the 
    Committee on Rules is under the hour rule, and that time may be 
    extended only by unanimous consent.

    On June 21, 1972,(18) the House had under debate an 
order of business resolution from the Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 21694, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4067]]

mittee on Rules, which resolution had been called up by Mr. Thomas P. 
O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts. During the debate, Mr. O'Neill asked 
unanimous consent, because he had so many requests from Members to 
speak on the resolution, that time for debate be extended 30 minutes, 
divided between himself and Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, of the 
Committee on Rules. The request was agreed to.

Sec. 18.17 A Member recognized under the hour rule, following the 
    rejection of the previous question on a resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules, has control of that time and is under no 
    compunction to yield half of the time to the other side as is the 
    customary practice of the Committee on Rules.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(19) the House had under debate a 
resolution from the Committee on Rules (H. Res. 1013, establishing a 
Select Committee on Standards and Conduct) which was called up by Mr. 
Claude D. Pepper, of Florida. The previous question was rejected by the 
House, and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on the control of debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 27713--29, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for time to 
    debate this resolution further, since the previous question was not 
    ordered.
        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker--
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida 
    rise?
        Mr. Pepper: To make a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Pepper: My inquiry is, if the Speaker should recognize the 
    able gentleman from Ohio as having control of the time, in view of 
    the defeat of the motion to order the previous question, would the 
    gentleman from Ohio have the authority or have the right to accord 
    half of the time allotted to him to a representative of those who 
    are the advocates of the resolution, as I did a while ago when I 
    had control of the whole hour?

        The Speaker: If the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, 
    it will be for a period of not exceeding 1 hour. The yielding of 
    time then will rest within the discretion and judgment of the 
    gentleman from Ohio. . . .
        In order that the time start running, the Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hays] for 1 hour.
        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Hays: I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Florida.
        Mr. Pepper: Would the able gentleman from Ohio be willing to 
    yield half of his time to a representative who advocates the 
    resolution?
        Mr. Hays: I will say to the gentleman from Florida, I will 
    endeavor to

[[Page 4068]]

    yield the proponents of the resolution an equal amount of time, but 
    I believe if I yielded half of my time, I might lose it all.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Similarly, when the ``21-day'' rule for the 
discharge of the Committee on Rules of orders of business was in 
effect, the Member recognized to call up such a resolution under that 
rule had control of one hour and could yield to other Members in his 
discretion, but was not bound by the custom of the Committee on Rules 
to yield one-half of the time to the minority (or opposing 
side).(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See, for example, 111 Cong. Rec. 23618, 23619, 89th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Sept. 13, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.18 Pending a motion to lay on the table a motion to reconsider 
    the vote whereby a resolution providing an order of business had 
    been agreed to without debate and without adoption of the previous 
    question, the Speaker advised that the motion to reconsider (1) 
    would be debatable if the pending motion to table was defeated, and 
    (2) that in such event the Member moving reconsideration would be 
    recognized to control the one hour of debate.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(1) the House adopted House Resolution 
506, providing for the consideration of a bill; the resolution had been 
brought up under a motion to discharge (under the ``21-day'' rule) and 
had been voted on when the Member calling it up, Mr. Adam C. Powell, of 
New York, did not debate or move the previous question on the 
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 23608, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, moved that the vote on the 
adoption of the resolution be reconsidered, and Mr. Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, moved to lay that motion on the table. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the 
time for debate on the motion to reconsider should the motion to table 
be rejected:

        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, on the 
    resolution just passed no one was allowed to debate that resolution 
    on behalf of the minority or the majority. If this motion to table, 
    offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert] is defeated, 
    then there will be time to debate the resolution just passed.
        The question of reconsideration is debatable, and it can be 
    debated on the merits of the legislation which has not been debated 
    by the House.
        The Speaker: What part of the gentleman's statement does he 
    make as a parliamentary inquiry?

[[Page 4069]]

        Mr. Laird: Mr. Speaker, if the motion to table is defeated, the 
    motion to reconsider will give us an opportunity to debate the 
    question on the resolution.
        The Speaker: Under the present circumstances, the motion to 
    reconsider would be debatable.
        Mr. Laird: I thank the Speaker.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, what time would be allowed to 
    debate the question and how would it be divided?
        The Speaker: It will be under the 1-hour rule and the gentleman 
    from Ohio would be entitled to the control of the entire hour.

When Amendments Are in Order

Sec. 18.19 Special rules reported from the Committee on Rules are 
    subject to amendment while the rule is pending if the Member in 
    control yields for an amendment, offers one himself, or if the 
    previous question is voted down.

    On Nov. 24, 1942, Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, called up a 
special order from the Committee on Rules and while it was pending 
offered an amendment thereto. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on procedures for amending such a resolution:

        Mr. Cox: I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, of course.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: I understood the 
    gentleman to say he had to get unanimous consent to make this 
    amendment to the rule in order that the bill might be passed. If 
    this is the case I certainly shall object to it.
        Mr. Cox: The gentleman, of course, has the privilege of voting 
    against the amendment if he wishes.
        Mr. Rich: I shall vote against it.
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated the bill is worthless 
    with section 8 eliminated.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Is the rule amendable before the 
    previous question is voted down?
        Mr. Cox: Yes; I take it that the rule can be amended.

        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: I should like to know just what the 
    parliamentary situation is on this, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair, of course, will entertain a motion to 
    amend any special rule at any time while the rule is pending if the 
    gentleman in control yields for it or if he offers it himself or if 
    the previous question should be voted down.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 88 Cong. Rec. 9100, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.20 Where the House had ordered the previous question on an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute for a resolution and on the 
    resolu

[[Page 4070]]

    tion (reported from the Committee on Rules), the Speaker indicated 
    that no further amendment to the resolution would be in order.

    On June 13, 1973,(3) the House rejected the previous 
question on House Resolution 437, reported from the Committee on Rules, 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 8410, a bill reported from the 
Committee on Ways and Means providing a temporary increase in the 
public-debt limit. The resolution as reported waived points of order 
against the bill and provided for the offering as an amendment of a 
designated bill already passed by the House (the designated bill 
contained appropriations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 19337-45, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the rejection of the previous question, Mr. John B. 
Anderson, of Illinois, who led the fight against the previous question, 
was recognized by Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the resolution, which 
amendment eliminated the waiver of points of order against the text of 
the designated bill. The previous question was ordered on the amendment 
and on the resolution, the amendment was agreed to, and the Speaker 
answered a parliamentary inquiry:

        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Leggett: We have now had one amendment to the rule. I am 
    wondering at this point would another amendment for tax reform, as 
    suggested by Mr. Reuss, be in order?
        The Speaker: The answer is ``no,'' because the previous 
    question has been ordered on the resolution.

Committee Amendments

Sec. 18.21 Where a privileged resolution is reported by the Committee 
    on Rules with committee amendments, the amendments may be reported 
    and acted upon before the Member reporting the measure is 
    recognized for debate thereon.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(4) the House proceeded as follows on a 
resolution from the Committee on Rules with committee amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (5) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself

[[Page 4071]]

        into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
        for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 11926) to limit 
        jurisdiction of Federal courts in reapportionment cases. After 
        general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
        continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be read for 
        amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the 
        consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
        rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
        may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
        final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit.

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the committee amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments: Lines 1 and 2, page 1, strike the 
        words ``it shall be in order to move that,'' and line 2, page 
        1, after the word ``House'' insert ``shall immediately''.

        The Speaker: Without objection the committee amendments are 
    agree] to.
        There was no objection.
        THE SPEAKER: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] is 
    recognized for 1 hour.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although special orders from the Committee 
on Rules with committee amendments are customarily handled in this 
fashion, the manager of the resolution could if he desired seek 
recognition under the hour rule before the committee amendments were 
offered or before they were agreed to. The previous question can be 
moved only on the committee amendments or on the amendments and on the 
resolution.

Sec. 18.22 The Committee on Rules reported out a resolution providing 
    for consideration of a bill, with an amendment designating another 
    bill on the same subject but which had not been reported by the 
    committee to which it was referred.

    On Aug. 8, 1949,(6) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House resolution 183, 
providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 3190 (amending the Fair 
Labor Standards Act of 1938), with a committee amendment. The amendment 
struck out the number of the bill designated in the resolution, and 
substituted therefor the number of a different but related bill (also 
amending the Fair Labor Standards Act and pending before the Committee 
on Education and Labor, which had reported the bill H.R. 3190):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 10988-97, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on

[[Page 4072]]

    the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3190) to 
    provide for the amendment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 
    and for other purposes, and all points of order against said bill 
    are hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 6 hours, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, the bill 
    shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in 
    order to consider without the intervention of any point of order 
    the substitute committee amendment recommended by the Committee on 
    Education and Labor now in the bill, and such substitute for the 
    purpose of amendment shall be considered under the 5-minute rule as 
    an original bill. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for 
    amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the same to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member 
    may demand a separate vote in the House on any of the amendments 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or committee 
    substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
    the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
        With the following committee amendments:
        Page 1, line 4, strike out ``(H.R. 3190)'' and insert ``(H.R. 
    5856).''
        Page 2, line 1, strike out the remainder of the line after the 
    period and all of lines 2 through 6, inclusive.

