[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[E. Privileged Business]
[Â§ 30. Privileged Motions as to the Order of Business]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4425-4447]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         E. PRIVILEGED BUSINESS
 
Sec. 30. Privileged Motions as to the Order of Business

    Several motions directly relating to the order of business are 
given precedence under the rules of the House. An example is the motion 
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union to consider general appropriation bills, a 
motion privileged under Rule XVI clause 9.(17) The motion 
only applies to general appropriation bills, and appropriation bills 
which do not qualify are usually made in order for consideration by 
unanimous consent.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1979).
18. See, for example, Sec. 29.9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the amendment to Rule XI clause 4(a) [House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 726 (1979)] effective Jan. 3, 1975, (H. Res. 988, 93d Cong. 
2d Sess., 120 Cong. Rec. 34469, 34470), to eliminate the authority of 
the Committee on

[[Page 4426]]

Ways and Means to report as privileged bills raising revenue, a motion 
to resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider a revenue bill 
was of equal privilege to the similar motion to consider a general 
appropriation bill (4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3075, 3076). However, 
the privileged nature of the motion under Rule XVI clause 9 with 
respect to revenue bills was derived from and was dependent upon the 
former privilege conferred upon the Committee on Ways and Means under 
Rule XI clause 4(a) to report revenue measures to the House at any time 
(4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3076).
    At present, other than as applied to general appropriation bills, 
the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union has no particular precedence under the rules. Under 
the prescribed order of business in Rule XXIV clause 1,(19) 
the motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole is in order, if the 
House follows that strict order of business, after the morning hour for 
consideration of bills reported by committees and before orders of the 
day.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1979).
20. The House considers most of its business under other provisions of 
        the rules than Rule XXIV clause 1. Thus under current practice 
        the morning hour call of committees and the motion to go into 
        Committee of the Whole under that clause are not used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But an order of business resolution reported from the Committee on 
Rules, making in order the motion to resolve into the Committee of the 
Whole to consider a particular bill, gives precedence to the motion 
(equal to the precedence of the motion to resolve into Committee of the 
Whole for consideration of an appropriation bill).(1) Where 
the order of business resolution discharges a committee from further 
consideration of a bill, the resolution may provide that upon the 
adoption of the resolution the House shall immediately resolve itself 
into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill. In 
that situation, no motion is required and the Speaker directs the House 
to resolve into the Committee.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 30.3, infra.
 2. See Sec. 30.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole may also be 
made privileged by the provisions of a statute. Where a statute gives 
privilege to a motion to consider a certain type of resolution 
(disapproving proposed executive action) and the resolution must be 
considered in Committee of the

[[Page 4427]]

Whole, the motion to resolve into the Committee is considered 
privileged.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 30.8-30.10, infra. See House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 1013 (1979) for a compilation of such statutory 
        provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a motion to discharge under Rule XXVII clause 4,(4) 
called up as privileged on eligible days, is agreed to, the motion to 
proceed to the immediate consideration of the discharged bill or 
resolution is privileged. If the discharged matter is properly 
considered in the House, the privileged and nondebatable motion that 
the House proceed to the consideration thereof is in order. If the 
discharged matter must be considered in the Committee of the Whole 
(under Rule XXIII clause 3),(5) the privileged and 
nondebatable motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for the consideration of the matter is in order. If the 
motion prevails to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further 
consideration of a resolution (providing a special rule or special 
order), no motion for consideration is required, as the House 
immediately votes on the adoption of the resolution.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979).
 5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 865 (1979).
 6. For motions to discharge and subsequent motions to consider, see 
        Sec. Sec. 30.11-30.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Motions to discharge committees from the consideration of 
particular proposals may be made privileged under the rules or pursuant 
to statute. Statutes which allow a resolution disapproving an executive 
action to be called up as privileged also contain provisions allowing a 
privileged motion to discharge the committee after a certain period of 
time.(7) That specialized motion to discharge is analogous 
to the motion to discharge a committee from the further consideration 
of a resolution of inquiry, which motion is, under the precedents, 
privileged where the committee has failed to report the resolution 
within seven legislative days.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 29.11, supra.
 8. See Sec. 29.15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other privileged motions relating to the order of business are the 
motion to suspend the rules, which is in order on certain days and may 
be used to create or change an order of business as well as to adopt 
bills and resolutions, and the motion to dispense with Calendar 
Wednesday business (although Calendar Wednesday is usually dispensed 
with by unanimous consent prior to Wednesday).(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 9, supra, for the motion to suspend the rules and 
        Sec. 30.15, infra, for the motion to dispense with Calendar 
        Wednesday business.

