[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3747-3757]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Specical Orders


[[Page 3747]]



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and editing by Peter D. Robinson, J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. General Principles

    Sec. 1. Order Fixed by Rule and Precedent; Scheduling Business
    Sec. 2. Prayer, Approval of Journal, and Business on the Speaker's 
            Table
    Sec. 3. Unfinished and Postponed Business
    Sec. 4. Calendar Wednesday; Morning Hour Call of Committees
    Sec. 5. District of Columbia Business
    Sec. 6. One-minute Speeches
    Sec. 7. Special-order Speeches
    Sec. 8. Varying the Order of Business

B. Motions to Suspend the Rules

    Sec. 9. Use and Effect
   Sec. 10. When in Order
   Sec. 11. Recognition to Offer
   Sec. 12. Seconding the Motion; Recognition to Demand Second
   Sec. 13. Time and Control of Debate
   Sec. 14. Amendments to Propositions Under Suspension
   Sec. 15. Voting on the Motion

C. Special Rules or Orders

   Sec. 16. Authority of Committee on Rules; Seeking Special Orders

[[Page 3748]]

   Sec. 17. Reports and Their Privilege
   Sec. 18. Consideration in the House
   Sec. 19. Interpretation and Effect

D. Types of Special Orders

   Sec. 20. Varying Order of Business; Providing for Consideration
   Sec. 21. ``Open'' Rules, Allowing Amendments and Making in Order 
            Certain Amendments
   Sec. 22. ``Closed'' Rules, Prohibiting Amendments and Allowing Only 
            Certain Amendments
   Sec. 23. Waiving and Permitting Points of Order
   Sec. 24. As to Control, Distribution, and Duration of Debate
   Sec. 25. As to Reading for Amendment
   Sec. 26. As to Voting and Motions
   Sec. 27. Senate Bills and Amendments; Conference Reports

E. Privileged Business

   Sec. 28. Authority and Scope Under Constitution, Statutes, and Rules
   Sec. 29. Certain Bills, Resolutions, and Reports
   Sec. 30. Privileged Motions as to the Order of Business
   Sec. 31. Relative Precedence Among Privileged Matters

  
                         DESCHLER'S PRECEDENTS
Ch. 21


                          INDEX TO PRECEDENTS

Approval of Journal
    adjournment prior to, Sec. 2.4
    precedence of, Sec. Sec. 2.4-2.13
    yields only to questions of privilege of the House, constitutional 
        privilege, and receipt of messages, Sec. Sec. 2.5, 2.6
Bills (see also Suspension of the rules; Special orders)
    appropriation
        nonprivileged (not ``general'' appropriation bill), Sec. 8.13
        precedence, Sec. 29.10
        privileged motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole, 
            Sec. 29.7
        special order giving precedence, Sec. 29.8
    House request for return of bill from Senate not privileged, 
        Sec. 29.33
    motion to rerefer, Sec. Sec. 2.14-2.16
    Senate

[[Page 3749]]

        privileged where similar to House calendar bill, Sec. 29.29
        request for return cf bill privileged, Sec. 29.32
    Senate amendment to House bill
        privileged where stage of disagreement reached, Sec. 29.31
Calendar Wednesday business
    authority and recognition to call up Sec. Sec. 4.12-4.17
    debate on, Sec. 4.24
    debate on motion to dispense with, Sec. Sec. 4.34-4.36
    eligible bills, Sec. Sec. 4.9, 4.10
    morning hour call of committees distinguished, Sec. 4.1
    motion to dispense with, Sec. Sec. 4.30-4.33
    order of call, Sec. 4.11
    precedence, Sec. Sec. 4.3-4.8
    question of consideration, Sec. Sec. 4.18-4.20
    reconsideration, Sec. 4.25
    unanimous-consent requests, Sec. Sec. 4.21-4.23
    unanimous consent to dispense with, Sec. Sec. 4.40-4.42
    unfinished business, Sec. Sec. 4.26-4.29
    vote on motion to dispense with (two-thirds required), 
        Sec. Sec. 4.37-4.39
Committee on Rules (see also Special orders)
    authority as to order of business
        jurisdiction over order of business, Sec. Sec. 16.7, 16.8
        may not prevent operation of motion to recommit, Sec. 16.19
        may provide for consideration of unreported measures, 
            Sec. Sec. 16.15-16.18
        may provide for waiving rules, Sec. Sec. 16.9-16.14
        may provide procedures for bill already under consideration, 
            Sec. Sec. 16.26, 16.27
        power and function, Sec. Sec. 16.1--16.6
        requesting special orders of business from Committee on Rules, 
            Sec. Sec. 16.20-16.22
    consideration of special orders
        amendments offered by manager, Sec. Sec. 18.23-18.26
        calling up, Sec. Sec. 18.1-18.5
        committee amendments, Sec. Sec. 18.21, 18.22
        consideration of motion to discharge, Sec. Sec. 18.46-18.51
        consideration on same day reported by two-thirds vote, 
            Sec. Sec. 18.6-18.10
        debate under hour rule, Sec. Sec. 18.15-18.18
        discharge rule, forms of special orders introduced under, 
            Sec. 18.53
        discharging committee from special order, Sec. Sec. 18.44, 
            18.45
        division of question not in order, Sec. 18.43
        motion to recommit not in order, Sec. 18.38
        nongermane amendments, Sec. Sec. 18.30, 18.31
        postponing consideration, Sec. 18.37
        putting question of consideration on same day reported, 
            Sec. Sec. 18.11-18.14
        rejection of previous question, Sec. Sec. 18.32-18.36
        relevancy in debate, Sec. Sec. 18.39, 18.40
        twenty-one day discharge rule (obsolete), Sec. 18.52
        when amendments are in order, Sec. Sec. 18.19, 18.20
        withdrawing resolution, Sec. Sec. 18.41, 18.42
        yielding for amendment, Sec. Sec. 18.27-18.29
    meetings of, Sec. Sec. 16.23-16.25, 17.6
    reports and their privilege

[[Page 3750]]

        filing, Sec. Sec. 17.1, 17.2
        form, Sec. Sec. 17.3, 17.4
        nonprivileged reports, Sec. Sec. 17.13, 17.14
        privilege and precedence of reports on order of business, 
            Sec. Sec. 17.7-17.12
        quorum required to report, Sec. 17.5
    rules adopted by, Sec. 16.24
Committees (see also District of Columbia business; Committee on Rules)
    morning hour call of, for reported legislation, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2
    motions to discharge, Sec. Sec. 30.11-30.14
    motions to suspend rules offered on behalf of, Sec. Sec. 11.1, 
        11.10-11.13
    privileged reports
        contempt of witnesses, Sec. Sec. 28.15-28.19
        privileged under leave to report at any time, Sec. Sec. 29.1-
            29.3
        quorum required to report, Sec. 29.4
        resolutions of inquiry, Sec. 29.14
        resolutions privileged under statute, Sec. Sec. 29.11, 30.8-
            30.10
        scope of privileged reports and inclusion of nonprivileged 
            matter, Sec. Sec. 29.1-29.3
        select committee given right to report as privileged, 
            Sec. Sec. 29.6, 29.6
        vetoed bills, Sec. 28.7
    publishing reports as question of privilege, Sec. 28.13
    role in scheduling legislation, Sec. Sec. 1.22-1.25
Concurrent resolutions
    certain privileged
    adjourned sine die, Sec. 29.18
        adjournment to day certain, Sec. 29.17
        joint sessions to hear President and for electoral count, 
            Sec. 29.19
Conference reports (see also Special orders)
    effect of special order on calling up, Sec. 30.7
    filing as privileged, Sec. 29.21
    made in order by unanimous consent, Sec. 29.24
    precedence of, Sec. Sec. 29.25-29.28
    printing and availability requirements before consideration, 
        Sec. Sec. 29.20-29.23
    reports in disagreement, Sec. 29.23
    unfinished business, Sec. 3.22
Consideration (see also Special orders; Motions on order of business)
    House determines, Sec. Sec. 30.16-30.19
    question of, when in order, Sec. 30.16
    Rules Committee report on same day reported, Sec. Sec. 18.6-18.14
Constitution
    amendments to, passed under suspension of rules, Sec. 9.21
    propositions privileged under
        concurrent resolution for joint session, Sec. 29.19
        concurrent resolutions for adjournment, Sec. Sec. 29.17, 29.18
        contested election cases, Sec. 28.1
        impeachment, Sec. Sec. 28.9-28.11
        scope generally, Sec. 28.1
        vetoed bills, Sec. Sec. 28.2-28.8
Daily order of business
    approval of Journal, Sec. Sec. 2.4-2.13
    business on Speaker's table
        executive communications, Sec. 2.17
        messages, Sec. Sec. 2.22-2.24
        Senate bills and amendments, Sec. Sec. 2.17-2.21
    morning hour call of committees (obsolete), Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2
    motions to rerefer public bills, Sec. Sec. 2.14-2.16
    one-minute speeches, Sec. Sec. 6.1-6.4
    prayer, Sec. Sec. 2.1-2.3
    special-order speeches, Sec. Sec. 7.1-7.4

[[Page 3751]]

    unfinished business, Sec. 3
District of Columbia business
    consideration, Sec. Sec. 5.6-5.10, 5.15
    private bills, Sec. Sec. 5.8. 5.11
    transferring by special order, Sec. Sec. 5.12, 8.9-8.11
    unfinished business, Sec. Sec. 5.13, 5.14
    when in order and precedence, Sec. Sec. 5.1 5.5, 29.10
Electoral count, privileged propositions relative to, Sec. 29.19
Impeachment propositions, privilege of, Sec. Sec. 28.9-28.11
Messages
    privileged for receipt and for disposition, Sec. Sec. 2.22-2.24
    unfinished business, Sec. Sec. 3.27, 3.28, 3.36-3.38
    veto messages, Sec. Sec. 28.2-28.8
Modification of privileged resolutions, Sec. Sec. 29.36
Motion to rerefer public bills, Sec. Sec. 2.14-2.16
Motions on order of business (see also Consideration; Suspension of 
    Rules)
    discharge standing committee, Sec. Sec. 30.11-30.14
    dispense with Calendar Wednesday, Sec. 30.15
    proceed to consideration in House
        effect of special order, Sec. Sec. 30.6, 30.7
        following motion to discharge, Sec. 30.12
    resolve into Committee of the Whole
        motions to table and to discharge not in order, Sec. Sec. 30.1, 
            30.2
        privileged after certain motions to discharge, Sec. 30.11
        privileged for general appropriation bills, Sec. Sec. 29.7-
            29.10
        privileged resolution under statute, Sec. Sec. 30.8-30.10
        privileged under special order, Sec. Sec. 30.330.5
Oath administration, privilege of, Sec. Sec. 28.20, 28.21
One-minute speeches
    in order before legislative business, Sec. Sec. 6.1-6.4
    recognition for debate only, Sec. 6.8
    when no business is scheduled, Sec. 6.5
    when not entertained, Sec. Sec. 8.6, 6.7
Prayer
    point of order of no quorum not in order before, Sec. 2.2
    when offered, Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.3
Questions of privilege (see also Constitution)
    personal privilege, Sec. Sec. 28.22, 28.23
    privilege of House
        administration of oath, Sec. Sec. 28.20, 28.21
        contempt of witnesses before committees, Sec. Sec. 28.15-28.19
        power to originate revenue measures, Sec. 28.12
        precedence generally, Sec. Sec. 28.12-28.14
        publishing of committee report, Sec. 28.13
        subpenas, Sec. 28.14
Recognition (see also Speaker)
    Calendar Wednesday business, Sec. Sec. 4.12-4.17
    demanding second on motion to suspend rules, Sec. Sec. 12.9-12.20
    motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday, Sec. Sec. 4.30-4.33
    motion to suspend rules, Sec. Sec. 11.1-11.13
    one-minute speeches, Sec. Sec. 6.1-6.4
    question of privilege, Sec. 28.23
    reports of Committee on Rules, Sec. Sec. 18.1-18.5

[[Page 3752]]

    Speaker's discretion where matters equally privileged, 
        Sec. Sec. 31.1-31.6
    Speaker's power of, generally, Sec. Sec. 1.7-1.19
    special-order speeches, Sec. Sec. 7.1-7.12
    unanimous-consent requests, Sec. Sec. 1.3, 1.4, 1.14-1.18
Resolutions (see also Concurrent resolutions)
    postponing consideration of privileged resolution, Sec. 29.34
    privileged motion to discharge
        resolutions creating order of business, Sec. Sec. 18.44-18.52
        resolutions of inquiry, Sec. Sec. 29.1a, 29.16
        resolutions privileged under statute, Sec. 29.11
    privileged when offered from floor
        electing Members to committee, Sec. Sec. 29.12, 29.13
        impeachment, Sec. Sec. 28.9, 28.11
        questions of privilege of House, Sec. Sec. 28.12-28.19
    privileged when reported from committee
        certain committees and subject matter, Sec. Sec. 29.1-29.3
        Committee on Rules, Sec. Sec. 17.7-17.13
        impeachment, Sec. 28.10
    resolutions of inquiry, Sec. 29.14
        resolutions privileged by statute, Sec. Sec. 29.11, 30.8-30.10
    withdrawing privileged resolution, Sec. 29.35
Scheduling legislation (see also Committee on Rules; Special orders; 
    Suspension of the rules)
    House may determine order of consideration, Sec. Sec. 1.19-1.21
    recognition for unanimous-consent requests, Sec. Sec. 1.3, 1.4, 
        1.14-1.18
    role of committee with jurisdiction,Sec. Sec. 1.22-1.25
    role of leadership, Sec. Sec. 1.1-l.6
    Speaker's power of recognition, Sec. Sec. 1.7-1.13
Senate (see also Special orders)
    amendments
        privileged where not requiring consideration in Committee of 
            the Whole, Sec. 29.30
        privileged where stage of disagreement reached, Sec. 29.31
    bills
        privileged under leave of select committee to report at any 
            time, Sec. 29.6
        privileged where similar to reported House bills on House 
            calendar, Sec. 29.29
    concurrent resolution for adjournment or amendments thereto, 
        privileged Sec. Sec. 29.17, 29.18
    concurrent resolution for joint session privileged, Sec. 29.19
    messages privileged for receipt, Sec. Sec. 2.23, 2.24
    request for return of bills privileged, Sec. 29.39
Speaker (see also Recognition)
    authorized to recognize for ineligible conference report, Sec. 19.1
    authorized to recognize for motion to recess, Sec. 20.31
    authorized to recognize for motions to suspend rules on ineligible 
        days, Sec. Sec. 10.3-10.7
    interpretation of special orders, Sec. 19.1
    scheduling legislation, Sec. Sec. 1.1-1.6, 9.22-9.24
    voting by, on motion to suspend rules, Sec. Sec. 15.3, 15.4
Special-order speeches
    in order after legislative business, Sec. Sec. 7.1-7.4

[[Page 3753]]

    limited to one hour, Sec. Sec. 7.5, 7.6
    requesting and rescheduling, Sec. Sec. 7.7-7.9
    sequence of, Sec. Sec. 7.10-7.12
Special orders (see also Committee on Rules; Suspension of the rules; 
    Unanimous-consent requests)
    amendments between the Houses and sending to conference
        amendments reported in disagreement from conference, 
            Sec. Sec. 27.44, 27.45
        concurring in part, disagreeing in part, sending to conference, 
            Sec. 27.27
        concurring in Senate amendment, Sec. Sec. 27.15-27.20
        concurring in Senate amendment with an amendment, 
            Sec. Sec. 27.21, 27.22
        disagreeing to Senate amendment, sending to conference, 
            Sec. Sec. 27.23-27.26
        discharging committee from consideration of Senate bill, 
            Sec. 27.7
        insisting on House amendment, sending to conference, 
            Sec. Sec. 27.28-27.30
        Senate amendment to House bill taken from Speaker's table for 
            consideration, Sec. Sec. 27.12-27.14
        Senate bill, consideration made in order, Sec. Sec. 27.1-27.6
        sending bill to conference, Sec. 27.31
        substituting text of House-passed bill for text of Senate-
            passed bill, Sec. Sec. 27.8-27.11
    closed rules, prohibiting amendments or allowing only certain 
        amendments
        closed in part, open in part, Sec. Sec. 22.14, 22.15
        committee amendments only permitted, Sec. Sec. 22.1-22.7
        committee amendments or designated amendments only permitted, 
            Sec. Sec. 22.8-22.11
        consideration of bill in House, Sec. 22.16
        motion that Committee of the Whole rise with recommendation 
            that enacting clause be stricken, Sec. Sec. 22.17, 22.18
        pro forma amendments, Sec. Sec. 22.19-22.21
        requesting closed rule, Sec. 22.22
        two committees managing bill, Sec. Sec. 22.12-22.15
    conference reports
        consideration of, generally, Sec. Sec. 27.37-27.39
        consideration of, when reported, Sec. Sec. 27.32-27.35
        points of order waived against conference reports and motions 
            on amendments in disagreement, Sec. Sec. 27.40-27.45
        unauthorized appropriation protected by special order governing 
            consideration of bill in House, Sec. 27.36 sending to 
            conference, Sec. 27.31
    consideration under special orders
    further procedures for consideration of bill already pending, 
        Sec. Sec. 20.32, 20.33
    immediate consideration of unreported bill, Sec. Sec. 20.5-20.15
    motion that House resolve into Committee of the Whole for 
        consideration of measure, Sec. Sec. 20.1-20.3
    motion to recess made in order, Sec. 20.31
    motion to suspend rules under special order, Sec. 20.28
        private bill, Sec. Sec. 20.25, Sec. 20.26
    resolution in Committee of the Whole. Sec. Sec. 20.18-20.23
    resolution in House Sec. 20.24
    resolution from Rules Committee which is not privileged, 
        Sec. Sec. 20.29, 20.30

[[Page 3754]]

        Union Calendar bill in House, Sec. Sec. 20.16, 20.17
    continuing effect of, Sec. 16.28
    debate under special orders
        debate in House, Sec. Sec. 24.16-24.20
        designated Member controlling portion of general debate in 
            Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 24.1, 24.2
        five-minute debate in Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 24.9, 
            24.10
        five-minute debate under closed rule, Sec. Sec. 24.11-24.15
        general debate in Committee of the Whole fixed by days, 
            Sec. Sec. 24.5-24.8
        two or more committees in control, Sec. Sec. 24.3, 24.4
    filing supplemental report on measure on which special order has 
        been reported, Sec. 20.4
    interpretation and effect of special orders
        Chair's interpretation generally, Sec. Sec. 19.1-19.3
        effect of adoption of special orders, Sec. Sec. 19.9-19.11
        interpretation as not within Chair's province, Sec. Sec. 19.4-
            19.8
    motions under special orders
        motion that Committee of the Whole rise with recommendation 
            that bill be recommitted, Sec. 26.3
        motion that Committee of the Whole rise with recommendation 
            that enacting clause be stricken, Sec. Sec. 26.1, 26.2
    motion to recommit, Sec. Sec. 26.6-26.10
        motion to recommit, points of order waived against, Sec. 26.14
        motion to recommit under closed rule, Sec. Sec. 26.11, 26.12
        previous question considered as ordered, Sec. Sec. 26.4, 26.5
    two motions to recommit, Sec. 26.13
    open rules, allowing amendments and making in order certain 
        amendments
        all points of order waived against certain amendments, 
            Sec. 21.3
        certain amendments prohibited, Sec. Sec. 21.15-21.17
        designated amendments made in order, Sec. Sec. 21.4-21.10
        offering amendments under open rules, Sec. 21.1
        offering designated amendments made in order, Sec. Sec. 21.11-
            21.14
        special orders open in part, closed in part, Sec. 21.2
    points of order waived or permitted
        amending nongermane amendment permitted to remain by
        special order, Sec. Sec. 23.23, 23.24
        amendment, all points of order waived, Sec. Sec. 23.14-23.17
        amendment which is not germane, points of order waived, 
            Sec. Sec. 23.18-23.22
        appropriation bill, amending legislation permitted to remain by 
            special order, Sec. Sec. 23.43-23.47
        appropriation bill, points of order waived generally, 
            Sec. Sec. 23.25-23.26
        appropriation bill, points of order waived against amendment 
            to, Sec. Sec. 23.32-23.34
        appropriation bill, points of order waived against legislation 
            in, Sec. Sec. 23.38-23.42
        appropriation bill, points of order waived against unauthorized 
            appropriations, Sec. Sec. 23.35-23.37

[[Page 3755]]

        appropriation bill, waiver against does not protect floor 
            amendments, Sec. Sec. 23.30, 23.31
        appropriation in legislative bill, points of order waived as to 
            Sec. Sec. 23.48, 23.49
        authority to waive points of order generally, Sec. Sec. 23.1-
            23.3
        bill, all points of order waived as to, Sec. Sec. 23.4, 23.5
        bill improperly reported, points of order waived as to, 
            Sec. Sec. 23.6-23.13
        designated points of order permitted, Sec. 23.50
    reading for amendment under special orders
        committee amendment in nature of substitute read as original 
            bill for amendment, Sec. Sec. 25.10-25.14
        method of reading bill or amendment in nature of substitute 
            varied, Sec. Sec. 25.1-25.3
        offering amendments to amendment in nature of substitute read 
            as original bill, Sec. Sec. 25.15-25.17
        reading bill in entirety, Sec. Sec. 25.8, 25.9
        reading of bill waived and bill considered as read for 
            amendment, Sec. Sec. 25.4-25.7
        rescinding previous resolution, Sec. 20.27
    voting under special orders
        separate votes in House on amendments reported from Committee 
            of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 26.15-26.22
Suspension of the rules
    amendments
        floor amendments not in order, Sec. Sec. 14.6-14.11
        motion to strike enacting clause not in order, Sec. 14.12.
        motion to suspend and pass bill with amendments, 
            Sec. Sec. 14.1-14.3
        reporting motion to suspend and pass with amendments, 
            Sec. Sec. 14.4, 14.5
    recognition to demand second
        Member opposed entitled to recognition, Sec. Sec. 12.10-12.13
        priorities of recognition, Sec. Sec. 12.14-12.20
        requesting recognition, Sec. 12.9
        rereading motion where second demanded, Sec. 12.21
    recognition to offer motion
        generally, Sec. 11.1-11.3
        recognition entirely within Chair's discretion, Sec. Sec. 11.4-
            11.8
        recognition of committee chairmen, Sec. Sec. 11.10-11.13
        reoffering motion, Sec. 11.9
    seconding the motion
        Member demanding second entitled to control debate in 
            opposition to motion, Sec. Sec. 12.7, 12.8
        procedure where second not demanded, Sec. 12.6
        requirement for a second, Sec. Sec. 12.1, 12.2
        voting on second by tellers, Sec. Sec. 12.3-12.5
    time and control of debate
        control of time, Sec. Sec. 13.6-13.9
        control of time in opposition, Sec. Sec. 13.10-13.12
        debate where second not demanded, Sec. 13.15
        extending time for debate, Sec. Sec. 13.3-13.5
        motion to adjourn during consideration, Sec. 13.16
        mover opens and closes debate, Sec. Sec. 13.13, 13.14
        previous question inapplicable, Sec. 13.17

[[Page 3756]]

        special order governing debate on motion, Sec. 13.18
        time for debate under rule (40 minutes, equally divided), 
            Sec. Sec. 13.1, 13.2
        unanimous-consent requests during consideration, 
            Sec. Sec. 13.19, 13.20
        withdrawal of motion under consideration, Sec. Sec. 13.21-13.23
    use and effect
        effect of defeat of motion, Sec. Sec. 9.1, 11.9
        motion suspends all rules in conflict with motion, 
            Sec. Sec. 9.7-9.12
        passage of appropriation bill, Sec. 9.20
        passage of constitutional amendment, Sec. 9.21
        passage of emergency legislation, Sec. Sec. 9.22-9.24
        passage of original measure submitted from floor, Sec. 9.19
        to adopt orders of business, Sec. Sec. 9.13-9.18
        use generally, Sec. Sec. 9.2-9.6
    voting
        division of question not in order, Sec. Sec. 16.5, 15.6
        effect of rejection of motion, Sec. Sec. 15.7, 15.8
        passage of constitutional amendment, Sec. 15.2
        requirement of two-thirds for adoption, Sec. 15.1
        Speaker's vote, Sec. Sec. 15.3, 15.4
    when in order
        last six days of a session, Sec. Sec. 10.8-10.10
        regular suspension days, Sec. Sec. 10.1, 10.2
        unfinished business, Sec. Sec. 10.11-10.14
        varying suspension days, Sec. Sec. 8.6, 8.10, 8.12, 8.23, 10.3-
            10.7, 10.15, 10.16
Unanimous-consent requests
    appropriation bill made in order, Sec. Sec. 8.13, 29.8, 29.9
    conference report made in order, Sec. 29.24
    dispensing with Calendar Wednesday business, Sec. Sec. 4.40-4.42
    during consideration of motion to suspend rules, Sec. Sec. 13.19, 
        13.20
    extending time for debate on motion to suspend rules, 
        Sec. Sec. 13.3-13.5
    on Calendar Wednesday, Sec. Sec. 4.21-4.23
    postponing consideration of privileged resolution, Sec. 29.34
    postponing votes, Sec. Sec. 3.15, 3.18, 8.14-8.18
    prior to approval of Journal, Sec. 2.9
    privileged resolution may be withdrawn before action without 
        unanimous consent, Sec. 29.35
    recognition for requests in discretion of Chair, Sec. Sec. 1.3, 
        1.4, 1.14-1.18, 2.20
    reference of bills, Sec. Sec. 2.14, 2.16
    rescheduling special-order speeches, Sec. Sec. 8.19, 8.20 .
    varying calendar days, Sec. Sec. 8.6-8.12
    varying precedence of bills, Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.2, 31.7, 31.8
    varying precedence of motions, Sec. Sec. 8.3-8.5
    varying previous order, Sec. 8.21
    withdrawing motion to suspend rules after second ordered, 
        Sec. Sec. 13.21-13.23
    withdrawing unfinished business does not require, Sec. Sec. 3.39, 
        3.40
Unfinished business
    Calendar Wednesday business, Sec. Sec. 3.20, 3.21
    calling up, Sec. Sec. 3.1-3.5
    conference report, Sec. 3.22
    discharged bill, Sec. 3.23
    District of Columbia business, Sec. Sec. 3.25, 3.26
    following recess, Sec. 3.14
    in Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 3.11-3.13

[[Page 3757]]

    messages, Sec. Sec. 3.27, 3.28
    motions to suspend rules, Sec. Sec. 3.29-3.31
    precedence and order, Sec. Sec. 3.6-3.10, 3.24
    private business, Sec. 3.35
    reading engrossed copy of bill (prior practice), Sec. Sec. 3.32-
        3.34
    roll call votes coming over from previous day, Sec. Sec. 3.15-3.19
    unaffected by inter-session adjournment. Sec. 3.41
    veto message postponed to day certain, Sec. Sec. 3.36-3.38
    withdrawal of, Sec. Sec. 3.39, 3.40
Vetoed bills
    privileged under Constitution
        motion to discharge committee, Sec. 28.8
        postponed to day certain, Sec. Sec. 28.4, 28.6
    reported by committee, Sec. 28.7
    status as unfinished business, Sec. Sec. 3.36, 3.38
Withdrawal
    motion to suspend rules, Sec. Sec. 13.21-13.23
    privileged resolution, Sec. Sec. 18.41, 18.42, 29.35
    unfinished business. Sec. Sec. 3.39. 3.40

[[Page 3759]]



 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 
Sec. 1. Order Fixed by Rule and Precedent; Scheduling Business



    The order of business in the House is governed, first, by the 
provisions of Rule XXIV, which prescribes the daily order of business, 
including the approval of the Journal, business on the Speaker's table, 
unfinished business, the morning hour call of committees (no longer in 
use), private business, and District of Columbia 
business.(1) The motion to suspend the rules on certain days 
is made in order by Rule XXVII,(2) and the Consent and 
Discharge Calendars are provided for by Rule XIII.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 878-899 (1979).
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 902-907 (1979).
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 746, 747 (1979).
            For corresponding treatment of earlier precedents, see 4 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3056 et seq. (the order of 
        business), Sec. Sec. 3152 et seq. (special orders), 
        Sec. Sec. 3266 et seq. (private and District of Columbia 
        business); 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6790 et seq. 
        (suspension of the rules); 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 708 
        et seq. (order of business); 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 758 et seq. (special orders), Sec. Sec. 846 et seq. 
        (private and District of Columbia business), Sec. Sec. 881 et 
        seq. (Calendar Wednesday), Sec. Sec. 972 et seq. (Consent 
        Calendar), Sec. Sec. 1007 et seq. (calendar of motions to 
        discharge a committee); 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 3397 et 
        seq. (suspension of the rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The order of business may be interrupted for business privileged 
under the rules and practices of the House.~(4) In addition, 
the regular order of business, including the relative precedence of 
privileged questions, may be varied by three methods: unanimous-consent 
requests, motions to suspend the rules, and resolutions reported from 
the Committee on Rules that pertain to the order of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. Sec. 28-31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair may refuse to recognize for unanimous-consent requests 
and motions to suspend the rules, and holds the power of recognition at 
all times. Thus the order of business may be subject to the Chair's 
power of recognition. The Speaker of the House, and the Members who 
with him

[[Page 3760]]

constitute the leadership of the House, have the duty of scheduling the 
business of the House, in concert with the leadership of each standing 
committee thereof.(~5~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 1.1-1.6 and 1.14-1.19, 1.22, 1.23, infra. For 
        recognition for the motion to suspend the rules, see Sec. 11, 
        infra. For the Chair's power of recognition in general, see Ch. 
        29, infra. And for discussion of the functions and duties of 
        the Speaker, see Ch. 6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the order of business in the House is always subject to 
the will of the majority of the House, who may refuse to consider most 
matters brought before it, or may change the order of business or 
create a new order of business.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 1.19-1.21, infra. The question of consideration, and 
        situations where the question of consideration is not in order, 
        are discussed in Sec. 30, infra. For changing the order of 
        business, see those sections of this chapter concerned with 
        varying the order of business by unanimous consent (Sec. 8, 
        infra), with motions to suspend the rules, and with special 
        orders from the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Assembly of Congress (for discussion of the order of business at the 
    convening of the House), Ch. 1, supra.
Officers and staff (for discussion of the Speaker and his authority), 
    Ch. 6, supra.
Privilege (for discussion of questions of privilege and their 
    precedence over the regular order of business), Ch. 11, supra.
Committees (for discussion of the order of business in committees), Ch. 
    17, supra.
Discharging Measures From Committees. Ch. 18, supra.
Calendars, Ch. 22, infra.
Motions and Requests, Ch. 23, infra.
Consideration and Debate, Ch. 29 
    infra.                          -------------------

Role of Speaker and Leadership Scheduling Legislation

Sec. 1.1 The legislative schedule or program for the House is announced 
    to the Members by the Majority Leader or Whip, or in their absence 
    may be announced by the Speaker himself.

    On May 21, 1964,(7) after the disposition of legislative 
business on the last legislative day of the week, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, took the floor, in the absence of both the 
Majority Leader and Majority Whip, to announce the program for the 
following week:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 11690, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James] Harvey of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to address the House for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Michigan?

[[Page 3761]]

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Harvey of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this time 
    in order to inquire of the distinguished acting majority leader if 
    he will inform us of the schedule for the balance of this week and 
    for next week.
        Mr. McCormack: The program for next week is as follows:
        Monday is District Day, but there are no bills. We will 
    consider H.R. 10041--hospital and medical facilities amendments of 
    1964. This has an open rule and provides 3 hours of general debate. 
    . . .
        On Wednesday H.R. 5130, increase in federal deposit and savings 
    insurance. This has an open rule and provides 2 hours of general 
    debate.
        On the same day there are eight unanimous-consent bills from 
    the Committee on Ways and Means, as follows:
        H.R. 4198, free importation of instant coffee. . . .
        On Thursday and the balance of the week the program is as 
    follows:
        On Thursday, at 12:30 p.m., the House and Senate will receive 
    in joint meeting the President of Ireland, His Excellency, Eamon de 
    Valera.
        The usual reservation is made that conference reports may be 
    brought up at any time and any further program will be announced 
    later.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The announcement of the legislative 
schedule for the following week is normally made by the Majority Leader 
or Majority Whip following the legislative program for the week. If the 
announcement is made on Thursday or Friday, with intent to adjourn 
until Monday, the unanimous-consent request (or motion, if the request 
is objected to) is made to adjourn over until Monday next. Also at that 
time, the unanimous-consent request is made to dispense with Calendar 
Wednesday business on the following Wednesday.

