[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[E. Privileged Business]
[Â§ 29. Certain Bills, Resolutions, and Reports]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4390-4425]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         E. PRIVILEGED BUSINESS
 
Sec. 29. Certain Bills, Resolutions, and Reports

    Under Rule XI clause 22,(8) specified committees have 
the right to report to the House at any time on certain subjects within 
their jurisdiction.(~9~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1973) [now Rule XI clause 4(a), 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979) ].
 9. The privilege bestowed by the rule is limited to the subject matter 
        specified in the rule; inclusion of other subjects may destroy 
        the privilege of the proposition (see Sec. Sec. 29.1-29.3, 
        infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the implementation of section 133 (c) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 into the rules, in Rule XI clause 
27(d)(4)(10) the right of reporting
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 735(d)(4) (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4391]]

at any time was held to give the right to immediate consideration of 
such reports.(11) But Rule XI clause 27(d)(4) as of the 93d 
Congress required that committee reports on any matter, including 
privileged matter, be available for at least three calendar days 
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) before 
consideration, with the exception of reports from the Committees on 
House Administration, Appropriations, Rules, and Standards of Official 
Conduct. That clause was renumbered as Rule XI clause 2(l)(6) and 
amended effective Jan. 3, 1975, to exclude from the three-day layover 
requirement only the Committee on Rules, in the case of a privileged 
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3131, 3142-3147; 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 2291, 2312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    General appropriation bills may not be considered, under Rule XXI 
clause 6 (clause 7 in the 95th Congress rules),(12) until 
hearings and a report have been available for at least three calendar 
days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays), and reports 
from the Committee on House Administration on certain expenditures from 
the contingent fund may not be considered until available for at least 
one calendar day, under Rule XI clause 32 (clause 5 in the 95th 
Congress rules).(13) Reports from the Committee on Rules may 
be considered on the same day reported only if the question of 
consideration is agreed to by a two-thirds vote; a majority vote is 
required to adopt a resolution from the committee.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 848 (1973).
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 739a (1973). Prior to the 95th 
        Congress, the one-day layover requirement applied only to 
        reports from the Committee on House Administration on expenses 
        for standing committees; in the 95th Congress the clause was 
        extended to reports from that committee on expenses for 
        committees, commissions, or other entities.
14. See Sec. 18, supra, for the consideration of reports from the 
        Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A report by a committee which strictly constitutes a question of 
the privileges of the House, under Rule IX, is not subject to the 
three-day availability requirement of Rule XI clause 27(d)(4) [clause 
2(l)(6) in the 95th Congress rules], as the requirement applies to 
matters merely privileged under the rules and not brought up for 
immediate consideration under Rule IX. But in order to obtain immediate 
consideration of such a report, a resolution constituting a question of 
the privileges of the House must be offered for immediate 
consideration.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 28.19, supra. In the 94th and 95th Congresses, several 
        resolutions reported from the Committee on House 
        Administration, in part constituting questions of the 
        privileges of the House (court cases in relation to the 
        prerogatives of Congress), and in part disbursing expenses from 
        the contingent fund (in order to assert such prerogatives), 
        were considered as privileged after reported for three days 
        under Rule XI clause 2(l)(6) (see H. Res. 899, H. Res. 1420, 
        and H. Res. 1479, 94th Cong.; H. Res. 334, 95th Cong.).

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

[[Page 4392]]

    Select committees may be given the right to report measures within 
their jurisdiction at any time,(16) although such authority 
does not waive the requirement of compliance with the three-day rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 29.5, 29.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The three-day requirement also does not apply, pursuant to its own 
provisions, to consideration of a proposal disapproving or invalidating 
executive action which would otherwise become effective. The intent of 
that exemption is to prevent the three-day rule from precluding the 
exercise of disapproval under statutes granting that power to Congress. 
Nor does the rule apply to declarations of war or national 
emergencies.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Rule XI clause 27(d)(4)(B), House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 735(d)(4) (1973) [now Rule Xl clause 2(1)(6) House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 715 (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reports from committees on resolutions disapproving executive 
actions may be made privileged by statutes so providing. The statute 
may provide that once the resolution of disapproval is reported from 
committee, a motion to consider the resolution is privileged, and that 
if the committee does not report a resolution of disapproval within a 
certain period of time, a motion to discharge the committee may be made 
as a privileged motion on the floor, followed by a motion to 
consider.(18) A small number of resolutions may be submitted 
from the floor as original and privileged propositions, such as 
concurrent resolutions for adjournment; concurrent resolutions for 
certain joint sessions; and resolutions electing Members to 
committees.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 29.11, infra.Comrnittee reports are discussed 
        extensively in Ch. 17, supra. For a compilation of relevant 
        statutory provisions giving privilege to certain congressional 
        veto resolutions, see House Rules and Manual Sec. 1013 (1975 
        and 1977).
19. See Sec. Sec. 29.12, 29.17-29.19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated above, certain reports are privileged for 
consideration when reported from any committee. Examples are reports on 
vetoed bills, reports on resolutions of inquiry, and reports 
constituting questions of the privileges of the House, such as those 
relating to the contempt of a witness before a committee. (A reso

[[Page 4393]]

lution to certify the contempt to the United States Attorney is 
presented as a question of the privileges of the House.) 
(20) A conference report on any bill is privileged when 
reported by the conferees on the part of the House, but is subject to 
the three-day availability requirement specified in Rule 
XXVIII.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For resolutions of inquiry, see Sec. Sec. 29.14-29.16, infra. For 
        reports on vetoed bills, see Sec. 28.7, supra. For resolutions 
        brought up under a question of the privileges of the House, see 
        Sec. Sec. 28.12-28.19, supra.
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 912 (1979). See Sec. Sec. 29.2-29.28, 
        infra, for conference reports and their privilege. See also, 
        Ch. 33 Sec. Sec. 16, 22, infra, for a complete discussion of 
        conference reports and their privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to retain its privilege, a privileged report must be 
submitted as privileged from the floor while the House is in session 
(and not filed in the hopper). A committee may, however, obtain by 
unanimous consent permission to file a privileged report while the 
House is not in session.
    Certain Senate-passed measures are privileged for consideration in 
the House: Senate bills similar to House bills already on the House 
Calendar; Senate amendments not requiring consideration in Committee of 
the Whole; Senate concurrent resolutions for adjournment; Senate 
amendments to House concurrent resolutions for adjournment; and Senate 
bills and amendments after the stage of disagreement has been reached. 
The request of the Senate for the return of a bill is also presented as 
privileged.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 29.29-29.32, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
For further discussion of questions of privilege, see Ch. 11, supra.
As to committee reports and their privilege, see Ch. 17, supra.
For discussion of Discharge Calendar motions as privileged, see Ch. 18, 
    supra.
As to calendars and the privilege of business on eligible days, see Ch. 
    22, infra.
As to bills and resolutions and their privilege generally, see Ch. 24, 
    infra.
For discussion of appropriation bills as privileged, see Ch. 25, infra.
For discussion of Senate bills and amendments as privileged, see Ch. 
    32, infra.
For discussion of conference reports as privileged, see Ch. 33, infra.
For discussion of business on the Speaker's table as privileged, see 
    Sec. 2, supra.
For discussion of unfinished and postponed business as privileged, see 
    Sec. 3, supra.
For discussion of Calendar Wednesday business as privileged, see 
    Sec. 4, supra.
For discussion of District of Columbia business as privileged, see 
    Sec. 5, supra.
For discussion of suspension of the rules as privileged, see Sec. 10, 
    supra.
For discussion of reports from the Committee on Rules as privileged, 
    see Sec. 17, supra.

[[Page 4394]]

For discussion of bills made in order by special rules as privileged, 
    see Sec. Sec. 19, 20, 
    supra.
                          -------------------

Scope of Privileged Reports

Sec. 29.1 The Speaker held that a rule giving privilege to a report 
    from a certain committee permitted the inclusion of matters 
    incidental to the main purpose so long as they tended toward the 
    accomplishment of that end.