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

[[Page 4428]]

    The question of consideration,(10) a method whereby the 
House may refuse to consider a proposition, privileged or otherwise, is 
akin to a motion. The question may be raised by any Member but must be 
raised before debate begins on the proposition brought before the 
House. By a negative vote on the question, the House may change, 
temporarily, the order of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Rule XVI clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 778 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question of consideration may not be raised, however, against a 
class of business (such as all District of Columbia business on 
District Day), against a motion to resolve into the Committee of the 
Whole or another motion relating to the order of business, against a 
report from the Committee on Rules (since under Rule XI clause 23 
[clause 4(b) in the 1979 House Rules and Manual] intervening motions 
are not in order), and against a motion to discharge.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 30.16, infra, for the question of consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question of consideration may not be raised against the motion 
to resolve into the Committee of the Whole because the House, by voting 
on that motion determines the question of consideration. Of course, an 
automatic question of consideration is raised when the Committee on 
Rules calls up a report on the same day reported; the Chair puts sua 
sponte the question of consideration, which requires a two-thirds 
affirmative vote.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Consideration of reports from the Committee on Rules is discussed 
        in Sec. 18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two other privileged motions which, if decided in the affirmative, 
prevent the consideration of business are the motion to table (final 
adverse disposition) and the motion to postpone (to a day certain or 
indefinitely).(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Motions, their use and precedence are analyzed in Ch. 23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Motions relating to the order of business are generally not 
debatable, as provided by Rule XXV, except the motions to postpone 
specifically made debatable in Rule XVI clause 4.

                            Cross References
As to the motion to discharge and its precedence, see Ch. 18, supra.
As to the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole generally, 
    see Ch. 19, supra.
As to motions, their use and precedence generally, see Ch. 23, infra.
As to the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider 
    general appropriation bills, see Ch. 25, infra.
As to the question of consideration generally, see Ch. 29, infra.
As to motions to suspend the rules, see Sec. 10, supra.

[[Page 4429]]

As to motions to consider bills under special rules, see Sec. 20, 
    supra.
                          -------------------

Motion to Resolve into Committee of the Whole

Sec. 30.1 When a motion has been made that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
    the consideration of a bill, a motion that the Committee of the 
    Whole be discharged and that the bill be laid on the table is not 
    preferential and not in order.

    On Apr. 2, 1938, Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, moved that the 
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the further 
consideration of a bill (S. 3331) dealing with governmental 
reorganization. Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, sought recognition 
to offer a motion:

        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: (14) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from New York rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Connor of New York: To offer a preferential motion.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

    Mr. Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, made a point of order 
against the motion and Mr. O'Connor argued that the motion was 
preferential under Rule XVI clause 4. Speaker Bankhead sustained the 
point of order:

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] offers what he 
    states is a preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union be discharged from consideration of 
    the bill S. 3331, and said bill be laid on the table.
        The Chair is of the opinion that under the rules of the House a 
    motion of this sort is not a preferential motion, and therefore not 
    in order. The matter now pending is a simple motion that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state 
    of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, and under 
    the precedents a motion to discharge the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union from the further consideration of a 
    bill is not a privileged motion.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 83 Cong. Rec. 4621, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. O'Connor's motion was not privileged as 
a motion to table under

[[Page 4430]]

Rule XVI clause 4 since the bill was not then under debate. The proper 
point at which to raise points of order against the consideration of a 
Union Calendar bill, such as defects in reporting the bill, is pending 
the vote on the motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
of the Whole for the consideration of the bill.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See 72 Cong. Rec. 10593-96, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., June 12, 1930; and 
        114 Cong. Rec. 30751, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 11, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.2 The motion to lay on the table is not in order when there is 
    pending a privileged motion that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a resolution 
    disapproving a reorganization plan.

    On June 8, 1961, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, was recognized by 
Speaker pro tempore Oren Harris, of Arkansas, to make the privileged 
motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
for the consideration of a resolution, reported from the Committee on 
Government Operations, disapproving a reorganization plan submitted 
under the Reorganization Act of 1949. The Speaker pro tempore stated, 
in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of 
Colorado, that a motion to table would not be in order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 107 Cong. Rec. 9777, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to table is not applicable to 
any motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole (see 6 Cannon's 
Precedents Sec.  726).