Sec. 1.2 The Speaker made a statement from the Chair regarding the 
    scheduling of legislation.

    On Aug. 16, 1962,(8) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made a statement from the chair pending a motion that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of the public works appropriation bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 16730, 16731, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair would like the attention of the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford]. The Chair desires to state that 
    a number of Members have spoken to me as Speaker about the problems 
    that confront them, which problems I thoroughly appreciate. In my 
    years of experience as majority leader I always bore these problems 
    in mind. But this situation did not develop until within 24 hours 
    where arrangements could be made for next week. There are problems 
    of the leadership, and there are problems of all the Members.
        The Chair felt if this bill could be brought up today, and 
    these other

[[Page 3762]]

    three bills, we could adjourn over today until Monday of next week, 
    and from Monday of next week to Thursday of next week, and from 
    Thursday of next week to the following Monday. The Chair takes 
    complete responsibility, the responsibility, as the Chair felt, 
    being in the interest of the Members of the House that 
    consideration could be given at this time because later on the 
    Chair could see where there would be extreme difficulty and next 
    week afforded an excellent opportunity. These decisions are made 
    rather quickly because we just do not know what problems might 
    arise. As a matter of fact, the Chair did not definitely make the 
    decision until this morning, although the Chair had pretty well 
    formulated it in the mind of the Chair yesterday afternoon and last 
    evening.

Sec. 1.3 The Speaker advised Members that he was amenable to 
    recognizing for unanimous-consent requests to call up bills 
    requiring disposition before adjournment, providing that such 
    measures were carefully screened by the leadership on both sides of 
    the aisle,

    On Aug. 17, 1964,(9) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request giving the Speaker the authority to recognize for 
motions to suspend the rules and pass certain bills on a date to be 
agreed upon by himself, and the Majority and Minority Leaders. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 19944, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that if arrangements can be worked out on 
    this or any other bill, through a unanimous-consent request, where 
    the matter has been carefully screened, the Chair will be glad to 
    recognize for that purpose. That does not mean today. It means 
    sometime this week, if it is carefully screened through the 
    leadership. Members are protected in the knowledge that the 
    screening has taken place.

Sec. 1.4 Members desiring to ask unanimous consent for the 
    consideration of bills should first consult the Speaker and 
    Majority and Minority Leaders, and in the absence of such 
    consultation the Speaker may decline to recognize for such 
    requests.

    On July 11, 1946,(10) Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce, of 
Connecticut, sought recognition for a unanimous-consent request for the 
immediate consideration of a bill. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
declined recognition for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 8726, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Did the gentlewoman consult the Speaker about this 
    and notify him that she was going to make this request?

[[Page 3763]]

        Mrs. Luce: I did not, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair refuses to recognize the gentlewoman for 
    that purpose.

    Later in the proceedings, Mr. John Phillips, of California, 
commented in debate on the failure of the same bill to be brought up 
for consideration. The Speaker stated as follows in response:

        The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
        The Chair desires to make a statement. For a long time, ever 
    since 1937 at least, the present occupant of the chair knows that 
    when Members intend to ask unanimous consent to bring up a bill 
    they have always properly consulted with both the majority and 
    minority leaders of the House and with the Speaker. That has been 
    the unfailing custom. The Chair is exercising that right and 
    intends to continue to exercise it as long as he occupies the 
    present position because the Chair wants the House to proceed in an 
    orderly fashion.
        Mrs. Luck: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask unanimous consent to 
    bring up the bill tomorrow?
        The Speaker: The Chair will meet that question when the time 
    comes.
        The Chair would certainly like the courtesy of being consulted 
    in advance.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 8728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.5 Upon concluding a recess, called by the Speaker pending 
    receipt of an engrossed bill while a House resolution was pending 
    before the House, the Speaker announced the unfinished business to 
    be the reading of the engrossed copy of the bill, the Food Stamp 
    Act of 1964.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(12) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, put the question on the engrossment and third reading of 
H.R. 10222, the Food Stamp Act of 1964, and Mr. Charles S. Gubser, of 
California, demanded the reading of the engrossed copy, which was not 
yet prepared. The House then proceeded to the consideration of House 
Resolution 665, dealing with certain Senate amendments to a House bill. 
Pending such consideration, the Speaker declared a recess subject to 
the call of the Chair (pursuant to such authority granted the Speaker 
for any time during that day), pending the receipt of the engrossed 
copy of H.R. 10222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recess having expired, the Speaker called the House to order 
and stated that the unfinished business was the reading of the 
engrossed copy of H.R. 10222, which he directed the Clerk to read. When 
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio, propounded a parliamentary inquiry 
regarding the status of House Resolution 665 as the

[[Page 3764]]

unfinished business properly before the House, the Speaker recognized 
Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, to withdraw House Resolution 665, 
thereby terminating the reason for the inquiry.
    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent predated the 1965 revision 
to the rules eliminating the right of any Member to demand the reading 
of the engrossed bill (see Sec. Sec. 3.31-3.33, infra).

Sec. 1.6 The death of a sitting Member of the House was announced to 
    the House, which then proceeded with scheduled business before 
    adjourning out of respect.

    On May 4, 1970,(13) Mr. John S. Monagan, of Connecticut, 
announced to the House, following the offering of prayer and the 
approval of the Journal, the death of a sitting Member of the House, 
William L. St. Onge, of Connecticut. Before adjourning out of respect, 
the House conducted its scheduled business, the consideration of a 
conference report and the consideration of the Consent Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 13987-14043, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On many occasions, the House adjourns out 
of respect to a deceased Member without conducting scheduled 
legislative business. On this occasion, there existed a full 
legislative schedule for the week and the leadership, after 
consultation with the deceased's family, determined to proceed with 
business.

Order May Be Subject to Chair's Recognition

Sec. 1.7 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated 
    that where matters of equal privilege are pending, the order of 
    their consideration is subject to the Speaker's recognition.

    On Sept. 22, 1966,(14) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following statement on recognition, in response 
to a parliamentary inquiry related to the order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Of course, the question of recognition is with the Chair, 
    where there are two similar preferential matters, but the 
    gentleman's understanding is correct that after 7 legislative days 
    a member of the Rules Committee could call it up.
        If it were a question of recognition, if the same preferential 
    status existed at the same time. recognition rests with I the 
    Chair.

Sec. 1.8 If a resolution providing a special order of business is

[[Page 3765]]

    not called up for consideration by the Member reporting the 
    resolution from the Committee on Rules within seven days, any 
    member of the committee may call it up for consideration as a 
    privileged matter, for which purpose the Speaker would be obliged 
    to recognize such Member, unless a matter of equal or higher 
    privilege was pending. In the latter case, the order of 
    consideration would be determined by the Speaker's recognition.

    On Sept. 22, 1966,(15) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of 
business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 1.9 While the call of the Consent Calendar is, under Rule XIII 
    clause 4, mandatory on the first and third Mondays of the month 
    immediately after the approval of the Journal, the Speaker may 
    recognize a Member to call up a conference report under Rule XXVIII 
    clause 1, before directing the Clerk to call the Consent Calendar.

    On May 4, 1970,(16) which was Consent Calendar day under 
Rule XIII clause 4, requiring that the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 14021-33, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3766]]

Consent Calendar be called immediately after the approval of the 
Journal, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. 
Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, to call up a conference report on H.R. 
515 (to amend the National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act), 
as a privileged matter under Rule XXVIII clause 1, before directing the 
call of the Consent Calendar.

Sec. 1.10 On a District Day, the Speaker recognized a member of the 
    Committee on Rules to call up a privileged resolution relating to 
    the order of business, and later recognized the chairman of another 
    committee to call up the business made in order thereby, prior to 
    recognizing the Chairman of the Committee on the District of 
    Columbia to call up District business under Rule XXIV clause 8.

    On Sept. 24, 1962,(17) which was District of Columbia 
Day under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, first recognized Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, 
to call up by direction of the Committee on Rules, House Resolution 
804, making in order and providing for the consideration of Senate 
Joint Resolution 224, authorizing the President to call up armed forces 
reservists. The House having agreed to the resolution, the Speaker 
recognized Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services and manager of the joint resolution, to move that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of 
the joint resolution, which was after debate agreed to by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 20489-94, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then stated that it was District of Columbia Day and 
recognized Chairman John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, of the 
Committee on the District of Columbia for District 
business.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 20521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.11 When a Member seeks recognition to call up District of 
    Columbia business on the fourth Monday (privileged under Rule XXIV 
    clause 8) and another Member seeks recognition to move to suspend 
    the rules and agree to a Senate joint resolution amending the 
    Constitution (privileged pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement 
    making it in order on the fourth Monday for the Speaker to 
    recognize

[[Page 3767]]

    Members to move suspension and passage of bills), it is within the 
    discretion of the Speaker as to which of the two Members he shall 
    recognize.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(19) which was the fourth Monday of the 
month and therefore a day eligible for District of Columbia business, 
under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, to move to suspend the 
rules and pass a joint resolution (to amend the Constitution to 
prohibit the use of a poll tax as a qualification for voting) pursuant 
to a previous unanimous-consent request making in order on that day 
motions to suspend the rules. The Speaker overruled a point of order 
against prior recognition for the motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654-60, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
    Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to the 
    Constitution of the United States relating to qualifications of 
    electors.
        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that this 
    is District Day, that there are District bills on the calendar, and 
    as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia I 
    respectfully demand recognition so that these bills may be 
    considered.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule, but the gentleman 
    may be heard.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, suspensions were 
    transferred to this day, and under the rules the Speaker has power 
    of recognition at his own discretion.
        Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully call the attention 
    of the chairman to clause 8, rule XXIV, page 432 of the House 
    Manual. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I submit that rule is clear that when the time is 
    claimed and the opportunity is claimed the Chair shall permit those 
    bills to be considered.
        Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit my point of order 
    is well taken, and that I should be permitted to call up bills 
    which are now pending on the calendar from the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I should like 
    to be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House on 
    some things are very clear, and the rules of the House either mean 
    something or they do not mean anything.
        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Abernethy], 
    has just

[[Page 3768]]

    called to the Chair's attention clause 8 of rule XXIV. Nothing 
    could be clearer; nothing could be more mandatory. I want to repeat 
    it because I hope the Chair will not fall into an error on this 
    proposition:

            The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the 
        disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the 
        disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires 
        reference only--

        And that is all; that is all that you can consider-disposition 
    of motions to discharge committees--
        and after the disposal of such business on the Speaker's table 
        as requires reference only--

        That is all that the Chair is permitted to consider.
        Mr. Speaker, after that is done the day--
        shall when claimed by the Committee on the District of 
        Columbia, be set apart for the consideration of such business 
        as may be presented by said committee.

        Mr. Speaker, I know that the majority leader bases his defense 
    upon the theory that the House having given unanimous consent to 
    hear suspensions on this Monday instead of last Monday when they 
    should have been heard--and I doubt if very many Members were here 
    when that consent order was made and I am quite sure that a great 
    number of them had no notice that it was going to be made, and 
    certainly I did not--now the majority leader undertakes to say that 
    having gotten unanimous consent to consider this motion on this day 
    to suspend the rules, therefore, it gives the Speaker carte blanche 
    authority to do away with the rule which gives first consideration 
    to District of Columbia matters. Mr. Speaker, there was no waiver 
    of the rule on the District of Columbia. That consent did not 
    dispose or dispense with the business on the District of Columbia 
    day. The rule is completely mandatory. The rule says that on the 
    second and fourth Mondays, if the District of Columbia claims the 
    time, that the Speaker shall recognize them for such dispositions 
    as they desire to call.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to 
    transfer the consideration of business under suspension of the 
    rules on Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the 
    consideration of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the 
    rules today is a privileged motion. The matter is within the 
    discretion of the Chair as to the matter of recognition.

Sec. 1.12 On one occasion the Speaker, having recognized one Member to 
    propound a parliamentary inquiry regarding the status of a 
    resolution as ``unfinished business,'' then recognized the Member 
    who had offered the resolution to withdraw it, thus eliminating the 
    reason for the inquiry.

    On Apr. 8, 1964, a demand was made for the reading of the engrossed 
copy of a bill where the engrossment was not yet prepared. The bill was 
laid aside and

[[Page 3769]]

the House proceeded to consider a resolution (concurring in a Senate 
amendment to a House bill). Prior to the disposition of that 
resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a 
recess pursuant to authority previously granted.
    At the conclusion of the recess, the Speaker stated the unfinished 
business to be the reading of the engrossed copy of the bill on which 
the demand had been made. A parliamentary inquiry with respect to the 
order of business was then raised by Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio. The 
ensuing proceedings, during which the Speaker asserted his right of 
recognition to permit a Member to withdraw the resolution, are 
discussed fully in the next precedent.\(20\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sec. 1.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.13 The power of recognition rests with the Chair and is subject 
    to his discretion.

    On one occasion, the Speaker, having recognized one Member to 
propound a parliamentary inquiry regarding the status of a resolution 
as ``unfinished business,'' then recognized another Member to withdraw 
the resolution, thus eliminating the reason for the inquiry.
    On Apr. 8, 1964, a demand was made for the reading of the engrossed 
copy of a bill where the engrossment was not yet prepared. The bill was 
laid aside and the House proceeded to consider a resolution (concurring 
in Senate amendments to a House bill). Prior to the disposition of that 
resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a 
recess pursuant to authority previously granted.
    At the conclusion of the recess, the Speaker stated the unfinished 
business to be the reading of the engrossed copy of the bill on which 
the demand had been made. The following inquiry and its disposition 
then ensued:

        The Speaker: The unfinished business is the reading of the 
    engrossed copy of H.R. 10222.
        The Clerk will read the engrossed copy.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, when the recess was called, 
    it is my understanding that we were engaged in the consideration of 
    what is referred to as a cotton and wheat bill. Is it not the rule 
    of the House that we must finish the consideration of that measure 
    before we take up any other measure which has been passed over for 
    parliamentary and mechanical reasons?
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bolling].

[[Page 3770]]

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, under the rules I withdraw House 
    Resolution 66a.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, that takes 
    unanimous consent, and I object.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that it does not take 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the resolution in the House.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that 
    the Speaker was addressing the Member now addressing the Chair and 
    had not given an answer to my question. Therefore, the recognition 
    of the Member from the other side the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Bolling] was out of order. Am I incorrect?
        The Speaker: The recognition of the gentleman from Missouri 
    [Mr. Bolling] terminated the parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: In other words, the Speaker did not 
    answer the parliamentary inquiry; is that correct?
        The Speaker: Since the resolution was withdrawn, the 
    parliamentary inquiry was ended.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: If the Speaker will respectfully permit, 
    the gentleman from Ohio would suggest that the question had been 
    asked before the resolution had been withdrawn.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has the power 
    of recognition. Now that the resolution has been withdrawn, the 
    unfinished business is the reading of the engrossed copy of H.R. 
    10222.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: The Speaker had recognized the gentleman 
    from Ohio for a parliamentary inquiry. The parliamentary inquiry 
    had been made. The parliamentary inquiry had not been answered and 
    yet the Chair recognized the gentleman from Missouri.
        The Speaker: Which the Chair has the power to do.
        The Clerk will read the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether the 
    parliamentary inquiry which I addressed to the Chair is-now not to 
    be answered, because of the action of the gentleman from Missouri?
        The Speaker: The gentleman will repeat his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry was 
    to the effect that inasmuch as the House was engaged at the 
    business before it at the time the Speaker called the recess, 
    whether the rules of the House did not call for the conclusion of 
    that business before other business which had been postponed by the 
    House under the rules of the House and in accordance with the 
    procedures of the House did not have to follow consideration of any 
    business that was before the House at the time of the calling of 
    the recess?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Missouri withdrew his resolution. If he had not withdrawn the 
    resolution the situation might have been different.
        The Chair has made a ruling that the unfinished business is the 
    reading

[[Page 3771]]

    of the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222. That is the unfinished 
    business.\(1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair May Decline Recognition for Unanimous-consent Requests

Sec. 1.14 The Speaker discussed the practice of recognizing Members for 
    unanimous-consent requests for the consideration of bills.

    On July 1, 1932,\(2\) Speaker John N. Garner, 
of Texas, made a statement relative to recognition for certain 
unanimous-consent requests:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 75 Cong. Rec. 14511, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Willam A.] Pittenger [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I had 
    planned to ask unanimous consent for the consideration of a 
    measure, but the watchdog of the Treasury from Milwaukee has asked 
    me to wait until after 6 o'clock, so I can not make the request.
        The Speaker: In order that gentlemen may understand the 
    situation, let the Chair state how it is the Chair recognizes 
    certain gentlemen. The Chair must decline to recognize a great many 
    gentlemen who have meritorious matters, because the Chair must have 
    some yardstick that can be applied to every Member of the House. 
    The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Pittenger] had a bill that had 
    passed the House unanimously, had gone to the Senate, and had an 
    amendment placed on it there, adding one name. The Chair thinks in 
    a case of that kind, where unanimous consent has to be given, it is 
    well enough for the Chair to recognize the Member for that purpose; 
    but the Chair will not recognize gentlemen to take up as an 
    original proposition private claims or other matters unless they 
    are of an emergency nature and apply to the general public rather 
    than to one individual.

Sec. 1.15 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member to request 
    unanimous consent to make an omnibus private bill eligible for 
    consideration during a call of the Private Calendar on a specific 
    day, when the House had previously agreed by unanimous con'' sent 
    that it be passed over.

    On July 15, 1968,\(3\) Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, declined to recognize Mr. William L. 
Hungate, of Missouri, to make the unanimous-consent request that the 
first omnibus private bill of 1968 (H.R. 16187) be placed on the 
Private Calendar for July 16. The House had previously agreed, on July 
12, 1968, to the unanimous consent request of Majority Leader Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, that the bill be passed over and not considered 
during the call of the Private Calendar on July 
16.\(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 21326, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Id. at p. 20998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3772]]

Sec. 1.16 The Speaker declines to recognize Members for unanimous 
    consent requests that bills stricken from the Private Calendar be 
    restored thereto until they have consulted with the official 
    objectors.

    On Apr. 12, 1948,\(5\) Mr. Thomas J. Lane, of 
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that a bill previously stricken 
from the Private Calendar be restored thereto. Speaker Joseph W. 
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, inquired whether he had consulted with 
the official objectors. Mr. Lane responded that he had not, and the 
Speaker responded that ``The Chair cannot entertain the gentleman's 
request until he has done so.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 94 Cong. Rec. 4573, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.17 The Chair refuses to recognize Members after the absence of a 
    quorum has been announced by the Chair, and no business is in order 
    until a quorum has been established.

    On June 8, 1960,\(6\) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, 
of Michigan, made the point of order that a quorum was not present. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, counted and announced the absence of a 
quorum, and a call of the House was ordered. The Speaker declined to 
recognize Mr. Hoffman, who addressed the Chair seeking recognition 
after the Chair's announcement and after the call of the House was 
ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6.   106 Cong. Rec. 12142, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.18 The Chair declined to recognize Members for extensions of 
    remarks and one-minute speeches before proceeding with unfinished 
    business.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,\(7\) Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, announced, following the approval of the 
Journal and the receipt of messages from the President, that the Chair 
would receive unanimous-consent requests after the ``disposition of 
pending business.'' The pending business was unfinished business from 
the prior day, the vote on agreeing to a resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 27640, 27641, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

House May Determine Order of Consideration

Sec. 1.19 Where two propositions of equal privilege are pending, it is 
    for the Chair to determine whom he will recognize to call up one of 
    the

[[Page 3773]]

    propositions, but the House may by unanimous consent determine such 
    precedence.

    On Sept. 11, 1945,\(8\) Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, entertained a unanimous-consent request relating to the order 
of business and responded to a parliamentary inquiry as to its effect:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 91 Cong. Rec. 8610, 8511, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North 
    Carolina.
        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on tomorrow, 
    immediately after the meeting of the House for business, to 
    consider the bill (H.R. 3974) to repeal war time; that general 
    debate be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled 
    by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], chairman of the 
    subcommittee, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Holmes].
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, and I shall not because I want to 
    congratulate the committee on bringing in the legislation at this 
    early date, as I understand it, that will be the first order of 
    business tomorrow?
        Mr. Bulwinkle: Yes; that is my understanding.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, I was under the impression that H.R. 3660 was 
    to be the next order of business.
        The Speaker: That is a question for the Chair, as to whether 
    the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Illinois to call up the 
    rule or recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma to call up the bill 
    repealing war time. The request being made at this time is for the 
    war time repeal bill to take precedence.

Sec. 1.20 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,\(9\) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 4877, 4878, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 unfinished before adjournment of 
    the day on which it is called up, it shall remain the unfinished 
    business until it is fully disposed .''

[[Page 3774]]

        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. 1.21 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,(10) Chairman Leslie C. Arends, of 
Illinois, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows in the Committee 
of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 4873, 4874, 80th Cong. 21 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.

Role of Committee in Scheduling Legislation

Sec. 1.22 The Speaker declined to recognize the chairman of one 
    committee for a unani

[[Page 3775]]

    mous-consent request to rerefer a bill until the chairman of the 
    other committee involved was consulted.

    On Mar. 25, 1948,(11) Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts, Chairwoman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, asked 
unanimous consent that the committee be discharged from further 
consideration of the bill and that it be rereferred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
inquired whether Mrs. Rogers had consulted with the Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and Mrs. Rogers responded that she had not. 
The Speaker declined to recognize her for the request, stating that, 
``it is customary to consult with the chairman of the committee to whom 
the bill is to be referred.'' He indicated that the matter could again 
be brought up on the following week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 3673, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 1.23 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member for a unanimous-
    consent request to take a bill from the Speaker's table and concur 
    in the Senate amendments where such a request was made without the 
    authorization of the chairman of the committee involved and where 
    Members had been informed there would be no further legislative 
    business for the day.

    On July 31, 1969,(12) Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, 
sought recognition to ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's 
table a bill (H.R. 9951) providing for the collection of federal 
unemployment tax, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the 
Senate amendments. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
declined to recognize for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.  115 Cong. Rec. 21691, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that at this time the Chair 
    does not recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for that purpose.
        The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is at present 
    appearing before the Committee on Rules seeking a rule and Members 
    have been told that there would be no further business tonight.
        The Chair does not want to enter into an argument with any 
    Member, particularly the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana 
    whom I admire very much. But the Chair has stated that the Chair 
    does not recognize the gentlem an for that purpose.
        Mr. Boggs: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman fr om Louisiana equally 
    admires the gentle man in the chair. I thoroughly understand the 
    position of the distinguish ed Speaker.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 18920, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1960, 
        for a statement by the Speaker that only the chairman of the 
        committee with jurisdiction would be recognized to ask 
        unanimous consent to take a bill from the table, disagree to 
        the Senate amendment, and ask for a conference.

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

[[Page 3776]]

Sec. 1.24 Unfinished business in the Committee of the Whole does not 
    come up automatically when that class of business is again in 
    order, but may be called up by a Member in charge of the 
    legislation (by a motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole 
    for the further consideration of the measure).

    On May 9, 1932,(14) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of business on District 
of Columbia Monday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 9836, 72d Cong. Ist Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to call up concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
    27), and yield five minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Harlan, 
    to offer an amendment thereto.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stafford: Mr. Speaker, on the last day given over to 
    District business, House Joint Resolution 154, providing for a 
    merger of the street-railway systems in the District of Columbia, 
    uas the unfinished business. As this joint resolution was the 
    unfinished business when the District Committee last had the call, 
    is it not the unfinished business when the House resumes 
    consideration of District business?
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks not, because a motion to consider 
    it is necessary. Wherever a motion is required, the unfinished 
    business has no precedence over any other business.

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Joint Resolution 154 had last been 
under consideration on District Monday, Apr. 25, 1932, in Committee of 
the Whole; the Committee of the Whole had come to no conclusion 
thereon.

Sec. 1.25 The adoption of a resolution making in order the 
    consideration of a bill does not necessarily make the bill the 
    unfinished business the next day, and the bill can only be called 
    up by a Member designated by the committee to do so.

    On July 19, 1939,(15) the House adopted a resolution 
from the Committee on Rules making in order the consideration of a 
bill. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry on the status of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 9541, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3777]]

bill thereby made in order as unfinished business:

        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.


                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 
Sec. 2. Prayer, Approval of Journal, and Business on the Speaker's 
    Table

    Rule XXIV clause 1 (16) provides for the order of 
business when the House convenes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        l. The daily order of business shall be as follows:
        First. Prayer by the Chaplain.
        Second. Reading and approval of the Journal.
        Third. Correction of reference of public bills.
        Fourth. Disposal of business on the Speaker's table.
        Fifth. Unfinished business.
        Sixth. The morning hour for the consideration of bills called 
    up by committees.
        Seventh. Motions to go into Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union.
        Eighth. Orders of the day.

    Similarly, Rule XXIV clause 2 (17) provides for the 
disposition of business on the Speaker's table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 882 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        2. 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; 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 already favorably reported by 
    a committee of the House, and not required to be considered in 
    Committee of the Whole, be disposed of in the same manner on motion 
    directed to be made by such committee.

    No business is in order before the prayer, which is offered daily 
when the House meets, and a point of order of no quorum is not 
entertained before the prayer.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 2.1-2.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next order of business is the approval of the Journal. Prior

[[Page 3778]]

to the 92d Congress, one Member could, under then Rule I clause 1, 
demand the reading of the Journal in full, and intervening points of 
order of no quorum could be made during such reading, delaying the 
business of the House for many hours on some occasions. Under the 1973 
version of the rule, the Speaker announces his approval of the Journal, 
whereupon it is considered as read (unless the Speaker in his 
discretion orders its reading). Only one motion is in order that the 
Journal be read (a nondebatable motion).(19) Messages from 
the President and Senate have been received and questions of privileges 
of the House have been raised before the approval of the 
Journal,(20) but no other business, including a privileged 
report from the Committee on Rules, may intervene.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1973).
20. See Sec. Sec. 2.5, 2.8, infra. 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1630; 6 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 637.
1. See Sec. 2.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the approval of the Journal, motions (or unanimous 
consent requests) to correct the rereference of public bills are in 
order, and such motions may be made at a later point in the proceedings 
only by unanimous consent.(2) In the current practice of the 
House, one-minute speeches, although not provided for by the rule, are 
entertained immediately following the approval of the Journal by 
unanimous consent and before any legislative business (including the 
rereference of bills).(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Sec. Sec. 2.14-2.16, infra.
3. For the place in the order of business of one-minute speeches, see 
        Sec. 6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XXIV (4) next provides for the disposal of business 
on the Speaker's table. Business on the table consists of executive 
communications, messages from the President, bills, resolutions, and 
messages from the Senate, and House bills with Senate amendments. 
Messages from the President and messages from the Senate are matters of 
privilege and may be received, laid before the House and disposed of at 
any time when business permits; where they are received during a quorum 
call which results in an adjournment of the House, they are held at the 
desk until the next legislative day.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 878, 882 (1979)
5. See Sec. Sec. 2.22, 2.23, infra. Such messages have been received 
        before the approval of the Journal; see Sec. Sec. 2.5, 2.8, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Normally, executive communications are referred after the ap

[[Page 3779]]

proval of the Journal; if the House adjourns before such approval, the 
communications are held at the desk until the next legislative. 
day.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. See Sec. 2.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XXIV clause 2 provides for the immediate disposal, after the 
correction of reference of public bills, of certain House bills with 
Senate amendments and certain Senate bills.(7) Most Senate 
bills and House bills with Senate amendments do not, however, comply 
with the requirements of the rule, since requiring consideration in 
Committee of the Whole. They mav be disposed of at any time before the 
stage of disagreement (when business permits) by unanimous consent, by 
a motion to ask for or agree to a conference if authorized by the 
committee (and if entertained by the Speaker in his discretion), by 
suspension of the rules, or by a resolution from the Committee on 
Rules.(8) And after the stage of disagreement has been 
reached, a bill with amendments between the Houses is privileged for 
consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See Sec. Sec. 2.18 (Senate bills substantially the same as reported 
        House bills on the House Calendar) and 2.21 (House bill with 
        Senate amendments not requiring consideration in Committee of 
        the Whole), infra.
8. See Sec. Sec. 2.19 (note) and 2.20, infra. For a complete 
        discussion, see Ch. 32, infra (discussing amendments between 
        the Houses), and Ch. 33, infra (House-Senate Conferences).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offering of Prayer

Sec. 2.1 The Chaplain offers prayer daily, whether the House has 
    adjourned until the next day or has recessed.

    On June 17, 1948, the House recessed at 8:12 p.m. until 10 a.m. on 
June 18. When the House was called to order at the conclusion of the 
recess, prayer was offered by the Reverend James Shera 
Montgomery.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 8824, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.2 The prayer offered at the beginning of the business of the 
    House is not considered as business and the Speaker does not 
    recognize a point of order that a quorum is not present before the 
    prayer.

    On Aug. 4, 1950,(10) Mr. Robert F. Rich, of 
Pennsylvania, sought to make a point of order that a quorum was not 
present, before the prayer had been offered. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, responded ``We will have the prayer first, because that is not 
considered business.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 11829, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XV clause 6, as added during the

[[Page 3780]]

93d Congress, prohibits the making or entertaining of a point of order 
that a quorum is not present before or during the offering of prayer.

Sec. 2.3 On one occasion, prayer was not offered by the Chaplain until 
    a Speaker had been elected and the oath administered to him (the 
    late Speaker having died between the first and second session).

    On Jan. 10, 1962,(11) the convening day of the second 
session of the 87th Congress, the Clerk called the House to order, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, having died before the convening. The 
House proceeded to elect a new Speaker (John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts) who was sworn in by the Dean of the House, Carl Vinson, 
of Georgia, before prayer was offered by the Chaplain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 5, 6, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Approval of Journal in Order Of Business

Sec. 2.4 Under the order of business prescribed by Rule XXIV, 
    legislative business on the Speaker's table is not disposed of 
    until the Journal has been approved, and executive communications 
    on the Speaker's table are not referred when the House adjourns 
    before the reading or approval of the Journal.

    On Dec. 7, 1963,(12) Mr. William K. Van Pelt, of 
Wisconsin, made a point of order that a quorum was not present, 
immediately after the offering of prayer and before the approval of the 
Journal. Mr. John E. Moss, Jr., of California, moved that the House 
adjourn, and the motion was agreed to. Executive communications on the 
Speaker's table were not referred, in accordance with Rule XXIV clause 
2, but were held at the Speaker's table and referred on Dec. 9, the 
next meeting day of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 109 Cong. Rec. 23751, 23752, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent, and the following ones 
relating to the reading and approval of the Journal as to the order of 
business, predate the 1971 change in Rule I clause 1, implementing the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140). The rule was 
amended to change the former requirement that the Journal be read in 
full, such reading to be dispensed with only by unanimous consent. The 
rule now provides for the Speaker to announce his approval of the 
Journal, whereon it shall be considered read, unless the Speaker

[[Page 3781]]

in his discretion orders its reading. One motion is in order that the 
Journal be read.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For the 1971 amendment to Rule I, see H. Res. 5, 117 Cong. Rec. 
        140-44, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 22, 1971 (implementing 
        Sec. 127 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, Pub. L. 
        No. 91-510, 84 Stat. 1140).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.5 Messages from the Senate have been received before the 
    approval of the Journal.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(14) there was pending before the 
House a motion to approve the Journal. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, received a message from the Senate, announcing the 
passage by the Senate of a House bill. The Speaker overruled a point of 
order against the procedure:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 23604, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa 
    arise?
        Mr. Gross: The transacting of business of the House prior to 
    adoption of the reading of the Journal.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state it is always proper, as well 
    as courteous, to receive a message from the President of the United 
    States, or from the other body, as quickly as possible.

    On Sept. 11, 1968,(15) there was pending before the 
House a motion to dispense with further proceedings under a call of the 
House, where the call was ordered before the reading and approval of 
the Journal. Before the motion was dispensed with, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, received a message from the Senate, 
announcing that the Senate had agreed to a conference 
report.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 114 Cong. Rec. 26453, 26454, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. See also 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 19, 1962; 
        and 108 Cong. Rec. 17651--54, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 27, 
        1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.6 The oath may be administered to a Member-elect before the 
    approval of the Journal.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(17) Mr. Ellsworth B. Buck, of New 
York, made the point of order that a quorum was not present prior to 
the reading and approval of the Journal. At the request of Speaker 
Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, Mr. Buck withheld his point of 
order in order that the certificate of election of a Member-elect could 
be laid before the House and that he be sworn in. Following the 
completion of the administration of the oath, Mr. Buck renewed his 
point of order and a call of the House ensued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 4834, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The administration of the oath is pre

[[Page 3782]]

sented as a question of the privileges of the House, which if properly 
raised takes precedence over the approval of the Journal; for a 
complete discussion of the oath, see Chapter 2, supra. Questions of 
constitutional privilege, of which there are few, such as propositions 
to impeach, also take precedence over the approval of the 
Journal.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See the discussion at 31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.7 Calendar Wednesday business may be dispensed with by unanimous 
    consent but not by motion before the approval of the Journal.