    On May 21, 1958, a motion was made that the House resolve itself 
into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill, 
reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to provide 
for the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union, pursuant to 
the rule then in effect giving privilege to that committee for reports 
relating to the admission of new states. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
overruled a point of order against the motion, the point of order being 
based upon the inclusion in the bill of nonprivileged matter: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 9212-16, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne N.] Aspinall [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and 
    pursuant to rule XI, clause 20, I move that the House resolve 
    itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7999) to provide for 
    the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to 
    submit a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I want to submit a point of order at this time 
    that the bill is not privileged and, therefore, the motion that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union is not in order at this time.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, if this bill, H.R. 7999, is privileged 
    at all, it is privileged under clause 20 of rule XI, authorizing 
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to bring in a bill 
    for admission of a new State. It must conform in every respect to 
    the rule, or its privilege is destroyed.
        But, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains matter that is not 
    privileged and under the very familiar rule with which all of us 
    are thoroughly cognizant, the presence of unprivileged matter in a 
    bill destroys the privilege of the bill. This bill carries 
    provisions which are not privileged and, therefore, the entire bill 
    is unprivileged and the committee has no authority to bring it to 
    the floor at this time or in this manner.
        For example, Mr. Speaker, the bill, although reported out by a 
    legislative committee, carries appropriations. . . .
        It will be argued, Mr. Speaker, possibly in the citation which 
    has just

[[Page 4395]]

    been laid before the Speaker that under the rule giving privilege 
    to certain bills reported from the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs, nonprivileged matters included as necessary to the 
    accomplishment of the purpose for which privilege is given are in 
    order. But note, Mr. Speaker, the significant word ``necessary''. 
    Any such nonprivileged material, in order to qualify under this 
    decision, must be necessary--must be necessary to the 
    accomplishment of the purpose of the bill.
        Conversely, under the same rule, Mr. Speaker, matters which are 
    not privileged and which are not necessary to the accomplishment of 
    the purpose destroy the privilege of the bill. And again I 
    emphasize the word ``necessary''.
        Are any of these unprivileged provisions--or all of them--
    necessary? Are they necessary to the act of admission? Are they 
    essentially accessory? Are all of them--or any one of them--
    necessary? Are they necessary in order to confer statehood under 
    this bill?
        Mr. Speaker no one can successfully contend that any of them 
    are necessary in order to accomplish the purpose of the bill.
        Therefore, it follows that being unprivileged--which no one 
    will deny--and not being necessary to accomplish the act--which no 
    one will affirm--they destroy the privilege of this bill and it 
    cannot be brought to the floor by the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs under the rule cited by the gentleman here this 
    afternoon.
        The Speaker: Unless some other Members desire to be heard, the 
    Chair is ready to rule. . . .
        Clause 20 of rule 11 provides in part as follows:

            The following named committees shall have leave to report 
        at any time: Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, bills 
        for the admission of a new State.

        The admission of a new State into the Union is not the question 
    here.
        The question here presented, is one of procedure. . . .
        It is contended that in the exercising of the right to report 
    at any time committees may not include matters not specified by the 
    rule within the privilege.
        Mr. Speakers Carlisle, Reed, and Longworth had on various 
    occasions to pass upon phases of this question, although they did 
    not pass specifically on the question of the privilege of the 
    Committee on Territories with respect to bills providing for the 
    admission of new States.
        In 1888, Mr. Speaker Carlisle--Hinds' Precedents, volume IV, 
    section 4637--held that the rule giving privilege to reports from 
    the Committee on Public Lands permits the including of matters 
    necessary to accomplishment of the purpose for which privilege is 
    given.
        That would be the reply to a great deal of the argument that 
    has been made as to the germaneness of this matter.
        Mr. Speaker Reed, in 1896--Hinds' Precedents, volume IV, 
    section 4638--in passing upon a similar question stated:

            The Chair thinks that this provision has always had a 
        liberal construction, and will decide that it is a privileged 
        matter.

[[Page 4396]]

        Mr. Speaker Longworth, in 1927--Cannon's Precedents, volume 
    VIII, section 2280--in passing upon the privilege of the Committee 
    on Ways and Means to report at any time, stated:

            If a major feature of a bill reported from the Ways and 
        Means Committee relates to revenue the bill is privileged.

        This bill relates to the admission of a new State into the 
    Union.
        And matters accompanying the bill--
        Further quoting Mr. Longworth--
        not strictly raising revenue but incidental to its main purpose 
        do not destroy this privilege.

        The bill before us is one to provide for the admission of the 
    State of Alaska into the Union. Upon a close examination of the 
    bill it will be found that all of the provisions contained therein 
    are necessary for the accomplishment of that objective. It may be 
    argued that some of them are incidental to the main purpose, but as 
    long as they tend toward the accomplishment of that end, such 
    incidental purposes do not destroy the privilege of the Committee 
    on Interior and Insular Affairs to report and call up the pending 
    bill.
        It may be said, therefore, that where the major feature--and 
    the Chair hopes the Members will listen to this--that where the 
    major feature of the bill relates to the admission of a new State, 
    lesser provisions incidental thereto do not destroy its privilege 
    when reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 
    and, therefore, for these and many other reasons, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See also Sec. 28.10, supra, for the privilege of reports relating 
        to impeachment, containing incidental matters, when reported 
        from the committee investigating charges of impeachment.
            Effective Jan. 3, 1975, Rule XI clause 4(a) was amended to 
        delete the privilege given to the Committee on Interior and 
        Insular Affairs on certain reports including those relating to 
        admission of States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.2 The presence of nonprivileged matters in a bill that is 
    otherwise privileged under the rules, destroys the privileged 
    status of the entire bill.

    On Apr. 8, 1935, a motion was made, by direction of the Committee 
on Rivers and Harbors, that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
of the Whole for the consideration of a bill relating to rivers and 
harbors. At that time, Rule XI clause 45 provided that the Committee on 
Rivers and Harbors could report to the House at any time, as a 
privileged matter, relating to rivers and harbors. Speaker Joseph W. 
Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled, in response to a point of order, that the 
bill was not privileged for consideration since containing provisions 
relating to canals and inland waterways: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 79 Cong. Rec. 5250, 5251, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the

[[Page 4397]]

    House now resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    6732) authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of 
    certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell, [of New York]: I make the point of 
    order against the motion of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Mansfield] on the ground that this is not a privileged bill, and 
    therefore the motion is not in order. I do this not because I am 
    opposed to the bill, because I am for it, but in order to keep the 
    Record and the precedents of the House intact relative to the 
    consideration of a river and harbor bill.
        As a matter of fact, the Chairman of the Rules Committee and I 
    had a word or two about this bill Saturday night. Originally, river 
    and harbor bills were privileged bills, but in those days they were 
    confined to river and harbor projects alone. In later years all of 
    these river and harbor bills have contained various other matters, 
    such as channels, canals, and artificial waterways, which are not 
    privileged matter. Of course, the presence of unprivileged matter 
    in a bill makes the bill itself unprivileged. If I remember 
    correctly, the present distinguished Speaker made a ruling on this 
    very same proposition some 12 or 15 years ago when he was acting as 
    Chairman of Committee of the Whole, and as a further argument to 
    sustain my position, I respectfully call attention of the Speaker 
    to that decision.
        I would like to say further that as far as I am concerned, if 
    the Speaker sustains the point of order, which I believe he will, 
    if the gentleman from Texas will ask unanimous consent to call up 
    this bill, I doubt if there will be any opposition to considering 
    it at this time. The point I am making now is simply for the 
    purpose of maintaining the rules of the House, and not because I 
    have any opposition to the bill. . . .
        The Speaker: Clause 45 of rule XI, as it relates to the 
    Committee on Rivers and Harbors, reads as follows, under the 
    heading of Privileged Reports.

            The Committee on Rivers and Harbors, bills authorizing the 
        improvement of rivers and harbors.