Effect of Special Rule on Moving Consideration of Bill

Sec. 30.3 The Speaker held that the effect of a special rule making in 
    order a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the 
    consideration of a bill was to give to the bill the privileged 
    status for consideration that a general appropriation bill has 
    (since the motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for 
    the consideration of an appropriation bill is privileged under Rule 
    XVI clause 9).

    On June 28, 1930,(18) 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

[[Page 4431]]

move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of a particular bill, and providing for that bill's 
consideration. 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 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 referred 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 rules 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.

Sec. 30.4 The adoption of a resolution making in order the motion that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
    consideration of a bill does not necessarily make the bill the 
    unfinished business, and the bill can only be called up by a Member 
    designated by the committee to do so.

    On July 19, 1939,(19) the House had adopted a special 
order providing that upon the adoption thereof ``it shall be in order 
to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole'' 
for the consideration of a bill. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, answered an inquiry on the effect of the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 84 Cong. Rec. 9541, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I may state to the 
    House that it has been decided we will not proceed further with the 
    bill under consideration than the adoption of the rule this 
    afternoon.

[[Page 4432]]

        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keller: Mr. Speaker, what will be the parliamentary 
    situation tomorrow?
        The Speaker: The Chair is not in position to answer the 
    parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Illinois. The Chair 
    cannot anticipate what measure may be called up tomorrow.
        Mr. [Claude V.] Parsons [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Parsons: Mr. Speaker, the House having adopted the rule, is 
    not this bill the unfinished business of the House on tomorrow?
        The Speaker: Not necessarily. The rule adopted by the House 
    makes the bill in order for consideration, but it is not 
    necessarily the unfinished business. It can only come up, after the 
    adoption of the rule, by being called up by the gentleman in charge 
    of the bill.

Sec. 30.5 Where the House adopts a resolution providing for the 
    ``immediate consideration'' in Committee of the Whole of a bill not 
    reported from committee, the Speaker directs that the House resolve 
    itself into Committee of the Whole without recognizing for a motion 
    to that effect.

    On June 24, 1965, the House adopted House Resolution 433, providing 
that upon the adoption of the resolution the House ``shall immediately 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
the Union for the consideration'' of a bill not yet reported from 
committee. The House proceeded as follows upon the adoption of the 
resolution (Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, presiding): 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 14705, 14706, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ray J.] Madden [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        The Speaker: Pursuant to House Resolution 433, the House 
    resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. 
    Res. 541).
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
    the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 541), to extend the Area 
    Redevelopment Act for a period of 2 months, with Mr. Boland in the 
    chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        By unanimous consent, the first reading of the joint resolution 
    was dispensed with.
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 
    minutes.

[[Page 4433]]

Sec. 30.6 Where the House adopts a special order providing for the 
    immediate consideration of another resolution in the House, the 
    Speaker directs the Clerk to report the resolution without its 
    being called up by the Member in charge.

    On Jan. 31, 1973, the House adopted the following resolution, 
reported from the Committee on Rules, providing for the consideration 
in the House of another resolution reported from the Committee on Rules 
(creating a select committee to study the operations of Rule X and Rule 
XI, relating to committees of the House and their procedures): 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 2804, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

    Following the adoption of the special order, the House proceeded as 
follows to consider the resolution creating the select committee: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 2812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (3) The Clerk will report House 
    Resolution 132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 132

            Resolved, That there is hereby created a select committee 
        to be composed of ten Members of the House of Representatives 
        to be appointed by the Speaker; five from the majority party 
        and five from the minority party, one of whom he shall 
        designate as chairman. Any vacancy occurring in the membership 
        of the committee shall be filled in the manner in which the 
        original appointment was made.
            The select committee is authorized and directed to conduct 
        a thorough and complete study with respect to the operation and 
        implementation of rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives, including committee structure of the House, 
        the number and optimum size of committees, their jurisdiction, 
        the number of subcommittees, committee rules and procedures, 
        media coverage of meetings, staffing, space, equipment, and 
        other committee facilities.
            The select committee is authorized and directed to report 
        to the House by bill, resolution, or otherwise, with respect to 
        any matters covered by this resolution.
            For the purposes of this resolution, the select committee 
        or any subcommittee thereof is authorized to sit and act during 
        sessions of the House and during the present Congress at such 
        times and places whether or not the House has re

[[Page 4434]]

        cessed or adjourned. The majority of the members of the 
        committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of 
        business, except that two or more shall constitute a quorum for 
        the purpose of taking evidence.
            To assist the select committee in the conduct of its study 
        under this resolution, the committee may employ investigators, 
        attorneys, individual consultants or organizations thereof, and 
        clerical, stenographic, and other assistants; and all expenses 
        of the select committee, not to exceed $1,500,000 to be 
        available one-half to the majority and one-half to the 
        minority, shall be paid from the contingent fund of the House 
        on vouchers signed by the chairman of the select committee and 
        approved by the Speaker.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
    Martin) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling).