    The House agreed to the amendment and to the resolution as amended.
    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 183 had been introduced in 
order to obtain its consideration (and the consideration of H.R. 3190) 
under the ``21-day rule'' in effect in the 81st Congress. After the 
resolution had been introduced and referred to the Committee on Rules 
for 21 days without action, notice was given by the chairman of the 
Committee on Education and Labor that he would pursuant to the 21-day 
rule call up the resolution in the House should the Committee on Rules 
fail to report it. The Committee on Rules reported out the resolution, 
but with a germane amendment providing for the consideration of another 
bill on the same subject, which had been referred to the Committee on 
Education and Labor but not reported.
    While an amendment, providing for the consideration of one bill, 
may not be germane to a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules 
providing for the consideration of another bill on an unrelated subject 
(see, e.g., Sept. 14, 1950, 96 Cong. Rec. 14832-44, 81st Cong. 2d 
Sess), in this case the amendment provided for the consideration of a 
bill referred to the same committee and amending the same act with 
similar purposes.

[[Page 4073]]

Amendments Offered by Manager

Sec. 18.23 A Member calling up a special order from the Committee on 
    Rules has control of the floor and time and may move an amendment 
    to the resolution without direct authorization of the Committee on 
    Rules.

    On May 24, 1934,(7) Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, ruled that a Member recognized to call up a resolution from 
the Committee on Rules had the right to offer an amendment thereto 
without authorization by the committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 78 Cong. Rec. 9494, 9495, 73d Cong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, this is a 
    resolution to make in order the Wilcox bill (H.R. 2837) to provide 
    for the establishment of the Everglades National Park in the State 
    of Florida, and for other purposes. The rule provides for 2 hours' 
    general debate on the bill.
        Since there is an hour on the rule, which will be largely 
    devoted to a discussion of the merits of the bill, I offer a motion 
    to amend the resolution by striking out the word ``two'', in line 
    2, and substituting in lieu thereof the word ``one'', which means 
    reducing general debate from 2 hours to 1 hour.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia offers a committee 
    amendment which the Clerk will report.
        The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment: Page 1, line 
    10, strike out the word ``two'' and insert in lieu thereof the word 
    ``one''
        Mr. [Frederick R.] Lehlback [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order. This is not a committee amendment.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, the 
    committee has never acted on the suggestion of the gentleman from 
    Georgia [Mr. Cox].
        Mr. Cox: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts not prepared to 
    consent to this amendment?
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: No.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] is in 
    charge of the resolution and the time. He has the floor and he may 
    offer any amendment he wants to offer.
        The Speaker: The point of order of the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Blanton] is sustained.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I question the 
    gentleman's authority to amend the rule without a meeting of the 
    Rules Committee.
        Mr. Cox: I am handling the rule for the committee, and I think 
    it is my privilege to offer an amendment.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: What would be the use of having 
    meetings of the Rules Committee if any one Member could come in 
    here and offer a committee amendment without consulting the other 
    members of the committee?
        Mr. Blanton: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] represents 
    the majority of the committee and has the floor. He can offer such 
    amendments as he desires. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the regular order.

[[Page 4074]]

        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: I ask for a ruling by the Chair.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] is in charge 
    of the matter and has a perfect right to offer an amendment.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the Member calling up the rule has 
the authority to offer or yield for an amendment, he normally does so 
only if authorized by the Committee on Rules (see Sec. 18.27, infra).

Sec. 18.24 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules was 
    amended on the floor of the House to correct a drafting error.

    On June 28, 1965,(8) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, 
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, a special order for 
the consideration of a bill. He offered an amendment to the resolution 
in order to correct an error therein made in drafting the resolution 
(changing the name of the committee which had reported the bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 14861-66, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.25 The Member calling up a special order from the Committee on 
    Rules asked unanimous consent that the resolution be amended, and 
    when the request was objected to offered an amendment to the 
    resolution which was adopted.

    On Sept. 30, 1966,(9) Mr. B.F. Sisk, of California, 
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, House Resolution 
1036, providing for the consideration of H.R. 17607, suspending the 
investment credit tax (reported from the Committee on Ways and Means). 
He asked unanimous consent that the resolution be amended to permit 
separate votes in the House on any amendments which might be adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole (the Committee on Ways and Means had 
determined, after the resolution had been reported from the Committee 
on Rules, to offer some major amendments to the bill, which amendments 
were not included in the reported version of the bill). When the 
unanimous-consent request of Mr. Sisk was objected to, he offered an 
amendment to the resolution, which amendment was agreed to by the 
House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 112 Cong. Rec. 24539, 24540, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.26 Where the Committee on Rules intended to recommend a waiver 
    of points of order against unauthorized items in a general ap

[[Page 4075]]

    propriation bill but not against legislative language therein, the 
    Member calling up the resolution offered an amendment to reflect 
    that intention.

    On July 21, 1970,(10) Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, who 
had called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a special order 
waiving points of order against an appropriation bill, made the 
following explanation in debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 25240-42, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young: . . . Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1151 is a 
    resolution waiving points of order against certain provisions of 
    H.R. 18515, the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and 
    Welfare and related agencies appropriation bill for fiscal year 
    1971. . . .
        Because the authorizations have not been enacted, points of 
    order are waived against the bill for failure to comply with the 
    first provision of clause 2, rule XXI. By mistake, the second 
    provision was covered by the rule--so I have an amendment at the 
    desk to correct the resolution. Now, Mr. Speaker, as stated there 
    is a clerical error in the rule and at the proper time I shall send 
    to the desk a committee amendment to correct the clerical error.
        Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Young: I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
        Mr. Gross: With regard to waiving points of order, the 
    gentleman just said that he expects to offer an amendment to limit 
    it to eight areas or provisions of the bill; is that correct?
        Mr. Young: Yes. There were several provisions, as I have 
    stated, relating to programs that are in progress currently but for 
    which the authorizations expired at the end of the last fiscal 
    year.
        The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking 
    minority Member, together with others from the Committee on 
    Appropriations appeared before the Rules Committee and asked that 
    the points of order be waived with regard to these specific 
    provisions.
        Now, I would say to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa that 
    the rule, through a clerical error, waived points of order against 
    two other provisions which were not intended to be waived. That is 
    why I previously stated that a committee amendment would be offered 
    to correct that situation.

    The committee amendment was offered and adopted:

        Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I offer a committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Amendment offered by Mr. Young: Strike out lines 5 through 7 of 
    the resolution and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
    ``purposes, all points of order against appropriations carried in 
    the bill which are not yet authorized by law are hereby waived.''
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.

[[Page 4076]]

        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Yielding for Amendment

Sec. 18.27 A member of the Committee on Rules, calling up a privileged 
    resolution from that committee, has the option of yielding for an 
    amendment, but he normally declines to do so on his own 
    responsibility and yields only if he has authorization to do so 
    from the Committee on Rules.

    On May 1, 1968,(11) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, 
had called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a special order 
providing for the consideration of a bill (H.R. 16729, extending the 
higher education student loan program). He discussed and inquired of 
Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, about his power to yield 
to another Member to offer an amendment to the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 11305, 11306, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Pepper: Would it be permissible for a Member on the floor, 
    without convening the Rules Committee, to offer an amendment to the 
    rule? I believe that perhaps I, as the Member handling the rule, 
    have a right to yield to a Member, only to whom I wish to yield, to 
    offer an amendment. Would it be permissible for me to yield to the 
    gentleman from Kentucky to offer that amendment to the rule, so as 
    to provide, on page 2, after the period, I would presume, in the 
    second line, ``and points of order shall be waived with respect to 
    one amendment to be offered by the chairman of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor''?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: May the Chair inquire of the gentleman 
    whether he has instructions from the Committee on Rules to offer 
    such an amendment?

        Mr. Pepper: I have no specific instructions for yielding for 
    the offering of that amendment, from the Committee on Rules, except 
    it was within the intendment, I understood, of the Committee on 
    Rules that this amendment would be admissible. I do not propose to 
    act by the authority of the Committee on Rules if I should yield 
    for such an amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman, of course, would be 
    doing it on his own responsibility, then, and not subject to the 
    order of the Committee on Rules.
        The Chair will add, the only other way an amendment could be 
    offered to the rule would be under the rules of the House. . . .
        Mr. Pepper: Mr. Speaker, I have not offered any such amendment. 
    I do not propose to yield for the purpose of offering such an 
    amendment, since I do not have authority to do so from the 
    Committee on Rules. I simply present the rule as it is written to 
    the House for its consideration.