        The bill which has been presented to the House not only relates 
    to rivers and harbors but provides for other waterways.
        There are quite a number of provisions in the bill, which it is 
    unnecessary to point out, providing for inland waterways; for 
    instance, from the Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, the 
    improvement of the Cape Cod Canal, and other provisions quite 
    numerous which, in the opinion of the Chair. takes the bill from 
    under the privilege provided in the rules.
        The Chair feels constrained to follow the precedents heretofore 
    established and the plain letter of the rule the Chair has read, 
    which applies only to bills relating to rivers and harbors 
    exclusively. In addition to this, the Chair will state that the 
    Chair is informed that this bill was not presented to the House as 
    privileged bills are, but was reported through the basket, rather 
    than from the floor of the House.
        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.

Sec. 29.3 Although the Committee on Rules has authority under

[[Page 4398]]

    Rule XI clause 23 [now Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual, 
    1979] to report as privileged a resolution creating a select House 
    committee, the inclusion therein of a subject coming within the 
    jurisdiction of another standing committee destroys its privilege, 
    and it is therefore necessary for the committee to report a 
    privileged resolution making in order the consideration of the 
    nonprivileged matter reported by it.

    On Jan. 31, 1973,(6) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 176, 
a privileged order of business making in order the consideration of 
House Resolution 132, another resolution reported from the Committee on 
Rules creating a select committee. The first resolution was necessary 
since House Resolution 132 was not a privileged resolution under Rule 
XI clause 23 because of its reference to paying money from the 
contingent fund on vouchers approved by the Speaker (a matter within 
the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 2804, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                H. Res. 176

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

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

                            House Resolution 226

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration 
    of S. J. Res. 155, a joint resolution to create a Joint 
    Congressional Committee on Tax Evasion and Avoidance, and all 
    points of order against

[[Page 4399]]

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

Quorum Requirement for Privileged Report

Sec. 29.4 To retain the status of privileged business in the House, 
    such business must be reported from standing committees when a 
    quorum is present in such committees and a point of order that a 
    committee quorum did not order the matter reported may be made at 
    any time after the report is filed.

    On May 11, 1950,(8) Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that a point of order could be 
raised against a privileged report of a standing committee on the 
grounds that the report was ordered reported without a quorum of the 
standing committee present:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 96 Cong. Rec. 6920, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on House Administration, I offer a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 495) and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the consideration of the resolution on the ground 
    that a quorum was not present when it was reported out of 
    committee.
        Mrs. Norton: Mr. Speaker, we did have a quorum present, but 
    some Member may have slipped out of committee during the 
    consideration of the resolution. I assumed that a quorum was 
    present.
        Mr. [Clarke E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: May not the consideration of this 
    resolution at this time be blocked by a point of order that a 
    quorum is not present in the House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Of course, the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present may be made at any time.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, it is too late to raise the point of 
    order that a

[[Page 4400]]

    quorum was not present in the committee after it has reached the 
    floor of the House. If no point of order is made in the committee, 
    the presumption is that a quorum was present. To take any other 
    attitude would virtually paralyze legislation. If no point of order 
    was made at the time, the presumption then is that a quorum was 
    present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state in response to 
    the parliamentary inquiry that the point of order is properly 
    addressed at this point because the resolution has just been 
    reported to the House. The question as to whether or not the point 
    of order will be sustained is an entirely different question.

    The resolution was withdrawn from consideration.
    Parliamentarian's Note: In reporting matters privileged under the 
rules, committees must comply with all reporting requirements in order 
to obtain consideration.

Select Committee Given Right to Report as Privileged

Sec. 29.5 A select committee given the right to report at any time 
    makes its report from the floor as privileged.

    On Dec. 15, 1931, Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry in relation to a report submitted as privileged 
from the floor: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 75 Cong. Rec. 554, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan], chairman of the Select 
    Committee on Fiscal Relations Between the District of Columbia and 
    the United States, submitted a bill (H.R. 5821) to provide for the 
    taxation of incomes in the District of Columbia, to repeal certain 
    provisions of law relating to the taxation of intangible personal 
    property in the District of Columbia, for other purposes, together 
    with a report (Report No. 2) upon the bill, which was referred to 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and 
    ordered printed.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stafford: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire whether the 
    bill which was just submitted by the select committee is 
    privileged.
        The Speaker: The bill is privileged under a resolution passed 
    by the last Congress. Section 4 of House Resolution 285, passed by 
    the Seventy-first Congress, reads as follows:

            The committee shall have the right to report to the House 
        at any time by a bill or bills, or otherwise, the results of 
        its investigations.

        The authority of this resolution was later extended by the act 
    of February 23, 1931 (46 Stat. 1377).

Sec. 29.6 A special committee having been given the power to study a 
    subject and report to the House, and making bills therefrom 
    privileged, may report Senate bills as well as

[[Page 4401]]

    House bills under the privileged status given.

    On Mar. 31, 1938, Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, moved that the 
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of S. 3331 (government reorganization) reported from the 
Select Committee on Government Operations. Speaker William B. Bankhead, 
of Alabama, overruled a point of order against the consideration of the 
bill, the point of order being based on the argument that the bill was 
not privileged for consideration: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 83 Cong. Rec. 4477, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the consideration of this bill at the 
    present time. I grant, Mr. Speaker, that the committee has 
    jurisdiction of the subject matter contained in the Senate bill.
        I make the point of order, however, that the resolution setting 
    up this committee and giving the committee privileged status gave 
    privileged status only to House bills and not to Senate bills, and 
    therefore the bill cannot be brought up in this manner.
        The Speaker: The Chair just a few moments ago read into the 
    Record the comprehensive powers of the select committee. The Chair 
    is of the opinion that the point of order is not well taken, and, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

    The resolution creating the select committee, and giving it power 
to report bills as privileged, read as follows: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 4475.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives be, 
    and he is hereby, authorized to appoint a select committee of seven 
    Members of the House to be known as the Select Committee on 
    Government Organization, for the purpose of considering and 
    reporting upon the subject matter contained in the message of the 
    President of the United States of January 12, 1937. All bills and 
    resolutions introduced in the House proposing legislation 
    concerning reorganization, coordination, consolidation, or 
    abolition of, or reduction of personnel in organizations or units 
    in the Government shall be referred by the Speaker to the said 
    Select Committee on Government Organization. The said Select 
    Committee on Government Organization is hereby authorized to report 
    to the House at any time by bill or otherwise with recommendations 
    upon any matters covered by this resolution; and any bill or 
    resolution so reported shall be placed upon the calendar and have a 
    privileged status.

Appropriation Bills

Sec. 29.7 The Speaker stated that the effect of a special rule 
    providing for the consideration of a bill in Committee of the Whole 
    is to give to the bill the privileged status for consideration that 
    a general

[[Page 4402]]

    appropriation bill has (by making privileged the motion to resolve 
    into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration thereof).

    On June 28, 1930,(12) Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana, 
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, House Resolution 
264, providing that upon the adoption of the resolution it be in order 
to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
for the consideration of a particular bill. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, 
of Ohio, overruled a point of order against the resolution and 
characterized the effect of such a resolution from the Committee on 
Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 72 Cong. Rec. 11994, 11995, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. It is not necessary 
    to pass upon the question of whether the original rule for the 
    consideration of this bill is still alive or not. The Chair, when 
    the matter was originally submitted to him, informally expressed a 
    grave doubt as to whether it would be considered alive. But this 
    rule is an entirely different rule. It appears now for the first 
    time for consideration. The Chair is aware that this bill has had a 
    rather stormy passage. It has been twice rereferred to the 
    committee, but as the bill now appears, so far as the Chair is 
    advised, it is properly on the calendar as of June 24, 1930, and 
    this special rule is properly reported to consider that bill. The 
    Chair thinks that all that special rules of this sort do is to put 
    bills for which they are provided in the same status that a revenue 
    or appropriation bill has under the general rules of the House. 
    Clause 9 of Rule XVI provides:

            At any time after the reading of the Journal it shall be in 
        order, by direction of the appropriate committees, to move that 
        the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House 
        on the state of the Union for the purpose of considering bills 
        raising revenue, or general appropriation bills.