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

Sec. 2.8 A message from the President was received before the approval 
    of the Journal.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(20) three quorum calls and two record 
votes on the motion to dispense with further proceedings under the call 
interrupted the reading of the Journal, on a day when a Member intended 
to move to suspend the rules and pass a joint resolution amending the 
Constitution to abolish poll taxes as a qualification for federal 
electors. Before the reading of the Journal had been completed, Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, received a message in writing from 
the President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 17651-54, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.9 Unanimous-consent requests for insertions in the Record are 
    not received by the Speaker prior to the completion of the reading 
    and approval of the Journal.

    On Sept. 19, 1962,(1) before the reading and approval of 
the Journal, Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, asked unanimous consent to 
insert in the Congressional Record with his own remarks a letter from 
the Secretary of State to the Speaker. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated that the request would ``have to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3783]]

wait until after the Journal has been read and acted upon.''

Sec. 2.10 Prior to the conclusion of the reading and approval of the 
    Journal, the Speaker declared a recess subject to the call of the 
    Chair (pursuant to authority previously granted).

    On Apr. 9, 1964,(2) before the reading and approval of 
the Journal, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a 
recess, in order that Members could proceed to the Rotunda of the 
Capitol to witness the conclusion of lying-in-state ceremonies for the 
late General of the Army, Douglas MacArthur. The Speaker had previously 
been authorized by the House to declare a recess at any time on the day 
in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 110 Cong. Rec. 7354, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.11 Numerous parliamentary inquiries concerning the anticipated 
    order of business were entertained by the Chair during the reading 
    of the Journal.

    On Sept. 11, 1968,(3) two quorum calls interrupted the 
reading of the Journal. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
entertained and responded to several parliamentary inquiries on the 
order of business (in relation to a conference report on the Defense 
Department appropriation bill, H.R. 18707) before concluding the 
reading and approval of the Journal. The Speaker noted that recognition 
for parliamentary inquiries was always within the discretion of the 
Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 26453-56, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.12 A privileged report from the Committee on Rules may not be 
    called up before the approval of the Journal, contrary to early 
    practice.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(4) when various quorum calls had 
interrupted the reading of the Journal (the scheduled business was a 
bill suspending for the 1968 Presidential campaign equal-time 
requirements of the Communications Act of 1934), Speaker pro tempore 
Wilbur D. Mill, of Arkansas, responded to a parliamentary inquiry 
concerning the order of business before the reading and approval of the 
Journal:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 114 Cong. Rec. 30095, 30096, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas will state 
    his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, under rule 
    11 of the rules of the House it is held that it

[[Page 3784]]

    shall always be in order to call up for consideration a report on 
    legislative business from the Committee on Rules.
        I discover that on one occasion the Chair did recognize a 
    member of the Committee on Rules to call up a resolution providing 
    a special order for the consideration of the bill. On that occasion 
    one of the Members made a point of order against the consideration 
    of that resolution to the effect that no business was in order 
    until after the reading and the approval of the Journal of the 
    proceedings of the previous session. After debate, the Speaker 
    overruled the point of order on the ground that under clause 51 of 
    rule 11 it shall always be in order to call up for consideration a 
    report from the Committee on Rules, and that like a motion to 
    adjourn, which is ``always in order,'' such report may be called up 
    before as well as after the reading of the Journal.
        The other Member, Mr. Tracey, appealed from the decision of the 
    Chair. This appeal was laid upon the table by a vote of yeas 195, 
    nays 73.
        Mr. Speaker, my inquiry is this: Under that rule and under that 
    precedent would it not be in order, particularly in view of the 
    very obvious dilatory tactics being employed on the part of certain 
    Members of this body on the other side of the aisle to prevent the 
    transaction of business, for the Chair to recognize a member of the 
    Committee on Rules as the spokesman of the Committee on Rules to 
    call up a rule in order that the business of the House may be 
    transacted and the will of the majority of the Members of the House 
    may be worked?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Did the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Wright] put his inquiry in the form of a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Wright: Yes, Mr. Speaker. At the end of the statement was a 
    question mark. The question is, Would it be in order under the 
    circumstances and in view of this precedent for the Chair forthwith 
    to recognize the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Madden] who acts at 
    the direction of the Committee on Rules to call up a special order 
    for consideration of the bill and permit the House to work its 
    will?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair understands the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, with 
    reference to that particular point, may I call the attention of the 
    Chair to rule XI, section 22, which states that--

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

        As I understand the gentleman from Texas and his inquiry of the 
    Chair, it is whether it is not in order for a Member to call up a 
    report from the Committee on Rules----
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: The citation and precedent 
    used by the gentleman from Oklahoma and also the rule cited by the 
    gentleman from Illinois appear to have reference to proceedings 
    either before or after an act such as the reading of the Journal 
    and not within the pending business which is the reading of the 
    Journal.
        I wish to point out to the Chair the distinction between the 
    situation posed

[[Page 3785]]

    by the parlinmentary inquiry of the gentleman from Texas and his 
    precedents, and the situation actually before the House at this 
    moment when there is pending an unread Journal.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to respond to the 
    parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wright]. The 
    Chair will state that the Chair is aware of the precedent to which 
    the gentleman points and poses in propounding his parliamentary 
    inquiry, and appreciates the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] 
    calling attention of the Chair to the rule, and the statement of 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Hosmer].
        However, in Cannon's Precedents, volume 6 of the 1936 edition, 
    section 630, the ruling pointed to by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Wright] has been superceded by a subsequent ruling of the Chair:

            On January 23, 1913, immediately after prayer by the 
        Chaplain and before the Journal had been read, Mr. James R. 
        Mann, of Illinois, made the point of order that a quorum was 
        not present. A call of the House was ordered, and a quorum 
        having appeared, Mr. Augustus P. Gardner, of Massachusetts, 
        proposed to present a conference report.

        Of course, a conference report is a highly privileged matter.

            The Speaker ruled that no business was in order until the 
        Journal had been read and approved.

        Thus it would not be in order for the Speaker to recognize a 
    member of the Committee on Rules to present a rule before the 
    completion of the reading of the Journal of yesterday.

Sec. 2.13 A question of personal privilege (as opposed to a question of 
    the privileges of the House) cannot be raised before the approval 
    of the Journal.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(5) before the reading and approval of 
the Journal, on a day when the House had ordered the doors to the 
Chamber locked (various calls of the House and privileged motions 
having interrupted the reading of the Journal) Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, declined to recognize a Member on a 
question of personal privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214--16, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Taft [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio 
    rise?
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker. That is not in order until the reading of the Journal has 
    been completed.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state his privileged 
    motion?
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, my motion is on a point of personal 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state whether it is a 
    point of personal privilege or a privileged motion?
        Mr. Taft: It is a privileged motion, and a motion of personal 
    privilege.
        Under rule IX questions of personal privilege are privileged 
    motions, ahead of the reading of the Journal.

[[Page 3786]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that a 
    question of personal privilege should be made later after the 
    Journal has been disposed of.
        If the gentleman has a matter of privilege of the House, that 
    is an entirely different situation.

    When Mr. Taft again sought recognition and sought to raise a 
question of the privileges of the House, the Speaker heard the question 
and ruled that no question of the privileges of the House was stated. 
An appeal from the Speaker's ruling was laid on the table.

Motions to Rerefer Public Bills After Approval of Journal

Sec. 2.14 A motion or unanimous-consent request to correct the 
    reference of a public bill may be made on any day immediately after 
    the reading and approval of the Journal.

    On Apr. 2, 1935,(6) following the approval of the 
Journal, Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, asked unanimous consent, by 
direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, that H.R. 6547, originally 
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, be re-referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. When the request was objected to, Mr. 
Celler offered a motion for the same purpose. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, 
of Tennessee, answered parliamentary inquiries on the place of the 
motion in the order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 79 Cong. Rec. 4878, 4879, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of New York]: May I ask, according 
    to the rules, if a motion to correct a reference must not be made 
    immediately after the reading of the Journal and before any other 
    business has been transacted?
        The Speaker: There has been no business transacted, the Chair 
    may say to the gentleman from Virginia, except unanimous-consent 
    requests.
        Mr. Bland: I thought that was business. I have no interest in 
    the pending matter at all.
        The Speaker: The House has not proceeded with the business on 
    the Speaker's table as yet. What has been done up to this time has 
    been by unanimous consent.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See also 83 Cong. Rec. (11)42, 1143, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Jan. 26, 
        1938, where Speaker William B. Bankhead (Ala.) overruled a 
        point of order against the consideration of a bill on the 
        grounds that it had been improperly referred, after the 
        committee of reference had reported the bill. The Chair alluded 
        to Rule XXII, clause 3 [subsequently Rule XXII, clause 4, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1979)] providing for the motion to 
        correct reference and its place in the order of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In current practice, rereference of bills 
is usually done by unanimous consent and with the concurrence of both 
committees involved.

[[Page 3787]]

Sec. 2.15 The rule providing that rereference of bills on motion of a 
    committee claiming jurisdiction may be made immediately after the 
    reading of the Journal (Rule XXII, clause 4) was construed to mean 
    before any business was transacted, but the motion may be made 
    after one-minute speeches are made.

    On Apr. 21, 1942,(8) following the approval of the 
Journal and some one-minute speeches, Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New 
York, moved the rereference of a bill, by direction of the Committee on 
Immigration and Naturalization. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
made the point of order that no such motion was in order, and Speaker 
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, quoted the rule providing for the motion (Rule 
XXII, clause 4) and overruled the point of order. He then ruled as 
follows on ensuing points of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 88 Cong. Rec. 3571, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order that the gentleman's motion has come too late. The bill has 
    already been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and 
    printed, and the motion is not in order.
        The Speaker: On the point that the motion comes to late in that 
    business has been transacted in the House today, the Chair may say 
    that since the reading of the Journal the only business that has 
    been transacted has been 1-minute speeches. The Chair is 
    constrained to overrule the point of order of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi on the ground that he thinks it involves too technical 
    a construction of the rule.

    On motion of Mr. Rankin, the motion of rereference was laid on the 
table.

Sec. 2.16 The House granted consent that it be in order for a Member to 
    move the rereference of a bill at any time during the day 
    notwithstanding the rule (Rule XXII, clause 4) requiring that such 
    motions be made immediately after the reading of the Journal.

    On June 18, 1952,(9) Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, asked 
unanimous consent, after the reading of the Journal, that it be in 
order for him to make a motion at any time on that day to rerefer a 
bill. He stated that the purpose of the request was to defer offering 
the motion until another concerned Member should reach the floor, 
despite the requirement of Rule XXII, clause 4, that motions to re-
refer be made immediately after the reading of the Journal. The request 
was agreed to and Mr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 98 Cong. Rec. 7532, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3788]]

Vinson offered the motion to re-refer later in the day's proceedings.

Business on the Speaker's Table

Sec. 2.17 Under the order of business prescribed by Rule XXIV, 
    legislative business on the Speaker's table is not disposed of 
    until the Journal has been approved, and executive communications 
    on the Speaker's table are not referred when the House adjourns 
    before the reading or approval of the Journal.

    On Dec. 7, 1963,(10) Mr. William K. Van Pelt, of 
Wisconsin, made a point of order that a quorum was not present, 
immediately after the offering of prayer and before the approval of the 
Journal. Mr. John E. Moss, Jr., of California, moved that the House 
adjourn, and the motion was agreed to. Executive communications on the 
Speaker's table were not referred, accordance with Rule XXIV, clause 2, 
but were held at the Speaker's table and referred on Dec. 9, the next 
meeting day of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 109 Cong. Rec. 23751, 23752, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.18 Senate bills substantially the same as House bills already 
    favorably reported by a committee of the House and on the House 
    Calendar may be called up for consideration, by direction of the 
    committee reporting the bill, on any day immediately following the 
    correction of reference of public bills.

    On Mar. 26, 1934,(11) after the approval of the Journal 
and the correction of reference of public bills, pursuant to the order 
of business specified in Rule XXIV, the following proceedings took 
place on a Senate bill on the Speaker's table (Speaker Henry T. Rainey, 
of Illinois, presiding):

        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent for the present consideration of the bill (S. 
    2950) to authorize steam railroads to electrify their lines within 
    the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 78 Cong. Rec. 5425-27, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Maryland?
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve 
    the right to object.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Connor: Is it necessary to ask unanimous consent to call 
    up a District of Columbia bill today?

[[Page 3789]]

        The Speaker: The Chair is advised it is not. . . .
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a 
    very easy matter to have this bill passed upon by the Interstate 
    Commerce Commission. I dislike to object, but----
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Byrns [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that it is too late to object. This is District day, 
    and it is in order to call the bill up for consideration.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blaton [of Texas]: This bill is called up as a 
    matter of right.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully as the bill 
    was called up and watched the proceedings with that point in mind. 
    After the colloquy with the gentleman from New York, the Republican 
    leader, nothing was said except that the Clerk would report the 
    bill. . . .
        Mr. O'Connor: I asked the Chair whether unanimous consent was 
    necessary to call up this bill and the Chair ruled that it was not 
    necessary.
        The Speaker: That was the ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to be technical in 
    this. If the gentleman from Maryland wishes to move that the House 
    consider this legislation, of course, I cannot object to that, but 
    I do object to taking it up by unanimous consent.
        The Speaker: This bill is on the House Calendar.
        Mr. Mapes: But no effort has been made to call it up except by 
    unanimous consent, and unanimous consent has not yet been given.
        The Speaker: This is District of Columbia day, and the Acting 
    Chairman of the District Committee, by direction of that committee, 
    may call this bill up as a matter of right. The Chair will say that 
    a similar House bill was favorably reported by the District 
    Committee and placed on the House Calendar before the Senate bill 
    came over. Under Rule XXIV, clause 2, the Committee on the District 
    of Columbia could dispose of this bill under the provisions of 
    clause 1 of the same rule or the committee could dispose of it 
    under clause 8 of that rule.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXIV, clause 2 [House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 882 (1979)] provides for the immediate disposition (after the 
correction of reference of public bills pursuant to clause 1) of Senate 
bills substantially the same as House bills already reported and not 
required to be considered in Committee of the Whole, and Rule XXIV, 
clause 8 [House Rules and Manual Sec. 899 (1979)] provides for the 
consideration of District of Columbia business on the second and fourth 
Mondays after the disposition of business on the Speaker's table.

Sec. 2.19 House bills with Senate amendments which do not require 
    consideration in the Committee of the Whole may be at once disposed 
    of as the House may, determine and are privileged matters on the 
    Speaker's table.

[[Page 3790]]

    On Feb. 1, 1937,(12) Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, 
called up House Joint Resolution 81, to create a joint congressional 
committee, with a Senate amendment, for immediate consideration as a 
privileged resolution, and moved the previous question thereon. Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, responded to a parliamentary inquiry 
on the privileged nature of the request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 644, 645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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: As most bills with Senate amendments 
require consideration in the Committee of the Whole (before the stage 
of disagreement), they are brought up for disposition either by 
unanimous consent, or by a privileged motion to go to conference under 
Rule XX, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1979). Such 
requests and motions may be made at any time during the proceedings of 
the House when other business is not under consideration, and need not 
be made after the approval of the Journal under Rule XXIV [House Rules 
and Manual Sec. 878 (1979)] .

Sec. 2.20 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member for a unanimous-
    consent request to take a bill from the Speaker's table and concur 
    in the

[[Page 3791]]

    Senate amendments where such a request was made without the 
    authorization of the chairman of the committee involved and where 
    Members had been informed there would be no further legislative 
    business for the day.

    On July 31, 1969,(13) Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, 
sought recognition to ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's 
table a bill (H.R. 9951) providing for the collection of federal 
unemployment tax, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the 
Senate amendments. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
declined to recognize for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 21691, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that at this time the Chair 
    does not recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for that purpose.

    The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is at present 
appearing before the Committee on Rules seeking a rule and Members have 
been told that there would be no further business tonight.
    The Chair does not want to enter into an argument with any Member, 
particularly the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana whom I admire 
very much. But the Chair has stated that the Chair does not recognize 
the gentleman for that purpose.

        Mr. Boggs: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana equally 
    admires the gentleman in the chair. I thoroughly understand the 
    position of the distinguished Speaker.

Sec. 2.21 A motion to concur in the Senate amendments to a House 
    concurrent resolution providing for the signing of enrolled bills 
    during a period of adjournment is privileged under Rule XXIV, 
    clause 2.

    On Oct. 13, 1970,(14) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
brought up as a privileged matter a House concurrent resolution, on the 
Speaker's table, with Senate amendments, authorizing the signing of 
enrolled bills during a period of adjournment. The House agreed to the 
Senate amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 36600, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Congressional Record incorrectly showed 
that the Majority Leader called up the Senate amendments by unanimous 
consent; they were in fact handled as privileged, pursuant to Rule 
XXIV, clause 2.

Sec. 2.22 The reception of a Presidential message is a matter

[[Page 3792]]

    of high privilege in the House, and in response to a parliamentary 
    inquiry the Speaker pro tempore indicated that where such a message 
    is received it is laid before the House as soon as business permits 
    and the precedents do not justify its being held at the desk until 
    another legislative day.

    On June 24, 1968,(15) after the House had completed its 
legislative business for the day, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, received a message from the President, responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as to its disposition, and a quorum call ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 114 Cong. Rec. 18330, 18331, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair lays before the House a 
    message from the President of the United States.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri)]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, in the opinion of the Chair is it 
    necessary that a Presidential message when delivered in writing be 
    presented to the Members of the House immediately or could it be 
    held until the next legislative day?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the 
    distinguished gentleman that when the House is in session, a 
    message from the President is laid before the House.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry, is this 
    done by tradition, at the will of the Chair, or is it supported by 
    a rule of the House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is supported by the custom of the 
    House and the provisions of the constitution.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Could 
    the Chair advise the Members of the House as to the subject of this 
    particular message, arriving at 4:45 in the evening?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It relates to the matter of firearms 
    legislation.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the Members of the House 
    should hear anything that is this important and I make a point of 
    order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently, a quorum is not present.

Sec. 2.23 Where messages from the Senate and the President are received 
    during a call of the House, and the House adjourns when a quorum 
    fails to appear on the call, the messages are held at the Speaker's 
    table until it next convenes.

    On Oct. 12, 1968,(16) a message from the Senate and a 
message from the President, which had
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 114 Cong. Rec. 31116, 31117, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3793]]

been held at the Speaker's table from the previous day, their having 
been received in the absence of a quorum, were laid before the House 
(Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, presiding).

Sec. 2.24 A message from the Senate may be received by the House after 
    the previous question has been ordered, pending the auestion on the 
    passage of a bill.

    On Oct. 3, 1969, the Committee of the Whole rose and reported back 
to the House, with sundry amendments, a bill which had been under 
consideration before the Committee. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated that under the rule, the previous question was 
considered as ordered. Further consideration of the bill was 
interrupted for the receipt of a message from the Senate (announcing 
that the Senate had passed a Senate bill).(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 28487, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 
Sec. 3. Unfinished and Postponed Business

    Rule XXIV clauses 1 (18) and 3 (1) provide 
for the consideration of unfinished business and its place in the order 
of business. Thus, clause 3 provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1979).
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 885 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The consideration of the unfinished business in which the House 
    may be engaged at an adjournment, except business in the morning 
    hour, shall be resumed as soon as the business on the Speaker's 
    table is finished, and at the same time each day thereafter until 
    disposed of, and the consideration of all other unfinished business 
    shall be resumed whenever the class of business to which it belongs 
    shall be in order under the rules.

    Generally, unfinished business coming over from a previous day does 
not automatically come before the House for consideration, but must be 
called up by a Member in charge of the legislation.(2) 
Moreover, as indicated by Rule XXIV clause 3, where unfinished business 
belongs to a certain class of business, such as Private Calendar 
business (3) and District of Columbia 
business,(4) the legislation goes over to the next day eli
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 3.1-3.5, infra. Certain categories of business do 
        come up automatically when unfinished or postponed. Examples 
        are the consideration of a veto message postponed to a day 
        certain (see Sec. 3.38, infra), questions on which the previous 
        question has been ordered (see Sec. 3.20, infra), and recorded 
        votes postponed to a certain day (see Sec. 3.18, infra).
 3. See Sec. 3.35, infra.
 4. See Sec. Sec. 3.25, 3.26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3794]]

gible for the call of the appropriate calendar. If, however, the 
previous question has been ordered on business unfinished when the 
House adjourns, such business becomes in order on the next legislative 
day after the approval of the Journal,(5) except on Calendar 
Wednesday. Discharged bills, brought before the House by a successful 
motion to discharge under Rule XXVII clause 4,(6) remain the 
unfinished business (when called up for consideration) until disposed 
of.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 3.20, 3.21, infra. And see 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 854.
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979).
 7. See Sec. 3.23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognition to call up unfinished business or to control the floor 
thereon, where the previous question has been rejected on a prior day 
and the House has proceeded to other business, should pass to a Member 
who had opposed the previous question, except where no such opposition 
Member immediately seeks recognition and the committee manager is 
directed to call up the matter on the day set aside for that class of 
business (e.g., District Day) and to offer committee amendments.
    Unfinished business is preceded by otherwise privileged business, 
such as the receipt of a message and motions to discharge on discharge 
days.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. Sec. 3.7, 3.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Votes on questions may become the unfinished business on a 
following day when votes are postponed (by special order) or when a 
quorum fails to vote on a question and the House 
adjourns.(9) Votes on unfinished business are put de novo, 
if previously postponed by unanimous consent pending an objection to a 
vote for lack of a quorum, and any Member has the same rights as when 
the question was first put.(10) If the Committee of the 
Whole rises having ordered tellers, the appointment of tellers is the 
unfinished business when the Committee resumes, and ordering tellers 
may be vacated only by unanimous consent.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. Sec. 3.15-3.19, infra.
10. See Sec. 3.18, infra.
11. See Sec. 3.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under prior practice, before Rule XXI was amended (12) 
to delete the right of any Member to demand the reading in full of the 
engrossed copy of a bill, such a demand could render the bill 
unfinished business until the engrossed copy could be 
provided.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 830 and note thereto (1979).
13. See Sec. 3.32, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a measure before the House is postponed to a day cer

[[Page 3795]]

tain either by motion (when in order) or by unanimous consent, the 
measure becomes the unfinished business on the day to which 
postponed.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 3.18, 3.29 (postponed roll call votes), 3.22 
        (postponed conference report), 3.36-3.38 (veto messages 
        postponed by motion), 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calling Up Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.1 Unfinished business on a District of Columbia Monday does not 
    come up automatically when that class of business is again in order 
    but may be called up by a Member in charge of the legislation.

    On May 9, 1932,(15) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of business on District 
of Columbia Monday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 75 Cong. Rec. 9836, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to call up concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
    27), and yield five minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Harlan, 
    to offer an amendment thereto.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stafford: Mr. Speaker, on the last day given over to 
    District business, House Joint Resolution 154, providing for a 
    merger of the street-railway systems in the District of Columbia, 
    was the unfinished business. As this joint resolution was the 
    unfinished business when the District Committee last had the call, 
    is it not the unfinished business when the House resumes 
    consideration of District business?
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks not, because a motion to consider 
    it is necessary. Wherever a motion is required, the unfinished 
    business has no precedence over any other business.

Sec. 3.2 On one occasion, it was held that the rule that recognition 
    passes to the opposition after rejection of the previous question 
    is subject to the following exception: where other business inter-
    venes and occupies the remainder of the day immediately after 
    defeat of the previous question, the bill on which the previous 
    question was rejected must be subsequently called up as unfinished 
    business by a Member directed by his committee to call up that 
    special class of business on a day when that business is in order 
    (since the Speaker does not lay such special bills before the

[[Page 3796]]

    House as unfinished business). Once that Member has called up the 
    bill, however, the Speaker stated he would recognize a Member 
    opposed who immediately sought to offer an amendment.

    On Feb. 8, 1932,(16) Vincent L. Palmisano, of Maryland, 
Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, called up as 
unfinished business S. 1306, to provide for the incorporation of the 
District of Columbia Commission on the George Washington Bicentennial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 75 Cong. Rec. 3548-50, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, raised an inquiry as to the 
parlimentary situation. He stated that the bill had previously been 
before the House (on the preceding District of Columbia Monday) and 
that the previous question had been rejected, requiring recognition to 
offer amendments or motions to pass to the opposition. [On the 
preceding District of Columbia Monday, the Chair had recognized another 
Member, immediately after rejection of the previous question on S. 
1306, to call up a general appropriation bill, which was considered 
until adjournment on that day.]
    Speaker pro tempore Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, however, ruled 
that the chairman of the reporting committee was entitled to 
recognition since the bill could come before the House only by being 
called up as unfinished business.
    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. LaGuardia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. LaGuardia: The bill which the gentleman calls up was before 
    the House two weeks ago.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is unfinished business. We have 
    had a second reading of the bill at the former meeting when the 
    bill was considered on last District day.
        Mr. LaGuardia: But the previous question was voted down.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The previous question was then voted 
    down. It is before the House now for further consideration, just 
    where we left off before.
        Mr. LaGuardia: I ask recognition in opposition.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
    Palmisano], who is the ranking majority member of the committee, is 
    entitled to recognition first to offer committee amendments, and 
    then the gentleman from New York will be recognized.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I assume 
    that when this bill is now brought up we are brought back to the 
    same legislative situation we were in when it was last considered.

[[Page 3797]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is the situation.
        Mr. Stafford: The previous question was then voted down. At 
    that moment any person who wished to propose an amendment would 
    have had the privilege of being recognized. I claim that any person 
    who wishes to offer an amendment has prior recognition to the 
    gentleman from Maryland.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: But the previous question having been 
    voted down, it did not take off the floor the gentleman from 
    Maryland, who stands in the position of chairman of the committee, 
    so the parliamentarian informs the Chair.
        Mr. Stafford: The very fact that the previous question was 
    voted down granted the right to the opposition to offer an 
    amendment and have control of the time. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state the parliamentary 
    situation. On a previous District day when this bill was up for 
    consideration, the previous question was moved and the House voted 
    down that motion. Then the opposition clearly was entitled to 
    recognition. This is another legislative day; and that being true, 
    it is the duty of the Chair to recognize the one standing as 
    chairman of the committee, who is the gentleman from Maryland, to 
    offer committee amendments. Then the Chair will recognize someone 
    in opposition to the bill. The Chair is advised by the 
    parliamentarian that such is the correct procedure.
        Mr. LaGuardia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. LaGuardia: I can not follow the statement of the Chair that 
    the bill is coming before the House de novo. The Chair properly 
    stated that the bill now is the unfinished business. A bill can not 
    change its status because it is the unfinished business and carried 
    over to another day. The previous question having been voted down, 
    the bill is now open to the House for amendment, and on that I have 
    asked for recognition by the Chair to offer an amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that the one 
    acting for the committee in calling up the bill has a right to 
    first offer committee amendments. If the proceedings had continued 
    on the day the previous question was voted down, then any Member 
    opposing the bill gaining recognition could have offered an 
    amendment; but this being another legislative day, it is the duty 
    of the Chair to recognize the acting chairman of the committee in 
    calling up the bill to offer committee amendments, and the Chair 
    has done that. Regardless of his own opinion, the Chair is guided 
    by the parliamentarian. When a parliamentary situation arises 
    whereby the Chair can recognize some one opposed to the bill, the 
    Chair will do that. . . .
        Mr. LaGuardia: I desire recognition for the purpose of getting 
    the floor.
        Mr. Speaker, the first proposition before us, which I believe 
    is more important than the passage of the bill or the merits of 
    this particular bill, is the parliamentary situation.
        The bill was before the House two weeks ago and was considered 
    under the House rules. At that time the time was entirely under the 
    control of the

[[Page 3798]]

    chairman of the committee, and after holding the floor for some 
    time the gentlewoman from New Jersey moved the previous question 
    and the previous question was voted down. Thereafter the House took 
    up other business.
        The bill comes back to us today and I submit that the previous 
    question having been voted down, the bill retains that status. It 
    can not acquire a new status. The previous question having been 
    voted down, that can not be ignored at this time; and that being 
    so, the bill comes before the House as unfinished business, and the 
    bill is before the House now for amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will so hold, that the bill 
    is now before the House for amendment, but the committee had the 
    right first to offer its committee amendments. If there are any 
    other amendments, the Chair will recognize any Member to offer 
    them.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Bills which are in order on certain days 
under the rules of the House do not automatically come before the 
House, but must be called up by an authorized committee member. 
Therefore, in this instance, the Chair recognized the Chairman of the 
Committee on the District of Columbia to bring the bill before the 
House, while indicating he would recognize a Member opposed who 
immediately sought to offer an amendment.

Sec. 3.3 The question as to when the House will consider a bill that 
    was 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 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 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

[[Page 3799]]

    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. 3.4 The adoption of a resolution making in order the consideration 
    of a bill does not make the bill the unfinished business the next 
    day, and the bill can only be called up by a Member designated by 
    the committee to do so.

    On July 19, 1939,(18) the House adopted a resolution 
from the Committee on Rules making in order the consideration of a 
bill. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry on the status of the bill thereby made in order as unfinished 
business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 9541, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 3800]]

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(19) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment Practice 
Act, which had been called up by the Committee on Education and Labor 
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure. The Committee agreed to a 
motion to rise, and, pending a demand for the yeas and nays on the 
motion to adjourn, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 96 Cong. Rec. 2238-40, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Precedence and Order of Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.6 Where the House has postponed to a day certain a veto message 
    and for the same day created a special order for the reading of 
    Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, after the reading of 
    the Journal and disposition of matters on the Speaker's table, the 
    veto message is first considered.

    On Apr. 14, 1948, Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
stated, following the approval of the Journal, the order of business: 
(1) the unfinished business, a veto message postponed to that day by 
motion; (2) the reading of Jefferson's First Inaugural Address by a 
Member designated by the Speaker pursuant to a special order for that 
day (providing for the reading after the approval of the Journal and 
disposition of matters on the Speaker's table); and (3) unanimous-
consent re

[[Page 3801]]

quests and one minute speeches.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.7 Messages from the President, including one received the 
    preceding day, were read and referred before the House proceeded 
    with the unfinished business (the vote on a resolution pending on 
    the preceding day when the House adjourned in the absence of a 
    quorum).

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(21) following the approval of the 
Journal, the Speaker laid before the House two messages from the 
President, which were read and referred, before announcing that the 
unfinished business was the vote on agreeing to a resolution coming 
over from the preceding day. (On Oct. 18, a quorum had failed to appear 
on an automatic roll call vote on agreeing to the resolution, and the 
House had adjourned without completing action thereon.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 112 Cong. Rec. 27640, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.8 The Chair declined to recognize Members for extensions of 
    remarks and oneminute speeches before proceeding with unfinished 
    business on which the previous question had been ordered.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, announced, following the approval of the Journal and the 
receipt of messages from the President, that the Chair would receive 
unanimous-consent requests after the ``disposition of pending 
business.'' The pending business was unfinished business from the prior 
day, the vote on agreeing to a resolution on which the previous 
question had been ordered before the House adjourned in the absence of 
a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 27640, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.9 The regular order of business, such as the relative precedence 
    of a motion to discharge on discharge days over unfinished 
    business, may be varied by unanimous consent.

    On May 8, 1936,(2) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the order of business 
and the power of the House to change such order by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 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

[[Page 3802]]

    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, 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.
        Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XXVII clause 4, discharge 
    motions are in order immediately after approval of the Journal, and 
    thus ordinarily take precedence under Rule XXIV over unfinished 
    business (see Sec. 3.23, infra).

Sec. 3.10 By unanimous consent, the House proceeded to the immediate 
    consideration of an important bill pending on the Union Calendar 
    before taking up unfinished business (votes on certain bills 
    carried over from preceding days).

    On Apr. 6, 1966,(3) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 112 Cong. Rec. 7749, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The next order of business is the matters that were passed over 
    from Monday and Tuesday. However, the Chair desires to state that 
    there is a bill out of the Committee on Ways and Means relating to 
    the extension of time for filing for medicare. If there is no 
    objection on the part of the House, the Chair would like to 
    recognize the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Mills] to submit a 
    unanimous-consent request to bring this bill up. The Chair also 
    understands it is the intention to have a rollcall on the bill. The 
    Chair is trying to work this out for the benefit of the Members. Is 
    there objection to the Chair recognizing the gentleman from 
    Arkansas [Mr. Mills], for the purpose stated by the Chair? The 
    Chair hears none and recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
    Mills].