[[Page 4077]]

Sec. 18.28 In the House a Member having charge of a resolution 
    providing a special order loses his right to resume when he yields 
    to another to offer an amendment, and the sponsor of the amendment 
    is recognized under the hour rule.

    On July 16, 1956,(12) Mr. William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a 
resolution providing two days of general debate thereon. Mr. Colmer was 
recognized for one hour but yielded to Mr. Howard W. Smith, of 
Virginia, at the latter's request, for the purpose of offering an 
amendment to the resolution to change the two days to eight hours. In 
response to parliamentary inquiries, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
stated that in yielding for an amendment to the resolution Mr. Colmer 
had lost control and the right to resume debate on the resolution and 
that Mr. Smith was recognized for one hour, with the right to yield to 
other Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 102 Cong. Rec. 12917, 12922, 12923, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.29 A special rule reported by the Committee on Rules is subject 
    to germane amendment if the manager yields for an amendment before 
    moving the previous question.

    On Apr. 15, 1936,(13) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a resolution providing 
for the consideration of a bill; before moving the previous question, 
he yielded to Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, to offer an amendment 
to the resolution, and then moved the previous question on the 
resolution and amendment (after debate on the amendment by Mr. 
O'Connor). In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Joseph W. 
Byrns, of Tennessee, indicated that it was within the power of the 
gentleman handling the resolution to yield for an amendment before 
moving the previous question and that in the absence of the previous 
question any Member could offer a germane amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 80 Cong. Rec. 5535, 5536, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nongermane Amendments

Sec. 18.30 A special rule providing for the consideration of one bill 
    may generally not be amended by substituting another bill, except 
    by unanimous consent.

    On June 17, 1935,(14) the manager of a resolution from 
the Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 79 Cong. Rec. 9454, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4078]]

mittee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill obtained 
unanimous consent to amend the resolution to provide for the 
consideration of another bill (where both bills amended the 
Agricultural Adjustment Act):

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to amend the rule as follows: On page 1, line 4, 
    strike out the figures ``8052'' and insert in lieu thereof the 
    figures ``8492.''
        The Clerk read the amendment as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. O'Connor: Page 1, line 4, strike 
        out the figures ``8052'' and insert in lieu thereof the figures 
        ``8492.''

        The Speaker: (I5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frederick R.] Lehlbach [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, and I do not contemplate objecting 
    under certain circumstances to the unanimous-consent request, but 
    the point occurs to me that the amendment is clearly out of order.
        Mr. O'Conner: That is why I am asking unanimous consent to make 
    the change. I admit it is not in order to offer the amendment.
        Mr. Lehlbach: It is to protect the procedure of the House that 
    I make this statement. The rules provide that by motion from the 
    floor one bill may not be substituted for another bill upon the 
    same subject.
        Mr. O'Connor: I agree with the gentleman.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5834-36; 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 2956 (to a resolution providing for the 
        consideration of one bill, an amendment providing for the 
        consideration of another bill is not germane). But see 
        Sec. 18.22, supra, for an instance where the Committee on Rules 
        reported and the House adopted a committee amendment providing 
        for the consideration of a different bill than that denominated 
        in the original resolution. In that case the separate bill was 
        on the same subject as the bill originally made in order by the 
        rule, and presumably germane thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rule of germaneness (Rule XVI clause 7) 
applies only to amendments and not to original text. Thus the Committee 
on Rules may report a resolution making in order, to a designated bill, 
a nongermane amendment, such as another bill on a different subject.

Sec. 18.31 A resolution providing for the consideration of a bill 
    relating to a certain subject may not be amended by a proposition 
    providing for consideration of another and nongermane subject or 
    matter; thus to a resolution providing that the House disagree to a 
    Senate amendment directing the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
    House and the Finance Committee of the Senate to conduct a study of 
    excess-

[[Page 4079]]

    profits tax legislation, an amendment providing that the House 
    concur in such amendment with an amendment enacting excise-tax 
    legislation was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 14, 1950,(17) Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of 
Illinois, called up House Resolution 842, from the Committee on Rules, 
providing for taking a House bill with Senate amendments from the 
table, disagreeing to the Senate amendments, and agreeing to a 
conference. The previous question was voted down on the resolution, and 
Mr. Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, offered an amendment to the 
resolution to provide that on all Senate amendments except one, the 
amendments be disagreed to and a conference be agreed to; on the 
remaining Senate amendment (which directed committees to study excess-
profits legislation), Mr. Eberharter's amendment proposed to concur in 
the Senate amendment with an amendment enacting excise-tax legislation. 
Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, made a point of order against the 
amendment on the ground that it was not germane, since the Senate 
amendment proposed a study of legislation and the amendment proposed 
enacted legislation. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows 
after hearing argument by Mr. Eberharter:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 14832-44, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eberharter: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, this amendment 
    seeks to amend the resolution reported out by the Committee on 
    Rules. This resolution waives points of order with respect to other 
    rules of the House. Under the rules of the House when a bill comes 
    from the other body with amend- meets containing matter which would 
    have been subject to a point of order in the House then the 
    amendment must be considered in the Committee of the Whole. The 
    resolution reported out by the Committee on Rules seeks to waive 
    that rule.
        If a resolution reported out by the Committee on Rules can 
    waive one rule of the House, why cannot the House by the adoption 
    of a substitute resolution, which this is, waive other rules? I 
    contend, Mr. Speaker, that this substitute for the resolution 
    reported out by the Committee on Rules is just as germane and just 
    as much in order as the actual resolution reported out by the 
    Committee on Rules; they are similar. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair agrees with a great deal that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Colorado say about history, but 
    that is not the question before the Chair to decide at this time.
        It is a rule long established that a resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of

[[Page 4080]]

    a bill relating to a certain subject may not be amended by a 
    proposition providing for the consideration of another and not 
    germane subject or matter.
        It is true that in Senate amendment No. 191 to the bill, which 
    came from the Senate, there is a caption ``Title VII,'' which 
    states ``Excess Profits Tax.'' But in the amendment which the 
    Senate adopted to the House bill there is no excess-profit tax.
        The Chair is compelled to hold under a long line of rulings 
    that this matter, not being germane if offered to the Senate 
    amendment it is not germane here. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

Rejection of Previous Question

Sec. 18.32 A resolution providing a special order of business is open 
    to germane amendment if the previous question is voted down.

    On Sept. 15, 1961,(18) the yeas and nays had been 
ordered on the ordering of the previous question on a special order 
from the Committee on Rules (H. Res. 464, providing for consideration 
of H.R. 7927, to adjust postal rates and for other purposes). Speaker 
pro tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on the effect of rejecting the previous question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 107 Cong. Rec. 19750-59, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Avery [of Kansas]: If the motion for the 
    previous question should be voted down at the appropriate stage of 
    the proceedings, then it would be in order, would it not, to offer 
    an amendment to the resolution before the House?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct. The resolution would be 
    open to amendment. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield for the purpose of offering an amendment to make 
    this an open rule?
        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: I do not yield for that 
    purpose.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Derwinski: Mr. Speaker, since we are voting on ordering the 
    previous question, a ``no'' vote in effect opens up the rule?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If ordering the previous question is 
    voted down, then the resolution is open for amendment or further 
    debate.

    The House then rejected the previous question, and adopted an 
amendment to the resolution providing that the bill be read for 
amendment under the five-minute rule and generally opening the bill up 
for amendment (the original resolution had allowed only committee 
amendments).(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. For some of the other occasions where the previous question has 
        been voted down and special orders amended, see 116 Cong. Rec. 
        37834-42, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Nov. 18, 1970; 105 Cong. Rec. 
        16404-06, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 19, 1959; 90 Cong. Rec. 
        5465-73, 78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 7, 1944; and 86 Cong. Rec. 
        5035-46, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 23, 1940.

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

[[Page 4081]]

    On Oct. 8, 1968, Speaker pro tempore Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that germane amendments 
could be offered to such a resolution if the previous question were 
voted down:

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: If and when we get to the rule to which the 
    gentleman from Indiana refers, would it be permissible to amend the 
    rule to provide for the consideration of the clean elections bill, 
    so that we can get that legislation on the floor?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If such an amendment were germane to 
    the matter, it could be considered.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: If the previous question is defeated and 
    the rule is opened up, could an amendment be made to the rule to 
    provide in the rule for the consideration of the clean elections 
    bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If that amendment were germane to the 
    resolution it would be in order to consider it, yes.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 114 Cong. Rec. 30092, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.33 In response to parliamentary inquiries, the Speaker advised 
    that if the previous question on a privileged resolution reported 
    by the Committee on Rules were voted down, (1) the resolution would 
    be open to further consideration, amendment, and debate; (2) a 
    motion to table would be in order and would be preferential; and 
    (3) the Chair would recognize, under the hour rule, the Member who 
    appeared to be leading the opposition.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(1) the House had under consideration a 
privileged resolution from the Committee on Rules establishing a Se
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 27713, 27714, 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
            For occasions where privileged resolutions reported from 
        the Committee on Rules were laid on the table following 
        rejection of the previous question, see 87 Cong. Rec. 2182-89, 
        77th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 11, 1941; 83 Cong. Rec. 9490-99, 
        75th Cong. 3d Sess., June 15, 1938; 81 Cong. Rec. 3291-3301, 
        75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 8, 1937; and 81 Cong. Rec. 3283-90, 
        75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 8, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4082]]

lect Committee on Standards and Conduct. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered inquiries on the procedure should the previous 
question be voted down on the resolution:

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

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

Sec. 18.34 A Member recognized to offer an amendment to a special order 
    from the Committee on Rules following rejection of the previous 
    question thereon controls one hour of debate in the House on the 
    amendment.