        Now all that this special rule does is to give the same status 
    to this particular bill at this particular time. The Chair has no 
    hesitation in saying that the Committee on Rules has acted with 
    authority, and that it will be in order to move that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
    of the Union for the consideration of this bill after the 
    resolution is passed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A general appropriation bill is not 
privileged for consideration until printed hearings and a committee 
report have been available for at least three calendar days, under Rule 
XXI clause 6 [now Rule XXI clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 848 
(1979)].(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. By unanimous consent or by special rule a general appropriation 
        bill may be made in order before hearings and a report have 
        been available as required by the rule. See 108 Cong. Rec. 
        10427, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., June 13, 1962; and 108 Cong. Rec. 
        10481, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., June 14, 1962.

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

[[Page 4403]]

Sec. 29.8 The House having agreed that consideration of a general 
    appropriation bill take priority over all business except 
    conference reports, the Speaker held that such agreement gave a 
    higher privilege to the appropriation bill than consideration of 
    resolutions disapproving reorganization plans, business in order 
    under the ``21-day discharge'' rule, and other business unless the 
    Committee on Appropriations yielded for that purpose, but that the 
    House could reach legislation of lesser privilege by rejecting the 
    motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On May 9, 1950, Speaker pro tempore John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, overruled a point of order against a motion that the 
House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole for the consideration 
of a general appropriation bill given precedence by a unanimous-consent 
agreement: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 6720-24, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      General Appropriation Bill, 1951

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    7786) making appropriations for the support of the Government for 
    the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes.
        Mr. [Clarke E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the House is not proceeding in the regular 
    order because under section 205a of the Reorganization Act, which 
    is Public Law 109 of the Eighty-first Congress, first session, any 
    Member of the House is privileged, and this is a highly privileged 
    motion, to make the motion that the House proceed to the 
    consideration of House Resolution 516.
        The gentleman from Michigan being on his feet to present this 
    highly privileged motion, the regular order is that he be 
    recognized for that purpose that the motion be entertained and the 
    question put before the House, and my motion is that the House 
    proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 516. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order, the 
    substance of which is that the motion he desires to make or that 
    someone else should make in relation to the consideration of a 
    disapproving resolution of one of the reorganization plans takes 
    precedence over the appropriation bill insofar as recognition by 
    the Chair is concerned. The gentleman from Michigan raises a very 
    serious question and the Chair feels at this particular time that 
    it is well that he did so.
        The question involved is not a constitutional question but one 
    relating to

[[Page 4404]]

    the rules of the House and to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
    1949 which has been alluded to by the gentleman from Michigan and 
    other Members when addressing the Chair on this point of order. The 
    Chair calls attention to the language of paragraph (b) of section 
    201 of title II of the Reorganization Act of 1949 which reads as 
    follows: ``with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
    either House to change such rules so far as relating to procedure 
    in such House at any time in the same manner and to the same extent 
    as in the case of any other rule of such House.''
        It is very plain from that language that the intent of Congress 
    was to recognize the reservation to each House of certain inherent 
    powers which are necessary for either House to function to meet a 
    particular situation or to carry out its will.
        On April 5, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], chairman 
    of the Committee on Appropriations, submitted a unanimous-consent 
    request to the House, which was granted, which has the force of a 
    rule, and which relates to the rules of the House governing the 
    consideration of the omnibus appropriation bill while it is before 
    the House and, of course, incidentally affecting other legislation. 
    The consent request submitted by the gentleman from Missouri was 
    ``that the general appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1951 have 
    right-of-way over all other privileged business under the rules 
    until disposition, with the exception of conference reports.''
        That request was granted by unanimous consent. On the next day 
    the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], in correcting and 
    interpreting the consent request granted on April 5, submitted a 
    further unanimous-consent request. . . .
        The Chair will state that the House always has a constitutional 
    right and power to refuse to go into the Committee of the Whole on 
    any motion made by any Member, so that the House is capable of 
    carrying out its will, whatever may be the will of the majority of 
    the House.
        Continuing, the Chair will state that in the opinion of the 
    present occupant, in view of the unanimous-consent request made by 
    the gentleman from Missouri and granted by the House, if any member 
    of the Appropriations Committee moves that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union to 
    consider the appropriation bill, that motion has preference over 
    any other preferential motion. It is a matter that the House 
    decides when the motion is made as to what it wants to do and it 
    has an opportunity when that motion is made to carry out its will. 
    . . .
        . . . In relation to the observation made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] that because other business has been brought 
    up and that therefore constitutes a violation of the unanimous-
    consent request, the Chair, recognizing the logic of the argument, 
    disagrees with it because that action was done through the 
    sufferance of the Appropriations Committee and, in the opinion of 
    the Chair, does not constitute a violation in any way; therefore 
    does not obviate the meaning and effect of the unanimous-consent 
    request heretofore entered into, and which the Chair has referred 
    to.
        For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 4405]]

Sec. 29.9 A joint resolution providing supplemental appropriations for 
    a single agency (and not a general appropriation bill), previously 
    made in order by unanimous consent, is called up as privileged.

    On Mar. 25, 1969, the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
called up as privileged a joint resolution, not privileged under the 
rules: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 7378, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    unanimous-consent agreement on yesterday, I call up House Joint 
    Resolution 584, making a supplemental appropriation for the fiscal 
    year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, and ask 
    unanimous consent that the joint resolution be considered in the 
    House as in the Committee of the Whole.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker: (16)~ Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Only ``general'' appropriation bills are 
privileged for consideration under Rule XVI clause 9, and are filed as 
privileged from the floor. For discussion as to the definition of 
general appropriation bills, see Ch. 25, infra.

Sec. 29.10 The consideration of general appropriation bills on District 
    of Columbia Monday is of equal privilege with bills called up by 
    the Committee on the District of Columbia; thus it is within the 
    discretion of the Chair as to which business he will recognize for 
    first.

    Jan. 25, 1932, was a Monday and a day eligible for District of 
Columbia business. Also scheduled for consideration was the Department 
of Agriculture appropriation bill. Under his power of recognition, 
Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, first recognized Mrs. Mary T. Norton, 
of New Jersey, to call up a bill by direction of the Committee on the 
District of Columbia. Following the rejection of the previous question 
thereon, the Speaker recognized Mr. James P. Buchanan, of Texas, to 
move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of the general appropriation bill.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 75 Cong. Rec. 2656--60, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The District of Columbia bill was called up 
as unfinished business on the succeeding District Day when, after 
debate, the previous question was ordered and the bill passed.

[[Page 4406]]

Resolutions Privileged by Statute

Sec. 29.11 A motion to consider a resolution, disapproving a 
    reorganization plan formulated by the executive branch, may be made 
    privileged by a statute so providing.

    A motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole to consider a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan is 
privileged (under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1949).
    On July 6, 1959, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized for a 
privileged motion to consider a disapproval resolution: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 12740, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the resolution (H. 
    Res. 295) to disapprove Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1959.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
    House Resolution 295, to disapprove Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 
    1959, with Mr. Udall in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Reorganization Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 
203, 5 USC Sec. Sec. 905-913, provided in section 205(a) that following 
the report of the committee on a resolution with respect to a 
reorganization plan, it would be in order at any time thereafter ``to 
move to proceed to the consideration of such resolution.''
    The act also provided, in section 204, for a privileged motion to 
discharge the committee from further consideration of such a resolution 
not reported in 10 calendar days. In the event the motion to discharge 
were agreed to, the privileged motion for consideration in section 205 
would apply.
    Those provisions of the Government Reorganization Act are typical 
of other statutes allowing a privileged procedure for considering 
disapproval resolutions [see House Rules and Manual Sec. 1013 (1975 and 
1977) for a compilation of such statutes]. In every case, however, the 
statute should be consulted for specific applicable procedures. The 
House may, by unanimous consent or otherwise, vary the consideration 
regardless of the statutory provisions.

Resolution Electing Members to Committees

Sec. 29.12 A resolution providing for the election of a Member to a 
    committee of the House is presented as privileged.

[[Page 4407]]

    On Oct. 18, 1966, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas (the chairman of the 
majority party's committee on committees), on several resolutions, 
relating to the organization of the House, as privileged matters: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 27486, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 1066) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1066

            Resolved, That Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, be, and he 
        is hereby, elected a member of the standing Committee of the 
        House of Representatives on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule X clause 6(a)(1), which became 
effective Jan. 3, 1975, resolutions electing Members to standing 
committees are privileged when offered on behalf of the respective 
party caucuses.