Sec. 30.7 Notwithstanding the adoption by the House of a resolution 
    making in order the consideration of conference reports on the day 
    reported (on that day), the Speaker indicated, in response to a 
    parliamentary inquiry, that the legislative-history which prompted 
    the Committee on Rules to meet and report that resolution 
    restricted his authority to recognize Members to call up three 
    designated reports.

    On Oct. 18, 1972,(4) Mr. William M. Colmer, of 
Mississippi, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House 
Resolution 1168, providing for the consideration, on a certain day, of 
any reports from the Committee on Rules and any conference reports 
reported on that day. Mr. Colmer explained that the resolution was a 
product of an informal leadership agreement of the preceding day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 118 Cong. Rec. 37063, 37064, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then answered parliamentary 
inquiries on his exercise of the power of recognition under the 
resolution:

        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, under 
    the resolution just agreed to, would it be in order for the House 
    to consider the conference report when it is ready on S. 2087, 
    Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, benefits to 
    survivors of police officers killed in line of duty, which was 
    agreed upon and which was filed yesterday?
        The Speaker: The Chair must answer the gentleman in accordance 
    with the language which the Chair used when this matter was before 
    the House on yesterday. At that time the Chair stated, and no 
    specific reference was made to any bill because it had been 
    informally mentioned to the Members who were seeking the rule, that 
    this rule would not be used for any other bill except those dealing 
    with three

[[Page 4435]]

    items. Under that interpretation it would be in order to bring 
    those conference reports up on the day on which they were filed. As 
    the Chair understands his own language and his own informal 
    agreement, which was a part of the history, the Chair would very 
    much like to recognize the gentleman, but the Chair feels 
    constrained to hold that the legislative history restricts all 
    action under House Resolution 1168 to three measures, the highway 
    bill, the debt ceiling bill, and the continuing resolution.
        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, referring again to the rule adopted, 
    was not the language strictly stated, and this is the language that 
    I heard stated, the language referred to in the course of debate 
    notwithstanding legislative history of yesterday, to consider 
    conference reports the same day reported, notwithstanding the 
    provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is referring to three conference 
    reports which precipitated the action which brought into existence 
    this resolution.
        The Chair would like to recognize the gentleman, but the Chair 
    feels that its own promise is at stake here.
        The Chair will try to find some other method of recognizing the 
    gentleman.
        The Chair does not feel that in good faith or in good 
    conscience it can recognize the gentleman under the circumstances. 
    . . .
        The Chair feels constrained to say--and the Chair hates to make 
    a statement from the chair on issues like this--it was suggested 
    these three bills which the Chair has mentioned be listed in the 
    resolution. The Chair said that was not necessary; that was the 
    understanding, and it would simply complicate the resolution by 
    naming the three bills. That is what happened.
        The Chair recognizes that had it not been for that 
    understanding and legislative history, which is in the Record, this 
    would have been eligible under the clear language of the 
    resolution.
        The Chair would gladly recognize the gentleman for a unanimous-
    consent request to bring it up now.

Motion to Consider Resolution Privileged by Statute

Sec. 30.8 A motion to consider a resolution, disapproving a 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: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 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

[[Page 4436]]

    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.

Sec. 30.9 After a committee has reported a resolution disapproving a 
    reorganization plan (privileged under the Reorganization Act of 
    1949), any Member may move that the House proceed to the 
    consideration thereof.

    On July 19, 1961, Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, moved that the 
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of House Resolution 328, disapproving a reorganization 
plan transmitted to Congress under the Reorganization Act of 1949 and 
reported by the Committee on Government Operations. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition for 
the privileged motion: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 12905, 12906, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, under title 2, section 204 of the 
    public law, paragraph (b) provides that such a motion may be made 
    only by a person favoring the resolution. Is the gentleman from 
    Florida in favor of the resolution, or does he disfavor the 
    resolution?
        The Speaker: Under the rules, the gentleman does not have to 
    qualify in that respect on this particular motion.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 204(b) of the act (81 Stat. 203, 
207) required a person favoring the resolution to make a motion to 
discharge. A Member did not have to qualify to make the motion for 
consideration under section 205(a) of the act.