    On May 10, 1973,(2) the House rejected the previous 
question on House Resolution 389, reported from the Committee on Rules, 
waiving points of order during the consideration of a supplemental 
appropriations bill. Mrs. Patsy T. Mink, of Hawaii, who had opposed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  119 Cong. Rec. 15273-81, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4083]]

the ordering of the previous question in order to offer an amendment 
(to make in order, without points of order, a designated amendment to 
the bill) was recognized to offer an amendment. In response to her 
parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated that 
she would control one hour of debate on her amendment.

Sec. 18.35 The chairman of the legislative committee reporting a bill 
    to the House led the fight against the type of resolution reported 
    from the Committee on Rules providing for its consideration and led 
    the fight against the ordering of the previous question on the 
    resolution; when the previous question was voted down, he was 
    recognized to offer an amendment to the resolution.

    On June 16, 1970,(3) Mr. William M. (Colmer, of 
Mississippi, called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, House 
Resolution 1077, providing for the consideration of H.R. 17070, the 
Postal Reform Act of 1970, reported from the Committee on Post Office 
and Civil Service. The resolution provided that the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill be read as an 
original bill for amendment, but also provided that another bill be in 
order, without the intervention of points of order, as a substitute for 
the committee amendment. Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, Chairman of 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, opposed the resolution 
as reported:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 19837-44, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dulski: Mr. Speaker, as I told the Committee on Rules when 
    I requested a rule on H.R. 17070, I support the bill as it came 
    from our committee. I asked that the bill, as reported, be 
    considered as original text for the purpose of amendment
        The rule now pending goes beyond my request and makes another 
    bill in order which could thwart the bill of my committee. For that 
    reason, I oppose the extension of the rule to the second bill.
        I believe we should revert to my original request for an open 
    rule with 4 hours of general debate and waiving points of order.
        Accordingly, I urge that the previous question be voted down so 
    that the rule can be amended.
        If the previous question is voted down, I shall offer the 
    appropriate amendment to make consideration of our committee 
    amendment to H.R. 17070 in order.
        I am supported in this proposal by at least 15 other Members of 
    the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, on both sides of the 
    aisle, who have joined me in an open letter to the entire 
    membership of the House.

[[Page 4084]]

    When the previous question was voted down on the resolution, 
Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Dulski to 
offer an amendment to the resolution, which amendment struck out the 
provision allowing the designated bill to be offered as a substitute to 
the committee amendment and waiving points of order against the 
designated bill. The House agreed to the amendment and to the 
resolution as amended.

Sec. 18.36 Instances where the previous question has been voted down on 
    special orders reported by the Committee on Rules and such special 
    orders amended.

    On June 7, 1944, the House voted down the previous question on a 
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, providing for the 
consideration of a bill, and amended the resolution by striking out a 
provision therein which would have made in order sections or paragraphs 
of another bill as amendments to the bill for which the resolution 
provided consideration.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 90 Cong. Rec. 5465-73, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 19, 1959, a resolution from the Committee on Rules making 
in order the consideration of a bill was amended to waive points of 
order against the bill.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 16404-06, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Sept. 15, 1961, the House defeated a motion for the previous 
question on a resolution providing for the consideration of a bill and 
permitting only amendments offered by direction of the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service and adopted an amendment to the 
resolution providing that the bill be read for amendment under the 
five-minute rule, and opening the bill generally for 
amendment.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 19750-59, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 16, 1970, the Chairman of the Committee on Post Office and 
Civil Service, Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, led the fight against 
the previous question on a resolution from the Committee on Rules 
providing for the consideration of a bill reported from his committee. 
The previous question having been voted down, Mr. Dulski offered an 
amendment to the resolution (striking out the provision therein making 
a specific bill in order as a substitute for the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute) and the House adopted the 
amendment.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 19837-44, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4085]]

    On another occasion (Nov. 18, 1970) the House defeated the previous 
question on a resolution providing a ``closed'' rule for H.R. 18970 (to 
amend the U.S. tariff and trade laws, reported from the Committee on 
Ways and Means) and considered an amendment to the resolution, offered 
by Mr. Sam M. Gibbons, of Florida, to permit reading the bill by titles 
and permitting motions to strike matter in the bill. After the previous 
question had been ordered on the amendment and the resolution, the 
House rejected the amendment and finally agreed to the resolution as 
reported from the Committee on Rules.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 37834-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 10, 1973, the previous question was rejected on House 
Resolution 389, a special order reported from the Committee on Rules 
waiving points of order (under Rule XXI clauses 2 and 5) during the 
consideration of H.R. 7447, a general appropriation bill containing 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1973. Mrs. Patsy T. Mink, of 
Hawaii, opposed the ordering of the previous question in order to offer 
an amendment to the resolution, and the previous question was rejected. 
Mrs. Mink offered an amendment to the resolution to specifically make 
in order an amendment to the bill which constituted legislation on an 
appropriation bill (and waiving all points of order against the 
specified amendment). The House adopted the amendment to the 
resolution.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 15273-81, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 13, 1973, there was pending before the House House 
Resolution 437, reported from the Committee on Rules, providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 8410, for a temporary increase in the public debt 
limitation (this was the first occasion in many years where the 
Committee on Rules had reported an ``open'' rule, permitting floor 
amendments, to a public-debt limit bill). The resolution as reported 
contained a provision making in order, without the intervention of any 
point of order, an amendment consisting of a designated bill, already 
passed by the House, which was not germane to H.R. 8410. The House 
rejected the previous question and adopted an amendment, offered by Mr. 
John B. Anderson, of Illinois, which was an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute for the resolution and which eliminated the waiver of 
points of order against the text of the designated bill if offered as 
an amendment to the bill.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 19337-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponing Consideration

Sec. 18.37 Under Rule XI clause 23, the calling up of a resolu

[[Page 4086]]

    tion reported from the Committee on Rules is a matter of high 
    privilege, and when consideration has begun and the resolution is 
    under de-bate, 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.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 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.

Recommitting Resolution

Sec. 18.38 A motion to recommit a special rule to the Committee on 
    Rules after the previous question is ordered thereon is not in 
    order.

    On Feb. 2, 1955,(12) the previous question was ordered 
on a resolution from the Committee on Rules (authorizing an 
investigation). Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, of Massachusetts, sought to 
offer a motion to recommit the resolution, but Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, ruled that ``Under the rules, a motion to recommit a resolution 
from the Committee on Rules is not in order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 101 Cong. Rec. 1076-79, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 23, 1942,(13) there was pending before the House 
a resolution, on which the previous question had been ordered, reported 
from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that a mo
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 88 Cong. Rec. 6544, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4087]]

tion to recommit the resolution was not in order:

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The Chair will allow the motion to be read for the 
    Record. Of course, a motion to recommit to the Committee on Rules 
    is not in order.
        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: I would like to be heard on that.
        The Speaker: The Chair has already ruled. For the Record the 
    Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:
        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi moves to recommit the rule to the 
    Committee on Rules.
        The Speaker: The Chair holds that the motion is not in order.
        The question is on agreeing to the resolution.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A resolution from the Committee on Rules 
may be recommitted by unanimous consent.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.  See 97 Cong. Rec. 11394-98, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 14, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relevancy in Debate

Sec. 18.39 Debate on a special rule which only provides special 
    procedures during the consideration of a bill (which is privileged 
    for consideration under the general rules of the House) is limited 
    to the merits of such procedures.