Sec. 29.13 A resolution providing for the election of the chairman of a 
    standing committee of the House is called up as privileged.

    On Nov. 18, 1970, a resolution relating to the organization of the 
House was called up as privileged by the chairman of the majority 
party's committee on committees: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 116 Cong. Rec. 37823, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 1263) and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1263

            Resolved, That Chet Holifield, of California, be, and he is 
        hereby, elected Chairman of the standing committee of the House 
        of Representatives on Government Operations.

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

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule X clause 6(b), which became 
effective Jan. 3, 1975, resolutions electing chairmen of standing 
committees are privileged when offered on behalf of the majority party 
caucus.

Resolutions of Inquiry

Sec. 29.14 Resolutions of inquiry when reported from a committee are 
    privileged and may be considered at any time (subject to the three 
    day layover requirement of Rule XI clause 2(1)(6) in current 
    practice).

[[Page 4408]]

    On May 14, 1932, Mr. Charles R. Crisp, of Georgia, of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, called up as privileged a report of the committee on 
a resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 213) which had been referred to the 
committee. He explained the privilege of his motion as follows: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 75 Cong. Rec. 10207, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Crisp: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
    Fulmer] introduced this resolution, asking for the evidence 
    presented to the Treasury Department on an application to invoke 
    the antidumping law in respect to the importation of sulphate 
    ammonium, which is now on the free list. The Treasury Department 
    has not yet decided the case or reached a decision in the matter. 
    Under the rules of the House, as we all know, a resolution of 
    inquiry is privileged, and unless a report within seven days is 
    made, a motion to discharge the committee from further 
    consideration of the resolution is privileged. In the committee 
    there was some opposition to the resolution. The committee adopted 
    an amendment which they recommend to the House to accept, to the 
    effect that the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to send the 
    information if it is not incompatible with the public interest. 
    Those are the facts in the case.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although a motion to discharge, offered 
after the prescribed time period, may bring a resolution of inquiry 
directly to the floor, the motion may not be made after the committee 
has reported the resolution to the House. When such a report is made, 
it must be available for three calendar days, under Rule XI clause 
27(d)(4) [now Rule XI clause 2(l)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 
(1979)], before being called up as privileged.

Sec. 29.15 A report by a committee on a resolution of inquiry in the 
    form specified by the rule (Rule XXII clause 5) is privileged 
    business, and if the committee does not report the resolution 
    within seven legislative days, the resolution may be called up as a 
    matter of privilege by a motion to discharge.

    On Feb. 9, 1950, a committee report on a resolution of inquiry was 
called up as privileged: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 1753, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I present a privileged resolution 
    (H. Res. 452) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker:(3) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That the President be and is requested, if not 
        incompatible with the public interest, to furnish

[[Page 4409]]

        this House within 15 days after the adoption of this resolution 
        with full and complete answers to the following questions, 
        namely: . . .

    Speaker Rayburn answered a parliamentary inquiry on the privileged 
nature of resolutions of inquiry: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 1755, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: A parliamentary question is involved there with 
    which the gentleman is perhaps not familiar.
        Mr. [John] Phillips of California: Would the Speaker care to 
    enlighten me on the parliamentary question?
        The Speaker: It is that if the committee does not report the 
    resolution within 7 days, the gentleman from Connecticut may call 
    it up.
        Mr. Phillips of California: Is the Speaker saying that the 
    report had to be acted upon in 7 days?
        The Speaker: By the committee or by the House. If the committee 
    does not report it within seven legislative days, the gentleman 
    from Connecticut can call it up. The committee has considered it, 
    so the gentleman from West Virginia has said. The committee has the 
    answers. It considered them, and it took action. The gentleman has 
    now reported this resolution unfavorably and is going to move to 
    lay it on the table. That is the usual course. It is done many 
    times every year.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A resolution of inquiry reported adversely 
from committee, as well as one reported favorably, is privileged for 
consideration.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 77 Cong. Rec. 5054, 73d Cong. 1st Sess., June 5, 1933; and 111 
        Cong. Rec. 24030, 24033, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 16, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.16 A report from the Committee on Rules, prescribing an order 
    of business, takes precedence over a privileged motion to discharge 
    a committee from further consideration of a resolution of inquiry.

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

        After debate,
        The Speaker said:
        ``The Chair very often recognizes a person without knowing what 
    motion that person is going to make. But that, the Chair thinks, 
    does not give them any right. The question always is, Which 
    gentleman has the motion of higher privilege? And every recognition 
    of the Chair is provisional and subject to some other Member having 
    a matter

[[Page 4410]]

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

    An appeal was taken from the Chair's decision but was laid on the 
table.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H. Jour. 225, 67th Cong. 4th Sess., Feb. 15, 1923.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concurrent Resolution for Adjournment

Sec. 29.17 A concurrent resolution providing for adjournment of the two 
    Houses to a day certain is called up as privileged.

    On Aug. 28, 1967, the Majority Leader, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
called up as privileged a concurrent resolution, which Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled was not subject to debate: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 24201, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Concurrent Resolution 
    497 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:

                                H. Con. Res. 497

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the two Houses shall adjourn on Thursday, 
        August 31, 1967, and that when they adjourn on said day they 
        stand adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on Monday, September 11, 
        1967.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the 
    last word.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that this is not a debatable 
    resolution.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A concurrent resolution providing for the 
adjournment of the House to a day certain or to such earlier day as the 
House is reassembled by the Speaker, and a Senate concurrent resolution 
providing for an adjournment of that House for more than three days are 
likewise privileged for immediate consideration.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See 115 Cong. Rec. 35539, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 24, 1969; and 
        116 Cong. Rec. 24978, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 1970.

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

[[Page 4411]]

    The high privilege of a concurrent resolution for adjournment for 
more than three days or sine die is drawn from article I, section 5, 
clause 4 of the United States Constitution, which requires the consent 
of either House for the adjournment for more than three days of the 
other House.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Ch. 40, infra, for the privilege of propositions relative to 
        adjournment. The motion to adjourn is a privileged motion under 
        Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.18 A Senate amendment to a House concurrent resolution 
    providing for adjournment sine die is privileged and may be called 
    up for immediate consideration.

    On Oct. 22, 1965, a House concurrent resolution with a Senate 
amendment thereto was called up as a privileged matter: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 28653, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (11) The Chair lays before the House 
    the following concurrent resolution, with a Senate amendment 
    thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That the concurrent resolution from the House of 
        Representatives (H. Con. Res. 527) entitled ``Concurrent 
        resolution establishing that when the two Houses adjourn on 
        Friday, October 22, 1965, they stand adjourned sine die'' do 
        pass with the following amendment:
            Page 2, line 3, strike out ``Friday October 22, 1965,'' and 
        insert ``Saturday, October 23, 1965,''.

        The House concurrent resolution as amended was agreed to.

Concurrent Resolution for Joint Session

Sec. 29.19 Concurrent resolutions providing for joint sessions of the 
    House and Senate to receive messages from the President and to 
    count electoral votes are privileged for consideration.

    On May 20, 1935, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled that 
a concurrent resolution relating to a joint session to receive a 
message from the President was privileged: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 79 Cong. Rec. 7838, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward T.] Taylor of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, my 
    understanding is that the President of the United States desires to 
    deliver a message to a joint assembly of the House and the Senate 
    on next Wednesday. For this purpose I offer the following 
    resolution for immediate consideration:
        The Clerk read as follows:

                         House Concurrent Resolution 22

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring),

[[Page 4412]]

        That the two Houses of Congress assemble in the Hall of the 
        House of Representatives on Wednesday, the 22d day of May 1935, 
        at 12:30 o'clock in the afternoon for the purpose of receiving 
        such communications as the President of the United States shall 
        be pleased to make to them.

        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, I wish to ask a question.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that this is a 
    privileged resolution.
        Mr. Blanton: It is something unprecedented; I have not heard of 
    it since I have been in Congress.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor  New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    regular order.
        The Speaker: The regular order is that the gentleman from 
    Colorado has the floor.