[[Page 3803]]

In Committee of the Whole

Sec. 3.11 Business unfinished on District of Columbia Day does not come 
    up until the next day on which that business is in order.

    On June 26, 1939,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering District of Columbia business brought up on District of 
Columbia Day. Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the effect on the pending bill should the 
Committee rise without completing the bill on that day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 84 Cong. Rec. 7927, 7938, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that the Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keller: Mr. Chairman, what would be the effect on this bill 
    if we should vote to rise?
        The Chairman: It would be the unfinished business of the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia on the next day that 
    committee is called.
        Mr. Keller: What day would that be?
        The Chairman: The second and fourth Monday of each month are 
    District days.
        Mr. Keller: If we want present consideration of this bill we 
    will have to vote against the motion?
        The Chairman: I think the membership is sufficiently informed 
    with reference to the motion. The question is on the motion to 
    rise.

Sec. 3.12 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,(5) Chairman Leslie C. Arends, of 
Illinois, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows in the Committee 
of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 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 deter

[[Page 3804]]

    mine. It is not something within the jurisdiction of the Chair to 
    decide.

Sec. 3.13 When the Committee of the Whole rises with an order for 
    tellers pending, it is the unfinished business and may be dispensed 
    with only by unanimous consent when the Committee resumes its 
    sitting.

    On July 2, 1947, Chairman Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the unfinished business in the Committee of 
the Whole, the Committee having risen on the preceding day after 
tellers were demanded and ordered on an amendment to the pending bill:

        Mr. [George A.] Dondero [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, has the 
    Committee reached the item of flood control on page 8, line 14, of 
    the bill?
        The Chairman: It has not.
        When the Committee rose yesterday, the so-called Rankin 
    amendment was pending. A voice vote had been taken. Tellers were 
    demanded and ordered.
        Without objection, the Clerk will again read the so-called 
    Rankin amendment.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, is it not in order to vacate or 
    disregard the standing vote and take the standing or voice vote 
    again?
        The Chairman: Tellers have already been ordered.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that 
    where a vote is not completed on one day it is taken again when the 
    question again comes up for consideration.
        The Chairman: The gentleman's inquiry is: Can the order for 
    tellers be vacated, and the Committee proceed de novo on the 
    amendment? That can be done by unanimous consent.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that that be 
    done.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi asks unanimous 
    consent that the proceedings on the vote on the Rankin amendment 
    when the Committee was last in session be vacated and that the vote 
    be taken de novo. Is there objection?
        Mr. [Albert J.] Engel of Michigan: I object, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will again report the amendment.
        The Clerk again reported the amendment offered by Mr. Rankin.
        The Chairman: The Chair appoints the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Engel] and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] to act 
    as tellers.
        The Committee again divided; and the tellers reported there 
    were--ayes 71, noes 115.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 93 Cong. Rec. 8136, 8137, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfinished Business Following Recess

Sec. 3.14 Upon concluding a recess, called by the Speaker pending 
    receipt of an en

[[Page 3805]]

    grossed bill while a House resolution was pending before the House, 
    the Speaker announced the unfinished business to be the reading of 
    the engrossed copy of the bill, the Food Stamp Act of 1964.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(7) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, put the question on the engrossment and third reading of 
H.R. 10222, the Food Stamp Act of 1964, and Mr. Charles S. Gubser, of 
California, demanded the reading of the engrossed copy, which was not 
yet prepared. The House then proceeded to the consideration of House 
Resolution 665, dealing with certain Senate amendments to a House bill. 
Pending such consideration, the Speaker declared a recess subject to 
the call of the Chair (pursuant to such authority granted the Speaker 
for any time during that day), pending the receipt of the engrossed 
copy of H.R. 10222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recess having expired, the Speaker called the House to order 
and stated that the unfinished business was the reading of the 
engrossed copy of H.R. 10222, which he directed the Clerk to read. When 
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio, propounded a parliamentary inquiry 
regarding the status of House Resolution 665 as the unfinished business 
properly before the House, the Speaker recognized Mr. Richard Bolling, 
of Missouri, to withdraw House Resolution 665, thereby terminating the 
reason for the inquiry.
    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent occurred before the 89th 
Congress, when Rule XXI was amended to eliminate the provision allowing 
any Member to demand the reading in full of the engrossed copy of a 
bill.

Roll Call Votes Coming Over From Previous Day

Sec. 3.15 When a Member objects to a vote on an amendment on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present and further proceedings are then 
    postponed to a future day by unanimous consent, the question on 
    adoption of the amendment is put de novo on such future day and a 
    roll call is not necessarily automatic at that time.

    On Mar. 23, 1953,(8) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of a 
unanimous-consent agreement to post
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 99 Cong. Rec. 2251, 2252, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3806]]

pone to a future day the question on adoption of an amendment to a bill 
on the District of Columbia Calendar, where the vote had been objected 
to on the ground that a quorum was not present:

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying that the 
    second order of business on Wednesday next will be a rollcall on 
    this amendment.
        The Speaker: Not a rollcall; it will be a vote on the 
    amendment.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I made the point of order that a 
    quorum was not present, and under those circumstances the rollcall 
    is automatic. I will not agree to any withholding of it unless 
    there is a rollcall, because a rollcall is automatic. I think the 
    Speaker will agree that a quorum is not present now.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is mistaken in his impression. Today 
    a rollcall would be automatic, but not on Wednesday, unless the 
    House so orders.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: I do not want to agree to anything like that, 
    Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: It has already been agreed to. The gentleman has 
    forfeited any rights he might have. I am very sorry if he did not 
    understand the situation.

Sec. 3.16 Where a quorum fails to respond on an automatic roll call 
    vote on a pending resolution, and the House then adjourns, the 
    unfinished business when the House again convenes is the vote on 
    the resolution, and the Speaker puts the question on its adoption 
    de novo.

    On Oct. 18, 1966,(9) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, put the question on agreeing to House Resolution 1062, 
directing the Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney a report 
of the Committee on Un-American Activities on the refusal of Jeremiah 
Stamler to testify before the said committee. Objection was made to the 
vote on the ground that a quorum was not present, and a quorum failed 
to respond on the ensuing automatic roll call. In response to a 
parliamentary inquiry propounded by Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, 
the Speaker stated that in the event a quorum did not develop and the 
House adjourned, the first order of business on the following day would 
be the vote on the resolution. A quorum not having appeared, the House 
adjourned before completing action on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 112 Cong. Rec. 27512, 27513, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(10) Speaker McCormack laid before the 
House
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at pp. 27640, 27641.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3807]]

several messages from the President following the approval of the 
Journal, and then announced that the unfinished business was the vote 
on agreeing to House Resolution 1062. The Speaker put the question on 
the resolution, and Mr. John Bell Williams, of Mississippi, objected to 
the division vote on the ground that a quorum was not present. On the 
automatic roll call vote, the resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 3.17 Where a quorum fails to respond on an automatic roll call 
    vote on a pending motion, and the House adjourns, the unfinished 
    business when the House again convenes is the vote on the motion, 
    and the Speaker puts the question de novo.

    On Oct. 13, 1962,(11) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following statement as to the unfinished 
business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 23474, 23475, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon].
        Without objection, the Clerk will again report the motion of 
    the gentleman from Missouri.
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. [Clarence] Cannon moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 2 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        sum proposed by said amendment, insert ``$791,580,500''.

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion.

    On Oct. 12, the preceding day, the House had adjourned following 
the failure of a quorum to appear on an automatic rollcall vote on the 
motion offered by Mr. Cannon.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 23434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.18 Where a Member objects to a vote on the ground that a quorum 
    is not present and further proceedings are postponed (pursuant to a 
    unanimous-consent request putting roll call votes over until later 
    in the week), the Speaker puts the question de novo when the bill 
    is again before the House as unfinished business, and any Member 
    has the same rights as when the question was originally put and may 
    ask for the yeas and nags (unless previously refused) or, if a 
    quorum is not present, may object on that ground; but the fact that 
    a quorum was not present on the prior day, when the vote was 
    objected to, does not assure a roll call vote when the

[[Page 3808]]

    question is again put as unfinished business.

    On Oct. 7, 1965, the unfinished business was the final action on 
several bills which had been considered on Oct. 5 and 6 but whose 
further consideration had been postponed to Oct. 7, pursuant to a 
unanimous-consent agreement on Oct. 1 that all roll call votes demanded 
on Oct. 5 or 6 be put over until Oct. 7. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquries on the procedures to be 
followed on the unfinished business and on the rights of Members in 
relation thereto:

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, if on a previous day where under the 
    unanimousconsent agreement of October 1, 1965, of this House 
    objection was made on the basis that a quorum was not present and 
    the point of order was made that a quorum was not present and the 
    Speaker thereafter did state that evidently a quorum was not 
    present and that the bill would be put over per the prior 
    agreement; should that rollcall come automatically today when we 
    are back in session and released from that agreement?
        The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry, the 
    Chair will state that the vote comes up de novo and Members have 
    the same rights that they had when the matter was being considered 
    on the previous day.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        If I understand the distinguished Speaker correctly, then being 
    de novo, objection would still have to be made on the same basis 
    and as to whether a quorum was then present, it would still be 
    honored?
        The Speaker: A Member could demand the yeas and nays and if a 
    sufficient number of Members are in favor of taking the vote by the 
    yeas and nays there would be a rollcall vote of course. Or a Member 
    could object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present 
    and, of course, if a quorum is not present the rollcall would be 
    automatic.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        If there was then a quorum present, however, it would not 
    revert to the previous fact and therefore an individual Member 
    would have to have stood on his rights at the time the 
    unanimousconsent request was given rather than make the point of 
    order that a quorum was not present on the current day?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that further consideration of 
    certain bills was passed over in accordance with the unaminous-
    consent request entered into by the House on October 1 and the 
    question of final passage comes up before the House today.
        As the Chair has previously stated, if any Member wants a 
    rollcall vote, he can demand a rollcall vote or if he objects to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present, he can make 
    the point that he objects to the vote on

[[Page 3809]]

    the ground that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. Hall: I thank the Speaker. I think it is crystal clear that 
    Members lose the right to object that they had at the time the 
    unanimous-consent request was made.
        The Speaker: Every Member has the same right today as they had 
    on the day that the bill originally was being 
    considered.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 26243, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.19 Where final action on several bills is put over from one day 
    to the next pursuant to a special order postponing roll call votes, 
    the further consideration of those measures is the unfinished 
    business on the day when roll calls are again in order; the Chair 
    puts the question on each bill de novo, in the order in which they 
    were considered on the prior day.

    On Oct. 7, 1965,(14) the House resumed the consideration 
of several bills which had been considered on Oct. 5 and 6, pursuant to 
a special order on Oct. 1 postponing to Oct. 7 any roll call votes, 
other than on matters of procedure, demanded on Oct. 5 or 6. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, put the question on each such 
postponed bill de novo, in the order in which the bills had been 
considered on Oct. 5 and 6. For example, proceedings on the first two 
of such postponed bills were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 26242, 26243, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The unfinished business is further consideration 
    of the veto message from the President of October 4, 1965, on H.R. 
    5902, an act for the relief of Cecil Graham.
        Without objection the bill and message will be referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary and ordered printed.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The further unfinished business is the question on 
    suspending the rules and passing the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 
    106) to allow the showing of the U.S. Information Agency film 
    ``John F. Kennedy--Years of Lightning, Day of Drums.''
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate joint resolution.
        The question is: Shall the House suspend the rules and pass 
    Senate Joint Resolution 106?
        The question was taken; and two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof, the rules were suspended, and the Senate joint resolution 
    was passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Calendar Wednesday Business as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.20 The previous question having been ordered on a bill on 
    Calendar Wednesday, the bill becomes the unfinished business after 
    the reading of the Journal on the next legis

[[Page 3810]]

    lative day, or on any day thereafter.

    On Apr. 25, 1930,(15) the previous question was ordered 
on a Calendar Wednesday bill, and then a Member demanded the reading of 
the engrossed copy, which was not yet prepared. Speaker Nicholas 
Longworth, of Ohio, answered a parliamentary inquiry on when the bill 
would come up as unfinished business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 72 Cong. Rec. 7774, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Crisp: Mr. Speaker, the previous question having been 
    ordered on the bill and amendments to final passage, if the House 
    adjourns now, ordinarily would not the matter come up the next day, 
    and to-morrow being set apart under special order for memorial 
    exercises, if the House adjourns now, will not this matter, the 
    previous question having been ordered, come up after the reading of 
    the Journal on Friday?
        The Speaker: On Friday, to-morrow not being a legislative day. 
    . . .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 8964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, that means the House will have to stay 
    in

[[Page 3811]]

    session until the engrossed copy is secured?
        The Speaker: It does not.
        Mr. Rankin: We cannot take a recess on Calendar Wednesday?
        The Speaker: The House can adjourn.
        Mr. Rankin: We can adjourn but that ends Calendar Wednesday.
        The Speaker: The previous question has been ordered and the 
    next time the House meets, whether this week or any other week, it 
    is the pending business.
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Colmer: Can the Speaker advise us when the engrossed copy 
    will be available and when the vote will be taken?
        The Speaker: Not until the gentleman from Massachusetts makes a 
    request about adjournment or offers a motion.
        The Chair wants all Members to understand that on the convening 
    of the House at its next session, the final disposition of this 
    matter is the pending business.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 2254, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.21 Where the House adjourns after ordering the previous question 
    on a bill and amendments thereto on a Calendar Wednesday, the bill 
    becomes the unfinished business the next day and separate votes may 
    be demanded on amendments the next day.

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

        Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the bill and all amendments to final passage.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rayburn: Were the House to adjourn at this time, would the 
    present bill be the pending business tomorrow?
        The Speaker: Answering the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Texas, the Chair will state that the previous 
    question having been ordered on the bill and all amendments to 
    final passage, it would be the unfinished and privileged order of 
    business tomorrow morning.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Can these individual amendments then be voted on?
        The Speaker: A separate vote can be demanded on them when that 
    question is reached.

[[Page 3812]]

Conference Reports as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.22 Further consideration of a conference report on which the 
    previous question had been ordered was, by unanimous consent, 
    postponed and made the unfinished business on the following day.

    On Dec. 15, 1970,(19) further consideration of a 
conference report (H.R. 17867, foreign assistance appropriations) was 
postponed by unanimous consent after the previous question had been 
ordered thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 41544. 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question on the conference report.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (20) The question is on the conference 
    report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that there are five 
    amendments in disagreement.
        Mr. Hall: I want a vote on the acceptance of the conference 
    report, to which I object violently, and I object to the vote on 
    the ground that a quorum is not present and, I repeat, I make a 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will count.
        Will the gentleman withhold his point of order?
        Mr. Hall: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not withhold the point of 
    order. I insist on my point of order. The point of order has been 
    properly made.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman indulge the Chair? There are 
    quite a few Members at the White House, and it would be the purpose 
    of the gentleman from Texas if the gentleman from Missouri will 
    withhold his point of order, to ask that further proceedings on the 
    conference report and the amendments in disagreement be postponed 
    until tomorrow, because there are many Members at the White House 
    with their wives.
        Mr. Hall: The only question of the gentleman from Missouri is: 
    Why was this not considered before the conference report was called 
    up?
        Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, and with that 
    understanding and for no other purpose, I will yield until the 
    gentleman from Texas makes his request.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that further proceedings on the conference report be 
    postponed until tomorrow and that this be the first order of 
    business on tomorrow. . . .
        Mr. Hall: . . . Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection. . . .
        The Speaker: Accordingly, the matter is postponed until 
    tomorrow, when it will be the first order of business.

[[Page 3813]]

    On Dec. 16, the following day, the question was put on the 
conference report as unfinished business following the approval of the 
Journal and following the receipt of message from the 
Senate.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 41933, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discharged Bills as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.23 A bill before the House by way of a motion to discharge, if 
    unfinished before adjournment on the day on which it is called up, 
    remains the unfinished business until fully disposed of and may be 
    called up as unfinished business on any day, not necessarily on the 
    next day.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(2) Mr. Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
propounded a parliamentary inquiry to Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, on the status of H.R. 2245, to repeal the tax on 
oleomargarine, which had been brought up on that day by a successful 
motion to discharge under Rule XXVII clause 4:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 94 Cong. Rec. 4877, 4878, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rayburn: Since this is the pending business, suppose the 
    gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Rivers] determines not to move 
    tomorrow that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
    of the pending bill; would that jeopardize his chances of making 
    that motion on Wednesday?

    Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, was heard on the inquiry:

        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, my only purpose in saying anything 
    now is that we are establishing a precedent here that is most 
    important. I think it is clear that the House can do almost 
    anything by unanimous consent, but I am just as convinced that a 
    special privilege created by a special rule like the discharge 
    rule, is entirely different from a privilege under the general 
    rules attaching, for instance, to appropriation bills. It is my 
    thought that when this discharge rule was written, as amended, the 
    rule was specific in providing that when by discharge petition the 
    ordinary procedure of the House was changed and interfered with, 
    and the House voted to discharge the committee, those in favor of 
    considering the legislation effected by the discharge petition, may 
    immediately--and I stress the word immediately--bring the matter 
    before House, and the House shall immediately proceed to a 
    conclusion of the consideration; and if the conclusion is not 
    reached on the first day, then this legislation shall be the 
    unfinished business until it is completed.
        I am wondering whether, as a matter of reason and logic and 
    parliamentary procedure, if other business intervenes, that special 
    discharge rule privilege is not lost. If that were not true, the 
    bill could be put over in the discretion of those who were 
    responsible for the petition and who had changed the

[[Page 3814]]

    rules of the House temporarily. If the bill can be called up 
    Wednesday instead of the following day, as unfinished, then it can 
    be called up Thursday, or the next Thursday, or the last day before 
    the session ended, and this bill would have a special privilege the 
    rest of the session, conditioned only upon the general rules of the 
    House affecting privileges like those of appropriation bills and 
    bills from the Committee on Ways and Means.
        I may say, Mr. Speaker, that my only interest in this matter is 
    as to the precedent.

    Speaker Martin then answered the parliamentary inquiry as follows:

        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 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 some one 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.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Must it be called up by unanimous consent on 
    Wednesday?
        The Speaker: No. It remains the unfinished business and can be 
    called up by the gentleman from South Carolina or someone delegated 
    by his side to do so.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVII clause 4 specifically pro

[[Page 3815]]

vides that in the event that it is agreed to proceed to the immediate 
consideration of a bill brought up by way of a motion to discharge, the 
bill if unfinished before adjournment on the day on which it is called 
up shall remain the unfinished business until it is fully disposed of.

Unfinished Business Yields to Motion to Discharge

Sec. 3.24 A motion to discharge a committee, which motion has been on 
    the Discharge Calendar for seven legislative days, is of higher 
    privilege for consideration on the second and fourth Mondays of the 
    month than the unfinished business coming over from a preceding day 
    with the previous question ordered.

    On May 8, 1936,(3) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the relative 
precedence of unfinished business on which the previous question had 
been ordered, and a motion on the Discharge Calendar (which had been on 
the calendar for seven days) on a day on which motions to discharge 
were in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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 adjourns 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, 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.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. While the 21-day discharge rule was in effect, the House in one 
        instance adjourned before completing consideration of a 
        resolution taken from the Committee on Rules under the 21-day 
        rule, thus causing the matter to go over to another second or 
        fourth Monday as unfinished business under that rule. 95 Cong. 
        Rec. 14161, 14169, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 10, 1949.

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

[[Page 3816]]

District of Columbia Business as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.25 Unfinished business on a District of Columbia Monday does not 
    come up automatically when that class of business is again in order 
    but may be called up by a Member in charge of the legislation.

    On May 9, 1932,(5) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of business on District 
of Columbia Monday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 75 Cong. Rec. 9836, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to call up concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
    27), and yield five minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Harlan, 
    to offer an amendment thereto.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stafford: Mr. Speaker, on the last day given over to 
    District business, House Joint Resolution 154, providing for a 
    merger of the street-railway systems in the District of Columbia, 
    was the unfinished business. As this joint resolution was the 
    unfinished business when the District Committee last had the call, 
    is it not the unfinished business when the House resumes 
    consideration of District business?
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks not, because a motion to consider 
    it is necessary. Wherever a motion is required, the unfinished 
    business has no precedence over any other business.

Sec. 3.26 Business unfinished on District of Columbia Day does not come 
    up until the next day on which that business is in order.

    On June 26, 1939,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering District of Clolumbia business brought up on District of 
Columbia Day. Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the effect on the pending bill should the 
Committee rise without completing the bill on that day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 7927, 7928, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that the Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 3817]]

        Mr. Keller: Mr. Chairman, what would be the effect on this bill 
    if we should vote to rise?
        The Chairman: It would be the unfinished business of the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia on the next day that 
    committee is called.
        Mr. Keller: What day would that be?
        The Chairman: The second and fourth Monday of each month are 
    District days.
        Mr. Keller: If we want present consideration of this bill we 
    will have to vote against the motion?
        The Chairman: I think the membership is sufficiently informed 
    with reference to the motion. The question is on the motion to 
    rise.

Messages as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.27 The reception of a Presidential message being a matter of 
    high privilege in the House, the Speaker pro tempore indicated in 
    response to a parliamentary inquiry that where such a message is 
    received it is laid before the House as soon as business permits, 
    and that the precedents do not justify its being held at the desk 
    until another legislative day.

    On June 24, 1968,(7) following the legislative business 
for the day, a message from the President was received and laid before 
the House by Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma. The Speaker 
pro tempore responded to a parliamentary inquiry as to whether the 
message could be laid down on the following legislative day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 18330, 18331, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair lays before the House a 
    message from the President of the United States.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker. a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, in the opinion of the Chair is it 
    necessary that a Presidential message when delivered in writing be 
    presented to the Members of the House immediately or could it be 
    held until the next legislative day?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the 
    distinguished gentleman that when the House is in session, a 
    message from the President is laid before the House.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry, is this 
    done by tradition, at the will of the Chair, or is it supported by 
    a rule of the House?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is supported by the custom of the 
    House and the provisions of the constitution.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        Could the Chair advise the Members of the House as to the 
    subject of this particular message, arriving at 4:45 in the 
    evening?

[[Page 3818]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It relates to the matter of firearms 
    legislation.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the Members of the House 
    should hear anything that is this important and I make a point of 
    order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently, a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker. I move a 
    call of the House.
        A call of the House was ordered.
        The Clerk called the roll, and the following Members failed to 
    answer to their names: . . .

    A quorum responded to the call of the House, and the message was 
then laid before the House and read by the Clerk

Sec. 3.28 Where messages from the Senate and the President were 
    received during a call of the House, and the House adjourned when a 
    quorum failed to appear on the call, the messages were held at the 
    Speaker's table until it next convened.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(8) a message from the Senate and a 
message from the President were received while a call of the House was 
in progress. A quorum having failed to appear, the House adjourned. The 
messages were held at the Speaker's table until the House next convened 
on the following day and were then laid before the House.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 30816, 30817, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. 114 Cong. Rec. 31116, 31117, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1968. 
        See also Sec. 3.6, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motions to Suspend the Rules as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.29 Pursuant to a special order postponing roll calls until the 
    following Thursday, consideration of the vote on a bill called up 
    under suspension of the rules was postponed and made the unfinished 
    business on the day when roll calls would again be in order.

    On Oct. 5, 1935,(10) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of 
Wisconsin, moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill; when Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, put the question on the motion, 
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, objected to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum was not present. The Speaker then stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 25941-44, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For the proposition that messages from the President or 
        Senate may be received during a call of the House, see House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 562 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the order of the House of October 1, further 
    proceedings on

[[Page 3819]]

    the Senate joint resolution will go over until Thursday, October 7.

    The postponement of the vote on the motion to suspend the rules was 
carried as follows in the House Journal:

        On a division, demanded by Mr. Gross, there appeared--yeas 55, 
    nays 12.
        Mr. Gross objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was 
    not present and not voting and made the point of order that a 
    quorum was not present.
        Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of October 1, 1965, 
    further consideration of the motion to suspend the rules and pass 
    the joint resolution of the Senate, S.J. Res. 106 was postponed 
    until Thursday, October 7, 1965. Mr. Gross then withdrew his point 
    of no quorum.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Jour. 1256, 1257, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 5, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Oct. 1, the House had agreed to a 
unanimous-consent request that all roll call votes, other than on 
matters of procedure, which might be ordered on Oct. 5 or 6, be put 
over until Oct. 7.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 25796, 25797, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.30 A motion to suspend the rules which remains undisposed of at 
    adjournment (after the conclusion of debate on one suspension day), 
    goes over as unfinished business to the next suspension day.

    On Aug. 5, 1935,(13) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, announced, on a suspension day, the order of business as to 
an unfinished motion to suspend the rules coming over from a previous 
suspension day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 79 Cong. Rec. 12506, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: When the House adjourned on the last suspension 
    day there was under consideration the bill (S. 2865) to amend the 
    joint resolution establishing the George Rogers Clark 
    Sesquicentennial Commission, approved May 23, 1928. The question is 
    on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. This motion 
    is, therefore, the unfinished business, as the Chair understands 
    debate was concluded on the measure.

Sec. 3.31 A motion to suspend the rules on which a second had been 
    ordered, remaining undisposed of at adjournment was, on the next 
    day when such motion was again in order, withdrawn by unanimous 
    consent.

    On May 5, 1958,(14) which was a day when motions to 
suspend the rules were in order, Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, asked 
unanimous consent to vacate the proceedings under suspension of the 
rules held two weeks prior on H.R. 11414, to amend the Public
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 104 Cong. Rec. 8004, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3820]]

Health Service Act. (On the prior occasion, a second had been ordered 
on the bill but the House had adjourned before completing its 
consideration.) The unanimous-consent request was agreed to, and Mr. 
Harris moved to suspend the rules and pass the same bill with 
amendments.

Reading Engrossed Copy of Bill as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.32 Where the reading of the engrossed copy of a bill was 
    demanded under prior practice, the bill was laid aside until the 
    engrossed copy could be provided.

    On June 17, 1948,(15) a bill was ordered to be engrossed 
and read a third time. A Member demanded the reading of the engrossed 
copy, and Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, responded, 
``The bill will have to be laid aside until the engrossed copy can be 
provided.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 8713, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 3, 1949,(16) Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, 
demanded the reading of the engrossed copy of a bill. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, allowed the bill to go over as unfinished business, 
stating that ``The Chair thinks it would not be practicable to wait for 
that this evening.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 5544, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent and the following ones, 
relating to the reading of the engrossed copy of a bill as unfinished 
business, predate the 1965 amendments deleting from the rules of the 
House the provision in Rule XXI allowing any Member to demand the 
reading in full of the engrossed copy of a bill.

Sec. 3.33 A Member who had demanded the reading of the engrossed copy 
    of a bill (under the prior practice) withdrew the demand the next 
    day before the reading of the engrossed copy as unfinished 
    business.

    On June 18, 1948,(17) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, announced that the unfinished business was the reading 
of the engrossed copy of a bill, the demand for the reading having been 
made on the previous day and before the engrossed copy was prepared. 
Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, who had demanded the reading of the 
engrossed copy on the previous day, withdrew his demand and the bill 
was read the third time by title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 8828, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.34 Under prior practice, if the House adjourned after a

[[Page 3821]]

    demand for the reading of an engrossed copy of a bill but before 
    such reading, the bill became the unfinished business of the House.

    On Feb. 6, 1946,(18) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, put 
the question on the engrossment and third reading of the pending bill, 
H.R. 4908, to investigate labor disputes. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, demanded the reading of the engrossed copy, which was not yet 
available. The Speaker indicated that pursuant to the demand for the 
reading, a final vote could not be had until the engrossed copy was 
available. The Speaker answered a parliamentary inquiry propounded by 
Mr. Jennings Randolph, of West Virginia:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 1027-29, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair has an opinion that in all probability 
    it could not be here before midnight.
        Mr. Randolph: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry which would not go to the direct point at 
    issue, but I would like to know approximately the time we might 
    expect the engrossed copy.
        Mr. Randolph: Mr. Speaker, assuming the engrossed copy is here 
    tomorrow, will the first order of business, on reconvening, be the 
    vote on the bill?
        The Speaker: It is the unfinished business.

    On Aug. 22, 1963, following the demand for the reading of the 
engrossed copy of a bill but before the engrossed copy was prepared, 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that the vote on 
the bill would ``come up on the next legislative day after the bill is 
engrossed.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 15624, 15625, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Business as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.35 When the House adjourns before completing action upon an 
    omnibus private bill, such bill goes over as unfinished business 
    until that class of business is again in order under the rule.

    On Mar. 17, 1936,(20) Speaker pro tempore Edward T. 
Taylor, of Colorado, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of 
adjournment on  pending omnibus private bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 80 Cong. Rec. 3901, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Costello [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the House do now adjourn.
        Mr. [Fred] Biermann [of Iowa]: Pending that, what will be the 
    status of this omnibus bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This bill will be the unfinished 
    business the next time this calendar is called.

[[Page 3822]]

        Mr. Biermann: And that will be a month from today?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Whenever the date is.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from California 
    that the House do now adjourn.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 888 (1979) for resumption of 
        unfinished business in periods set apart for certain classes of 
        business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veto Messages as Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.36 Pursuant to a special order postponing roll calls until the 
    following Thursday, consideration of a veto message was made the 
    unfinished business on a day when roll calls would again be in 
    order (objection having been raised to a unanimous-consent request 
    that the veto message be referred to committee).

    On Oct. 5, 1965,(2) a veto message from the President 
was laid before the House by Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, and read by the Clerk. The Speaker pro tempore immediately 
stated that if there was no objection, the message would be referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered printed, but Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, objected to such disposition of the message. The 
Speaker pro tempore therefore stated that pursuant to the order of the 
House on Oct. 1, the veto message would be the pending business on 
Thursday, Oct. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 25940, 25941, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Id. at pp. 25796, 25797.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Oct. 1, 1965, the House had agreed to a 
unanimous-consent request, propounded by Mr. Albert and due to 
religious holidays on Oct. 5 and 6, that any roll call votes, other 
than on questions of procedure, which might be demanded on Oct. 5 or 6, 
be put over until Oct. 7.(3) Consideration of the message 
was postponed in anticipation that any disposition would generate a 
roll call.

Sec. 3.37 The Speaker made a statement as to the order of business 
    where a veto postponed to a day certain was the unfinished 
    business.

    On Apr. 14, 1948, Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
made the following statement on the order of business, a veto message 
having been postponed to that day: \(4\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair wishes to state the order of business.
        The unfinished business is the further consideration of the 
    veto message of the President of the United States

[[Page 3823]]

    on the bill (H.R. 5052) to exclude certain vendors of newspapers or 
    magazines from certain provisions of the Social Security Act and 
    the Internal Revenue Code.
        Following that, under a special order Jefferson's First 
    Inaugural Address will be read. Following that, the Chair will 
    recognize Members to submit consent requests to extend remarks and 
    to address the House for 1 minute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Consideration of a veto message on the day 
to which it has been postponed is highly privileged and becomes the 
unfinished business following the approval of the 
Journal.\(5\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 14, 1948; 
        116 Cong. Rec. 1483, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. Jan. 28, 1970; and 119 
        Cong. Rec. 36202, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 7, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 3.38 Where a veto message postponed to a day certain is announced 
    as the unfinished business, no motion is required from the floor 
    for consideration of such veto, and the question, ``Will the House, 
    on reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President 
    to the contrary notwithstanding'' is pending.