    On June 20, 1935,(15) the House had under discussion 
House Resolution 226, waiving points of order against a general 
appropriation bill and providing not to exceed two hours of general 
debate on the bill in Committee of the Whole. In response to repeated 
points of order, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled on 
relevancy in debate on a special order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 9783, 9784, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that where the rule under consideration changes the 
    general rules of debate on an appropriation bill, anything that is 
    pertinent to any part of that rule is legitimate in debate in 
    consideration of the rule.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks the gentleman from Texas is 
    correct, but the gentleman must confine himself to the resolution 
    before the House and not discuss extraneous matters.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, in this 
    connection, not only the resolution but the bill referred to in the 
    resolution can be discussed, I maintain.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: The Speaker has ruled on 
    the question.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: In that connection I may 
    say that while sometimes we permit such discussion, it is subject 
    to a point of order.
        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, I maintain that when a rule is 
    brought in for

[[Page 4088]]

    the consideration of a bill that in discussing the rule it is 
    permissible also to discuss the subject matter of the bill referred 
    to in the rule.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks that the question now under 
    debate is whether there shall or shall not be general debate on the 
    bill. While this debate may involve certain features or provisions 
    of the bill, the Chair does not think it would justify a Member 
    discussing extraneous matter. Discussion on the resolution now 
    before the House applies only to the question of whether there 
    shall be general debate on the bill. This would not authorize a 
    Member to discuss matters which are not germane to the resolution. 
    . . .
        Mr. Blanton: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that when 
    debating a rule that would do away with general debate, which but 
    for the rule would be in order, and general debate means discussion 
    of every subject on the face of the globe, all reasons for 
    eliminating general debate are pertinent and in order, and takes in 
    a subject as broad as the universe, and the gentleman certainly can 
    discuss all such reasons.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks that any discussion which 
    undertakes to justify or otherwise the question as to whether or 
    not general debate shall be confined to the bill is legitimate, and 
    the Chair so rules, and hopes that the gentleman from Ohio will 
    proceed in order, as the Chair believes he will.
        Mr. [Byron B.] Harlan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, following the 
    statement of the gentleman from Massachusetts to the effect that 
    the United States had gone in retrograde nine points in the last 2 
    years, I asked the gentleman his authority for the statement. He 
    said he saw it in the newspapers some place.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    gentleman from Ohio is not following the decision of the Chair, and 
    I respectfully submit the question to the Chair.
        Mr. Harlan: Mr. Speaker, I am tracing this propaganda down to 
    its source to show that the time of general debate in this 
    particular instance was used for no other purpose than to start 
    rumors, propaganda, and shake confidence.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not think that propaganda has 
    anything to do with the discussion of the rules under 
    consideration. The Chair may say to the gentleman from Ohio that he 
    should confine himself--and the Chair hopes he will--to a 
    discussion of whether or not it is proper for the House to confine 
    general debate to the bill or whether general debate should be 
    opened to a discussion of all subjects.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the resolution made in order a 
motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole for consideration of the 
bill, general appropriation bills were and are privileged for 
consideration, and that portion of the resolution was technically 
unnecessary. Where a special rule provides for the consideration of a 
measure which is not otherwise privileged, a broader test of relevancy 
in debate on the resolution is applied.

Sec. 18.40 In discussing a special rule, the terms of which re

[[Page 4089]]

    strict general debate on a bill to a specified time, it is in order 
    to show by way of illustration the futility of general debate but 
    such discussion may not be broadened to include a reply to a speech 
    made at some other time in general debate.

    On June 20, 1935,(16) relevancy in debate on a special 
order was the subject of several points of order and rulings by Speaker 
Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee. The Speaker made the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 9783, 9784, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Harlan] will please 
    suspend while the Chair makes this statement: It has always been 
    the custom heretofore in discussing resolutions making in order 
    matters of legislation for Members to be rather liberal in their 
    discussions and not necessarily to confine themselves to the 
    pending resolution.
        The Chair thinks that discussion on these rules should not be 
    too narrowly restricted. Of course, under the precedents, a Member 
    must confine himself to the subject of debate when objection is 
    raised. The pending resolution is one which undertakes to limit 
    general debate upon the deficiency bill to 2 hours and to confine 
    the debate to the bill itself. The Chair thinks it is entirely too 
    narrow a construction to undertake to hold a Member, in discussing 
    the resolution either pro or con, to the simple question of whether 
    or not the rule should be adopted, and that it is entirely 
    legitimate discussion for a Member who is undertaking to uphold the 
    rule and to justify confining debate to the bill to cite as 
    illustrations what has occurred in previous discussions. The Chair 
    does not think a Member, in using such illustrations, is justified 
    in answering a speech that has been made upon a previous occasion. 
    However, the Chair repeats that the Chair does think it is 
    perfectly legitimate for a Member who is undertaking to justify the 
    rule to refer to experiences on previous occasions where the debate 
    was not limited to the bill, and the Chair hopes that the gentleman 
    from Ohio will proceed in order.

Withdrawing Resolution

Sec. 18.41 A Member calling up a privileged resolution reported from 
    the Committee on Rules withdrew the resolution after debate thereon 
    and later, after intervening business, called up the resolution 
    again.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(17) there was being debated in the 
House a special order from the Committee on Rules called up by Mr. 
Richard Bolling, of Missouri. During debate thereon, a recess was 
declared to await the engrossed copy of a bill and at the conclusion of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 7303, 7304, 7308, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4090]]

the recess Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, announced the 
unfinished business to be the reading of the engrossed bill. When 
objection was made that the unfinished business was the special order 
pending at the time of the recess, Mr. Bolling withdrew the resolution 
from consideration.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For another occasion where a special order was withdrawn after 
        being called up, see 110 Cong. Rec. 2001, 2002, 88th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Feb. 5, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.42 A Member calling up a privileged resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules is recognized for a full hour notwithstanding 
    the fact that he had previously called up the resolution and, after 
    debate, had withdrawn it.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(19) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a resolution providing 
for the consideration of a bill. During debate on the resolution, 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a recess for the 
purpose of awaiting the engrossed copy of a bill already passed. At the 
conclusion of the recess the Speaker stated the unfinished business to 
be the reading of the engrossed copy of the bill and Mr. Oliver P. 
Bolton, of Ohio, inquired whether the unfinished business was not the 
special order previously called up by Mr. Bolling. Thereupon, Mr. 
Bolling withdrew such resolution. In response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, the Speaker stated that when the special order was again 
called up by Mr. Bolling, he would again be recognized for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 7303, 7304, 7308, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Division of the Question

Sec. 18.43 A report from the Committee on Rules waiving the 
    requirements of a two-thirds vote for consideration on the same day 
    reported from that committee, making in order motions to suspend 
    the rules during the remainder of the session, and making 
    privileged a motion for a recess, was held to provide a special 
    order of business and therefore not to be divisible for a separate 
    vote.

    On June 1, 1934,(20) Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, ruled as follows on the divisibility, under Rule XVI clause 
6, of a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 78 Cong. Rec. 10239-41, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 4091]]

                            House Resolution 410

        Resolved, That during the remainder of the second session of 
    the Seventy-third Congress it shall be in order for the Speaker at 
    any time to entertain motions to suspend the rules, notwithstanding 
    the provisions of clause 1. rule XXVII; it shall also be in order 
    at any time during the second session of the Seventy-third Congress 
    for the majority leader to move that the House take a recess, and 
    said motion is hereby made of the highest privilege; and it shall 
    also be in order at any time during the second session of the 
    Seventy-third Congress to consider reports from the Committee on 
    Rules, as provided in clause 45, rule XI, except that the provision 
    requiring a two-thirds vote to consider said reports is hereby 
    suspended during the remainder of this session of Congress.

    During the reading of the resolution the following occurred:

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mapes: I ask for a division of the resolution.
        The Speaker: The resolution cannot be divided under the rule. 
    The point of order is overruled.
        Mr. Mapes: Will the Speaker listen to a statement on that for a 
    moment? My point of order is that there are three distinct 
    substantive propositions in this resolution, and I ask for a 
    division of the resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair will read the rule. The rule states:

            Any motion or resolution to elect the members or any 
        portion of the members of the standing committees of the House 
        and the joint standing committees shall not be divisible, nor 
        shall any resolution or order reported by the Committee on 
        Rules providing a special order of business be divisible.
            The point of order is overruled.

    The Speaker then heard further argument on the point of order by 
Mr. Mapes, who cited past precedents in support of his position and 
argued that the resolution was ``not a rule from the Committee on Rules 
providing for a special order of business'' but a report from the 
Committee on Rules ``to change the rules in a very substantive 
manner.''
    The Speaker ruled as follows:

        The matter is perfectly clear. This rule was first adopted in 
    1789 and it was amended in 1837. The gentleman may find a number of 
    precedents along the line he is discussing, which were made prior 
    to the Seventy-third Congress. This rule, however, was amended last 
    on May 3, 1933, by including this language:

            Nor shall any resolution or order reported by the Committee 
        on Rules, providing a special order of business be divisible.
            This amendment to the rule was made for the express purpose 
        of reaching the question which the gentleman now propounds, as 
        will be clearly shown by the debates which occurred when the 
        amendment to the rule was discussed. The point of order is 
        overruled.

[[Page 4092]]

Discharging Committee on Rules From Special Order

Sec. 18.44 Under the provisions of the discharge rule (Rule XXVII 
    clause 4), a motion may be considered to discharge the Committee on 
    Rules from the further consideration of a resolution providing for 
    the consideration of a bill pending in another standing committee.