        Mr. Taylor of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question on the resolution.

    On Jan. 3, 1969, a Senate concurrent resolution providing for a 
joint session to count the electoral vote was called up as privileged 
in the House: (l3~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 15 Cong. Rec. 36, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a 
    Senate Concurrent Resolution (S. Con. Res. 1) and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the Senate Concurrent Resolution, as follows:

                                 S. Con. Res. 1

            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That the two Houses of Congress shall meet in the 
        Hall of the House of Representatives on Monday, the 6th day of 
        January 1969, at 1 o'clock post meridian, pursuant to the 
        requirements of the Constitution and laws relating to the 
        election of President and Vice President of the United States, 
        and the President pro tempore of the Senate shall be their 
        presiding officer; that two tellers shall be previously 
        appointed by the President of the Senate on the part of the 
        Senate and two by the Speaker on the part of the House of 
        Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by 
        the President pro tempore of the Senate, all the certificates 
        and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral 
        votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, 
        presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the 
        States, beginning with the letter ``A''; and said tellers, 
        having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the 
        two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear 
        from the said certificates; and the votes having been 
        ascertained and counted in the manner and according to the 
        rules by law provided, the result of the same shall be 
        delivered to the President pro tempore of the Senate who shall 
        thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement 
        shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if 
        any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, 
        and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the 
        Journals of the two Houses.

        The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page 4413]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: The privilege of certain concurrent 
resolutions providing for joint sessions of the House and Senate arises 
from the United States Constitution. Article II, section 3 of the 
Constitution provides for the President to give to the Congress 
information on the state of the Union, and to recommend to their 
consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. 
Thus a concurrent resolution providing for a joint session to hear the 
President is of high privilege.(l4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See, for example, 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3335. For messages and 
        ceremonies generally, see Chs. 35, 36, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 12th amendment to the Constitution provides that the President 
of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of 
Representatives, count the electoral vote transmitted by the electors 
for President and Vice President of the United States. While title 3, 
section 15 of the United States Code provides the time and procedure 
for the electoral count, the two Houses provide by concurrent 
resolution, traditionally originated by the Senate, for the time and 
procedure (incorporating the provisions of the statute). Propositions 
and bills relating to the electoral count are of the highest 
constitutional privilege.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See, for example 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2573-2578.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conference Reports

Sec. 29.20 The consideration of a conference report is privileged 
    business and the calling up of such a report does not require 
    unanimous consent (where the report has been printed in the Record 
    for three calendar days under Rule XXVIII clause 2(a)).

    On Sept. 2, 1959, a conference report was called up and Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that an objection did not lie to prevent the 
consideration of the report: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 17769, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: If I do not object to the 
    reading, that does not foreclose me from objecting to the 
    consideration of the conference report?
        The Speaker: This is a privileged matter. No objection lies.
        Mr. Patman: No objection lies on this? The Speaker is talking 
    about the reading?
        The Speaker: The Chair is talking about the conference report, 
    which is a privileged matter.
        Mr. Patman: And one objection would not lie to it?
        The Speaker: No objection would.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Conference reports are taken up in detail at Ch. 33 Sec. Sec. 16, 
        22, infra.

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

[[Page 4414]]

Sec. 29.21 The filing of a conference; report is a privileged matter 
    and the presentation of such a report does not require unanimous 
    consent.

    On Aug. 1, 1968, Speaker pro tempore Chet Holifield, of California, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the privileged status of filing a 
conference report: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 114 Cong. Rec. 24806, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Graham B.] Purcell [of Texas] submitted a conference 
    report and statement on the bill (H.R. 16363) to clarify and 
    otherwise amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act, to provide for 
    cooperation with appropriate State agencies with respect to State 
    poultry products inspection programs, and for other purposes.
        Mr. [Wiley] Mayne [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Mayne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to object to the filing of the 
    conference report on the ground that it is not in proper form. I am 
    a conferee and I have not had an opportunity to see the report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is a matter that the gentleman 
    should take up with the gentleman from Texas.
        The Chair has no knowledge of the conference report except that 
    it is being filed.
        Mr. Mayne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to have the record made clear 
    that I do object to its filing for the reason that it is not in the 
    proper form.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's statement will appear 
    in the Record.

Sec. 29.22 A conference report is not privileged for consideration in 
    the House until it has been printed in the Record three days 
    (excluding Saturdays and Sundays if the House is not in session on 
    those days) prior to consideration.

    On Oct. 17, 1972, Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, called up a 
conference report on a bill (H.R. 16810, relating to public debt 
limitation) and asked unanimous consent that the statement of the 
managers be read in lieu of the report. Objection was made to the 
request. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry relating to the requirement, in Rule XXVIII clause 2(a), that 
conference reports lay over for a certain period of time before 
consideration: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 36938, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mills of Arkansas (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mills of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, is it true that this 
    conference report

[[Page 4415]]

    not having laid over for 3 days cannot be called up except by 
    unanimous consent?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Mills of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request for 
    consideration of the conference report.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Arkansas withdraws his request 
    for consideration of the conference report.

Sec. 29.23 Conference reports in complete disagreement and the joint 
    statement of the conferees must be printed in the Record for three 
    calendar days and be available on the floor before the conference 
    report and the Senate amendment in disagreement are privileged for 
    consideration in the House, under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b).

    On June 29, 1973, Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, asked unanimous 
consent for the immediate consideration of the conference report and 
the Senate amendment reported from the conference in complete 
disagreement on a bill (H.R. 8410) to increase the public debt limit 
(the conference report had not been printed in the Record and had not 
been available as provided in Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)). [House Rules 
and Manual Sec. 912 (1979).]
    Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered a parliamentary inquiry 
on the consideration of the conference report and Senate amendment in 
disagreement: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 22384, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry 
    is this: that if an objection is heard to the request made by the 
    gentleman from Arkansas, is it in order for the gentleman from 
    Arkansas, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, to move to suspend the rules to bring this to the floor of 
    the House?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has the 
    authority to recognize the gentleman for such a motion.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the 
    right to object, may I ask the Chair's indulgence in a question 
    relating to rule XXVIII, clause 2(b), as to whether we have waived 
    that part of the rule XXVIII governing conference reports, which 
    says: Nor shall it be in order to consider any such amendment . . . 
    unless copies of the report and accompanying statement together 
    with the text of the amendment are then available on the floor.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that copies of the Senate 
    amendment and conference report are available, but that suspension 
    of the rules will suspend all rules.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the 
    right to object, is it possible for Members of the House to have 
    copies available?
        Mr. Mills of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin

[[Page 4416]]

    will yield, we have copies of the proposed amendment, and there are 
    copies of the Senate-passed bill that are available to every Member 
    of the House.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my 
    reservation of objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Arkansas?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the addition of clause 2(b), Rule 
XXVIII, effective at the end of the 92d Congress (H. Res. 1153, Oct. 
13, 1972), conference reports in total disagreement could be called up 
immediately.

Sec. 29.24 Where the consideration of a conference report is by 
    unanimous consent made in order on the same day presented, the 
    report is called up as privileged.

    On Sept. 12, 1962, Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, asked unanimous 
consent that consideration of the military construction appropriation 
bill be in order that afternoon (notwithstanding the fact that the 
report had not been printed in the Record). The House agreed to the 
request.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 108 Cong. Rec. 19258, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later on the same day, Mr. Harry R. Sheppard, of California, called 
up as privileged the conference report so provided for.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 19278.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.25 The consideration of a conference report may, at the 
    Speaker's discretion, take precedence over the calling of the 
    Consent Calendar.

    On Nov. 30, 1945,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry the precedence of a 
conference report over Consent Calendar business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 91 Cong. Rec. 11279, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until 
    midnight tonight to file a conference report and statement on the 
    so-called rescission bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if this 
    conference report on the rescission bill can be made the first 
    order of business on Monday next?
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    gen

[[Page 4417]]

    tleman will yield, I have previously announced that if the 
    conference report on the so-called rescission bill is not acted on 
    today, it will be the first order of business on Monday after the 
    call of bills on the Consent Calendar.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the majority 
    leader if it will be possible to make this the first order of 
    business on Monday?
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    conference report on the rescission bill may precede the call of 
    the Consent Calendar on Monday.
        The Speaker: It is not necessary to obtain unanimous consent 
    for that. The Chair can recognize the gentleman to call up the 
    conference report before the call of the Consent Calendar and will 
    do so.