    On Jan. 28, 1970, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, put 
the following question, following the approval of the Journal and a 
call of the House, on a veto message postponed to that day by motion on 
Jan. 27:

        The Speaker: The unfinished business is: Will the House, on 
    reconsideration, pass the bill, H.R. 13111, an act making 
    appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, 
    and Welfare, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 
    30, 1970, and for other purposes, the objections of the President 
    to the contrary notwithstanding?
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) for 1 
    hour.\(6\)

Withdrawal of Unfinished Business

Sec. 3.39 On one occasion the Speaker, having recognized one Member to 
    propound a parliamentary inquiry regarding the status of a 
    resolution as ``unfinished business,'' then recognized another 
    Member to withdraw the resolution, thus eliminating the reason for 
    the inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 1483, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Apr. 8, 1964, a demand was made for the reading of the engrossed 
copy of a bill where the engrossment was not yet prepared. The bill was 
laid aside and the House proceeded to consider a resolution (concurring 
in Senate

[[Page 3824]]

amendments to a House bill). Prior to the disposition of the 
resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a 
recess pursuant to authority previously granted.
    At the conclusion of the recess, the Speaker stated the unfinished 
business to be the reading of the engrossed copy of the bill on which 
the demand had been made. The following inquiry and its disposition 
then ensued: \(7\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The unfinished business is the reading of the 
    engrossed copy of H.R. 10222.
        The Clerk will read the engrossed copy.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, when the recess was called, 
    it is my understanding that we were engaged in the consideration of 
    what is referred to as a cotton and wheat bill. Is it not the rule 
    of the House that we must finish the consideration of that measure 
    before we take up any other measure which has been passed over for 
    parliamentary and mechanical reasons?
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bolling].
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, under the rules I withdraw House 
    Resolution 665.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, that takes 
    unanimous consent, and I object.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that it does not take 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the resolution in the House.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that 
    the Speaker was addressing the Member now addressing the Chair and 
    had not given an answer to my question. Therefore, the recognition 
    of the Member from the other side, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Bolling] was out of order. Am I incorrect?
        The Speaker: The recognition of the gentleman from Missouri 
    [Mr. Bolling] terminated the parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: In other words, the Speaker did not 
    answer the parliamentary inquiry; is that correct?
        The Speaker: Since the resolution was withdrawn, the 
    parliamentary inquiry was ended.

        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: If the Speaker will respectfully permit, 
    the gentleman from Ohio would suggest that the question had been 
    asked before the resolution had been withdrawn.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has the power 
    of recognition. Now that the resolution has been withdrawn, the 
    unfinished business is the reading of the engrossed copy of H.R. 
    10222. . . .
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: The Speaker had recognized the gentleman 
    from

[[Page 3825]]

    Ohio for a parliamentary inquiry. The parliamentary inquiry had 
    been made. The parliamentary inquiry had not been answered and yet 
    the Chair recognized the gentleman from Missouri.
        The Speaker: Which the Chair has the power to do.
        The Clerk will read the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222. . . .
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire whether the 
    parliamentary inquiry which I addressed to the Chair is now not to 
    be answered, because of the action of the gentleman from Missouri?
        The Speaker: The gentleman will repeat his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry was 
    to the effect that inasmuch as the House was engaged at the 
    business before it at the time the Speaker called the recess, 
    whether the rules of the House did not call for the conclusion of 
    that business before other business which had been postponed by the 
    House under the rules of the House and in accordance with the 
    procedures of the House did not have to follow consideration of any 
    business that was before the House at the time of the calling of 
    the recess?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Missouri withdrew his resolution. If he had not withdrawn the 
    resolution the situation might have been different.
        The Chair has made a ruling that the unfinished business is the 
    reading of the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222. That is the unfinished 
    business.

Sec. 3.40 Where a Member has obtained unanimous consent for the 
    consideration of a bill in the House, he may withdraw such request 
    before the bill has been amended, even though an amendment is 
    pending, and, if withdrawn, the bill does not become the unfinished 
    business of the House.

    On May 16, 1938,\(8\) a bill was called up on 
the Consent Calender. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, answered 
a parliamentary inquiry as to the status of the bill and as to whether 
it was unfinished business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 83 Cong. Rec. 6927, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [August H.] Andresen of Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Andresen of Minnesota: On Tuesday last this bill was 
    brought up under unanimous consent. The bill was read. No objection 
    was raised to the consideration of the bill. The bill was read as 
    amended by the Committee on Agriculture. Debate was had upon it and 
    I offered an amendment at the conclusion of the reading of the 
    bill. Debate was had upon my amendment. The chairman of the 
    Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones] 
    stated at the conclusion of the debate upon my amendment:

            I would much rather withdraw the request, and I will notify 
        the gentleman before it is called up.

[[Page 3826]]

        He further said:

            Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the request.

        But the Record does not show that the gentleman from Texas 
    asked unanimous consent to withdraw the bill from further 
    consideration of the House. My parliamentary inquiry is as to 
    whether or not the bill is now the unfinished business on the 
    Speaker's desk and requires no further action here as far as 
    objection is concerned and that it comes up automatically.
        The Speaker: In reply to the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Andresen], it is the recollection of 
    the Chair that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones] asked unanimous 
    consent for the consideration of the bill and that the gentleman 
    from Minnesota did offer an amendment and debated it, whereupon the 
    gentleman from Texas rose in his place and said that rather than 
    have the matter pressed to an issue on the amendment which the 
    gentleman from Minnesota proposed, he would prefer to withdraw his 
    request for consideration of the bill. The amendment was not acted 
    upon by the House. The Chair is of opinion that under rule XVI, 
    section 2, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones] could withdraw the 
    consideration of the bill without unanimous consent. The Chair, 
    therefore, is of opinion that the matter is not unfinished business 
    on the Speaker's desk.
        Mr. [Fred C.] Gilchrist [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask unanimous 
    consent that the bill go over without prejudice.
        The Speaker: Is there objection?
        There was no objection.

Unfinished Business Not Affected by Adjournment Between Sessions

Sec. 3.41 The enactment of a law changing the date of meeting of the 
    second session of a Congress does not affect the status of 
    discharge motions on the desk or of other legislative matters 
    pending at the end of the first session.

    On Dec. 19, 1945,\(9\) Mr. John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, offered a privileged resolution changing the meeting 
date of the second session of the 79th Congress to Jan. 14, 1946, 
rather than Jan. 3, 1946. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the effect of the resolution on a discharge 
petition or other legislative matters pending in the first session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 12346, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Folger [of North Carolina]: I have a discharge 
    petition on the desk, No. 10, in which I am very, very much 
    interested. I have no objection to this adjournment until the 14th 
    unless I have to go back and get that signed anew. Will that carry 
    over?
        The Speaker: It will carry over.
        Mr. Folger: If it will I am all right.
        The Speaker: Everything remains on the calendar just as it is 
    now.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVI, House Rules and Manual

[[Page 3827]]

Sec. 901 (1979), entitled ``Unfinished Business of the Session,'' 
provides that business before committees continues from session to 
session; under the practice of the House that rule applies to business 
pending before the House as well as before committees.


 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 
Sec. 4. Calendar Wednesday; Morning Hour Call of Committees

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3828]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3829]]

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

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

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

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

Morning Hour Call of Committees

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

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

[[Page 3830]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3831]]

    thorized by the committee to do so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Precedence of Calendar Wednesday Business

Sec. 4.3 The call of committees on Calendar Wednesday takes

[[Page 3832]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3833]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3834]]

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

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

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

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

Calendar Wednesday Bills Generally

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3835]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3836]]

Order of Call on Calendar Wednesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authority and Recognition to Call Up Calendar Wednesday Business

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

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

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

[[Page 3837]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3838]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3839]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3840]]

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

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

[[Page 3841]]

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

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

        The Chair overrules the point of order.

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3842]]

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

Question of Consideration on Calendar Wednesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3843]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3844]]

against a Calendar Wednesday bill:

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

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

Unanimous-consent Requests on Calendar Wednesday

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

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

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

[[Page 3845]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3846]]

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

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

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

Debate on Calendar Wednesday

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

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

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

[[Page 3847]]

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

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

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

[[Page 3848]]

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

Reconsideration Not in Order on Question of Consideration on Calendar 
    Wednesday

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

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

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

    The House refused to consider the bill.

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

Unfinished Business on Calendar Wednesday

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

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

[[Page 3849]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3850]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3851]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3852]]

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

Privileged Motion to Dispense With Calendar Wednesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3853]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3854]]

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

[[Page 3855]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3856]]

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

Debate on Motion to Dispense With Calendar Wednesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3857]]

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

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

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

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

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

Vote on Motion to Dispense With Calendar Wednesday

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

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

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

[[Page 3858]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3859]]

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

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

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

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

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

Unanimous Consent to Dispense With Calendar Wednesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 3860]]

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

    The request was objected to.

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

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


 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 
Sec. 5. District of Columbia Business

    Rule XXIV clause 8(4) sets apart two days per month for 
the consideration of business called up by the Committee on the 
District of Columbia:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 899 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the 
    disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the 
    disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires 
    reference only, shall, when claimed by the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia, be set apart for the consideration of such 
    business as may be presented by said committee.

    The consideration of District business on the specified days is of 
qualified privilege, and is of equal privilege with a special order 
created for that day.(5) District business yields to 
privileged reports from the Committee on Rules,(6) motions 
to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business,(7) questions 
of the privileges of the House,(8) conference 
reports,(9) and motions to resolve into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of revenue or appropriation 
bills.(10) Moreover, as indi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 5.1, infra. See also 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 877, 
        878.
 6. See Sec. 5.4, infra.
 7. See Sec. 5.6, infra.
 8. See Sec. 5.3, infra.
 9. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3292.
10. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 716718; 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 876, 1123. When the 21-day discharge rule relating to 
        the Committee on Rules was in effect, such motions to discharge 
        had precedence over District business (see Sec. 5.2, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3861]]

cated by Rule XXIV clause 8, motions to discharge committees (in order 
on the second and fourth Mondays, like District business) and reference 
of matters on the Speakers table take precedence over District 
business.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Bills reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia do not 
        have such privilege as to prevent their being called up on 
        Calendar Wednesday during the call of committees. See 7 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    District of Columbia business may be considered in the House as in 
Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent,(12) and private 
bills may be called Up.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. Sec. 5.7, 5.8, infra.
13. See Sec. Sec. 5.8, 5.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unfinished business on District Day does not come again before the 
House until the next District Day unless the previous question has been 
ordered; and unfinished District bills must be affirmatively called up 
by the Member in charge.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 5.13, 5.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    District Day may be transferred to another day not specified in the 
rule, either by unanimous consent or by a special order.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 5.12, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence of District Business

Sec. 5.1 When a Member seeks recognition to call up District of 
    Columbia business on the fourth Monday (privileged under Rule XXIV 
    clause 8) and another Member seeks recognition to move to suspend 
    the rules and agree to a Senate joint resolution amending the 
    Constitution (privileged pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement 
    making it in order on the fourth Monday for the Speaker to 
    recognize Members to move suspension and passage of bills), it is 
    within the discretion of the Speaker as to which of the two Members 
    he shall recognize.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(16) which was the fourth Monday of the 
month and therefore a day eligible for District of Columbia business, 
under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, to move to suspend the 
rules and pass a joint resolution (to amend the Constitution to 
prohibit the use of a poll tax as a qualification for voting) pursuant 
to a previous unanimous
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654-70, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3862]]

consent request making in order on that day motions to suspend the 
rules. The Speaker overruled a point of order against prior recognition 
for the motion to suspend the rules:

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
    Senate Joint Resolution on 29, proposing an amendment to the 
    Constitution of the United States relating to qualifications of 
    electors.
        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that this 
    is District Day, that there are District bills on the calendar, and 
    as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia I 
    respectfully demand recognition so that these bills may be 
    considered.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule, but the gentleman 
    may be heard.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, suspensions were 
    transferred to this day, and under the rules the Speaker has power 
    of recognition at his own discretion.
        Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully call the attention 
    of the chairman to clause 8, rule XXIV, page 432 of the House 
    Mamal. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I submit that rule is clear that when the time is 
    claimed and the opportunity is claimed the Chair shall permit those 
    bills to be considered.
        Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit my point of order 
    is well taken, and that I should be permitted to call up bills 
    which are now pending on the calendar from the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I should like 
    to be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House on 
    some things are very clear, and the rules of the House either mean 
    something or they do not mean anything.
        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Abernethy], 
    has just called to the Chair's attention clause 8 of rule XXIV. 
    Nothing could be clearer; nothing could be more mandatory. I want 
    to repeat it because I hope the Chair will not fall into an error 
    on this proposition:

            The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the 
        disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the 
        disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires 
        reference only--

        And that is all; that is all that you can consider--disposition 
    of motions to discharge committees--
        and after the disposal of such business on the Speaker's table 
        as requires reference only--

        That is all that the Chair is permitted to consider.
        Mr. Speaker, after that is done the day--
        shall when claimed by the Committee on the District of 
        Columbia,

[[Page 3863]]

        be set apart for the consideration of such business as may be 
        presented by said committee.

        Mr. Speaker, I know that the majority leader bases his defense 
    upon the theory that the House having given unanimous consent to 
    hear suspensions on this Monday instead of last Monday when they 
    should have been heard--and I doubt if very many Members were here 
    when that consent order was made and I am quite sure that a great 
    number of them had no notice that it was going to be made, and 
    certainly I did not--now the majority leader undertakes to say that 
    having gotten unanimous consent to consider this motion on this day 
    to suspend the rules, therefore, it gives the Speaker carte blanche 
    authority to do away with the rule which gives first consideration 
    to District of Columbia matters.
        Mr. Speaker, there was no waiver of the rule on the District of 
    Columbia. That consent did not dispose or dispense with the 
    business on the District of Columbia day. The rule is completely 
    mandatory. The rule says that on the second and fourth Mondays, if 
    the District of Columbia claims the time, that the Speaker shall 
    recognize them for such dispositions as they desire to call.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to 
    transfer the consideration of business under suspension of the 
    rules on Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the 
    consideration of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the 
    rules today is a privileged motion. The matter is within the 
    discretion of the Chair as to the matter of recognition.

Sec. 5.2 When the ``21-day rule'' for the discharge of Committee on 
    Rules resolutions was in effect in the 89th Congress, business 
    called up under that rule was of the highest privilege and took 
    precedence over District of Columbia business on District of 
    Columbia Monday.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(17) which was District of Columbia 
Monday, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry propounded by the Chairman of the Committee on 
the District of Columbia:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 17. 111 Cong. Rec. 23606, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John L.] McMillan [of South Carolina]: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, now that the Journal has been read 
    and other business has been dispensed with, is it in order to call 
    up District bills under the rules of the House?
        The Speaker: If the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] yields 
    for that purpose.
        Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Powell] been recognized?
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to recognize the gentleman from 
    New

[[Page 3864]]

    York [Mr. Powell] because the gentleman from New York has the 
    privileged matter.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

    Mr. Powell was recognized to call up, pursuant to then Rule XI 
clause 23 [Rule XI clause 4(b) in the 1979 House Rules and Manual], a 
resolution providing an order of business which had been pending before 
the Committee on Rules for more than 21 calendar days without being 
reported by that committee.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 18076, 18087, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 
        26, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.3 A question of the privileges of the House may be raised 
    pending the consideration of legislation called up by the Committee 
    on the District of Columbia on the second and fourth Mondays of the 
    month.

    On Dec. 14, 1970,(19) which was District of Columbia 
Monday, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. 
Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri, to raise a question of the privileges 
of the House (relating to a restraining order issued by a federal court 
against the printing and publishing of a report by the Committee on 
Internal Security) before recognizing Chairman John L. McMillan, of 
South Carolina, of the Committee on the District of Columbia, to call 
up District of Columbia business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 41355, 41374, 91st Cong.2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.4 On a District Day, the Speaker recognized a member of the 
    Committee on Rules to call up a privileged resolution relating to 
    the order of business, and later recognized the chairman of another 
    committee to call up the business made in order thereby, prior to 
    recognizing the Chairman of the Committee on the District of 
    Columbia to call up District business under Rule XXIV clause 8.

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

[[Page 3865]]

ognized Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services and manager of the joint resolution, to move that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of 
the joint resolution, which was, after debate, agreed to by the House.

    The Speaker then stated that it was District of Columbia Day and 
recognized Chairman John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, of the 
Committee on the District of Columbia, for District 
business.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 20521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.5 A privileged motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday 
    business preceded District of Columbia business under Rule XXIV 
    clause 8.

    On June 11, 1973,(2) which was District of Columbia 
Monday, Mr. John J. McFall, of California, was first recognized by 
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to offer the privileged motion (under 
Rule XXIV clause 7) to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business, 
before Chairman John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, of the Committee 
on the District of Columbia was recognized to call up District 
business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 19028-30, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration Generally

Sec. 5.6 Before the adoption of the requirement of a three-day layover 
    for committee reports, the Speaker held that a bill reported by the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia was privileged for 
    consideration on the second and fourth Mondays irrespective of 
    whether the report had been printed.

    On July 8, 1968,(3) which was District of Columbia 
Monday, Mr. John V. Dowdy, of Texas, called up for consideration a 
District of Columbia bill which had been reported out the same day by 
the committee and on which the committee report was not yet printed. 
Under a reservation of the right to object, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, 
inquired whether it was in order to consider the bill. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded that in view of the fact that 
the committee had filed its report, it was in order to consider the 
bill. After the reading of the bill in the House as in the Committee of 
the Whole, Mr. Dowdy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 20057, 20058, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3866]]

withdrew the bill from consideration.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The decision of the Chair predated the 1971 
amendment to the rules of the House in order to implement the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. Rule XI clause 27(d)(4) [Rule 
XI clause 2(l)(6) in the House Rules and Manual (1979)] now requires a 
three-day layover of committee reports before their consideration by 
the House, in order that printed reports be available to Members.

Sec. 5.7 District of Columbia bills, called up on District Day, if on 
    the Union Calendar, may be considered by unanimous consent in the 
    House as in Committee of the Whole or in the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On Aug. 11, 1964,(4) which was District of Columbia Day, 
Mr. John V. Dowdy, of Texas, asked unanimous consent that a District of 
Columbia bill, pending on the Union Calendar, be considered in the 
House as in the Committee of the Whole; the request was objected to. He 
then moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for consideration of the bill and, pending that motion, asked 
unanimous consent that general debate on the bill be limited to one 
hour. The request was objected to, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, put the question on the motion, and the motion was 
rejected by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 18949, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: General debate in Committee of the Whole on 
District of Columbia bills is under the hour rule unless limited by the 
House or Committee of the Whole; on one occasion where such debate had 
not been limited in the House, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole recognized five Members successively for one hour of debate 
each.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 87 Cong. Rec. 3917-39, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., May 12, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.8 District of Columbia bills called up on District Day, if on 
    the Private Calendar, may be considered by unanimous consent in the 
    House as in Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 24, 1972,(6) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request for the consideration of a District of Columbia bill 
pending on the Private Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 14000, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Williamson Sylvester] Stuckey [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. 
    Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the District of Columbia, 
    I call up the

[[Page 3867]]

    bill (H.R. 2895) to provide for the conveyance of certain real 
    property in the District of Columbia to the National Firefighting 
    Museum and Center for Fire Prevention, Incorporated, and ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill be considered in the House as in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Georgia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Private Calendar bills, when called up by 
unanimous consent, are considered under the five-minute rule in the 
Committee of the Whole House, and the form of the request in this 
instance was unnecessary.
    The Journal properly indicated in this instance that the Committee 
of the Whole House was discharged from consideration of the private 
bill when the bill was considered by unanimous consent in the House as 
in the Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 5.9 A bill called up by the Committee on the District of Columbia 
    was refused consideration twice on the same day (by negative votes 
    on the motion to resolve into Committee of Whole to consider the 
    bill).

    On June 14, 1937,(8) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, announced that it was District of Columbia Monday. Mr. Vincent 
L. Palmisano, of Maryland, twice offered and the House twice rejected, 
motions that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
for the consideration of H.R. 7472, to provide additional revenue for 
the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 5667, 5668, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.10 The House struck out the enacting clause of a bill called up 
    on District of Columbia Day being considered in the House as in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 28, 1941,(9) H.R. 4342, to authorize black-outs 
in the District of Columbia, was being considered in the House as in 
the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Dewey Short, of Missouri, moved that 
the enacting clause be stricken from the bill, which was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 87 Cong. Rec. 3352, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to strike out the enacting 
clause of a bill is classified among those motions applicable only in 
the Committee of the Whole [Rule XXIII clause 7], although the motion 
was in earlier times utilized in the House as well [see House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 876 (1979)]. The motion is in order in the

[[Page 3868]]

House only during the amendment stage [i.e., in the House as in the 
Committee of the Whole] and takes precedence only over the motion to 
amend [see also Rule XVI clause 4 for other privileged motions in the 
House].

Private Bills

Sec. 5.11 It is in order on District of Columbia Monday for the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia to call up bills on the 
    Private Calendar which have been reported by that committee.

    On May 26, 1930,(10) which was District of Columbia 
Monday, Mr. Clarence J. McLeod, of Michigan, of the Committee on the 
District of Columbia asked unanimous consent to take up a bill; Speaker 
pro tempore Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, ruled, in response to a 
reservation of the right to object, that unanimous consent was not 
required and that the matter was privileged:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 72 Cong. Rec. 9607, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Reserving the right 
    to object, I note that the bill bears Calendar No. 672 on the 
    Private Calendar. On Saturday last we got as far as Calendar No. 
    500. I do not question but that this bill will be reached in the 
    regular order on call of that calendar.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that while the 
    gentleman from Michigan asked unanimous consent to take up the 
    bill, the Chair did not put the request in that manner. The 
    gentleman is privileged on District day to call up a bill on the 
    Private Calendar.
        Mr. Stafford: I hope that the gentleman will not press it for 
    the reason that it has not been the practice for a committee on the 
    day it has to bring up legislation to bring up private bills. I 
    would like to have the matter go over.
        Mr. McLeod: I called up the bill by agreement with several 
    Members of the House.

    The Speaker pro tempore cited 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3310 for the 
proposition that unanimous consent was not required and that the bill 
could be brought up by motion.

Transferring District of Columbia Day

Sec. 5.12 By unanimous consent (or by a special order) the House may 
    make in order on certain days, which are not District of Columbia 
    days under Rule XXIV clause 8, the consideration of District of 
    Columbia bills, such consideration to be either under the general 
    rules of the House or under the normal procedures for District of 
    Columbia business.

[[Page 3869]]

    On Dec. 3, 1970,(11) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request relating to the order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 39843, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it shall be in order, on Wednesday or any following 
    day next week, to call up for consideration under the general rules 
    of the House the bill (H.R. 19885) to provide additional revenue 
    for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    The following unanimous-consent request was agreed to on May 25, 
1960:

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that on Wednesday of next week it may he in order 
    for the Speaker to recognize the chairman of the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia or any member thereof to consider as under 
    District of Columbia Day, one bill, H.R. 12063, to authorize the 
    Commissioners of the District of Columbia to plan, construct, 
    operate, and maintain a sanitary sewer to connect the Dulles 
    International Airport to the District of Columbia system.
        This has been cleared with the ranking member of the Committee 
    on the District of Columbia and the minority leader.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 11116, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On one occasion, District of Columbia business was by unanimous 
consent transferred from Monday to the following day due to the death 
of a Member (John Bennett, of Michigan).(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 18854, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfinished Business

Sec. 5.13 Business unfinished on District of Columbia Day does not come 
    up until the next day on which that business is in order.

    On June 26, 1939,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering District of Columbia business brought up on District of 
Columbia Day. Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the effect on the pending bill should the 
Committee rise without completing the bill on that day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 7927, 7928, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that the Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keller: Mr. Chairman, what would be the effect on this bill 
    if we should vote to rise?

[[Page 3870]]

        The Chairman: It would be the unfinished business of the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia on the next day that 
    committee is called.
        Mr. Keller: What day would that be?
        The Chairman: The second and fourth Monday of each month are 
    District days.
        Mr. Keller: If we want present consideration of this bill we 
    will have to vote against the motion?
        The Chairman: I think the membership is sufficiently informed 
    with reference to the motion. The question is on the motion to 
    rise.

Sec. 5.14 Unfinished business on a District of Columbia Monday does not 
    come up automatically when that class of business is again in order 
    but may be called up by a Member in charge of the legislation.

    On May 9, 1932,(16) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of business on District 
of Columbia Monday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 75 Cong. Rec. 9836, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to call up concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
    27), and yield five minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. (Byron 
    B.) Harlan to offer an amendment thereto.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stafford: Mr. Speaker, on the last day given over to 
    District business, House Joint Resolution 154, providing for a 
    merger of the street-railway systems in the District of Columbia, 
    was the unfinished business. As this joint resolution was the 
    unfinished business when the District Committee last had the call, 
    is it not the unfinished business when the House resumes 
    consideration of District business?
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks not, because a motion to consider 
    it is necessary. Wherever a motion is required, the unfinished 
    business has no precedence over any other business.

Form of Special Rule

Sec. 5.15 Form of special rule providing for the consideration of a 
    District of Columbia bill in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union, waiving points of order, closing general 
    debate on the bill, waiving the second reading, opening all 
    sections of the bill for amendment, and limiting debate under the 
    five-minute rule to an hour and a half.

    The following resolution was considered on Apr. 17, 1936: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 5634, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 489

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House

[[Page 3871]]

    shall resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    state of the Union for the consideration of H.R. 11563, a bill 
    declaring an emergency in the housing condition in the District of 
    Columbia; creating a Rent Commission for the District of Columbia; 
    prescribing powers and duties of the commission, and for other 
    purposes; and all points of order against said bill are hereby 
    waived. General debate on said bill shall be considered as closed, 
    and the bill shall be considered as having been read the second 
    time. Amendments may be offered to any section of the bill, but 
    debate under the 5-minute rule shall be closed within one hour and 
    a half. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for 
    amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
    with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous 
    question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and the 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, 
    except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.



 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 
Sec. 6. One-minute Speeches

    Although not provided for in the order of business specified in the 
rules of the House, one-minute speeches, for the purpose of debate 
only, are usually entertained by the Speaker immediately following the 
approval of the Journal and before any legislative 
business.(18) Members obtain recognition for one-minute 
speeches by requesting unanimous consent to address the House for one 
minute; speeches made under the procedure may not exceed one minute or 
300 words (if the word-limit is exceeded, the speech will be printed in 
the Extensions of Remarks or Appendix of the Record).(19) 
One-minute speeches are distinguished from ``special-order'' speeches, 
which may extend up to one hour and which follow the legislative 
program of the day.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For discussion of the evolution of the practice of allowing one-
        minute speeches, see Sec. 6.1, infra. For discussion of the 
        principle that orders to address the House for more than one 
        minute must follow the legislative business of the day, see 
        Sec. 7.1, infra.
19. See Sec. 6.1, infra. See also Ch. 29, infra (consideration and 
        debate) and Ch. 5, supra (discussing the Congressional Record), 
        for the relationship of one minute speeches to recognition, 
        debate, and the printing of the Congressional Record.
20. See Sec. 7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The normal procedure for one-minute speeches may be varied where 
necessary; such speeches may, for example, exceed one-minute, in the 
discretion of the Speaker, when no legislative business is 
scheduled.(1) And the Speaker may decline to recognize for 
one-minute speeches before proceeding to pressing 
business.(2) The Speaker has on occasion rec
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 6.1, 6.5, infra.
 2. See Sec. Sec. 6.6, 6.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3872]]

ognized for one-minute speeches after business has been conducted, 
where circumstances so permitted.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 6.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the ``one-minute rule'' is followed on each day that the 
House is in session, in order to give Members the opportunity to 
express themselves on a variety of subjects while no business is under 
discussion.                          -------------------

In Order Before Legislative Business

Sec. 6.1 The Speaker discussed in the 79th Congress the modern practice 
    permitting speeches of up to one minute following the approval of 
    the Journal and before the legislative business of the day, and the 
    practice of allowing such speeches to extend beyond one minute 
    where no legislative business is scheduled.

    On Mar. 6, 1945,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
responded to a parliamentary inquiry on the place of ``one-minute'' 
speeches in the order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 91 Cong. Rec. 1788, 1789, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair can reiterate what he has said many 
    times. If he can go back, there was a time here when Members rose 
    the day before and asked unanimous consent that after the approval 
    of the Journal and disposition of matters on the Speaker's desk 
    they might proceed for 20 minutes or 30 minutes or an hour. As 
    chairman of a committee in those days I would sit here ready to go 
    along with my bill, and probably it would be 3 o'clock in the 
    afternoon before legislation was reached.

        When I became majority leader, I made the statement to the 
    House, after consulting with the minority leader, who I think at 
    that time was Mr. Snell, of New York, that if anyone asked to 
    proceed for more than 1 minute before the legislative program of 
    the day was completed we would object. Since then Members have not 
    asked to proceed for more than a minute before the legislative 
    program.
        Then Members began speaking for a minute and putting into the 
    Record a long speech, so that 10 or a dozen pages of the Record was 
    taken up before the people who read the Record would get to the 
    legislative program of the day, in which I would think they would 
    be the most interested. So we adopted the policy--there is no rule 
    about it--of asking that when Members speak for a minute, if their 
    remarks are more than 300 words, which many times can be said in a 
    minute, their remarks or any extension of their remarks go in the 
    Appendix of the Record. The Chair has on numerous occasions spoken 
    to those who control the Record and asked them to follow that 
    policy.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I take 
    issue of course with that policy, because these

[[Page 3873]]

    1-minute speakers do not abuse the Record, as a rule. The only 
    question that has been raised about any abuse of the Record in 
    regard to these 1-minute speeches was with reference to a speech 
    made on the 5th of February, I believe, wherein the 1-minute 
    speaker used several pages.
        The Speaker: The Chair might state also that when there is no 
    legislative program in the House for the day, such speeches may go 
    in, and they will go in as 1-minute speeches.
        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York: Mr. Speaker, verifying the 
    statement, which, of course, needs no verification, I remember 
    going to the Speaker and asking if it would be proper to put the 
    speech in the body of the Record, and the Speaker said that there 
    was no legislative program for the day and there was no reason why 
    a Member could not do it. I assume that was on the 5th of February.
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Rankin: Let me say to the gentleman from New York that on 
    yesterday one of the Members made a speech that you will find in 
    the Record almost or quite as long as the speech of the gentleman 
    from Nevada [Mr. Bunker], or the one of the gentleman from Arkansas 
    [Mr. Gathings], or the one that I made. It was placed in the body 
    of the Record, and it was in excess of 300 words. I can go back 
    through the Record here and find numerous occasions.
        If we are going to adopt the policy that everybody who speaks 
    in the well of the House and uses over 300 words must have his 
    speech printed in the Appendix, it should apply to all of us.
        I notice sometimes the Presiding Officer occasionally allows 
    some people more than a minute. Some people have long minutes. We 
    had one rise to speak the other day. I drew my watch. I believe it 
    was 3 minutes. If you will check back you will find every word of 
    it went in the body of the Record. I think this should be a matter 
    to be settled by the membership of the House. Where they make these 
    1-minute speeches with the right to extend their own remarks, it 
    should go in the body of the Record and not be shifted to the 
    Appendix of the Record to make it appear as if it were an extension 
    of remarks.
        The Speaker: The House has that within its entire control at 
    any time it desires to act upon the question.

    The practice regarding such speeches was also discussed on Feb. 6, 
1945 (Speaker Rayburn presiding): (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 839-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: I wish to ask the Chair 
    how it is that if a Member on this side asks for a minute in which 
    to address the House he is permitted to insert 300 words or less, 
    but that when some Members on the other side of the aisle make 
    similar requests they are permitted to put in 7\1/3\ pages, or some 
    8,000 words? How does the discrimination come about?
        The Speaker: There is no discrimination because there was no 
    legislative program on yesterday and anyone had the right to extend 
    his remarks ``at this point'' in the Record.
        Mr. Rich: I am glad to hear that.
        The Speaker: There is no discrimination; that has been the 
    custom for

[[Page 3874]]

    several years. The gentleman will learn it now if he does not 
    already know it from previous rulings of the Chair. . . .
        Mr. Rankin: The question has been raised by two Members, the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] and the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Hoffman] about certain matter that was inserted in 
    the Record on yesterday, by another Member. The contention has been 
    made that it was in violation of the rules of the House.
        May I ask the Speaker if it would not be the proper procedure, 
    if any Member feels that the rule has been violated, for him to 
    make a point of order against the insertion, and if his point of 
    order is sustained, then to move to strike the matter from the 
    Record?
        The Speaker: That could be done. Let the Chair explain the 
    whole situation.
        In the first place, the 1-minute rule was adopted in order that 
    no Member could proceed for more than 1 minute prior to the 
    business of the day on any day when there was a legislative 
    program. The Chair has instructed the official reporters that if 
    such a 1-minute speech and whatever extension is made of it amounts 
    to more than 300 words, it must appear in the Appendix of the 
    Record.
        As to the matter on yesterday, when a Member asks unanimous 
    consent to extend his remarks in the Record, whether or not he 
    addresses the House in connection therewith and whether or not 
    there is a legislative program for that day, if the extraneous 
    matter covers more than two pages it is the duty of the Public 
    Printer under regulation promulgated by the Joint Committee on 
    Printing to return it, unless the Member having first obtained an 
    estimate of the cost from the Public Printer and included that 
    estimate in his request, has obtained the unanimous consent of the 
    House that the whole extension may be included in the Record. The 
    Chair has tried to enforce the 300-word rule, and intends to, but 
    he does not have any way of looking into what goes to the Printing 
    Office in the extension of remarks.