[[Page 4437]]

Sec. 30.10 A subsequent motion that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a resolution 
    disapproving a reorganization plan (privileged under the 
    Reorganization Act of 1949) would not be precluded by deciding the 
    instant motion in the negative.

    On June 8, 1961, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, inquired of Speaker pro 
tempore Oren Harris, of Arkansas, whether it would be in order, as a 
privileged matter, to submit a motion that the House resolve itself 
into Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a resolution 
disapproving a reorganization plan, reported by the Committee on 
Government Operations. The Speaker pro tempore replied that the motion 
was privileged for consideration and could be made by any Member. The 
Speaker pro tempore then responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding 
the effect of a negative vote on the motion: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 107 Cong. Rec. 9776, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: If the pending motion is voted down, would it 
    still be in order at a subsequent date to call up a motion 
    rejecting plan No. 2 for another vote? I ask that because I am 
    opposed to plan No. 2. The committee has reported adversely in 
    respect to plan No. 2. I am going to vote against that plan and in 
    support of the resolution of the committee. But under my 
    responsibility as the minority leader and under my agreement with 
    the majority leader, I do not see how I could vote today unless, 
    under the situation as it exists, that vote today would be 
    conclusive as to plan No. 2.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Halleck: I yield.
        Mr. Boggs: If we were to vote today, there is no Member of this 
    body who would have been on notice that this plan was to have been 
    called up and we would actually not be keeping the agreement with 
    either side of the aisle.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get an answer to the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In the opinion of the Chair, under the 
    Reorganization Act, it could be called up at a subsequent date.
        Mr. Halleck: In other words, the action that would be taken 
    today would not be final?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Halleck: In view of the fact that there was no notice to 
    the membership of the House of Representatives on either side that 
    this matter would come on for action today, if plan No. 2 is not 
    voted on today it would subsequently be voted on?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.

[[Page 4438]]

Motion to Discharge and Subsequent Motion to Consider

Sec. 30.11 The Speaker indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that on the second and fourth Mondays of the month, motions to 
    discharge committees which have been on the Discharge Calendar 
    seven legislative days are privileged and come up immediately after 
    the reading of the Journal, and that a special order providing for 
    the consideration of another matter on a discharge day would not 
    affect the precedence of motions to discharge.

    On Mar. 10, 1932, Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on the precedence of a motion to discharge on an 
eligible day, where there was pending a unanimous-consent request 
making a special order of business on such a day: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 75 Cong. Rec. 5689, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Under the unanimous-
    consent request of the gentleman from Georgia, he states that if 
    general debate is not concluded on Saturday, it would be continued 
    on Monday. If that were so, would this unanimous-consent request 
    take precedence over privileged matters; for instance, the matter 
    of a motion to discharge committees?
        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: I suggest this to the 
    Speaker: The rule provides particularly, that after the approval of 
    the Journal it shall be in order to call up such a motion.
        The Speaker: There is no discretion in the hands of the House 
    and the Chair so far as that rule is concerned. It is made for the 
    purpose of forcing consideration of a measure when the motion to 
    discharge the committee has 145 signatures.
        Mr. Crisp: As the author of the rule, I state to the Chair that 
    that was the purpose and intention.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVII clause 4 provides for a motion 
to discharge any committee from a public bill or resolution and the 
Committee on Rules from certain kinds of resolutions. There are also 
special motions to discharge given privileged status: under Rule XXII 
clause 5, a motion is privileged to discharge a committee from 
consideration of a resolution of inquiry not reported within seven 
legislative days; under the provisions of some statutes, certain 
resolutions of disapproval (preventing the implementation of plans by 
the executive) may be brought up as privileged by a motion to 
discharge; and under a prior rule of the House, in effect in the 89th 
Congress, a motion could be made to discharge the Committee on Rules 
from the consideration of certain proposals.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For discussion of the privilege of resolutions of inquiry and 
        resolutions of disapproval under statutes, see Sec. 29, supra. 
        For discussion of the former 21-day discharge rule in relation 
        to the Committee on Rules, see Sec. 18, supra.