    On Apr. 12, 1937,(1) a motion was offered to discharge 
the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of a resolution 
providing an order of business for a bill pending in another committee; 
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, overruled a point of order 
against the motion to discharge:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 81 Cong. Rec. 3382-87, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph A.] Gavagan [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    Calendar No. 1 on the Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees, 
    being motion no. 5, signed by 218 Members of the House, to 
    discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of 
    House Resolution 125.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution by title.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 125

            A resolution to make H.R. 1507, a bill to assure to persons 
        within the jurisdiction of every State the equal protection of 
        the laws, and to punish the crime of lynching, a special order 
        of business.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York will be recognized for 
    10 minutes and the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Conner], if he 
    desires, will be recognized for 10 minutes in opposition to the 
    resolution. . . .
        The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired. All time 
    has expired.
        The question is on the motion to discharge the Committee on 
    Rules from further consideration of the resolution.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi will state his 
    point of order.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, this measure is not before the 
    Committee on Rules; this measure is before the Committee on the 
    Judiciary. This is a petition to discharge the Committee on the 
    Judiciary. I make the point of order that we have no right to vote 
    to discharge the Committee on Rules from a measure that has never 
    been before the Committee on Rules, and that they have not had the 
    time provided under the rules to consider.
        The Speaker: Has the gentleman from Mississippi concluded his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Rankin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule upon the point of 
    order.
        The gentleman from Mississippi raises the point of order that 
    inasmuch as the legislative bill governing this subject has not 
    been considered by the Committee on Rules, the motion now pending 
    is out of order. If the gen

[[Page 4093]]

    tleman from Mississippi will refer to the rules with reference to 
    the discharge of committees he will find that the form and 
    procedure adopted by those who signed the discharge petition are 
    specifically and unequivocally provided and that they have been 
    scrupulously followed.
        The Chair is of opinion that under that rule this resolution to 
    discharge the Committee on Rules is in order, and the Chair 
    overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from 
    Mississippi.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVII clause 4, provides not only for 
a motion to discharge a committee from the consideration of a bill or 
resolution not acted on in 30 legislative days, but specifically 
provides that it shall also be in order to move, after seven 
legislative days, to discharge the Committee on Rules from further 
consideration of any resolution providing either a special order of 
business, or a special rule for the consideration of any public bill or 
resolution favorably reported by a standing committee, or a special 
rule for the consideration of a public bill or resolution which has 
remained in a standing committee 30 days or more without action.
    Since the Committee on Rules originates, without their 
introduction, special orders, the Member seeking to discharge the 
committee from the consideration of a special order should introduce 
the resolution in order that it may be referred to the committee.
    It should further be noted that the Speaker has ruled that the 
motion to discharge provided for in Rule XXVII clause 4, as related to 
matters pending before the Committee on Rules, is limited to the 
special orders specified in the rule, and that the committee could not 
be discharged from the further consideration of a resolution creating a 
select committee in the House.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 78 Cong. Rec. 7161-63, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 23, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.45 The House has agreed to discharge the Committee on Rules 
    from the further consideration of a special order.

    On June 13, 1932, the House agreed to a motion, offered by Mr. 
Wright Patman, of Texas, to discharge the Committee on Rules from the 
further consideration of House Resolution 220. The resolution provided 
a special order of business for the consideration of H.R. 7726, 
adversely reported from the Committee on Ways and Means, which provided 
for the immediate payment to veterans of the face value of their 
adjusted-service certificates. Following the adoption of the motion the 
House agreed to the resolution and pro

[[Page 4094]]

ceeded to its execution on the following day (the resolution so 
providing).(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 75 Cong. Rec. 12844-55, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 11, 1936, Mr. William Lemke, of North Dakota, called up a 
motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further 
consideration of House Resolution 123, providing for the consideration 
of H.R. 2066, pending before the Committee on Agriculture, to liquidate 
and refinance existing agricultural indebtedness and for other 
purposes. The House agreed to the motion and resolution and proceeded 
to its execution on the following day, pursuant to the direction in the 
special order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 7025-27, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Apr. 12, 1937, Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of New York, called up a 
motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further 
consideration of House Resolution 125, making a special order of 
business for H.R. 1507, pending in the Committee on the Judiciary, 
which bill assured the equal protection of laws and punished the crime 
of lynching. The House agreed to the motion and then to the resolution 
and proceeded to its execution on the following day, pursuant to the 
provisions of the resolution.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 3382-87, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 13, 1937, Mrs. Mary T. Norton, of New Jersey, called up a 
motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further 
consideration of House Resolution 312, providing for the consideration 
of S. 2475 (pending in the Committee on Labor), to provide for the 
establishment of fair labor standards. The House agreed to the motion 
and to the resolution.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 82 Cong. Rec. 1385-89, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 23, 1938, the House agreed to a motion to discharge the 
Committee on Rules from House Resolution 478, providing for the 
consideration of S. 2475, before the Committee on Labor, establishing 
fair labor standards, and then agreed to the resolution.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 83 Cong. Rec. 7274-79, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 13, 1940, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, called up a 
motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further 
consideration of House Resolution 444, providing for the consideration 
of H.R. 9000, to provide more adequate compensation for certain 
dependents of World War veterans, which bill was pending before the 
Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation. The House agreed to the 
motion and

[[Page 4095]]

then to the resolution and proceeded to its execution.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 86 Cong. Rec. 5973-75, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also on Sept. 22, 1942, the Committee on Rules was discharged from 
the further consideration of House Resolution 110, providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 1024, to amend ``an act to prevent pernicious 
political activities.'' The resolution was then agreed 
to.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 88 Cong. Rec. 7310, 7311, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 24, 1943, the Committee on Rules was discharged from the 
further consideration of House Resolution 131, providing for the 
consideration of a bill pending before the Committee on the Judiciary, 
H.R. 7, making unlawful the requirement for a poll tax as a 
prerequisite to voting. The House agreed to the 
resolution.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 89 Cong. Rec. 4807-13, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 11, 1945, Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, called up a 
motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further 
consideration of House Resolution 139, providing for the consideration 
of H.R. 7, pending before the Committee on the Judiciary, which bill 
made unlawful the requirement for the payment of a poll tax as a 
prerequisite to voting in a primary or other election for national 
officials. The motion was agreed to and the House then agreed to the 
resolution. Pursuant to the provisions of the resolution, the House 
resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole on the following day 
for the consideration of the bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892-96, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 9, 1954, the House agreed to a motion to discharge the 
Committee on Rules from the consideration of House Resolution 590, 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 9245 (before the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service) to establish a joint congressional 
committee to make studies and recommendations in respect to the postal 
service.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 100 Cong. Rec. 13736-40, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 22, 1957, the House agreed to a motion to discharge the 
Committee on Rules from the consideration of House Resolution 249, 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2474 (pending in the Committee 
on Post Office and Civil Service) to increase certain rates of 
compensation in the postal service.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 103 Cong. Rec. 12332-35, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 15, 1960, the House agreed to House Resolution 537,

[[Page 4096]]

providing for the consideration of H.R. 9883, to adjust rates of 
compensation for federal officials and employees (pending before the 
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service). The resolution had been 
brought before the House by way of a motion to discharge the Committee 
on Rules from its further consideration.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 12691-93, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Sept. 27, 1965, Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York, called up a 
motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further 
consideration of House Resolution 515, making in order the 
consideration and providing for the motion of consideration of H.R. 
4644, pending before the Committee on the District of Columbia, which 
bill provided an elected Mayor, City Council, and nonvoting Delegate to 
the House of Representatives for the District of Columbia, and for 
other purposes. The House agreed to the motion and then to the 
resolution and proceeded to its execution by resolving into the 
Committee of the Whole for general debate on the bill.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 25180-25186, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering Motion to Discharge Committee on Rules

Sec. 18.46 If a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the 
    further consideration of a special order is agreed to, the 
    resolution is read by the Clerk and the question immediately 
    occurs, without debate or other intervening motion, on agreeing to 
    the resolution.

    On Sept. 27, 1965,(16) Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New 
York, called up motion No. 5, on the Discharge Calendar, to discharge 
the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of House 
Resolution 515, providing for the consideration of H.R. 4644, a ``home 
rule'' bill for the District of Columbia. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the procedure for 
consideration of the resolution should the motion to discharge be 
adopted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 25180, 25181, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that under the rule on the 
    question of discharge there is 20 minutes, 10 minutes to the side, 
    and that will close debate on the motion. The House will then vote 
    on the adoption of House Resolution 515 without debate or other 
    intervening motions.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: And, as I understand it, then there will 
    be no opportunity to discuss the resolution itself on which we are 
    about to vote?
        The Speaker: Not under the standing rules of the House.