    Parliamentarian's Note: When there is a legislative program for the 
day, any one-minute speeches which contain more than 300 words are 
printed in the Congressional Record following the business of the day 
or in the Appendix.(6) And extensions of remarks on one-
minute speeches are not printed at that point in the Record where there 
is a legislative program for the day, but in the Appendix of the 
Record.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Speaker Rayburn's announcement of Jan. 17, 1949, 95 Cong. Rec. 
        403, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 8779, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., July 10, 1939; and 84 
        Cong. Rec. 7108, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 13, 1939.
            See also the statement of Majority Leader Rayburn on June 
        10, 1939, 84 Cong. Rec. 6949, 6950, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., that 
        he would thereafter object to extensions of remarks ``at this 
        point in the Record'' where a Member has addressed the House 
        for one minute before the legislative program of the day.

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

[[Page 3875]]

Sec. 6.2 The Speaker stated that when Members are recognized after 
    approval of the Journal to extend remarks and to proceed for one 
    minute and then a point of order of no quorum is made to start the 
    consideration of legislation, it is not proper to begin over again 
    recognition to extend remarks and proceed for one-minute speeches.

    On Mar. 7, 1941,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, made 
a statement as to one-minute speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 87 Cong. Rec. 2008, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Let the Chair make a statement. When the House meets and 
    Members are recognized to extend their remarks or to proceed for 1 
    minute and all who are on the floor and so desire have been 
    recognized, and then a point of no quorum is made in order to start 
    the business of legislation for the day, the Chair thinks it is 
    hardly proper to begin all over again in recognizing Members to 
    extend their own remarks or to proceed for 1 minute, but the Chair 
    will recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Gifford].

Sec. 6.3 While one-minute speeches are normally entertained at the 
    beginning of the legislative day, immediately following the 
    approval of the Journal, the Speaker sometimes recognizes Members 
    to proceed for one minute after business has been conducted.

    On Oct. 15, 1969,(9) one-minute speeches had been 
concluded following the approval of the Journal and Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, had recognized several Members for 
business requests by unanimous consent before recognizing Mr. Spark M. 
Matsunaga, of Hawaii, to call up the first scheduled legislative 
business of the day. Before Mr. Matsunaga took the floor, Mr. Arnold 
Olsen, of Montana, rose to a question of personal privilege and asked 
for recognition to proceed for one minute, in order to respond to the 
last one-minute speech. The Speaker recognized him for a one-minute 
speech (rather than ruling on a question of personal privilege).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 30080, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.4 The rule (Rule XXVII clause 4) providing that motions to 
    discharge committees shall be in order ``immediately'' after the 
    reading of the Journal on the second and fourth Mondays was 
    construed not to prohibit the Speaker from recognizing for 
    unanimous-consent requests (including one-minute

[[Page 3876]]

    speeches) prior to recognition for an eligible motion to discharge.

    On Oct. 12, 1942,(10) which was the second Monday of the 
month and therefore a day, under Rule XXVII clause 4,(11) 
eligible for motions to discharge committees, Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of 
New York, called up such a motion to discharge. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of 
Virginia, made a point of order against the consideration of the motion 
on the ground that the rule required such motions to be brought 
immediately after the reading of the Journal, and that a variety of 
unanimous-consent requests (including sending bills to conference and 
administering the oath to a new Member) had been entertained before the 
motion was called up. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, overruled the 
point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 8066, 8067, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair anticipated certain points of order both today and 
    tomorrow. He has ruled with reference to the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from Alabama.
        The Chair recognized all the time that the word ``immediately'' 
    is in this rule, as he has read the rule every day for the past 6 
    days.
        In ruling on a matter similar to this some time ago, the Chair 
    had this to say, although the matter involved was not exactly on 
    all-fours with this point of order, but it is somewhat related:

            The Chair thinks the Chair has a rather wide range of 
        latitude here and could hold, being entirely technical, that a 
        certain point of order might be sustained.

        The Chair is not going to be any more technical today than he 
    was at that time. The Chair recognized the gentleman from North 
    Carolina [Mr. Doughton] on a highly important matter in order to 
    expedite the business of the Congress, not only the House of 
    Representatives but the whole Congress.
        The Chair does not feel that the intervention of two or three 
    unanimous-consent requests would put him in a position where he 
    could well hold that the word ``immediately'' in the rule was not 
    being followed when he recognized the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Gavagan].
        The Chair holds that in recognizing the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Gavagan] when he did, he was complying with the rule which 
    states that it shall be called up immediately upon approval of the 
    Journal.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith].

When No Business Is Scheduled

Sec. 6.5 The Speaker pro tempore announced that he would recognize 
    Members to address the House for longer

[[Page 3877]]

    than one minute (up to one hour) on a day where the House had no 
    scheduled business pending the filing of conference reports.

    On Dec. 16, 1971,(12) Speaker pro tempore J. Edward 
Roush, of Indiana, made an announcement relative to the order of 
business and one-minute speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 47429, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise Members that 
    since there is no legislative business before the House, if Members 
    desire to speak for more than 1 minute, the Chair will recognize 
    them for that purpose.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker generally refuses recognition 
for extensions of one-minute speeches when legislative business is 
scheduled,(13) but the evaluation of the time consumed is a 
matter for the Chair to determine and is not subject to question or 
challenge by parliamentary inquiry.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 13724, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., May 6, 1971; and 116 
        Cong. Rec. 42192, 42193, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 17, 1970.
14. 118 Cong. Rec. 16288, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., May 9, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Not Entertained

Sec. 6.6 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion 
    of the Speaker, and when the House has a heavy legislative 
    schedule, he sometimes refuses to recognize Members for that 
    purpose.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(15) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made a statement on the order of business, following the 
approval of the Journal and the receipt of several messages from the 
Senate and President:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 112 Cong. Rec. 27640, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will receive unanimous-consent requests, after the 
    disposition of pending business.
        The unfinished business is the vote on agreeing to the 
    resolution (H. Res. 1062) certifying the report of the Committee on 
    Un-American Activities as to the failures of Jeremiah Stamler to 
    give testimony before a duly authorized subcommittee of said 
    committee.
        The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

    On June 17, 1970,(16) Speaker McCormack in responding to 
a statement by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, relative to the fact that the 
Speaker had declined to recognize for one-minute speeches before 
legislative business on that day, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 20245, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa that earlier in 
    the

[[Page 3878]]

    day the Chair did make the statement that the Chair would not 
    entertain unanimous-consent requests for 1-minute speeches to be 
    delivered until later on in the day.
        I am sure that the gentleman from Iowa clearly understood that 
    statement on the part of the Speaker. At that particular time the 
    Chair stated that the Chair would recognize Members for unanimous-
    consent requests to extend their remarks in the Record or 
    unanimous-consent requests to speak for 1 minute with the 
    understanding that they would not take their time but would yield 
    back their time.
        I think the Chair clearly indicated that the Chair would 
    recognize Members for that purpose at a later time during the day. 
    As far as the Chair is concerned the custom of the 1-minute speech 
    procedure is adhered to as much as possible because the Chair 
    thinks it is a very healthy custom.
        The Chair had the intent, after the disposition of the voting 
    rights bill, to recognize Members for 1-minute speeches or further 
    unanimous-consent requests if they desired to do so.

    On July 22, 1968,(17) Speaker McCormack discussed, from 
the floor, recognition for one-minute speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 22633, 22634, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Might I throw out a 
    suggestion here that may or may not have merit in the eyes of the 
    distinguished Speaker--I do not know. But it seems to me that every 
    day we start early for one reason or another almost an hour is gone 
    before we get down to the legislative process.
        Would it be proper if Members were permitted to extend their 
    remarks and make their 1 minute speeches at the end of the 
    legislative day in order that we might just get started right away 
    on the legislative program when we meet.
        Mr. McCormack: I call the 1-minute period ``dynamic 
    democracy.'' I hesitate to take away the privilege of a Member as 
    to speaking during that period and it has become a custom and a 
    practice of the House. I think it is a very good thing to adhere to 
    that custom and practice.
        It is only on rare occasions that Members have not been 
    recognized for that purpose. How would the gentleman feel if he had 
    a 1-minute speech to make and he had sent out his press release and 
    then found out that the Speaker was not going to recognize him? 
    Surely, I think, the gentleman would feel better if the Speaker did 
    recognize him; would he not?
        Mr. Arends: According to a person's views--I think it would be 
    the reverse.
        Mr. McCormack: Does the gentleman mean at the end of the day?
        Mr. Arends: You said that this might be ``dynamic democracy.'' 
    I would rather it would be started when we have the time rather 
    than be started at noon.
        Mr. McCormack: It is an integral part of the procedure of the 
    House and I like to adhere to it. Very seldom have I said to 
    Members that I will accept only unanimous-consent requests for 
    extensions of remarks. I hesitate to do it. I think every Member 
    realizes that I am trying to protect their rights. . . .

[[Page 3879]]

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: I thank the gentleman for 
    yielding.
        I think the question is not that of eliminating the 1-minute 
    speeches after the Members have their news releases out. But it is 
    a question of not going back after the second or third rollcall and 
    rerecognizing speeches. In this connection does ``dynamic 
    democracy'' mean the same thing as benign but beneficial 
    dictatorship--which does have merit?
        Mr. McCormack: The gentleman from Missouri has raised a very 
    interesting question. Many times I have said to myself, I am going 
    to announce that the 1-minute speeches will have to be at 12 
    o'clock and not thereafter. But I have not come to the making of 
    that resolution because I just could not bring myself to it. It is 
    somewhat late in this session to do it and when, of course, we 
    Democrats control the House in the next Congress, and I hope I will 
    be Speaker, then I might do it. I am not promising it, but I may do 
    it. But there is something to what the gentleman from Missouri 
    says.

Sec. 6.7 The Speaker refused to recognize for one-minute speeches 
    before proceeding with a special-order speech eulogizing a deceased 
    Member.

    On July 13, 1967,(18) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, before recognizing Mr. Glenard P. Lipscomb, of 
California, for a special-order speech (before legislative business) 
eulogizing deceased Member J. Arthur Younger, of California, made the 
following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 18639, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will not receive unanimous-consent requests at this 
    time, except for Members making a unanimous-consent request for 
    committees to sit during general debate today.

Recognition for Debate Only

Sec. 6.8 The Minority Leader having been recognized to proceed for one 
    minute and in that time having asked unanimous consent for the 
    consideration of a bill, the Speaker held that the gentleman was 
    not recognized for that purpose.

    On Jan. 26, 1944,(19) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
held that recognition for a one-minute speech was limited to that 
purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 90 Cong. Rec. 746, 747, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: The Chair will not recognize any other Member at 
    this time for that purpose but will recognize the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the 
    generosity of the Chair.

[[Page 3880]]

        I take this minute, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make a 
    unanimous consent request and I think it should be explained.
        I agree with the President that there is immediate need for 
    action on the soldiers' vote bill. A good many of us have been 
    hoping we could have action for the last month. To show our 
    sincerity in having action not next week but right now, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the House immediately take up the bill which 
    is on the Union Calendar known as S. 1285. the soldiers' voting 
    bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts was not 
    recognized for that purpose.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.



 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 
Sec. 7. Special-order Speeches

    Like one-minute speeches, special-order speeches are not 
specifically provided for by the rules of the House. Special orders to 
address the House (for the purpose of debate only) may extend up to one 
hour and must follow the legislative business for the 
day.(1) Such speeches must be distinguished from one-minute 
speeches, which under normal practice are limited to one minute and 
precede the legislative business of the day.(2) The order of 
special-order speeches may be varied. For example, where further 
legislative business is scheduled but is not yet ready for 
consideration, the Speaker may recognize for special-order speeches 
with the understanding that legislative business will be 
resumed.(3) Once special orders have begun, the Speaker 
generally declines to recognize for legislative business, although 
there is no rule to prohibit the resumption of business.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For discussion of the evolution of the present practice as to 
        special-order speeches, see Sec. 7.1, infra.
            Special-order speeches are strictly limited to one hour 
        (see Sec. 7.5, infra).
            For further discussion of special-order speeches as related 
        to recognition and debate, see Ch. 29, infra. And for 
        discussion of the recently adopted prohibition on points of no 
        quorum during special-order speeches, see supplements to this 
        edition.
 2. On occasion, one-minute speeches have followed the legislative 
        business (see Sec. 6.3, supra) and where there is no 
        legislative business, one-minute speeches, like special orders, 
        have extended for one hour (see Sec. 6.5, supra).
 3. See Sec. Sec. 7.3, 7.4, infra.
 4. See Sec. 7.4, infra.
            House Rule XV, clause 6, as amended in the 93d Congress 
        (Apr. 9, 1974, H. Res. 998), now prohibits points of order of 
        no quorum when the Speaker is recognizing Members to address 
        the House under special orders with no measure pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Special orders are taken up in the sequence in which they were

[[Page 3881]]

requested; that sequence may be varied, or special orders for one day 
rescheduled to another day, by unanimous consent.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 7.7, 7.8 (rescheduling) and Sec. Sec. 7.10-7.12 
        (varying sequence), infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Special orders to address the House may be requested either on the 
day of delivery or on a day in 
advance.                          -------------------

In Order After Legislative Business

Sec. 7.1 Under the modern procedure of the House, special orders of 
    Members to address the House for more than one minute follow the 
    conclusion of the legislative program of the day and may not 
    preempt business which is privileged under the rules.

    On Apr. 20, 1937,(6) Majority Leader Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, indicated the future procedure to be followed for conducting 
special-order speeches:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 81 Cong. Rec. 3645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in this situation 
    today, and it has been the situation several times since the 
    Congress met. Unanimous consent has been secured by different 
    gentleman to speak on a certain day. Today we have an hour and 
    forty-five minutes set aside for addresses immediately after 
    disposition of matters on the Speaker's table. Hereafter I shall be 
    called upon, when gentlemen get unanimous consent to speak on a day 
    certain, to request that those unanimous consents shall be subject 
    to matters like conference reports, privileged bills, and I think I 
    may add special rules from the Committee on Rules. Today, as I have 
    said, we have an hour and forty-five minutes devoted to addresses. 
    There is a rule on the table which a great many Members think 
    important, and I think the House is in favor of it. I am serving 
    notice to this effect so that, if I have to make these conditions 
    hereafter, Members will understand why they are made.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See also 84 Cong. Rec. 125, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1939, 
        where Majority Leader Rayburn announced the policy of objecting 
        to requests to address the House unless the address would 
        follow the completion of the legislative program for the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 3, 1937,(8) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, ruled that a privileged report from the Committee on Rules 
took precedence over special-order speeches which had been obtained for 
that day, and the practice of special-order speeches was discussed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 5307, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    House Resolution 216.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York calls up a resolution, 
    which the Clerk will report.

[[Page 3882]]

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York] rose.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to raise 
    the point of order?
        Mr. Mapes: I simply wanted to call the attention of the Chair 
    to the fact that there are some special orders on the calendar.
        The Speaker: All special orders are contingent upon being 
    called after the disposition of privileged matters.
        Mr. Mapes: The calendar of today does not so indicate, and that 
    is the only point I have in mind.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York 
    rise?
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    special orders are in order at this time in preference to a 
    resolution from the Committee on Rules.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York 
    rise?
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. 
    This question has been raised several times, and I have forgotten 
    the date, but the Record will show that the Chair announced that 
    from then on all special orders for addresses would he subject to, 
    and would follow, any privileged matters to be brought up on that 
    day.
        Mr. Snell: Then, if there has been a ruling of the Chair, it 
    should so state on the calendar that has been printed for today.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it proper to state in regard to 
    the point of order raised by the gentleman from New York, that a 
    good many days ago, in fact, several weeks ago, the Chair stated, 
    not only once but probably two or three times, that where special 
    orders were agreed to for gentlemen to address the House the 
    understanding upon the part of the Chair would be that they should 
    follow, and not precede, privileged matters that might be subject 
    to be brought up by the House leadership or the Committee on Rules.
        In this particular instance the Record of May 27, at page 6604, 
    shows that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] submitted a 
    request to speak today, as the Chair understands it and the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rayburn], the majority leader, said:

            Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I must, of 
        course, ask that the gentleman's time come after the 
        disposition of privileged matters, such as conference reports, 
        special rules, and so forth.

        And the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Rich] said:

            I understand that.

        So the gentleman evidently acquiesced in that statement.
        Mr. Snell: I think the Chair is right about that.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Does that mean that hereafter when there are 
    special orders for gentlemen to speak, that if the Committee on 
    Rules wants to consider any bill, it takes precedence over the 
    special orders.

[[Page 3883]]

        The Speaker: That is the statement made by the Chair and 
    acquiesced in by the House. It is a matter entirely with the House, 
    of course, if an appeal is taken from that decision.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Rankin: I yield to the gentleman from New- York, if I have 
    the floor.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Of course, Rules Committee never call 
    up a rule without first consulting the Speaker and the majority 
    leader.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand. Here is what I am driving at. It 
    certainly is not my view, and I doubt if it is the view of the 
    House, that the Rules Committee can bring in a rule to consider any 
    legislation and take a Member off the floor who has obtained 
    unanimous consent to address the House. If that is the case, it 
    simply means that the House is subservient to the R.ules Committee 
    so far as these special orders are concerned.
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield? I think this ought to be settled.
        Mr. Snell: That is the reason that I raised this point at this 
    time.
        Mr. Rankin: I thank the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, being in the position that I am, I 
    have to try to protect the program of the House. At least three 
    times when unanimous consent has been requested I have made the 
    statement that at all times I would object unless it were 
    understood that the time asked for would come after conference 
    reports, privileged bills, and special rules.
        Mr. Rankin: Let me ask the gentleman from Texas this question. 
    There are at least three or four gentlemen who have special orders 
    to speak today. If the Committee on Rules steps in under these 
    orders and takes up the remainder of the afternoon, does that mean 
    that these gentlemen shall have this time tomorrow?
        Mr. Rayburn: No; it does not.
        Mr. Rankin: Does it mean entirely taking the time away from 
    them?
        Mr. Rayburn: That is it.

    On June 7, 1937, a colloquy took place on the place of special-
order speeches in the business of the House:

        The Speaker [William B. Bankhead]: The gentleman propounds a 
    parliamentary inquiry which is of some importance to the Chair. It 
    is not the province of the Chair to undertake to say under what 
    circumstances Members shall be allowed to address the House. The 
    Chair thinks at this point there should be a firm decision and 
    determination with reference to the particular question raised by 
    the gentleman from New York. This matter arose a few days ago in 
    the House, and the Chair stated at that time it was his 
    understanding that all these consents which have recently been 
    obtained have been based upon the premise that they would not be in 
    order if there were a regular calendar call or if there were 
    privileged matters which it was desired to call up before the 
    speeches were made. Therefore, for the guidance of the Chair, the 
    Chair thinks this matter ought to be definitely determined once and 
    for all, in as much as the question has been raised.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 3884]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Would it not require an amendment to the rules of 
    the House to establish a rule on this question? The far-reaching 
    attitude assumed the other day would certainly amount to a change 
    in the rules of the House, which must be submitted to the 
    membership in written form. . . .
        The Speaker: In reply to the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] the Chair is of the opinion 
    it would not require a change of the rules to effectuate the 
    procedure which has been suggested, but the Chair upon reflection 
    is of the opinion that if a request is made such as the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Dickstein] has just made, that on Calendar 
    Wednesday after the call of the committee having the call, he may 
    be permitted to address the House for 10 minutes, the Chair would 
    feel it to be his duty under such an agreement to recognize the 
    gentleman from New York for 10 minutes.
        The Chair desires to make the further observation, that this is 
    a matter entirely within the control of the membership of the 
    House. The leadership of the House or any individual Member may 
    interpose at the time such a request is made the condition that the 
    request shall follow privileged business. In order to protect the 
    Chair and to remove from the shoulders of the Chair any 
    responsibility with respect to saying what are privileged matters 
    and what matters should be considered, the Chair thinks it only 
    proper that that rule should be established.
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, I have stated in the House over and 
    over again that when any Member rises and asks the privilege of 
    addressing the House for the moment or for any day in the future, 
    any Member of the House can prevent this by a single objection. I 
    further stated that wanting to accommodate the Members of the House 
    insofar as we can and yet protect and expedite the legislative 
    program, that when any Member asks consent to address the House, it 
    must be understood I would interpose an objection unless the Member 
    understood and agreed that the time so requested would be subject 
    to privileged matters, such as conference reports, privileged bills 
    from committees that have the right to report privileged bills, 
    reports from the Committee on Rules, or special rules making 
    certain legislation in order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 5373, 5374.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.2 It is the general custom that when the House starts on special 
    order speeches, no further business will be transacted unless an 
    emergency arises, although no rule of the House prohibits such 
    transaction of business.

    On Jan. 20, 1964,(10) a unanimous-consent request made 
during special-order speeches was objected to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 614, 615, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) Under previous order 
    of the House, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] is recognized 
    for 60 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Roland V. Libonati (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman: Mr. Speaker, since there is a Democratic 
    caucus at

[[Page 3885]]

    10 o'clock tomorrow when we expected to have our committee meeting, 
    we cannot have the committee meeting until 11 o'clock tomorrow. I 
    therefore ask unanimous consent that on tomorrow afternoon the 
    Subcommittee on Domestic Finance of the Committee on Banking and 
    Currency may be allowed to sit during general debate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Texas? . . .
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, do I understand the parliamentary situation to be that 
    we are on special orders?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: We are on special orders.
        Mr. Gross: It has been the unwritten rule and the custom that 
    when the House starts on special orders, business of general 
    interest to the House is not to be transacted. In view of the fact 
    that we now are on special orders, I must agree with the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Kilburn], that this request should be taken up 
    tomorrow noon when we are in general session in the House.
        Mr. Patman: Mr. Speaker, I am not permitting the gentleman's 
    statement to go unchallenged.
        Mr. Gross: I reserve the right to object. Mr. Speaker, do I 
    have the floor?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has the floor, but the 
    gentleman from Texas may propound a unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. Gross: Of course, and it is also my privilege to reserve 
    the right to object, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Gross: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, I 
    am constrained to object to the request.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.

Sec. 7.3 Special orders are normally scheduled to follow the 
    legislative business of the day, but on occasion the Speaker has 
    recognized for special orders prior to legislative business where 
    the latter was not ready for floor consideration, and has on such 
    occasions notified the House that there would be legislative 
    business following special-order speeches.

    Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, made the following announcement 
on Dec. 14, 1971:

        The Chair would like to advise the Members that in order to get 
    as much accomplished as we can, and in view of the fact that we 
    have no legislative business ready at this moment, we will call 
    special orders, and after they are completed declare a recess, 
    unless legislative business is in order.
        The Chair in making this announcement will state that we are 
    not setting this as a precedent, but that we are calling special 
    orders today, and then going back to the legislative business, if 
    any, after recessing if necessary.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 46801, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A similar announcement was made on Oct. 14, 1972:

[[Page 3886]]

        The Speaker: The Chair would desire to make a statement.
        The Chair is going to call for special orders at this time.
        The Chair desires also to notify the House that there will be 
    business following the special orders. We are merely using this 
    time now because we do not have any business ready for transaction 
    before the House.
        Does the gentleman from Missouri desire recognition at this 
    time?
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Well, Mr. Speaker, is it 
    contemplated that the special orders will follow if we adopt this 
    unusual procedure, and then we will go back into legislative 
    business? Heretofore most of us have always presumed that once the 
    special orders had started we were free.
        The Speaker: That is why the Chair made that statement, because 
    the Chair always heretofore adhered to the philosophy that there 
    should be no business subsequent to the calling of special orders.
        Mr. Hall: The business of the House has been conducted in 
    keeping with that procedure, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: It is the procedure we have always used 
    heretofore.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 36446, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Jan. 22, 1968, Majority Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, made an 
announcement relating to the order of business:

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, we have another matter of legislative 
    business. More than an hour ago the Senate agreed to a resolution 
    which we expect to receive momentarily. The gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Patman] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Curtis] have been 
    standing by. I would like to advise Members that that resolution 
    has to do with the extension of time for the filing of the 
    President's Economic Report. If we do proceed with special orders, 
    I would like the Members of the House to know that as soon as 
    Senate Joint Resolution 132 comes over, we would like to take it 
    up.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Albert: I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
        Mr. Gross: Does the gentleman anticipate any controversy over 
    the matter?
        Mr. Albert: I have not heard of any point of controversy. There 
    will be some discussion.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 430, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On another occasion the House, having completed scheduled business, 
proceeded to special-order speeches, recessed to await a message from 
the Senate, and then acted on a conference report following the receipt 
of the message informing the House of the Senate's action 
thereon.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 40227, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.4 Unanimous-consent requests for the transaction of business are 
    not customarily entertained after special orders have begun, but on 
    oc

[[Page 3887]]

    casion the House has permitted the transaction of such legislative 
    business after scheduled business has been concluded and special-
    order speeches have begun.

    On Mar. 17, 1971,(16) ``special order'' speeches had 
begun, following the conclusion of legislative business for the day. A 
unanimous consent request was made, discussed, and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 6848, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration 
    have permission until midnight tonight to file certain privileged 
    reports.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Brock Adams (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, I do so only for the purpose of trying to ascertain here 
    and now whether we are to follow the custom of no business of the 
    House being transacted after embarking on special orders. That has 
    been the custom in the past, and I should like to have some 
    assurance from the Speaker or the distinguished majority whip that 
    we can rely upon the custom that has been in practice for a long 
    time, that no business will be transacted after special orders are 
    begun.
        Mr. O'Neill: I would be happy to answer the gentleman from 
    Iowa.
        Mr. Gross: I would be glad to have the answer.
        Mr. O'Neill: When I went to the minority leader and explained 
    to him what had happened, that this notification did not come to me 
    until we went into special orders, the gentleman heard the 
    colloquy. I went to the Speaker of the House, and the Speaker has 
    assured us that it is unprecedented and it will not happen again 
    during the session.

        Mr. Gross: I thank the gentleman for that assurance.
        Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.

Limited to One Hour

Sec. 7.5 Special orders to address the House at the conclusion of the 
    business of the day are limited to one hour per Member, and when a 
    Member has used one hour, the Chair will decline to recognize him 
    for extensions of time or for an additional special order.

    On Feb. 9, 1966, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
declined to recognize a Member to request a second special order for 
the same day:

        Mr. [Joseph] Resnick [of New York]: Will the gentleman yield 
    for a unanimous-consent request?
        Mr. [John Bell] Williams [of Mississippi]: I yield for that 
    purpose.

[[Page 3888]]

        Mr. Resnick: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
    have a special order after all other special orders of the day and 
    other legislative business of the day have been concluded to 
    address the House for a period of 15 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    that pursuant to the practice of the House, Members are limited to 
    a 1-hour special order per day. The Chair would be glad to 
    entertain a request for a special order for a later 
    day.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 2794, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Oct. 30, 1967, Speaker pro tempore Henry B. Gonzalez, of Texas, 
advised a Member that he could only be recognized for one hour to speak 
under a special order, and that his time could not be extended, even by 
unanimous consent.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 30472, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 758 (1979), provides that a Member may not be recognized 
for more than one hour of debate on any question, a special-order 
speech may not extend beyond one hour even by unanimous consent. 
However, another Member obtaining the floor in his own right may yield 
to a Member who has already consumed a special order.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 14265, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 21, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.6 A Member was granted a special order to address the House at 
    the conclusion of other special orders previously granted (which 
    totaled over 22 hours) with the understanding that his time would 
    terminate at the end of 60 minutes or when the House convened on 
    the next calendar day, whichever occurred earlier.

    On Oct. 14, 1969,(3) where the House had granted special 
orders totaling over 22 hours at the conclusion of business (with the 
intention of Members opposing the Vietnam conflict to keep the House in 
session throughout the night), another special order was granted as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 29938, 29939, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I be given 60 minutes for a special order 
    either this afternoon or tomorrow morning immediately after the 
    time allotted to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Halpern), my time 
    to expire prior to the regular time that the House will convene 
    tomorrow.
        The Speaker: (4) Will the gentleman from California 
    please repeat his request through the microphone so that all 
    Members may hear the gentleman's request?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Leggett: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
    ex

[[Page 3889]]

    tend my remarks, and I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
    unanimous consent--rather, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
    allowed to address the House for 60 minutes, either this afternoon 
    or tomorrow morning immediately after the time allotted to the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Halpern), my said 60 minutes to expire 
    prior to the regular time set for the convening of the House 
    tomorrow morning. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Leggett)?
        There was no objection.

Requesting and Rescheduling

Sec. 7.7 Special-order speeches may be rescheduled to a following day 
    by unanimous consent, to precede special-order speeches scheduled 
    for that day.

    On Oct. 9, 1962,(5) before the House adjourned out of 
respect to a deceased Member (Clement W. Miller, of California), a 
unanimous-consent request made by the Majority Leader was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 22850, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Abbert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the special orders heretofore entered for today be 
    transferred to tomorrow and be placed at the top of the list of 
    special orders for tomorrow.
        The Speaker: (6) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Special-order speeches were similarly transferred to the following 
day on July 22, 1963, due to the death of a Member.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 109 Cong. Rec. 13004, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.8 When the House adjourns and does not reach special-order 
    speeches scheduled for that day, such speeches are not 
    automatically in order on the next legislative day; a unanimous-
    consent request to reschedule those special orders must be agreed 
    to by the House.

    On Jan. 26, 1971, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on rescheduling special-order speeches:

        (Mr. Montgomery asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute.)
        Mr. [Gillespie V.] Montgomery [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    take this time for the purpose of asking the majority leader about 
    the rescheduling of special orders. I was given unanimous consent 
    for a special order on this Wednesday. In the light of the request 
    of the majority leader that the House go over to Friday, I should 
    like to ask him what procedures we should now follow.
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: The gentleman simply will have 
    to ask unanimous consent that his special order be rescheduled for 
    Friday or some other time.

[[Page 3890]]

        Mr. Montgomery: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    special orders scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday of this week go 
    over until Friday, January 29.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Mississippi?
        There was no objection.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 117 Cong. Rec. 485, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, responded to a similar parliamentary 
inquiry on Mar. 29, 1960 (where the House had adjourned out of respect 
to a deceased Member on the previous day)

        Mr. [William L.] Springer [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Springer: Mr. Speaker, I had a special order on yesterday 
    for 40 minutes. My inquiry is, Does that special order hold over 
    until today so that mine would be the first special order today?
        The Speaker: The gentleman will have to ask unanimous consent 
    to obtain a new special order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  106 Cong. Rec. 6823, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.9 The Chair declined recognition for a unanimous-consent request 
    that a Member be permitted to address the House on a future day 
    before legislative business.

    On June 14, 1935,(10) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, declined to recognize for a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 9330, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
            As discussed previously, current practice requires special-
        order speeches to follow, not precede, legislative business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that on next Monday after the reading of the 
    Journal and the completion of business on the Speaker's desk I may 
    address the House for 15 minutes to answer an attack upon an 
    amendment I proposed to the Constitution made in the Washington 
    Times of June 12 by Mr. James P. Williams, Jr.
        The Speaker: Under the custom that prevails and the action of 
    the Chair heretofore, the Chair cannot recognize the gentleman 
    today to make a speech on Monday. The Chair hopes the gentleman 
    will defer his request.

Sequence

Sec. 7.10 Special-order speeches are ordinarily made in the order in 
    which permission has been granted to the requesting Members by the 
    House, but the House may by unanimous consent change that order to 
    accommodate Members.

    On May 22, 1973,(11) Speaker pro tempore Tom Bevill, of 
Ala
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 16578, 16579, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3891]]

bama, recognized for a unanimous-consent request to change the sequence 
of special-order speeches:

        Mr. [David W.] Dennis [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the special order time assigned to me today 
    be set over for tomorrow, and that I be granted a 60-minute special 
    order at that time, as the first special order for tomorrow.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Indiana?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Dennis: I yield to the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I make the same unanimous-consent 
    request as made by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dennis) that my 
    special order for 60 minutes to be set over for tomorrow, and my 
    special order follow immediately the special order of the gentleman 
    from Indiana (Mr. Dennis).
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 7.11 A Member having a special order was permitted by unanimous 
    consent to relinquish the floor temporarily to allow the Member 
    having the next special order to use part of his own time.