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

[[Page 4439]]

Sec. 30.12 Following agreement to a motion to discharge a standing 
    committee from the consideration of a public bill or resolution, 
    the motion to proceed to the immediate consideration of the 
    legislation is privileged if made by a Member who signed the 
    discharge petition, and is decided without debate.

    On Aug. 10, 1970, Mrs. Martha W. Griffiths, of Michigan, moved to 
discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from the further consideration 
of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the United States 
Constitution, under Rule XXVII clause 4.
    Following agreement to the motion to discharge, Mrs. Griffiths made 
the privileged motion for the consideration of the joint resolution: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 28004, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Griffiths: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of 
    clause 4, rule XXVII, I move that the House proceed to the 
    immediate consideration of House Joint Resolution 264.
        The Speaker: (11) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Griffiths).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the joint resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 264

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
        each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
        proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
        States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as 
        part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
        three-fourths of the several States:

                                  ``Article --

            ``Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be 
        denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on 
        account of sex. Congress and the several States shall have 
        power, within their respective jurisdictions, to enforce this 
        article by appropriate legislation.
            ``Sec. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall 
        have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the 
        legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.
            ``Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect one year after 
        the date of ratification.''

        The Speaker: The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 1 
    hour.

Sec. 30.13 Motions to discharge committees do not lose their privileged 
    status by reason of the fact that they are not called up on the 
    first eligible Monday.

    On Dec. 18, 1937, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama,

[[Page 4440]]

answered a parliamentary inquiry on the privilege of motions to 
discharge committees pending on the Discharge Calendar: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 82 Cong. Rec. 1847, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel B.] Pettengill [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Pettengill: Directing the Chair's attention to the Ludlow 
    petition which now may be called up on the second Monday of next 
    month, if it fails to be called up on that day, would it retain its 
    privileged status on a subsequent second or fourth Monday?
        The Speaker: The status of the matter is that it is on the 
    calendar of motions to discharge committees. If not called up on 
    the first date on which it would be entitled to be called up, it 
    remains on the calendar subject to further call on the second or 
    fourth Mondays of a month.

Sec. 

     30.14 The regular order of business, such as the relative 
    precedence of a motion to discharge on discharge days over 
    unfinished business on which the previous question has been 
    ordered, may be varied by unanimous consent.

    On May 8, 1936,(13) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the order of business 
(relative precedence of motions to discharge and unfinished business 
with the previous question ordered) and the power of the House to 
change such order by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 80 Cong. Rec. 7010, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to 
    meet on Monday next.
        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, and I shall not object, will the Speaker make 
    the situation clear with reference to the legislative program for 
    Monday?
        As I understand it, it will be in order before we complete this 
    bill to take up the question of the discharge of the Rules 
    Committee from further consideration of the Frazier-Lemke bill. I 
    would like to ask the Speaker if my understanding is correct, if 
    consideration of the discharge petition would come up before the 
    vote on this bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it would unless there is a 
    previous understanding. The matter of which shall take precedence 
    can be fixed by consent.
        Mr. Boileau: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Many Members 
    interested in the Frazier-Lemke bill are anxious to know just what 
    the situation is going to be.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: It would seem to me, if 
    the Speaker will permit, that the vote on the pending bill would be 
    the unfinished business before the House on Monday.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin that,

[[Page 4441]]

    by consent, an agreement can be made whereby the vote on the motion 
    to recommit the pending bill, or a roll call on its passage, can be 
    had first and then to take up the motion to discharge the 
    committee.

Motion to Dispense With Calendar Wednesday Business

Sec. 

     30.15 The Speaker is constrained to recognize on Wednesdays any 
    Member proposing a motion to dispense with further Calendar 
    Wednesday business on that day and a two-thirds vote is required to 
    adopt the motion.