Sec. 29.26 The consideration of a conference report is a highly 
    privileged matter and may interrupt the consideration of a bill in 
    the House, even though the previous question has been ordered 
    thereupon.

    On May 3, 1961, the Committee of the Whole rose and reported back 
to the House a bill (H.R. 6441, amending the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act) pursuant to a special order (H. Res. 274) providing that 
at the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
Committee rise and report the bill to the House, and the previous 
question be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that under the rule the previous 
question was ordered.
    A message was then received from the Senate indicating that the 
Senate had agreed to a conference report (on H.R. 3935, Fair Labor 
Standards Act Amendments). The Speaker recognized Mr. Adam C. Powell, 
of New York, to call up as a privileged matter the conference report on 
H.R. 3935 before putting the question on passage of H.R. 
6441.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 7172, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 6449, 6450, 6454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.27 While the call of the Private Calendar is, under Rule XXIV 
    clause 6, mandatory on the first Tuesday of the month, the Speaker 
    may recognize for privileged business, a conference report, before 
    directing the Clerk to begin the Private Calendar call.

    On Aug. 3, 1965,(6) the first regular order of business 
was the calling of the Private Calendar, under Rule XXIV clause 6, 
since it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 19187--91, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4418]]

was the first Tuesday of the month. After the approval of the Journal 
and presentation of routine requests, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, first recognized the Chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, Emanuel Celler, of New York, to call up a conference report 
on S. 1564, a voting rights bill, before directing the Clerk to call 
the Private Calendar.

Sec. 29.28 The consideration of amendments in disagreement following 
    adoption of a conference report may be interrupted by a question of 
    constitutional privilege involving the impeachment of a federal 
    civil officer, where no Member has the floor when the question of 
    privilege is raised.

    On Jan. 17, 1933, the House had agreed to a conference report and 
had not yet taken action on an amendment reported in disagreement by 
the conferees. Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, ruled that a highly 
privileged constitutional question on impeachment took precedence over 
the further consideration of the amendment in disagreement: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 76 Cong. Rec. 1953, 1954, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        THE Speaker: The conference report has been agreed to, but the 
    amendment in disagreement has not been acted upon. It is the 
    understanding of the Chair that a question of constitutional 
    privilege may intervene between the agreement to the conference 
    report and consideration of an amendment in disagreement. There is 
    a hiatus there when the conference report has been agreed to and 
    the House may go on, indefinitely, without considering the 
    amendments in disagreement.
        Mr. [Carl R.] Chindblom [of Illinois]: May I suggest to the 
    Chair that the amendment in question is included in the conference 
    report to the extent that the conferees report to the House that 
    they have been unable to agree or have not agreed upon the 
    amendment. Of course, it comes up as a part of the conference 
    report. If it is not a part of the conference report, I 
    respectfully submit to the Chair it has no privilege whatever and 
    may not be called up at all except under a special rule, or until 
    reached on the calendar.
        The Speaker: The Chair is inclined to think that the philosophy 
    of the rule would be that the conference report having been 
    disposed of, the other question with respect to completing the 
    consideration of the report may be delayed a day or two days if the 
    House is disposed to do so and, in the meantime, a question of 
    constitutional privilege can intervene.
        Mr. Chindblom: May I add the further suggestion to the Chair 
    that that might well be so if the gentleman in charge of the 
    conference report waived his right?
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Byrns [of Tennessee]: Of course I do not do 
    that.

[[Page 4419]]

        The Speaker: Let the Chair call the attention of the gentleman 
    from Illinois to the rule with respect to questions of privilege:

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
        integrity of its proceedings; second, the rights, reputation, 
        and conduct of Members individually, in their Representative 
        capacity only, and shall have precedence of all other 
        questions, except motions to adjourn.

        It seems to the Chair this language is clear and that a 
    question of constitutional privilege is undoubtedly in order at any 
    time and only a motion to adjourn could interfere with it.

Senate Bills Similar to House Bills on House Calendar

Sec. 29.29 Senate bills substantially the same as House bills already 
    favorably reported by a committee of the House, and not required to 
    be considered in Committee of the Whole, are privileged for 
    consideration and may be disposed of as the House may determine on 
    motion directed to be made by such committee of jurisdiction.

    On Jan. 1, 1951, a Senate bill similar to a House bill on the House 
Calendar was called up as a privileged matter: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 96 Cong, Rec. 17046, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lindley] Beckworth [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I call up from 
    the Speaker's table the bill (S. 3295) to amend the Railway Labor 
    Act and to authorize agreements providing for union membership and 
    agreements for deductions from the wages of carriers' employees for 
    certain purposes and under certain conditions, a bill substantially 
    the same (H.R. 7789) being on the House Calendar.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I raise the 
    question of consideration.
        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman from Virginia raises 
    the question of consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is, Will the House consider the bill?
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced the ayes 
    appeared to have it.

Senate Amendments Not Requiring Consideration in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 29.30 House bills with Senate amendments which do not require 
    consideration in Committee of the Whole may be at once disposed of 
    as the House may determine and are privileged matters on the 
    Speaker's table.

    On Feb. 1, 1937, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, responded 
to a parliamentary in

[[Page 4420]]

quiry on the privileged status of a House bill with Senate amendments 
not requiring consideration in Committee of the Whole: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 81 Cong. Rec. 644, 645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    House Joint Resolution 81, to create a Joint Congressional 
    Committee on Government Organization, with a Senate amendment, for 
    immediate consideration as a privileged resolution.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:
        Page 1, line 7, strike out ``seven'' and insert ``nine.''
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question on the Senate amendment.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Snell: I understood the gentleman called this up as a 
    privileged matter. On what ground is this a privileged matter?
        The Speaker: In reply to the inquiry of the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Snell], under paragraph 2 of rule XXIV of the House 
    Manual it is stated:

            Business on the Speaker's table shall be disposed of as 
        follows:
            Messages from the President shall be referred to the 
        appropriate committees without debate. Reports and 
        communications from heads of departments, and other 
        communications addressed to the House, and bills, resolutions, 
        and messages from the Senate may be referred to the appropriate 
        committees in the same manner and with the same right of 
        correction as public bills presented by Members.

        Here is the pertinent part in answer to the gentleman's 
    inquiry:

            But House bills with Senate amendments which do not require 
        consideration in a Committee of the Whole may be at once 
        disposed of as the House may determine, as may also Senate 
        bills substantially the same as House bills.

        Mr. Snell: I appreciate that, and I have no objection to the 
    consideration of this matter, but I wondered if it was a matter 
    that could be taken up without being referred back to the committee 
    for consideration.
        THE SPEAKER: Under the rule which the Chair has just read, the 
    Chair is clearly of the opinion that it may be brought up in this 
    manner.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The same principle applies to Senate 
amendments to House amendments to Senate bills which do not require 
consideration in Committee of the Whole,(11) but where the 
Senate or House bill was originally on the Union Calendar, the Senate 
amendment thereto will ordinarily require consideration in Committee of 
the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 106 Cong. Rec. 18357, 18358, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 30, 
        1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Amendments After Stage of Disagreement Reached

Sec. 29.31 After the stage of disagreement has been reached,

[[Page 4421]]

    the consideration of Senate amendments to a House bill is 
    privileged.