    On July 11, 1966, the House agreed to a unanimous-consent re quest 
varying the regular order of special-order speeches:

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: I would be happy to 
    agree. I do have a difficult problem. I have a live broadcast 
    coming through at exactly 1 o'clock, so I shall go into the 
    cloakroom to do that. If I could proceed for about 5 minutes and 
    then have the gentleman proceed, when I am finished out there I 
    could proceed further, and I would be happy to yield to the 
    gentleman. Would that be agreeable?
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: That would be agreeable, or I 
    could go ahead until the gentleman has finished.
        Mr. Curtis: Whichever the gentleman prefers. Either will work 
    out.
        Mr. Patman: That will be satisfactory.
        With that understanding, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
    that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Curtis] may be allowed to 
    proceed for 5 minutes at this time, with the time to be taken from 
    his time, and that I may be permitted to resume after he finishes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam M. Gibbons (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Curtis] is recognized.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 14988, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.12 By unanimous consent, a Member may be granted a special order 
    to speak ahead

[[Page 3892]]

    of those already scheduled for special orders.

    On July 14, 1965,(14) a unanimous-consent request 
related to the sequence of special-order speeches was objected to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 16845, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent, with the consent of those who have been 
    previously granted a special order, to address the House for 30 
    minutes today relative to the death of Ambassador Adlai Stevenson.
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Yates] asks unanimous consent that he may address the House for 30 
    minutes as the first special order, with the consent of other 
    Members who have obtained special orders, in relation to the death 
    of Ambassador Adlai Stevenson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Illinois?
        Mr. [William T.] Cahill [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I regret 
    I must object.
        Mr. Speaker, I regretted very sincerely what I considered to be 
    a requirement to interpose an objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois. I only did it because there were a great 
    number of people from my district who were here in anticipation of 
    the special order I had requested some time ago and because a great 
    many of the Members had evidenced a keen interest in the subject 
    matter. However, I fully recognize the great importance of and the 
    great contribution that our late and respected and beloved 
    Ambassador to the United Nations has made to this country. In 
    deference to that and out of respect for his memory, I would ask 
    that I be permitted to relinquish the time heretofore asked and 
    that my special order go over to a later date and that I be 
    permitted to yield the 1 hour I have in a special order to the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and all those who would like to 
    pay tribute to the memory of the late Adlai Stevenson.
        Mr. Yates: I thank the gentleman.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Illinois?
        There was no objection.

    On Jan. 29, 1971,(16) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
announced that he would, by unanimous consent, recognize the Chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations for 
special-order speeches immediately following the reading of the 
President's budget message and ahead of other Members who had special 
orders previously scheduled for that day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 990, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 
Sec. 8. Varying the Order of Business

    Generally, the regular order of business may be varied either by

[[Page 3893]]

unanimous consent or by the adoption of a resolution so providing; and 
such a resolution may be reported from the Committee on Rules or 
brought up under suspension of the rules.(17) Any of these 
methods may be used to make in order the consideration of a bill or 
other proposition which cannot be called up under the normal order of 
business, as where provision is made for the immediate consideration of 
a bill which has not been reported by a committee or where the bill, 
although reported, is not privileged for consideration under the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For resolutions reported by the Committee on Rules varying the 
        order of business, see Sec. Sec. 16 et seq., infra. For motions 
        to suspend the rules, their use and effect, see Sec. Sec. 9-15, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Orders and unanimous-consent requests changing the order of 
business are so numerous and varied that only a representative sample 
is included in this section. Frequently, orders are used to change the 
day on which certain calendar business may be considered, such as 
District of Columbia business, motions on the Discharge Calendar, and 
motions to suspend the rules and pass bills.

    An order altering a calendar day has the effect of providing that 
an eligible bill (or other proposition) be considered on the specified 
day or days as if it were the normal time for the consideration of such 
business.(18) Another common use of unanimous-consent 
requests is to postpone roll call votes (or all votes) from one day to 
another. On the day to which postponed, such votes become the 
unfinished business, and any Member may exercise the same rights as 
when the vote was first put or would have been put.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 8.7, 8.11, infra.
19. For unanimous-consent requests postponing votes, see 
        Sec. Sec. 8.14-8.18, infra. For the status of postponed votes 
        as unfinished business. see Sec. Sec. 3.14-3.18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House may also by unanimous consent vary the relative 
precedence of certain bills or motions, such as giving precedence for 
consideration to a less-privileged matter,(20) or 
determining which of two equally privileged matters will be first 
considered.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 8.3, infra.
 1. See Sec. 8.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that in some cases where unanimous consent has 
been granted for consideration of a bill, a point of order may 
nevertheless subsequently be sustained if directed to the question of 
consideration, as where it is based on insufficiency of the 
accompanying report. It has been held that if the unanimous-consent 
agreement includes a waiver

[[Page 3894]]

of points of order ``against the bill,'' points of order directed 
against consideration of the bill are thereby waived. Under the modern 
practice, however, points of order that go to the question of 
consideration rather than to the content of the bill itself must be 
separately and expressly waived. These matters are discussed in more 
detail in Ch. 31, infra, in which points of order and waiver thereof 
are treated.
    It is important to note that recognition for unanimous-consent 
requests is within the discretion of the Speaker, who may decline to 
recognize for requests varying the order of business where such 
requests are not first cleared with the leadership on both sides of the 
aisle.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See for example, Sec. 8.21, infra. For further discussion of 
        unanimous-
        consent requests as related to the order of business, see 
        Sec. 1, supra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Varying Precedence of Bills

Sec. 8.1 Where two propositions of equal privilege are pending, it is 
    for the Chair to determine whom he will recognize to call up one of 
    the propositions, but the House may by unanimous consent determine 
    such precedence.

    On Sept. 11, 1945,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
entertained a unanimous- 
consent request relating to the order of business and responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as to its effect:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 91 Cong. Rec. 8610, 8511, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North 
    Carolina.
        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on tomorrow, 
    immediately after the meeting of the House for business, to 
    consider the bill (H.R. 3974) to repeal war time; that general 
    debate be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled 
    hy the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], chairman of the 
    subcommittee, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Holmes].
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, and I shall not because I want to 
    congratulate the committee on bringing in the legislation at this 
    early date, as I understand it, that will be the first order of 
    business tomorrow?
        Mr. Bulwinkle: Yes; that is my understanding.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, I was under the im pression that H.R. 3660 was 
    to be the next order of business.
        The Speaker: That is a question for the Chair, as to whether 
    the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Illinois to call up the 
    rule or recognize the gen

[[Page 3895]]

    tleman from Oklahoma to call up the bill repealing war time. The 
    request being made at this time is for the war time repeal bill to 
    take precedence.

Sec. 8.2 By unanimous consent, the House proceeded to the immediate 
    consideration of a bill pending on the Union Calendar before taking 
    up unfinished business (votes on certain bills carried over from 
    preceding days).

    On Apr. 6, 1966,(4) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 112 Cong. Rec. 7749, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The next order of business is the matters that were passed over 
    from Monday and Tuesday. However, the Chair desires to state that 
    there is a bill out of the Committee on Ways and Means relating to 
    the extension of time for filing for medicare. If there is no 
    objection on the part of the House, the Chair would like to 
    recognize the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Mills] to submit a 
    unanimous-consent request to bring this bill up. The Chair also 
    understands it is the intention to have a rollcall on the bill. The 
    Chair is trying to work this out for the benefit of the Members. Is 
    there objection to the Chair recoginizing the gentleman from 
    Arkansas [Mr. Millsl, for the purpose stated by the Chair? The 
    Chair hears none and recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
    Mills].

Varying Precedence of Motions

Sec. 8.3 The regular order of business, such as the relative precedence 
    of a motion to discharge on discharge days over unfinished 
    business, may be varied by unanimous consent.

    On May 8, 1936,(5) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the order of business 
and the power of the House to change such order by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 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 
    considera tion 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.

[[Page 3896]]

        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, 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.

Sec. 8.4 The House granted consent that it be in order for a Member to 
    move the rereference of a bill at any time during the day 
    notwithstanding the rule (Rule XXII clause 4) requiring that such 
    motions be made immediately after the reading of the Journal.

    On June 18, 1952,(6) Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, asked 
unanimous consent, after the reading of the Journal, that it be in 
order for him to make a motion at any time on that day to rerefer a 
bill. He stated that the purpose of the request was to defer offering 
the motion until another concerned Member should reach the floor, 
despite the requirement of Rule XII clause 4 [House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 854 (1979)], that motions to re-refer be made immediately after 
the reading of the Journal. The request was agreed to and Mr. Vinson 
offered the motion to rerefer later in the day's proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 98 Cong. Rec. 7532, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.5 Calendar Wednesday business may be dispensed with by unanimous 
    consent but not by motion before the approval of the Journal.

    On Sept. 19, 1962,(7) Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, the 
Majority Leader, asked unanimous consent, before the reading and 
approval of the Journal, that Calendar Wednesday business on that day 
be dispensed with. Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, objected to the 
request. Mr. Albert then moved that Calendar Wednesday business be 
dispensed with, and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled 
that the motion was not in order before the reading and approval of the 
Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changing Consent and Private Calendar Days

Sec. 8.6 The call of the Consent and Private Calendars and

[[Page 3897]]

    authority for the Speaker to recognize for suspensions under Rule 
    XXVII clause I were, by unanimous consent, made in order on the 
    second Tuesdays of the month due to the adjournment of the House 
    for an Easter recess.

    On Mar. 29, 1961,(8) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request, where the House was to adjourn for an Easter recess 
until Apr. 10:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 5289, 5290, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that on Tuesday, April 11, 1961, it shall be in 
    order for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules 
    notwithstanding the provisions of clause 1, rule XXVII, that it 
    shall be in order to consider business under clause 4, rule XIII, 
    the Consent Calendar rule, and that on the same date the Private 
    Calendar may be called. . . .
        The Speaker: (9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Changing Discharge Day

Sec. 8.7 Following a unanimous-consent agreement changing the day on 
    which motions on the Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees 
    could be called up, the Speaker stated that a motion that had been 
    on the calendar for seven legislative days prior to the date set in 
    the unanimous-consent agreement would be eligible.

    On June 9, 1960, the House had agreed to a unanimous-consent 
request to change from the second Monday [under Rule XXVII clause 4, 
House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1979)] to the following Wednesday, the 
day on which motions to discharge committees could be called up. In 
response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
indicated that the seven days required by Rule XXVII clause 4 for the 
motion to lie on the calendar would be calculated as of the day 
specified in the request:

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: . . . My 
    parliamentary inquiry is this: In view of the unanimous consent 
    request heretofore entered into by the House, if we adjourn from 
    today until Monday will the discharge petition in relation to the 
    pay raise bill be in order on Wednesday next?
        The Speaker: The Chair would so hold.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 12272, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.8 The day on which motions on the Calendar of Motions to 
    Discharge Commit

[[Page 3898]]

    tees could be called up under the rule (Rule XXVII clause 4) was, 
    by unanimous-consent, changed from the second Monday to the 
    following Wednesday.

    On June 9, 1960,(11) a unanimous-consent request to 
transfer motions to discharge committees was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 12256, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, on 
    yesterday consent was granted that consideration of the pay raise 
    bill be postponed until next Wednesday. I desire to submit a 
    similar request today in clarified language:
        Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding any other provisions of the rules, 
    I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on Wednesday next 
    for the Speaker to recognize any Member who signed discharge motion 
    No. 6, being numbered 1 on the calendar of motions to discharge 
    committees to call up said motion for immediate consideration.
        The Speaker:(12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Mr. McCormack had made a similar request on June 8:

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the attention of my 
    colleagues on a matter which has been cleared by the leadership on 
    both sides, in connection with motions in order under the discharge 
    rule on Monday next, I ask unanimous consent that they be postponed 
    until the following Wednesday and be the first order of business.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 12120, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changing District Day

Sec. 8.9 By unanimous consent, District of Columbia business in order 
    on the second Monday of the month (a legal ``Columbus Day'' holiday 
    when the House would not be in session) was transferred to the 
    following day.

    On Oct. 5, 1971, the House agreed to a unanimous-consent request:

        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that business in order under clause 8, rule XXIV, from the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia, may be in order on Tuesday, 
    October 12.
        The Speaker: (14) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Louisiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, would the gentleman restate his request?
        Mr. Boggs: The request is simply that District Day be postponed 
    from Monday until Tuesday.

[[Page 3899]]

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Louisiana?
        There was no objection.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 34882, 34883, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Monday in question was Columbus Day, a legal holiday when the 
House would not be in session.

Sec. 8.10 District of Columbia business and authority for the Speaker 
    to recognize for motions to suspend the rules were by unanimous 
    consent transferred to the following day (due to the death of a 
    Member).

    On Aug. 10, 1964, before the House adjourned out of respect for a 
deceased Member (John B. Bennett, of Michigan), the House agreed to a 
unanimous-consent request related to the order of business:

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 
    1927, nonservice-connected pensions, in order today, be in order on 
    tomorrow, Tuesday, August 11, 1964, and that business in order 
    under clause 8, rule XXIV, District of Columbia business, also be 
    in order on tomorrow instead of today.
        The Speaker: (16) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 18854, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.11 By unanimous-consent, the House agreed that certain District 
    of Columbia business could be conducted on a Wednesday under the 
    rules and procedures normally applicable to District bills called 
    up on the second or fourth Mondays of the month.

    On May 25, 1960, the House agreed to the following unanimous-
consent request:

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that on Wednesday of next week it may be in order 
    for the Speaker to recognize the chairman of the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia or anv member thereof to consider as under 
    District of Columbia Day, one bill, H.R. 12063, to authorize the 
    Commissioners of the District of Columbia to plan, construct, 
    operate, and maintain a sanitary sewer to connect the Dulles 
    International Airport to the District of Columbia system.
        This has been cleared with the ranking member of the Committee 
    on the District of Columbia and the minority leader.
        The Speaker: (18) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 11116, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3900]]

Changing Suspension Day

Sec. 8.12 By unanimous consent, the Speaker was given authority to 
    recognize for motions to suspend the rules and pass certain bills 
    on a date to be agreed upon by himself and the Majority and 
    Minority Leaders.

    On Aug. 17, 1964,(20) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request propounded by the Majority Leader as to the order of 
business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 19943, 19944, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it shall be in order for the Speaker to recognize for 
    motions to suspend the rules and pass the bills remaining 
    undisposed of on the whip notice today on a day to be agreed upon 
    by the Speaker, the majority leader, and the minority leader.

        The Speaker: (1) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Making in Order Special Appropriation Bill

Sec. 8.13 By unanimous consent, the House may make in order on certain 
    days the consideration of joint resolutions containing special 
    appropriations or continuing appropriations.

    On Sept. 29, 1971,(2) the House agreed to unanimous-
consent requests made by the Chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations relative to the order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 33826-28, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order on any day next week to consider a 
    joint resolution making a supplemental appropriation for fiscal 
    year 1972 for Federal unemployment benefits and allowances, 
    Manpower Administration, Department of Labor.
        The Speaker: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be 
    in order on any day after October 5, 1971, to consider a joint 
    resolution making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal 
    year 1972, and for other purposes.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas? . . .
        There was no objection.

Postponing Votes

Sec. 8.14 Votes to be taken on a religious holiday on which the House 
    will be in session may, by unanimous consent, be postponed until a 
    following day.

[[Page 3901]]

    On Apr. 12, 1973,(4) the House agreed to and discussed a 
unanimous-consent request relating to order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 12216, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday of next week, it being a 
    Jewish holiday, votes on final passage and recommittal be postponed 
    until the following day.
        The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Reserving the right to object, Mr. 
    Speaker, is that on the Economic Stabilization Act only?
        Mr. O'Neill: No. I am asking that be on whatever legislation is 
    before this body on Tuesday.
        Mr. Gross: But not limited to the Economic Stabilization Act?
        Mr. O'Neill: No.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I object to that.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, would the 
    gentleman listen for a moment? I hope that this program is 
    approved, but they have to get a rule and if they do not get a 
    rule, something else might be programed and, if so----
        Mr. Gross: Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, 
    what other legislation would we be permitted to vote on? And what 
    is this kind of procedure going to do with respect to adjournment 
    on Thursday?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gross: Yes, I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Perhaps the distinguished majority leader 
    should respond to this, but if there happens to be no rule on the 
    Economic Stabilization Act--and I do not think that is going to 
    happen--but if it did, we might wish to take up the Federal aid to 
    highway bill.
        Mr. O'Neill: If the gentleman will yield further, it could be 
    that we could take up any rule.
        Mr. Gross: Without a vote?
        Mr. O'Neill: We have always had the custom of doing that on 
    Jewish holidays, to put over votes.
        Mr. Gross: I do not recall that that has been an inflexible 
    rule.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: That is my understanding on Jewish holidays 
    or any other religious day for any denomination, that has been the 
    understanding.
        Mr. Gross: St. Patrick's Day, or any other day, Columbus Day, 
    and all the other so-called holidays?
        Mr. Speaker, since commitments have apparently been made, just 
    for this once I will withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 8.15 The House having agreed to postpone for one day votes on 
    motions to recommit and on final passage, later agreed by unanimous 
    consent to similarly postpone votes on amendments re

[[Page 3902]]

    ported from the Committee of the Whole on a designated bill.

    On Apr. 12, 1973,(6) a unanimousconsent request relating 
to the order of business on a future day (Apr. 17) was agreed to after 
some explanatory debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 12216, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent that on Tuesdav of next week, it being a 
    Jewish holiday, votes on final passage and recommittal be postponed 
    until the following day.

    On Apr. 16, 1973,(7) a similar request was made for the 
same day in relation to other types of votes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 12552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
    in the House on and amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole 
    to the legislati`e appropriation bill be put over until Wednesday.
        The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 8.16 The vote on the passage of a bill may, by unanimous consent, 
    be put over until the following day.

    On July 19, 1965,(9) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, put the question on the passage of a bill, following the 
engrossment and third reading. A unanimous-consent request was then 
agreed to postponing the vote on passage:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 17217, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        Mr. [L. Mendell] Rivers of South Carolina: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from South 
    Carolina rise?
        Mr. Rivers of South Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that further proceedings in the consideration of the bill 
    be suspended until tomorrow.
        The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 8.17 Further consideration of a conference report on which the 
    previous question had been ordered was, by unanimous consent, 
    postponed and made the unfinished business on the following day.

    On Dec. 15, 1970,(10) further consideration of a 
conference report (H.R. 17867, foreign assistance appropriations) was 
postponed by unanimous consent after the previous question had been 
ordered thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 41544, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the

[[Page 3903]]

    previous question on the conference report.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (11) The question is on the conference 
    report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that there are five 
    amendments in disagreement.
        Mr. Hall: I want a vote on the acceptance of the conference 
    report, to which I object violently; and I object to the vote on 
    the ground that a quorum is not present and, I repeat, I make a 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will count.
        Will the gentleman withhold his point of order?
        Mr. Hall: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not withhold the point of 
    order. I insist on my point of order. The point of order has been 
    properly made.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman indulge the Chair? There are 
    quite a few Members at the White House, and it would be the purpose 
    of the gentleman from Texas if the gentleman from Missouri will 
    withhold his point of order, to ask that further proceedings on the 
    conference report and the amendments in disagreement be postponed 
    until tomorrow, because there are many Members at the White House 
    with their wives.
        Mr. Hall: The only question of the gentleman from Missouri is: 
    Why was this not considered before the conference report was called 
    up?
        Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, and with that 
    understanding and for no other purpose, I will yield until the 
    gentleman from Texas makes his request.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that further proceedings on the conference report be 
    postponed until tomorrow and that this be the first order of 
    business on tomorrow. . . .
        Mr. Hall: . . . Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection. . . .
        The Speaker: Accordingly, the matter is postponed until 
    tomorrow, when it will be the first order of business.

Sec. 8.18 Pursuant to a special order postponing roll calls until the 
    following Thursday, consideration of the vote on a bill called up 
    under suspension of the rules and consideration of a veto message 
    were postponed and made the unfinished business on the day when 
    roll calls would again be in order.

    On Oct. 5, 1965,(12) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of 
Wisconsin, moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill; when Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, put the question on the motion,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 25941-44, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3904]]

Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, objected to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum was not present. The Speaker then stated as follows:

        The Speaker: Pursuant to the order of the House of October 1, 
    further proceedings on the Senate joint resolution will go over 
    until Thursday, October 7.

    On the same day, a veto message from the President was laid before 
the House and was postponed to Oct. 7 pursuant to the previous 
order.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 25940, 25941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Oct. 1, the House had agreed to a 
unanimous-consent request that all roll call votes, other than on 
matters of procedure, which might arise on Oct. 5 or 6, be put over 
until Oct. 7.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at pp. 20796, 20797.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rescheduling Special Orders

Sec. 8.19 Special-order speeches may be rescheduled to a following day 
    by unanimous consent, to precede special-order speeches scheduled 
    for that day.

    On Oct. 9, 1962,(15) before the House adjourned out of 
respect to a deceased Member (Clement W. Miller, of California), a 
unanimous-consent request made by the Majority Leader was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 22850, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the special orders heretofore entered for today be 
    transferred to tomorrow and be placed at the top of the list of 
    special orders for tomorrow.
        The Speaker:(16) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Special-order speeches were similarly transferred to the following 
day on July 22, 1963, due to the death of a Member.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 109 Cong. Rec. 13004, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.20 Unanimous-consent requests for the transaction of business 
    are not customarily entertained after special orders have begun, 
    but on occasion the House has permitted the transaction of 
    legislative business by unanimous--consent after scheduled business 
    has been concluded and special order speeches have begun.

    On Mar. 17, 1971,(18) ``special-order'' speeches had 
begun, following the conclusion of legislative business for the day. A 
unanimous-consent request was made, discussed, and aareed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 117 Cong. Rec. 6848, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the Com

[[Page 3905]]

    mittee on House Administration have permission until midnight 
    tonight to file certain privileged reports.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Brock Adams (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
    object, I do so only for the purpose of trying to ascertain here 
    and now whether we are to follow the custom of no busines of the 
    House being transacted after embarking on special orders. That has 
    been the custom in the past, and T should like to have some 
    assurance from the Speaker or the distinguished majority whip that 
    we can rely upon the custom that has been in practice for a long 
    time, that no business will be transacted after special orders are 
    begun.
        Mr. O'Neill: I would be happy to answer the gentleman from 
    Iowa.
        Mr. Gross: I would be glad to have the answer.
        Mr. O'Neill: When I went to the minority leader and explained 
    to him what had happened, that this notification did not come to me 
    until we went into special orders, the gentleman heard the 
    colloquy. I went to the Speaker of the House, and the Speaker has 
    assured us that it is unprecedented and it will not happen again 
    during the session.
        Mr. Gross: I thank the gentleman for that assurance.
        Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.

Varying Previous Order

Sec. 8.21 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member to request 
    unanimous consent to make an omnibus bill eligible for 
    consideration during a call of the Private Calendar on a specific 
    day, when the House had previously agreed by unanimous consent that 
    it be passed over.

    On July 15, 1968,(20) John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, declined to recognize Mr. William L. Hungate, of 
Missouri, to make the unanimous-consent request that the first omnibus 
private bill of 1968 (H.R. 16187) be placed on the Private Calendar for 
July 16. The House had previously agreed, on July 12, 1968, to the 
unanimous-consent request of Majority Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
that the bill be passed over and not considered during the call of the 
Private Calendar on July 16.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 114 Cong. Rec. 21326, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. Id. at p. 20998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Withdrawal as Varying Order

Sec. 8.22 On one occasion the Speaker, having recognized one Member to 
    propound a

[[Page 3906]]

    parliamentary inquiry regarding the status of a resolution as 
    ``unfinished business,'' then recognized another Member to withdraw 
    the resolution, thus eliminating the reason for the inquiry.

    On Apr. 8, 1964, a demand was made for the reading of the engrossed 
copy of a bill where the engrossment was not yet prepared. The bill was 
laid aside and the House proceeded to consider a resolution (concurring 
in Senate amendments to a House bill). Prior to the disposition of the 
resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a 
recess pursuant to authority previously granted.
    At the conclusion of the recess, the Speaker stated the unfinished 
business to be the reading of the engrossed copy of the bill on which 
the demand had been made. The following inquiry and its disposition 
then ensued: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 110 Cong. Rec. 7303, 7304, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The unfinished business is the reading of the 
    engrossed copy of H.R. 10222.
        The Clerk will read the engrossed copy.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker when the recess was called, 
    it is my understanding that we were engaged in the consideration of 
    what is referred to as a cotton and wheat bill. Is it not the rule 
    of the House that we must finish the consideration of that measure 
    before we take up any other measure which has been passed over for 
    parliamentary and mechanical reasons?
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Bolling].
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, under the rules I withdraw House 
    Resolution 665.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, that takes 
    unanimous consent, and I object.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that it does not take 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the resolution in the House.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker it is my understanding that 
    the Speaker was addressing the Member now addressing the Chair and 
    had not given an answer to my question. Therefore, the recognition 
    of the Member from the other side, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
    Bolling] was out of order. Am I incorrect?
        The Speaker: The recognition of the gentleman from Missouri 
    [Mr. Bolling] terminated the parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: In other words, the Speaker did not 
    answer the parliamentary inquiry; is that correct?
        The Speaker: Since the resolution was withdrawn, the 
    parliamentary inquiry was ended.

[[Page 3907]]

        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: If the Speaker will respectfully permit, 
    the gentleman from Ohio would suggest that the question had been 
    asked before the resolution had been withdrawn.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has the power 
    of recognition. Now that the resolution has been withdrawn, the 
    unfinished business is the reading of the engrossed copy of H.R. 
    10222.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Speaker: The gentleman will I state it.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: The Speaker had recognized the gentleman 
    from Ohio for a parliamentary inquiry. The parliamentary inquiry 
    had been made. The parliamentary inquiry had not been answered and 
    yet the Chair recognized the gentleman from Missouri.
        The Speaker: Which the Chair has the power to do.
        The Clerk will read the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222. . . .
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton:  Speaker, may I inquire whether the 
    parliamentary inquiry which I addressed to the Chair is now not to 
    be answered, because of the action of the gentleman from Missouri?
        The Speaker: The gentleman will repeat his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry was 
    to the effect that inasmuch as the House was engaged at the 
    business before it at the time the Speaker called the recess, 
    whether the rules of the House did not call for the conclusion of 
    that business before other business which had been postponed by the 
    House under the rules of the House and in accordance with the 
    procedures of the House did not have to follow consideration of any 
    business that was before the House at the time of the calling of 
    the recess?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Missouri withdrew his resolution. If he had not withdrawn the 
    resolution the situation might have been different.
        The Chair has made a ruling that the unfinished business is the 
    reading of the engrossed copy of H.R. 10222. That is the unfinished 
    business.

Form of Resolution Varying Special Days

Sec. 8.23 Form of resolution authorizing call of the Consent Calendar 
    and consideration of motions to suspend the rules on a day other 
    than that specified in Rule XIII clause 4 and Rule XXVII clause 
    1.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Rule XIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 746 (1979); and 
        Rule XXVII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 31, 1961, the Committee on Rules reported and the House 
adopted the following order of business resolution:

        Resolved, That the call of the Consent Calendar and 
    consideration of motions to suspend the rules, in order on Monday, 
    September 4, 1961, may be in

[[Page 3908]]

    order on Wednesday, September 6, 1961.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Res. 444, 107 Cong. Rec. 17766, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 31, 
        1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                    B. MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
 
Sec. 9. Use and Effect


    Rule XXVII clauses 1 through 3(5) provides for a motion 
to suspend the rules, by a two-thirds vote, which is in order on 
specified days:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 902907 (1979).
            This rule was further amended in the 95th Congress to 
        permit the Speaker to recognize for motions to suspend the 
        rules on every Monday and Tuesday. H. Res. 5, 95th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Jan. 4, 1977. In 1974, a procedure was added to the rule 
        to permit record votes on suspensions to be postponed until 
        after all such motions have been considered. H. Res. 998, 93d 
        Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 9, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        1. No rule shall be suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of 
    the Members voting, a quorum being present; nor shall the Speaker 
    entertain a motion to suspend the rules except on the first and 
    third Mondays of each month, and on the Tuesdays immediately 
    following those days, and during the last six days of a session.
        2. All motions to suspend the rules shall, before being 
    submitted to the House, be seconded by a majority by tellers, if 
    demanded.
        3. When a motion to suspend the rules has been seconded, it 
    shall be in order, before the final vote is taken thereon, to 
    debate the proposition to be voted upon for forty minutes, one-half 
    of such time to be given to debate in favor of, and one-half to 
    debate in opposition to, such proposition; and the same right of 
    debate shall be allowed whenever the previous question has been 
    ordered on any proposition on which there has been no 
    debate.(6) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. The motion to suspend the rules, as a method of changing the order 
        of business, is of old usage in the House of Representatives, 
        dating back to 1822. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6790 for the 
        early history of the rule.
            The motion to suspend the rules is one of the three methods 
        to change the regular order of business, the other two being 
        unanimous-consent requests and special orders reported from the 
        Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion may be used either to suspend specific rules or to 
suspend all rules which are in conflict with the purpose of the motion. 
In current practice, the motion is most frequently used to pass bills 
or adopt resolutions; the form of the motion is to ``suspend the rules 
and pass the bill'' or to ``suspend the rules and pass the bill with an 
amendment.'' Where

[[Page 3909]]

the motion is used in that fashion, all rules are suspended which are 
in conflict with the passage of the bill, and no points of order 
against the consideration of the bill may be raised, such as points of 
order based on defects in reporting the bill, inclusion of 
appropriation language in a legislative bill, or the 
like.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. Sec. 9.7-9.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While most hills passed by the House have been reported out by 
committees of the House in accordance with the rules, a motion to 
suspend the rules may be used to pass an original bill or resolution 
submitted from the floor and neither introduced nor referred to a 
committee.(8) Or the motion may be used to pass a bill which 
is pending before a committee but which has not been 
reported.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See, for example, Sec. 9.19, infra. See also Sec. Sec. 9.13-9.18 
        (passage of resolutions affecting the order of business, 
        submitted from the floor).
 9. See, for example, Sec. 9.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to suspend the rules is an effective method for passing 
emergency or noncontroversial legislation, without amendment (motions 
brought up under suspension may not be amended unless the amendment is 
part of the motion).(10) And since the motion requires a 
two-thirds vote for adopton, suspenslon has been used to bring up and 
adopt proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, which 
require a two-thirds vote pursuant to article V of the 
Constitution.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. Sec. 9.22-9.24, infra. For discussion of the prohibition 
        against offering amendments on the floor to bills and 
        resolutions brought up under suspension, see Sec. 14, infra.
11. See Sec. 9.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion is also an expeditious method for adopting special 
orders of business without a full report by the Committee on Rules. A 
resolution (which frequently provides for the disposal of bills from 
the Speaker's table) may be submitted directly from the floor, and the 
Member recognized to move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution is usually the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction 
over the subject matter of the legislation.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. Sec. 9.13-9.18, infra. For matters related to recognition 
        for motions to suspend the rules, see Sec. 11, infra.
            If the motion is used to agree to a resolution to take a 
        bill from the Speaker's table, ask for a conference and provide 
        that the Speaker immediately appoint conferees, the use of the 
        motion may prevent a motion to instruct conferees since the 
        ``immediate'' appointment of conferees implies action by the 
        Speaker without intervening motion (see Sec. 13.17, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatively, the special order of business may be made part of

[[Page 3910]]

the motion to suspend the rules (rather than using the motion to adopt 
a resolution creating the special order). For example, it may be moved 
to suspend the rules, take from the Speaker's table a House bill with a 
Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate 
amendment.(13), However, using the motion to adopt a 
resolution creating the special order eliminates confusion as to the 
effect of the motion, since the resolution is sent to the desk and 
reported by the Clerk, rather than the offerer of the motion being 
required to make what may be a complicated order of business part of 
the motion.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 14. 9, infra.
14. While it has been he]d that the right of a Member to have read the 
        paper on which he is called to vote is not changed by the fact 
        that the procedure is by suspension of the rules (6 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 5277; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3400), the 
        precedents are not uniform in this regard, and in earlier 
        instances the separate motion to suspend the rules and dispense 
        with reading of pending bills, amendments, and Senate 
        amendments was held in order (5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5278-84). Under the modern practice, only the motion 
        ``to suspend the rules and pass'' is itself read. Thus only the 
        title of the bill is normally read by the Clerk, and amendments 
        included in the motion are not reported separately, but the 
        Chair may, in his discretion, where objection is made to that 
        procedure, require the reading of an amendment which is not 
        printed or otherwise available (Sec. 14.4, infra). And, in 
        Sec. 12.21, infra, where, pending a motion to suspend the rules 
        and agree to a resolution which provided for concurring in a 
        Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of a 
        hill introduced in the House, the Speaker ruled that reading of 
        the resolution itself was sufficient and that it could be 
        reread to the House only by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some rules of the House may not be suspended, by a motion to 
suspend the rules or otherwise, such as the rule relating to the 
privileges of the floor,(15) the rule relating to the use of 
the Hall of the House,(16) and the rule prohibiting the 
introduction of gallery occupants.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XXXII, House Rules and Manual Sec. 919 (1979).
16. Rule XXXI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 918 (1979).
17. Rule XIV clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 764 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated by Rule XXVII clause 1, above, the motion is only in 
order on certain days and on the last six days of a session (although 
the Speaker may be authorized, by unanimous consent, by a motion to 
suspend the rules, or by a special order from the Committee on Rules, 
to entertain motions or a motion to suspend

[[Page 3911]]

the rules on days other than those specified in the 
rule).(18) The so-called ``suspension calendar'' is a list 
of those bills on which motions to suspend the rules will be 
entertained by the Speaker on a given day. The list is generally 
programed in advance in order that notice be given to Members of the 
House. And only such bills as have been cleared witl1 the leadership 
are brought up under suspension, as the Speaker has plenary power to 
entertain or to refuse recognition for motions to suspend the 
rules.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For discussion as to when motions to suspend the rules are in 
        order, see Sec. 10, infra.
19. See, for example, Sec. 9.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Defeat of a Motion to Suspend the Rules

Sec. 9.1 The Committee on Rules may report a special rule making in 
    order the consideration of a joint resolution previously defeated 
    on a motion to suspend the rules.