    On June 5, 1946,(14) the following discussion and ruling 
by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, took place in relation to the motion 
to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business, made on Calendar 
Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 92 Cong. Rec. 6357, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: That was my 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, I therefore move that the House dispense with 
    further proceedings under Calendar Wednesday.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order. That can only be done by unanimous consent.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, that motion is not in order. To 
    dispense with Calendar Wednesday requires the unanimous consent of 
    the House.
        Mr. Whittington: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, may I say 
    that I agree that to dispense with Calendar Wednesday entirely can 
    only be done by unanimous consent, but when there has been a call, 
    and the Committee on Banking and Currency has been called, I 
    respectfully submit that dispensing with the remainder of the 
    proceedings under Calendar Wednesday is in order and that the point 
    of order does not lie.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Marcantonio: I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. Michener: Without reference to the current controversy, may 
    I call the Speaker's attention to the fact that Calendar Wednesday 
    is presumed to be the people's day; that is, all committees are 
    called in order, and whether a bill comes up for consideration 
    rests entirely within the control of the committee having the call, 
    the majority leadership and the Rules Committee to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.
        Calendar Wednesday is usually dispensed with only by unanimous 
    consent. There would be very little use for such a day if this were 
    not the case. General legislation on other days is programed by the 
    leadership; not so on Calendar Wednesday. It would, therefore, seem 
    fundamental if the purposes of the rule are to be carried out, that 
    the committees should be called in

[[Page 4442]]

    order. Were it otherwise, the majority which controls other 
    programs could control proceedings on Calendar Wednesday.
        It would seem fair to proceed with the call of committees, and 
    that no motion to dispense with further proceedings under the 
    Calendar Wednesday rule should be in order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, may I say further that the motion 
    is not in order because the call of the calendar is mandatory. That 
    motion cannot have preference over the call of the Calendar. The 
    only motion that can be considered, as I understand, would be a 
    motion to adjourn, upon which the House has just voted.
        Mr. Whittington: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I have no 
    disposition to delay proceedings, but permit me to say it has been 
    the general and practically universal practice with respect to 
    dispensing with further proceedings under Calendar Wednesday, that 
    that motion has frequently been made when one committee of this 
    House has been called. I submit that to the recollection and to the 
    judgment not only of the Speaker but to the Members of the House.
        I respectfully maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the point of order 
    does not lie.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Whittington: If I have the floor.

        Mr. Rankin: If you will go back and search the Record of 
    Calendar Wednesday proceedings, you will find that time and time 
    again when one committee has been called, then a motion has been 
    made to dispense with further proceedings under Calendar Wednesday, 
    and that motion carried.
        Mr. Whittington: If further proceedings are dispensed with, 
    then the House can proceed to transact other business for the 
    remainder of the day, including the unfinished river and harbor 
    bill that is pending.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the following was held 
    by Speaker Gillett, who has been quoted today, as follows:

            The Speaker is constrained to recognize on Wednesdays any 
        Member proposing a motion to dispense with further proceedings 
        in order on that day.

        The motion is in order, but it takes a two-thirds vote to pass 
    it.
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, does 
    that motion require a two-thirds vote?
        The Speaker: It does.
        Mr. Whittington: I did not understand the Speaker's answer.
        The Speaker: The answer was that to suspend the call of the 
    calendar on Wednesday requires a two-thirds vote.
        Mr. Whittington: Is a mere motion now to dispense with further 
    proceedings the same as a motion to suspend the rules altogether? 
    My motion is to simply suspend further proceedings under the call 
    of Calendar Wednesday. I maintain there is a distinction between 
    dispensing with the call altogether and dispensing with further 
    proceedings under the call.
        The Speaker: The Chair will read the rule so that there will be 
    no misunderstanding:

            On Wednesday of each week no business shall be in order 
        except as provided by paragraph 4 of this rule

[[Page 4443]]

        unless the House, by a two-thirds vote on motion to suspend 
        therewith, shall otherwise determine.

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

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to dispense with Calendar 
Wednesday business and its privilege are discussed in section 4, supra, 
dealing with the Calendar Wednesday procedure. Calendar Wednesday 
business is customarily dispensed with not by motion but by unanimous 
consent.

Question of Consideration and Preventing Consideration

Sec. 30.16 The question of consideration may not be raised against a 
    motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On May 21, 1958,(15) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
by direction of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, offered 
the motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of a privileged bill (H.R. 7999, to provide 
for the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union). The bill was 
called up as privileged under the provisions of then Rule XI clause 20, 
allowing that committee to report at any time on the admission of new 
states. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the question of 
consideration could not be demanded against the motion to resolve into 
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 104 Cong. Rec. 9216, 9217, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Colorado that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I raise the 
    question of consideration and demand a vote on the question of 
    consideration.
        The Speaker: The question of consideration, the Chair is 
    informed, cannot be raised against the motion. That is decided on 
    the motion itself. The Members will vote on whether or not they are 
    going to consider this bill, if they ask for a rollcall. The 
    question now is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Colorado.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: May I submit a parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: The gentleman may.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Under what circumstances can the 
    question of consideration be raised?
        The Speaker: The Chair tried to say a moment ago that it cannot 
    be raised against the motion to go into the Com

[[Page 4444]]

    mittee of the Whole, because that is tantamount to consideration, 
    and the House will have an opportunity to vote on that motion.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: In other words, if we demand a vote on 
    that question, then that will be tantamount to raising the question 
    of consideration?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        The question is on the motion offered by a gentleman from 
    Colorado.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 217, nays 172, not 
    voting 40, as follows: . . .