[[Page 4097]]

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Now, Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry. Will it be in order to move the previous 
    question on the resolution?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that under the rules of the 
    House in a matter of this kind there is no debate and the previous 
    question will not be in order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 91 Cong. Rec. 5892-96, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 
        1945; and 86 Cong. Rec. 5973-75, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 13, 
        1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVII clause 4 specifically provides 
that if the motion to discharge prevails to discharge the Committee on 
Rules from any resolution, the House shall immediately vote on the 
adoption of the resolution, without intervening motion except to 
adjourn, and if the resolution is adopted immediately proceed to its 
execution.

Sec. 18.47 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker advised 
    that debate on a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from 
    further consideration of a special order is limited to 20 minutes--
    10 minutes under control of the Member recognized to call up the 
    motion and 10 minutes under control of a Member recognized in 
    opposition.

    On Sept. 27, 1965,(18) there was pending before the 
House a motion offered by Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York, to 
discharge the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of 
House Resolution 515, making in order the consideration and providing 
for the method of consideration of H.R. 4644, a ``home rule'' bill 
pending before the Committee on the District of Columbia. Speaker John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries as to 
the debate on the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 25180, 25181, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Now, Mr. Speaker, that 
    resolution waives points of order. There are grave points of order 
    in the bill that is to be recognized. The question I want to ask is 
    whether there will be an opportunity in debate on the rule to 
    advise the House of the facts that it does waive the points of 
    order and that there are points of order with which the House ought 
    to be made familiar.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that under the rule on the 
    question of discharge there is 20 minutes, 10 minutes to the side, 
    and that will close debate on the motion. The House will then vote 
    on the adoption of House Resolution 515 without debate or other 
    intervening motions.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: And, as I understand it, then there will 
    be no opportunity to discuss the resolution itself on which we are 
    about to vote?
        The Speaker: Not under the standing rules of the House.

    Pursuant to Rule XXVII, the Speaker recognized, for debate on

[[Page 4098]]

the motion to discharge, Mr. Multer for 10 minutes in favor of the 
motion and John L. McMillan, of South Carolina (the Chairman of the 
Committee on the District of Columbia) for 10 minutes in opposition to 
the motion.

Sec. 18.48 When a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the 
    further consideration of a special order is called up, the chairman 
    of the committee is not entitled to recognition for the purpose of 
    debate unless he is opposed to the motion.

    On Dec. 13, 1937,(19) where there was pending before the 
House a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further 
consideration of a special order, Speaker William B. Bankhoad, of 
Alabama, answered parliamentary inquiries on recognition in opposition 
to the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 82 Cong. Rec. 1385, 1386, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Martin] Dies [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, under the rules 
    of the House, as I understand, 20 minutes is to be allowed to a 
    discussion of whether or not the Rules Committee will be 
    discharged, 10 minutes to the proponents and 10 minutes to the 
    opponents. As a member of the committee, I ask for recognition and 
    for the 10 minutes in opposition to the discharge of the committee.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, in connection 
    with the parliamentary inquiry, may I say that heretofore on all 
    motions to discharge the Rules Committee the chairman of the Rules 
    Committee has been recognized for the 10 minutes in opposition to 
    the motion, and that irrespective of whether he personally was 
    opposed to the motion.
        I appreciate the exact language of the rule, but I recall the 
    precedents of the bonus bills on several occasions, the Frazier-
    Lemke bill, and the anti-lynching bill. Of course, if the Speaker 
    is going to rule that under a strict compliance with the discharge 
    rule that anybody recognized for the second 10 minutes must be 
    opposed to the motion to discharge, I may say to my colleague from 
    Texas on the Rules Committee that, as he well knows, I have always 
    been in favor of the wage and hour bill. I have made speeches in 
    favor of such a bill on the floor of this House, in the Democratic 
    caucus, and publicly. . . .
        The Speaker: In answer to the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Dies], a member of the Rules Committee, 
    the Chair thinks it proper to read the rule in connection with this 
    matter of the control of time so there may be no confusion about 
    the interpretation of the rule:

            When any motion under this rule shall be called up, the 
        bill or resolution shall be read by title only. After 20 
        minutes' debate, one-half in favor of the proposition and one-
        half in opposition thereto, the House shall proceed to vote on 
        the motion to discharge.

        The Chair recalls that on some former occasions the Chairman of 
    the

[[Page 4099]]

    Rules Committee has been recognized in opposition to the motion; 
    but in view of the fact that the gentleman from Texas has asked an 
    interpretation of the rule and proposes himself to qualify in 
    opposition to the rule, and in view of the statement of the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor], the chairman of the Rules 
    Committee, that he cannot qualify in opposition, the Chair feels 
    impelled to rule that if someone desires to be recognized who 
    qualifies in opposition to the rule, he should be recognized under 
    the provisions of the rule.

Sec. 18.49 The House having agreed to a resolution discharging the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia from further consideration of 
    a bill, the Speaker designated the chairman of that committee to 
    control time in opposition to the bill during consideration in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 27, 1965,(20) the House agreed to a motion, 
called up by Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York, to discharge the 
Committee on Rules from the further consideration of House Resolution 
515, providing for the consideration of H.R. 4644 (to provide an 
elected Mayor, City Council, and nonvoting Delegate to the House of 
Representatives for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes). 
The question was put on the resolution and it was agreed to. Pursuant 
to the language of the resolution, which specified that general debate 
on the bill in Committee of the Whole be equally divided and controlled 
by one of several Members designated in the bill and in favor of the 
bill and ``a Member who is opposed to the bill to be designated by the 
Speaker,'' Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, designated John 
L. McMillan, of South Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on the 
District of Columbia, to control the time in opposition to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 25185, 25186, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.50 The motion to lay on the table a resolution providing a 
    special order of business, taken away from the Committee on Rules 
    through the operation of the discharge rule, is not in order.

    On June 11, 1945,(1) the House agreed to a motion to 
discharge the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of a 
special order of business, providing for the consideration of a public 
bill pending in the Committee on the Judiciary. Pursuant to Rule
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892-96, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4100]]

XXVII, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, put the question on the adoption 
of the resolution. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, sought to move 
to lay the resolution on the table, but the Speaker advised that the 
motion was not in order.

Sec. 18.51 The Speaker stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that the motion for the previous question may not be applied to a 
    resolution from the Committee on Rules brought up under a motion to 
    discharge since the resolution itself is not debatable under the 
    rule.

    On Sept. 27, 1965,(2) there was pending before the House 
a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further 
consideration of a special order providing for the consideration of a 
public bill pending before another standing committee. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the 
procedure for consideration of the resolution should the motion to 
discharge be adopted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 25180, 25181, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that under the rule on the 
    question of discharge there is 20 minutes, 10 minutes to the side, 
    and that will close debate on the motion. The House will then vote 
    on the adoption of House Resolution 515 without debate or other 
    intervening motions.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: And as I understand it, then 
    there will be no opportunity to discuss the resolution itself on 
    which we are about to vote?
        The Speaker: Not under the standing rules of the House.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Now, Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry. Will it be in order to move the previous 
    question on the resolution?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that under the rules of the 
    House in a matter of this kind there is no debate and the previous 
    question will not be in order.

Twenty-one Day Discharge Rule

Sec. 18.52 The 90th Congress deleted from the rules of the House the 
    ``21-day'' rule, providing for discharge of certain Committee on 
    Rules resolutions, which rule had been included in the rules of the 
    89th Congress (as a modification of the rule in effect in the 81st 
    Congress).

    On Jan. 10, 1967, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, the Majority Leader, 
offered House Resolution 7, adopting as the rules of the House those 
rules in effect in the 89th Congress. The House rejected the previous 
question and subse

[[Page 4101]]

quently adopted the resolution with an amendment deleting from the 
rules the ``21-day'' discharge rule contained in Rule XI clause 23 of 
the 89th Congress.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 28-33, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 89th Congress, the House had adopted House Resolution 8, 
offered by Mr. Albert, which amended Rule XI clause 23 to reinstate the 
21-day rule in effect in the 81st Congress, with modification:

        . . . In rule XI, strike out clause 23 and insert:
        ``23. The Committee on Rules shall present to the House reports 
    concerning rules, joint rules, and order of business, within three 
    legislative days of the time when ordered reported by the 
    committee. If such rule or order is not considered immediately, it 
    shall be referred to the calendar and, if not called up by the 
    Member making the report within seven legislative days thereafter, 
    any member of the Committee on Rules may call it up as a question 
    of privilege and the Speaker shall recognize any member of the 
    Committee on Rules seeking recognition for that purpose. If the 
    Committee on Rules shall adversely report or fail to report within 
    twenty-one calendar days after reference, any resolution pending 
    before the committee providing for an order of business for the 
    consideration by the House of any public bill or joint resolution 
    favorably reported by a committee of the House, on days when it is 
    in order to call up motions to discharge committees, it may be in 
    order as a matter of the highest privilege for the Speaker, in his 
    discretion, to recognize the chairman or any member of the 
    committee which reported such bill or joint resolution who has been 
    so authorized by said committee to call up for consideration by the 
    House the resolution which the Committee on Rules has so adversely 
    reported, or failed to report, and it shall be in order to move the 
    adoption by the House of said resolution adversely reported, or not 
    reported, notwithstanding the adverse report, or the failure to 
    report, of the Committee on Rules. Pending the consideration of 
    said resolution the Speaker may entertain one motion that the House 
    adjourn; but after the result is announced he shall not entertain 
    any other dilatory motion until the said resolution shall have been 
    fully disposed of.'' (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 21--25, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan 10, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Albert and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
discussed the purpose of the 21-day rule:

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, this resolution, if adopted, would 
    restore the 21-day rule which was in effect during the 81st 
    Congress, with some modifications.
        Mr. Speaker, it would enable the Speaker, after a resolution 
    had been before the Committee on Rules for 21 days or more, to 
    recognize the chairman or other members of the legislative 
    committee from which the bill emanated to discharge the Committee

[[Page 4102]]

    on Rules on a day set aside for discharging committees. . . .
        The purpose of these two changes in the rules, of course, is to 
    expedite the business of the House and to make available other 
    methods of handling the legislative business of the House. They do 
    not seek to change any of the rules governing the Committee on 
    Rules or other procedures, all of which are left intact. . . .
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, as this resolution involves changes 
    in the rules, I feel that my views should be made known to the 
    Members of the House. I strongly favor the resolution offered by 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert]. I think the 21-day rule 
    is a rule that is for the benefit of the individual Members of the 
    House without regard to party affiliation in giving them the 
    opportunity of passing upon legislation that has been reported out 
    of a standing committee. Some Members may construe it as an attack 
    on the Committee on Rules, but it is not. It is a strengthening of 
    the rules of the House in the direction of the individual Member 
    having an opportunity to pass upon legislation that has been 
    reported out of a standing committee and which has been pending 
    before the Committee on Rules for 21 days or more. We had this rule 
    some few Congresses ago for one Congress. The reason it was not 
    continued is simply and frankly that we did not have the votes. 
    When it was adopted, it was not adopted as a permanent part of the 
    rules but for one Congress. In following Congresses we did not have 
    the votes. So it is not a question whether the advocates of the 21-
    day rule felt that it was not workable. I have always felt 
    throughout the years that it would be a strengthening influence not 
    only on the rules of the House but on each Member of the House and 
    on the House collectively in the matter of expressing the will of 
    the House to have the 21-day rule incorporated as a part of the 
    rules of the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As the ``21-day'' rule is no longer in 
effect, the following principles as to the use of that rule are 
included for their historical significance.
    A Member calling up a resolution under the 21-day rule was 
recognized for one hour and could yield to other Members in his 
discretion; he was not bound by the customary practice of the Committee 
on Rules that one-half of the time be yielded to the 
minority.(5) But Members calling up such resolutions did on 
occasion yield half of the time to the minority.(6) Where 
the Member calling up a resolution under the rule did not debate the 
resolution or move the previous question, the Speaker put the question 
on agreeing to the resolution.(7) The regular discharge rule 
under Rule XXVII clause 4, requiring recogni
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 18076, 18077, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1965.
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 23609, 23610, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 1965; 
        and 111 Cong. Rec. 18076, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26,1965.
 7. 111 Cong. Rec. 23607, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4103]]

tion for discharge motions to be in the order in which entered on the 
Journal, had no application to the 21-day rule under Rule XI clause 
23.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 23618, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Business in order under the ''21-day rule'' was of the highest 
privilege and took precedence over District of Columbia business under 
Rule XXIV clause 8.(9) A motion to recommit a resolution 
called up under the rule was not in order, since Rule XI clause 23 
prohibited any dilatory motion, except one motion to adjourn, after 
consideration of the resolution had begun.(10) On one 
occasion, the House remained in session until 12:31 a.m. and adjourned 
until noon on the same day following the adoption of several 
resolutions called up under the ``21-day rule'' and on which there were 
attempts to thwart action.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 23606, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 1965; and 111 
        Cong. Rec. 18076, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1965.
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 18087, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1965.
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 23624, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the 21-day rule in effect in the 81st Congress, only the 
chairman of a committee could call up a resolution not reported by the 
Committee on Rules within 21 days,(12) and one motion to 
adjourn was in order during the consideration of a resolution under the 
rule.(13) And where a member of a committee (not the 
chairman) had been directed to call up the resolution by the committee, 
he advised the House of the committee's delegation of 
authority.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 13181, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 22, 1949.
13. 96 Cong. Rec. 772, 781, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan.23, 1950; and 95 
        Cong. Rec. 10094, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., July 25, 1949.
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 23621, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 18.53 Forms of special orders introduced under the discharge rule, 
    providing for creation of special orders upon adoption, providing 
    that a designated Member be recognized to call up the resolution, 
    and providing that the special order be the continuing order of 
    business until disposed of.

    The following are examples of special orders containing the above 
provisions:

                            House Resolution 123

        Resolved, That upon the day succeeding the adoption of this 
    resolution a special order be, and is hereby, created by the House 
    of Representatives

[[Page 4104]]

    for the consideration of H.R. 2066, a public bill which has 
    remained in the Committee on Agriculture for 30 or more days 
    without action. That such special order be, and is hereby created, 
    notwithstanding any further action on said bill by the Committee on 
    Agriculture or any rule of the House. That on said day the Speaker 
    shall recognize the Representative at Large from North Dakota, 
    William Lemke, to call up H.R. 2066, a bill to liquidate and 
    refinance existing agricultural indebtedness at a reduced rate of 
    interest by establishing an efficient credit system, through the 
    use of the Farm Credit Administration, the Federal Reserve Banking 
    System, and creating a board of agriculture to supervise the same, 
    as a special order of business, and to move that the House resolve 
    itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
    Union for the consideration of said H.R. 2066. After general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not 
    to exceed 6 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    Member of the House requesting the rule for the consideration of 
    said H.R. 2066 and the Member of the House who is opposed to the 
    said H.R. 2066, to be designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be 
    read for amendment under the a-minute rule. At the conclusion of 
    the reading of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and 
    report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered 
    on the bill and the amendments thereto to final passage, without 
    intervening motion, except one motion to recommit. The special 
    order shall be a continuing order until the bill is finally 
    disposed of.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 7025-27, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 125

        Resolved, That upon the day succeeding the adoption of this 
    resolution, a special order be, and is hereby, created by the House 
    of Representatives, for the consideration of H.R. 1507, a public 
    bill which has remained in the Committee on the Judiciary for 30 or 
    more days, without action. That such special order be, and is 
    hereby, created, notwithstanding any further action on said bill by 
    the Committee on the Judiciary, or any rule of the House. That on 
    said day the Speaker shall recognize the Representative from New 
    York, Joseph A. Gavagan, to call up H.R. 1507, a bill to assure to 
    persons within the jurisdiction of every State the equal protection 
    of the laws, and to punish the crime of lynching, as a special 
    order of business, and to move that the House resolve itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
    consideration of said H.R. 1507. After general debate, which shall 
    be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 6 hours, 
    to be equally divided and controlled by the Member of the House 
    requesting the rule for the consideration of said H.R. 1507 and the 
    Member of the House who is opposed to the said H.R. 1507, to be 
    designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be read for amendment 
    under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the 
    bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, and 
    the amendments thereto, to final passage, without intervening 
    motion, except one motion to recommit.

[[Page 4105]]

    The special order shall be a continuing order until the bill is 
    finally disposed of.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 3386, 3387, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 12, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 139

        Resolved, That upon the day succeeding the adoption of this 
    resolution, a special order be, and is hereby, created by the House 
    of Representatives, for the consideration of H.R. 7, a public bill 
    which has remained in the Committee on the Judiciary for 30 or more 
    days without action. That such special order be, and is hereby, 
    created, notwithstanding any further action on said bill by the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, or any rule of the House. That on said 
    day the Speaker shall recognize the Representative from New York, 
    Vito Marcantonio, to call up H.R. 7, a bill making unlawful the 
    requirement for the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to 
    voting in a primary or other election for national officers, as a 
    special order of business, and to move that the House resolve 
    itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union for the consideration of said H.R. 7. After general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to 
    exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the Member 
    of the House requesting the rule for the consideration of said H.R. 
    7 and the Member of the House who is opposed to the said H.R. 7, to 
    be designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be read for amendment 
    under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the 
    bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, and 
    the amendments thereto, to final passage, without intervening 
    motion, except one motion to recommit. The special order shall be a 
    continuing order until the bill is finally disposed 
    of.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 515

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

[[Page 4106]]

    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, 
    with or without instructions. After the passage of H.R. 4644, the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia shall be discharged from the 
    further consideration of the bill S. 1118, and it shall then be in 
    order in the House to move to strike out all after the enacting 
    clause of said Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof the 
    provisions contained in H.R. 4644 as passed. This special order 
    shall be a continuing order until the bill is finally disposed 
    of.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Res. 515, 111 Cong. Rec. 25185, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 
        1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------