    On May 22, 1936, Mr. James M. Mead, of New York, called up a 
conference report on H.R. 9496, relating to payment of veterans' 
benefits. The conference report was ruled out on a point of order (that 
the conferees had improperly agreed to a Senate amendment containing an 
appropriation on a legislative bill). Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, ruled that the Senate amendments were before the House and 
were privileged for consideration: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 80 Cong. Rec. 7792, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The conference report was called up by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Mead]. The conference report has been 
    held to be out of order, which leaves the Senate amendments before 
    the House for consideration. The House must take some action on 
    them.
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: How do the amendments get 
    before the House for consideration?
        The Speaker: They are called up by the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Mead].
        Mr. Mapes: No attempt has been made by the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Mead], as I understand, to call them up.
        The Speaker: The Chair, in answer to the gentleman from 
    Michigan, reads from section 3257 of Cannon's Precedents:

            When a conference report is ruled out of order the bill and 
        amendments are again before the House as when first presented, 
        and motions relating to amendments and conference are again in 
        order.

        The Chair thinks that completely answers the gentleman from 
    Michigan.
        Mr. Mapes: That seems to cover the matter.
        Mr. [Frederick R.] Lehlbach [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Lehlbach: Are amendments put on a House bill by the Senate 
    privileged?
        The Speaker: After the stage of disagreement has been reached 
    they are. For this reason it is necessary that the House take some 
    action upon the amendments at this time.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The stage of disagreement between the two 
Houses is reached when one informs the other of disagreement. If the 
House concurs in a Senate amendment to a House bill, with an amendment, 
insists on the amendment and requests a conference, and the Senate then 
concurs in the House amendment with a further amendment, the matter is 
subsequently privileged for consideration in the House since the House 
has communicated its insistence and request for a conference to the 
Senate [see House Rules and Manual Sec. 828a (1979)].

[[Page 4422]]

Senate Request for Return of Bill

Sec. 29.32 A request of the Senate for the return of a bill is treated 
    as privileged in the House.

    On Aug. 18, 1958, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that a 
certain request of the Senate was privileged for consideration in the 
House: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 104 Cong. Rec. 18288, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker laid before the House the following request from 
    the Senate:

            Ordered, That the House of Representatives be requested to 
        return to the Senate the bill (S. 4071) entitled ``An act to 
        provide more effective price, production adjustment, and 
        marketing programs for various agricultural commodities,'' 
        asking a conference with the House thereon, and appointing 
        conferees.
            Attest:
                                               Felton M. Johnston,
                                                          Secretary.

        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: Mr. Speaker, is this request subject to 
    objection?
        The Speaker: It is not. It is a privileged matter.
        The question is on agreeing to the request of the Senate.
        The request was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of 
    the House.

House Request for Return of Bill

Sec. 29.33 A House resolution requesting the Senate to return a bill to 
    the House, no error or impropriety being involved, has not been 
    treated as privileged for consideration in the House.

    On Feb. 14, 1939, Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, attempted to 
present a ``privileged resolution,'' requesting the Senate to return a 
bill to the House, and asked for the immediate consideration of the 
resolution. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled in response 
to a point of order that the resolution was not privileged for 
consideration: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 1365-67, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order that the resolution is not privileged. I think it is clear 
    that there is an irregularity, either in the preamble or in any 
    part of this resolution, that would vitiate the action of the 
    House. I think, therefore, it is not a privileged resolution, and I 
    make the point of order it is not a privileged resolution. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan offers a resolution providing that 
    the Senate

[[Page 4423]]

    be requested to return the bill H.R. 3790 to the House of 
    Representatives for such further consideration as the House of 
    Representatives may deem proper.
        A reading of the subsequent allegations contained in the 
    preamble seems to support the idea that the gravamen of the 
    objection made by the gentleman from Michigan is that in the course 
    of the performance of its duty the Joint Committee on Internal 
    Revenue Taxation failed to offer to or concealed from certain 
    Members of the House Committee on Ways and Means the study compiled 
    by its staff with reference to the constitutionality of the statute 
    seeking to tax the salaries of State officials. The gentleman from 
    Michigan in his argument rather tacitly admitted he had grave 
    doubts as to whether or not under the usual rules and precedents of 
    the House the facts stated justified the submission of the 
    resolution as involving privileges of the House.
        The Chair is very clearly of the opinion that one or two 
    precedents, which are found in Hinds' Precedents, volume 4, 
    sections 3477 and 3478, lay down sufficient guidance for the Chair 
    in determining this question.

            On August 6, 1856, an order directing the Clerk to request 
        the Senate to return the Mississippi land bill in order that an 
        error in engrossment might be corrected, was offered by 
        unanimous consent, and does not seem to have been contemplated 
        in the light of a privileged proposition.

        In the other precedent, Mr. Speaker Crisp, in interpreting the 
    question of whether or not matter of this sort constituted a 
    privileged proposition, said:

            If the gentleman from Indiana would modify his resolution 
        so as to allege that this bill was reported unfavorably from 
        the Committee of the Whole, and was considered by the House 
        under the idea that it had been favorably reported, the Chair 
        thinks the resolution would be privileged. But a simple 
        resolution to recall a bill can hardly be considered 
        privileged, because in that case such a resolution might be 
        presented with regard to any bill that is passed. To make the 
        resolution privileged, it should show that the House has acted 
        under some misunderstanding of the report of the Committee--

        The Chair interpolates there that he assumes that was a report 
    of a Committee of the Whole--

            or something of that kind.

        The fact suggested that all Members of the House were deprived 
    of the benefits of the legal opinion formulated by the staff of the 
    Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation does not justify the 
    Chair in assuming that, even if they had had such information, it 
    would have changed the vote of the House. The Chair recollects that 
    this particular problem of the constitutionality of this bill from 
    the Committee on Ways and Means was very ably debated on the floor 
    of the House.
        Under the rules and under the precedents the Chair has 
    suggested, although the Chair realizes there are cases in which it 
    might be proper to offer a resolution to recall a bill for some 
    clerical misprision or for some patent misstatement of the Record, 
    the Chair is of the opinion that this matter does not present a 
    privileged resolution and, therefore, sustains the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from Texas.

[[Page 4424]]

Postponing Further Consideration of Privileged Matter

Sec. 29.34 Under Rule XI [clause 4(b) in the 1979 House Rules and 
    Manual], the calling up of a resolution reported from the Committee 
    on Rules is a matter of high privilege not to be delayed by any 
    intervening motion except one motion to adjourn, and when 
    consideration has begun and the resolution is under debate, the 
    House can postpone further consideration and proceed to other 
    business only by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 29, 1969, Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, called up, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules a special order providing for the 
consideration of a bill. After consideration had begun and the 
resolution was under debate, Mr. Young asked unanimous consent ``that 
further consideration of this resolution be postponed until tomorrow.'' 
The House agreed to the request.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 32076-83, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Privileged 
resolutions other than privileged reports from the Committee on Rules 
are subject to the motion to postpone.

Withdrawal of Privileged Resolution

Sec. 29.35 A Member calling up a privileged resolution in the House may 
    withdraw it at any time before action thereon, and unanimous 
    consent is not required for such withdrawal.

    On Feb. 29, 1968, Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, called up by 
direction of the Committee on House Administration, a privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 1127) authorizing the expenditure, from the 
contingent fund, of certain expenses of the Committee on Un-American 
Activities. Mr. William F. Ryan, of New York, made a point of order 
against the consideration of the resolution on the grounds that a 
quorum was not

[[Page 4425]]

present in the Committee on House Administration when the resolution 
was ordered reported. Mr. Friedel thereupon withdrew the resolution 
from consideration.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 114 Cong. Rec. 4449, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modification of Privileged Resolutions

Sec. 29.36 After a motion or resolution is formally pending, all 
    modifications thereof must be approved by the House. An exception 
    to this general principle attaches to a resolution which is offered 
    as a question of privilege.

    With respect to most resolutions, the right of withdrawal and 
resubmission in a modified form does not exist; the resolution, 
although a privileged report, may not be modified except by direction 
of the reporting committee by way of amendment, or otherwise with the 
concurrence of the House. (See Ch. 23, Motions, Sec. 1, infra.)
    Special considerations attach to a resolution which raises a 
question of privilege, however. Such a resolution may be withdrawn at 
will prior to action thereon, and may be modified and resubmitted if 
still raising a question of privilege. As a corollary to this 
principle, a precedent (5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5358) indicates that 
the offeror of such resolution may similarly accept certain ``friendly 
amendments'' or modifications of his resolution without the concurrence 
of the House.