    Parliamentarian's Note: The question of consideration, although a 
privileged demand before debate has begun on a proposition which has 
been called up for consideration, may not be raised against motions 
relating to the order of business, against a class of business, against 
reports from the Committee on Rules, against a vetoed bill, against a 
motion to discharge committees, or against taking from the Speaker's 
table Senate bills similar to reported House Calendar 
bills.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 778-781 (1979).
            For consideration of reports from the Committee on Rules, 
        and the two-thirds vote required for consideration on the same 
        day reported, see Sec. 18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other preferential motions which may prevent the consideration of 
certain business and motions, such as the motion to table and the 
motion to postpone, are discussed in Ch. 23, infra.

Sec. 30.17 The question as to when the House will consider a bill 
    unfinished on a previous day is always within the control of a 
    majority of the House.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(17) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to when a bill, 
brought up in the House by a motion to discharge, could be considered 
if not finished on the day on which brought up. The Speaker heard Mr. 
Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, on the inquiry and then stated as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 4877, 4878, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair is interested in the valued comments of 
    the distinguished gentleman from Michigan. Of course, the Chair is 
    unaware of the intent or purpose back of the rule when it was first 
    formulated. All he has to guide him is the rule itself as it 
    appears before him in print. The Chair agrees with the gentleman 
    from Michigan that the House can immediately consider the 
    legislation after the motion to discharge the committee is agreed 
    to, but the rule states ``and if

[[Page 4445]]

    unfinished before adjournment of the day on which it is called up, 
    it shall remain the unfinished business until it is fully disposed 
    of.''
        That provision does not state definitely that the bill must 
    come up on the following day, but that it shall remain the 
    unfinished business. The gentleman's point that the bill could be 
    postponed indefinitely of course is correct, in a sense, but after 
    all the rules are based on common sense, and no one would 
    anticipate that the side that procured enough signatures to a 
    discharge petition to bring a bill before the House would 
    filibuster their own bill.
        While the rule perhaps is not quite as definite as it might be, 
    it is the opinion of the Chair that the consideration of the bill 
    could go over until Wednesday if the proponents of the bill do not 
    call it up on tomorrow, and that it would be in order on Wednesday 
    as the unfinished business.
        The Chair believes that unless the gentleman from South 
    Carolina [Mr. Rivers] or someone on his side of the issue, calls it 
    up on tomorrow, it can be called up on Wednesday and will be the 
    unfinished business on that day. The Chair also wishes to state 
    that he will not recognize anyone on the affirmative side of this 
    matter unless the gentleman from South Carolina is absent. It is 
    not necessary to call it up on tomorrow and it can be called up on 
    Wednesday, at which time it will be the unfinished business.
        The Chair will also remind Members that it is always within the 
    control of the majority of the House to determine what should be 
    done.

Sec. 30.18 The question as to when the Committee of the Whole will 
    resume the consideration of a bill unfinished when the Committee 
    rises is for the Speaker and the House to determine, and not for 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(18) Chairman Leslie C. Arends, of 
Illinois, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows in the Committee 
of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 94 Cong. Rec. 4873, 4874, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. August H. Andresen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. August H. Andresen: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the 
    Committee will rise at 4 o'clock. It is also my understanding of 
    the rules that this Committee should meet tomorrow in order to have 
    continuous consideration of the pending legislation.
        I would like to have a ruling of the Chair as to whether or not 
    the rules provide that a day may intervene so that this legislation 
    may be taken up on Wednesday.
        The Chairman: The Chair may say that is a matter for the 
    Speaker of the House and the House itself to determine. It is not 
    something within the jurisdiction of the Chair to decide.

Sec. 30.19 Where the House had agreed that certain legislation take 
    priority over all

[[Page 4446]]

    other business except conference reports, the Speaker held that the 
    agreement gave a higher priority to that business than the 
    consideration of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan, 
    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: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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. [Clare 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 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

[[Page 4447]]

    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.