    On Aug. 24, 1935,(20) Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a special order making 
in order the consideration of a bill which had been brought up under 
suspension of the rules on the same day and had failed to obtain a two-
thirds vote for passage. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
answered parliamentary inquiries on the power of the Committee on Rules 
to report such a resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 79 Cong. Rec. 14652, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which was 
    considered today under suspension of the rules but failed of 
    passage. It is a matter about which there was some confusion. It is 
    a very simple matter and has nothing to do with ship subsidies. It 
    merely extends the time within which the President can determine 
    whether or not to cancel or modify the contracts. The President has 
    before him this important situation: Many of these contracts will 
    expire between October of this year and January of next year. I am 
    authorized to say that the President feels he needs this authority.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
        Mr. [Maury] Maverick [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Maverick: After a bill has been passed on, can it be 
    brought up again the same day? What about the Puerto Rico bill, 
    which failed? If we can again bring up the bill made in order by 
    this resolution, we can do it with the Puerto Rico bill, or with 
    any other bill that has been defeated once during the day. This 
    bill was defeated a few hours ago.
        The Speaker: The Chair will answer the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry. This is an effort on the part of the 
    gentleman from New York, Chairman of the Rules Committee, to bring 
    this bill up under a special rule.

[[Page 3912]]

        The question is up to the House as to whether or not that can 
    be done.
        Mr. Maverick: I did not hear the Chair.
        The Speaker: This is a special rule which is under 
    consideration and is in order.
        Mr. [William D.] McFarlane [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McFarlane: Is it in order for the Chairman of the Rules 
    Committee to bring in a rule on a bill which we defeated this 
    afternoon and then move the previous question before the opponents 
    have an opportunity to be heard?
        The Speaker: It is, under the rules of the House.
        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, all the opponents were heard today.
        The Speaker: It is a question for the House itself to 
    determine.
        Mr. [Otha D.] Wearin [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wearin: Does this rule provide for the opportunity to offer 
    amendments?
        The Speaker: The joint resolution is considered in the House 
    under the rules of the House.

Use of Motion to Suspend Rules Generally

Sec. 9.2 On motion of the Majority Leader, the House agreed to suspend 
    the rules and pass a bill increasing the salary of the President, 
    although the bill had not been considered in committee.

    On Jan. 6, 1969,(21) Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, the 
Majority Leader, moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill which had 
been referred to committee but not yet considered by the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 115 Cong. Rec. 172-76, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
    the bill (H.R. 10) to increase the per annum rate of compensation 
    of the President of the United States.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                    H.R. 10

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 102 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by 
        striking out ``$100,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``$200,000''.
            Sec. 2. The amendment made by this Act shall take effect at 
        noon on January 20, 1969.

        The Speaker:(1) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        MR. [H. R.] gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    (Mr. Albert).
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.
        Mr. Speaker, as Members all know, this is the first suspension 
    bill of the

[[Page 3913]]

    91st Congress. Normally the Speaker would not recognize Members to 
    call up bills under suspension of the rules this early in the term 
    and without committee consideration. The only reason that this 
    method has been used on this occasion is that it presents to the 
    House the opportunity to consider this legislation before the new 
    President takes office. Members know that under article II, section 
    1, clause 7, of the Constitution the salary of the President of the 
    United States cannot be increased during his term of office. 
    Therefore, if the matter is to be handled at all, it must be passed 
    by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President before noon 
    on January 20. Members further know, Mr. Speaker, that committee 
    assignments have not been made and will not be made in time for 
    normal hearings and proceedings to be had in order to consider this 
    bill by the deadline.
        In view of these circumstances, the distinguished minority 
    leader and the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service and myself have jointly 
    offered this resolution for the consideration of the Members of the 
    House.

    The House agreed to the motion.

Sec. 9.3 The Speaker has recognized a Member to move to suspend the 
    rules and pass a Senate bill similar to a House bill which had been 
    previously announced for consideration under the suspension 
    procedure.

    On Mar. 16, 1964,(2) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized for a motion to suspend the rules and pass a 
Senate bill; and answered an inquiry relative thereto:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 110 Cong. Rec. 5291, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Speaker, the bill 
    H.R. 9711, to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, is on the 
    suspension calendar for today. However, a similar bill, S. 2448, 
    has been passed by the other body. Therefore, in lieu of calling up 
    H.R. 9711, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill S. 2448. . 
    . .
        Mr. [John P.] Saylor [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Saylor: Mr. Speaker, the House Calendar lists a bill to 
    come up under suspension and it is a House bill. Does it not 
    require unanimous consent to suspend the rules and take up a Senate 
    bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, under the rules of the House, the Speaker may 
    recognize a Member on a motion to suspend the rules.

Sec. 9.4 The House under suspension of the rules passed a simple 
    resolution paying from the contingent fund mileage and paying 
    expenses in a contested election case.

    On Aug. 7, 1948,(3) the House adopted, without debate, a 
simple
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 94 Cong. Rec. 10247, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3914]]

resolution under suspension of the rules:

        Mr. [Ralph A.] Gamble [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass House Resolution 715.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives is 
        authorized and directed to pay to the Sergeant at Arms of the 
        House of Representatives not to exceed $171,000 out of funds 
        appropriated under the head ``Contingent expenses of the 
        Houses,'' fiscal year 1949, for additional mileage of Members 
        of the House of Representatives, Delegates from Territories, 
        and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, at the rate 
        authorized by law.
            Sec. 2. That the Clerk of the House of Representatives is 
        authorized and directed to pay to Walter K. Granger, contestee, 
        for expenses incurred in the contested-election case of Wilson 
        versus Granger, as audited and recommended by the Committee on 
        House Administration, $2,000, to be disbursed out of funds 
        appropriated under the head ``Contingent expenses of the 
        House,'' fiscal year 1949.

        The Speaker:(~4) Is a second demanded? [After a 
    pause.] The question is on suspending the rules and passing the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was passed.

Sec. 9.5 Under a motion to suspend the rules, a conference report was 
    recommitted to a conference committee.

    On Apr. 1, 1935,(5) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, recognized for a motion to suspend the rules following 
objection to a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 79 Cong. Rec. 4761-65, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the conference report on House Joint 
    Resolution 117, making appropriations for relief purposes, be 
    recommitted to the Committee of Conference.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, will the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Buchanan], 
    explain why he wants to have the joint resolution recommitted?
        Mr. Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the regular order.
        Mr. Taber: Then I shall object, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Woodrum: The gentleman is going to object anyway.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        Mr. Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
    recommit the conference report on House Joint Resolution 117, 
    making appropriations for relief purposes, to the Committee of 
    Conference.

    The House adopted the motion to suspend the rules, after House 
members of the conference committee explained that recommittal to 
conference was necessary in

[[Page 3915]]

order to correct errors in the report.

Sec. 9.6 On suspension days, the motion to suspend the rules is 
    admitted at the discretion of the Speaker, and he may decline to 
    entertain such motions unless they have the approval of the 
    Majority Leader.

    On Aug. 2, 1948,(6) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, declined to recognize for a motion to suspend the rules 
and pass a bill and indicated the reason therefor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 94 Cong. Rec. 9639, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Helen Gahagan] Douglas [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to suspend the rules and discharge the Committee on Banking 
    and Currency from further consideration of S. 866.

        The Speaker: The Chair does not recognize the gentlewoman for 
    that purpose. The majority leader has already stated that there 
    will be no suspensions today; and under the practice of the House, 
    suspensions must be cleared through the majority leader. The 
    gentlewoman is not recognized for that purpose.
        Mrs. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentlewoman will state it.
        Mrs. Douglas: Under paragraph 1 of rule XXVII it is in order, 
    is it not, for the Speaker to entertain a motion to suspend the 
    rules?
        The Speaker: Yes, it is within the discretion of the Speaker, 
    and the Speaker states that he will not recognize any Member for 
    that purpose without clearing it through the majority leader, and 
    using that discretion merely refuses to recognize the gentlewoman 
    from California.
        Mrs. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentlewoman will state it.
        Mrs. Douglas: Today is the first Monday in August, and under 
    the aforementioned rule individual Members may move to suspend the 
    rules and pass important legislation. Do I understand clearly then 
    that the Chair is exercising his discretion in denying the House to 
    vote on the so-called Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill, even under the 
    procedure requiring a two-thirds vote of the Members present?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the rule has existed for 
    more than 50 years, and in accordance with the procedure which has 
    been followed by not only the present Speaker but every other 
    Speaker, the Chair does not recognize the gentlewoman from 
    California for that purpose.
        Mrs. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the 
    present consideration of S. 866.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not recognize the gentlewoman for 
    that purpose.

Suspension Suspends All Rules

Sec. 9.7 A motion to suspend the rules (Rule XXVII) and pass a bill 
    operates to suspend all rules in conflict with the mo

[[Page 3916]]

    tion; thus, a point of order will not lie against consideration of 
    the bill on the ground that the committee report on the bill is 
    unavailable.

    On Sept. 16, 1968,(7) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, overruled a point of order against the consideration of 
a bill called up under suspension of the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 27029, 27030, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, at the proper time I 
    ask to be recognized to make a point of order against consideration 
    of this bill.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that if the gentleman 
    proposes to make a point of order, this is the time to make it.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 19136) on the ground that it 
    violates rule XI, clause 26(e), in that it was reported from the 
    committee without a quorum being present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the motion to suspend 
    the rules suspends all rules, including the rule mentioned by the 
    gentleman from Iowa.

Sec. 9.8 A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill suspends all 
    rules, including the Ramseyer rule, and a point of order would not 
    lie as to any provision of the bill or against the report.

    On Mar. 7, 1949,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
indicated a point of order against the consideration of a bill brought 
up under suspension of the rules would not lie:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 95 Cong. Rec. 1942, 1943, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia] (interrupting the reading of the 
    bill): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the further 
    reading of the bill as amended be dispensed with and that the same 
    be printed in the Record at this point.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Georgia?
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, will that deprive any Member from making a 
    point of order against the bill at this time?
        The Speaker: A motion to suspend the rules suspends all rules. 
    Therefore, a point of order would not lie as to any provision of 
    the bill.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Including the Ramseyer rule?
        The Speaker: Including the Ramsever rule.

Sec. 9.9 Points of order may not be raised against a conference report 
    which is being considered under a motion to suspend the rules.

[[Page 3917]]

    On Aug. 20, 1937,(9) Mr. Marvin Jones, of Texas, moved 
to suspend the rules and adopt the conference report on H.R. 7667, the 
sugar bill of 1937, after Mr. Millard F. Caldwell, of Florida, 
indicated he wished to make a point of order against the conference 
report. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on the effect of the motion as to points of order 
against the report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 9463, 9464, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, as I stated, I don't want to waive 
    any rights that I have to make a point of order on the conference 
    report.
        Mr. Jones: If the House agrees to suspend the rules, that 
    suspends all rules and does away with points of order.

        Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Caldwell: Am I to understand that if the rules are 
    suspended the point of order will not lie to the conference report?
        The Speaker: A motion to suspend the rules, if agreed to, 
    suspends all rules. It must be adopted by a two-thirds vote. That 
    would include a point of order against the conference report.
        Mr. Caldwell: Then, Mr. Speaker if this report actually exceeds 
    the authority of the conferees by including matters neither in the 
    House nor the Senate bill, am I given to understand that the 
    suspending of the rules will prevent the making of a point of order 
    on that account?
        The Speaker: The motion to suspend the rules, if adopted by a 
    two-thirds vote, waives the right of any Member to make a point of 
    order against the conference report.

Sec. 9.10 Where a bill is being considered under suspension of the 
    rules, a point of order will not lie against the bill on the ground 
    that a quorum was not present when the bill was reported from 
    committee, since the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
    has the effect of suspending all rules in conflict with the motion.

    On Oct. 7, 1968,(10) Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, 
propounded a parliamentary inquiry relative to the fact that there were 
scheduled to be brought up under suspension of the rules on that day 
four bills from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service which 
were reported in violation of Rule XI clause 26(e) [Rule XI clause 
2(l)(2)(A) in the House Rules and Manual (1979)], which requires a 
quorum of a committee to be present when a bill is ordered reported. 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massa
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 114 Cong. Rec. 29764, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3918]]

chusetts, indicated that the point of order would not lie when the bill 
was brought up under suspension:

        Mr. Hall: . . . Mr. Speaker, I submit that the bills S. 1507, 
    S. 1190, H.R. 17954, and H.R. 7406 all were improperly reported. 
    Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: At what point in the 
    proceedings would it be in order to raise the question against 
    these bills as being in violation of rule XI, clause 26(e) inasmuch 
    as they are scheduled to be considered under suspension of the 
    rules, which would obviously suspend the rule I have cited?
        Mr. Speaker, I ask the guidance of the Chair in lodging my 
    point of order against these listed bills so that my objection may 
    be fairly considered, and so that my right to object will be 
    protected. Mr. Speaker, I intend to do so only because orderly 
    procedure must be based on compliance with the rules of the House 
    which we have adopted.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that any point of order would 
    have to be made when the bill is called up.
        The Chair might also advise or convey the suggestion to the 
    gentleman from Missouri that the bills will be considered under 
    suspension of the rules, and that means suspension of all rules.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Would 
    it not be in order, prior to the House going into the Consent 
    Calendar or suspension of the rules, to lodge the point of order 
    against the bills at this time?
        The Speaker: The point of order could be directed against such 
    consideration when the bills are called up under the general rules 
    of the House. The rules we are operating under today as far as 
    these bills are concerned concerns suspension of the rules, and 
    that motion will suspend all rules.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, if I may inquire further, is it not true 
    that, until such time as we go into that period of suspension of 
    the rules, a point of order would logically lie against such bills 
    which violate the prerogatives of the House and of the individual 
    Members thereof, to say nothing of the committee rules? My belief 
    that a point of order should be sustained is based on improper 
    committee procedure and addresses itself to the fact that the bills 
    are improperly scheduled, listed, or programed on the calendar, or 
    rule of suspension, and so forth.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state, as to points of order, at 
    the time the Chair answered the specific inquiry of the gentleman 
    from Missouri, a point of order would not lie until the bill is 
    reached and brought up for construction.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized at that time to 
    lodge such a point of order, and will this Member be protected?
        The Speaker: The Chair will always protect the rights of any 
    Member. The Chair has frankly conveyed to the gentleman that we are 
    operating under a suspension of the rules procedure today, and that 
    suspends all rules.
        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Arends: Do I correctly understand the ruling of the Chair 
    that sus

[[Page 3919]]

    pending all the rules pertains to more than just the House; it 
    pertains to the rules of committee action likewise?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois is correct.
        Mr. Arends: I thank the Speaker.

Sec. 9.11 The Speaker has indicated that a point of order will not lie 
    under Rule XXI against a provision transferring or appropriating 
    funds contained in a legislative bill being considered under a 
    motion to suspend the rules.

    On Oct. 18, 1971,(11) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the effect of suspension of the 
rules where a bill violated Rule XXI clause 4: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 117 Cong. Rec. 36507, 36508, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 846 (1973). [Now Rule XXI clause 5, 
        House Rules and Manual, Sec. 846 (1979).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is that inasmuch as section 7 of this House 
    Joint Resolution 923 would under normal circumstances and methods 
    of consideration obviously be subject to a point of order because 
    it involves a transfer of funds in an authorization bill, at what 
    point under the motion to suspend the rules could such a point of 
    order be offered?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Missouri that the motion made by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
    Perkins], itself calls for a suspension of the rules, which means 
    all the rules, and, therefore, there would be no point in the 
    consideration of the joint resolution under a suspension of the 
    rules to make that point of order.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Does 
    the Chair mean to inform the Members of the House that the only way 
    that we could get redress and relief from what would otherwise be a 
    point of order, would be if the committee moved to suspend the 
    rules and pass the bill with an amendment deleting that section?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Missouri 
    that the joint resolution comes to the floor under a motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass it with amendments. The amendments will 
    be under consideration, but only the amendments which are embraced 
    in the motion made by the gentleman from Kentucky are in order.
        Mr. Hall: Therefore, if this motion passes and we do suspend 
    the rules, unless the gentleman making the motion yielded for the 
    purpose of an amendment there would be no way to seek relief?
        The Speaker: The Chair will inform the gentleman from Missouri 
    that the gentleman who is making the motion to suspend the rules 
    and pass this joint resolution cannot yield for the purpose of 
    further amendment.

Sec. 9.12 A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill suspends all 
    rules, and points of order against reference of the bill are not 
    entertained.

[[Page 3920]]

    On June 21, 1943,(13) the Speaker pro tempore, Jere 
Cooper, of Tennessee, overruled a point of order against the 
consideration of a bill brought up under suspension of the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 6209, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Lesinski [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Lesinski: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    bill is improperly brought in by the Committee on World War 
    Veterans' Legislation and that it belongs to the Committee on 
    Invalid Pensions.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order comes too late. The 
    committee has reported the bill, and it is now under consideration 
    under a suspension of the rules.
        Mr. Lesinski: I know; but Mr. Speaker, the bill was brought 
    into the Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation in 
    typewritten form on one day, passed the same day, and filed the 
    same day. There was no time for the chairman of any other committee 
    to make an objection at the time.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: The gentleman from 
    Michigan does not know it, but a motion to suspend the rules 
    suspends all rules.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The purpose of a motion to suspend the 
    rules, of course, is to suspend all rules of the House.

Adoption of Orders of Business

Sec. 9.13 Objection being made to a unanimous-consent request to take a 
    House joint resolution with Senate amendments from the Speaker's 
    table, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to a 
    conference, the Speaker recognized the Member in charge for a 
    motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution which would 
    accomplish such end.

    On July 6, 1943,(14) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized for a motion to suspend the rules upon objection to a 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 89 Cong. Rec. 7309 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry B.] Steagall [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the joint 
    resolution (H.J. Res. 147) to continue the Commodity Credit 
    Corportion as an agency of the United States, to increase its 
    borrowing power, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
    thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
    conference asked by the Senate.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Speaker, I would not consent to the joint resolution 
    being sent to conference, but I would be willing to accede to the 
    gentleman's request if he will modify it by asking that we take the 
    joint resolution from the table and consider the Senate amendments 
    at this time.
        Mr. Steagall: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the request.

[[Page 3921]]

        Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
    resolution which I sent to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read the resolution (H. Res. 292), as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution, the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 147, 
        with Senate amendments thereto, be and the same hereby is taken 
        from the Speaker's table, the Senate amendments disagreed to 
        and the conference requested by the Senate agreed to.

Sec. 9.14 The House agreed, under suspension of the rules, to a 
    resolution providing that the House insist upon its amendment to a 
    Senate bill, ask a conference, and that the Speaker immediately 
    appoint conferees.

    On June 18, 1948,(15) the House agreed to the following 
resolution brought up under suspension of the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 8829, 8830, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews of New York: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the ru]es and pass the resolution, House Resolution 690, 
    which I send to the desk.
        The Speaker: (16) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendment to S. 
        2655, ask a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing 
        votes, and that the Speaker immediately appoint conferees.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where the resolution sought to be passed is 
presented in this form, providing that the Speaker immediately appoint 
conferees, a motion to instruct conferees is precluded.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 13.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.15 The House may suspend its rules and pass a resolution to take 
    from the Speaker's table a House bill with Senate amend ment and to 
    agree to the Senate amendment.

    On Aug. 7, 1948,(18) the House agreed to a resolution, 
providing an order of business, brought up under suspension of the 
rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 94 Cong. Rec. 10197, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That immediately upon the adoption of this 
    resolution the bill (H.R. 6959) to amend the National Housing Act, 
    as amended, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment 
    thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table 
    to the end that the Senate amendment be, and the same is hereby, 
    agreed to.

    The House agreed to a similar resolution under suspension on Aug. 
16, 1954: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 100 Cong. Rec. 14631-35, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3922]]

        Resolved, etc., That immediately upon the adoption of this 
    resolution the bill H.R. 6672, with the Senate amendment thereto, 
    be, and the same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table, to the 
    end that the Senate amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed 
    to.

Sec. 9.16 The House suspended the rules and passed a resolution taking 
    from the Speaker's table an appropriation bill with Senate 
    amendments thereto, further insisting on disagreement to the Senate 
    amendments, agreeing to a further conference, and authorizing the 
    Speaker to immediately appoint conferees without intervening 
    motion, subsequent to objection to a unanimous-consent request 
    therefor.

    On July 27, 1956,(20) objection was made to a unanimous-
consent request by Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, to take from the 
Speaker's table a House appropriation bill with Senate amendments 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 102 Cong. Rec. 15158, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later on the same day, Mr. Cannon moved to suspend the rules and 
pass a resolution to accomplish the same result (the House agreed to 
the motion): (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 15169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
    the resolution (H. Res. 648).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill H.R. 12350, with the Senate amendments 
        thereto, be, and the same is hereby taken from the Speaker's 
        table; that the House further insists on disagreement to the 
        Senate amendments and agrees to the further conference 
        requested by the Senate, and the Speaker shall immediately 
        appoint the conferees without intervening motion.

        The Speaker: (2) Is a second demanded? [After a 
    pause.] The Chair hears no request for a second.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on suspending the rules and passing the 
    resolution.
        The question was taken; and (twothirds having voted in favor 
    thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was passed.
        The Speaker: The Chair appoints as conferees on the part of the 
    House: Messrs. Cannon, Kirwan, Gary, Taber, and Phillips.

Sec. 9.17 The Majority Leader was recognized to offer a motion to 
    suspend the rules and agree to a resolution authorizing the Speaker 
    to declare recesses for the remainder of the session.

    On Dec. 21, 1970,(3) the Majority Leader was recognized 
for a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 43069, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3923]]

motion to suspend the rules (a unanimousconsent request having been 
objected to):

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it shall be in order during the remainder of this 
    session for the Speaker to declare a recess at any time subject to 
    the call of the Chair.
        The Speaker:(4) Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution and move to 
    suspend the rules and adopt the resolution (H. Res. 1317), making 
    it in order for the Speaker to declare a recess at any time, 
    subject to the call of the Chair.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1317

            Resolved, That during the re-mainder of this session it 
        shall be in order for the Speaker to declare a recess at any 
        time, subject to the call of the Chair.

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second, and I make a point 
    of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the resolution until a 
    later time in the day.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Oklahoma withdraws his 
    resolution at the present time.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Once a second has been ordered (or 
considered as ordered by unanimous consent) on a motion to suspend the 
rules, unanimous consent is required to withdraw the motion.

Sec. 9.18 The House, under a motion to suspend the rules, passed a 
    resolution extending the time for debate on a motion to suspend the 
    rules, and making said motion the unfinished business until 
    disposed of.

    On Sept. 20, 1943,(5) a resolution providing for the 
consideration of a motion to suspend the rules was itself brought up 
and passed under suspension of the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646-65, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
            H. Con. Res. 25 expressed the sense of Congress favoring 
        creation of international machinery to establish and maintain 
        lasting peace and favoring U. S. participation therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to suspend the rules and pass the resolution (H. Res. 302), which I 
    send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend 
        the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be 
        extended to 4 hours, such

[[Page 3924]]

        time to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
        ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; 
        and said motion to suspend the rules shall be the continuing 
        order of business of the House until finally disposed of.

Passage of Measures Submitted From the Floor

Sec. 9.19 A resolution may be submitted from the floor and immediately 
    considered under suspension of the rules without referral to 
    committee.

    On Sept. 17, 1962,(6) Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, moved to suspend the rules 
and pass House Resolution 800 (taking a House bill with Senate 
amendments from the Speaker's table, and agreeing to such amendments), 
where the resolution was submitted directly from the floor as opposed 
to being introduced and referred to committee. After debate, the vote 
on the motion was postponed to a later day pursuant to a previous 
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 108 Cong. Rec. 19610, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: A resolution submitted from the floor and 
immediately considered under suspension of the rules is not referred to 
committee and is normally printed only ``as agreed to.'' If the 
resolution is not agreed to, it is printed ``as submitted.'' Where 
however, as on this occasion, the vote on the motion is postponed to a 
later day, the resolution is first printed ``as submitted'' and if the 
resolution is adopted then printed ``as agreed to.''

Passage of Appropriation Bills

Sec. 9.20 A general appropriation bill was called up under suspension 
    of the rules during the final week of a Congress, motions to 
    suspend the rules having been made in order at any time during that 
    week.

    On Aug. 22, 1958,(7) Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, moved 
to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 13856, a general appropriation bill 
making appropriations for sundry independent executive agencies. The 
House had previously agreed to a unanimous-consent request, on Aug. 20, 
authorizing the Speaker, Sam Rayburn, of Texas, to recognize for 
motions to suspend the rules during the balance of the week. The House 
adjourned on Aug. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 104 Cong. Rec. 19175, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another occasion where a general appropriation bill was passed 
under suspension of the rules oc

[[Page 3925]]

curred on July 2, 1942, where Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, moved 
to suspend the rules and pass the agricultural appropriation--bill for 
1943. The bill passed under suspension contained matters presently in 
agreement between House and Senate conferees on the regular 
appropriation bill, at that time in conference. Expedited action was 
necessary due to the payroll requirements of the Department of 
Agriculture. Following the adoption of the motion to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, it was messaged to the Senate, where it was referred 
to committee and not immediately considered.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 88 Cong. Rec. 5953-61, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Passage of Constitutional Amendment

Sec. 9.21 An amendment to the Constitution may be passed under a motion 
    to suspend the rules.

    On Dec. 5, 1932,(9) Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 480, 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
repealing the 18th amendment to the Constitution. Two-thirds failed to 
vote in favor thereof and the motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 76 Cong. Rec. 7-13, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 27, 1962, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, to move to suspend the 
rules and pass Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States to abolish nonpayment of a poll 
tax as a bar to voting in federal elections; the House had previously 
agreed to a request authorizing the Speaker to recognize for motions to 
suspend the rules on the fourth Monday of the month. Before Mr. Celler 
was recognized, a demand was made that the Journal be read in full, and 
three quorum calls and two record votes on dispensing with further 
proceedings under the calls interrupted such reading.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654-70, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House adopted the motion and the joint resolution was passed. 
The joint resolution was, pursuant to title I, United States Code, 
section 106b, presented to the Administrator of General Services for 
ratification by the states, and was rati-fied as the 24th amendment to 
the Constitution.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 96 Cong. Rec. 10427, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., July 17, 1950, 
        where a motion to suspend the rules and pass S.J. Res. 2, 
        proposing an amendment to the Constitution providing for a 
        method of electing the President and Vice President, was 
        rejected by the House.

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

[[Page 3926]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: The requirement of Rule XXVII clause 1 that 
a motion to suspend the rules passed by a two-thirds vote satisfied the 
requirement of article V of the United States Constitution that a 
proposed amendment thereto pass the House by a two-thirds vote (of 
those Members present and voting).

Passage of Emergency Legislation

Sec. 9.22 Immediately after a joint session to hear the President was 
    dissolved, the House suspended the rules and passed a bill 
    recommended by the President to settle a labor strike.

    On May 25, 1946,(12) a joint session was held in the 
House Chamber in order to hear an address from President Harry S. 
Truman; the President recommended the urgent passage of legislation to 
settle existing national strikes which had halted all rail 
transportation. Immediately following the President's address, the 
legislation which he had recommended was passed under suspension of the 
rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 5752-62, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The recess having expired, the House was called to order by 
        the Speaker at 4 o'clock and 34 minutes p.m.

                Temporary Industrial Disputes Settlement Act

        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack].
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
    rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6578) to provide on a temporary basis 
    during the present period of emergency for the prompt settlement of 
    industrial disputes vitally affecting the national economy in the 
    transition from war to peace. . . .
        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Marcantonio: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a 
    second be considered as ordered.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack]?
        There was no objection.

    After debate the following proceedings occurred:

        The Speaker: . . . The question is on the motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass the bill.

[[Page 3927]]

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, on that I ask for the yeas and 
    nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 306, nays 13, not 
    voting 112.

Sec. 9.23 The motion to suspend the rules is sometimes used to expedite 
    the passage of emergency legislation; thus, the House agreed to 
    suspend the rules and pass a joint resolution extending for 20 days 
    the period of negotiation under the Railway Labor Act, thereby 
    averting a threatened railway strike deadline less than 48 hours 
    away.

    On Apr. 11, 1967,(13) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, moved to suspend the rules (pursuant to a unanimous-consent 
agreement obtained Apr. 10 making such motion in order) and pass House 
Joint Resolution 493, to extend for 20 days the period of negotiations 
under the Railway Labor Act. The House agreed to the motion and passed 
the bill, thus averting a threatened railway strike less than 48 hours 
away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 8987-90, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The use of the motion to suspend the rules 
on this date demonstrates rapid congressional action to meet a 
threatened emergency.
    The President met with congressional leaders at the White House 
early on the morning of April 10, and explained that the threatened 
strike deadline was midnight Wednesday, April 12. The President was 
leaving for Uruguay for a meeting of American heads of State on the 
11th and would be out of the country for the remainder of the week.
    A Presidential message and a draft of legislation was delivered to 
both Houses of Congress on the 10th. The House Committee on Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce met and ordered the resolution (H.J. Res. 493) 
reported late that afternoon. The committee had secured permission for 
filing the report after the adjournment of the House. (H. Rept. No. 
182.)
    The Senate and House both took up identical versions of the 
resolution on Tuesday, April 11. The Senate completed action first. 
Senate Joint Resolution 65 was messaged to the House just as the House 
completed action on its version. The House thus accepted the Senate 
resolution, taking it up and passing it by unanimous consent.
    The Senate enrolling clerk had in advance enrolled the bill, which 
was signed by both the Speaker

[[Page 3928]]

and the Vice President that same afternoon and was at the White House 
by 5:30 p.m. that evening.
    After White House processing, the bill was flown by helicopter to 
Andrews Air Force Base where an Air Force jet was waiting to fly to 
Uruguay. The joint resolution was signed by the President on April 12, 
in Uruguay, and became Public Law No. 90-10.

Sec. 9.24 The Speaker stated, in recognizing a Member for a unanimous-
    consent request to consider a bill, that if any amendments were 
    offered he would ask the Member to withdraw the request and to move 
    to suspend the rules and pass the bill because of the vital 
    importance that the bill pass immediately and without amendment.

    On July 5, 1943,(14) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized a Member for a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 89 Cong. Rec. 7213, 7214, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Use of Government-owned silver for War Purposes

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Dingell].
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 
    the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 35) to authorize the 
    use for war purposes of silver held or owned by the United States.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.

    The House discussed the bill under the reservation of the right to 
object, and the Speaker then answered a parliamentary inquiry as 
follows:

        Mr. [Frederick C.] Smith of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Smith of Ohio: It is my understanding this bill will be 
    read and will be subject to amendment, providing there is no 
    objection to its consideration under the unanimous-consent request.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct, it would be subject to 
    amendment, but the Chair is going to be very frank with the 
    gentleman. If there are going to be amendments offered to this bill 
    the Chair will request the gentleman from Michigan to withdraw his 
    request, and then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Michigan to move to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The Chair 
    thinks it vitally important that this bill pass immediately, and he 
    thinks it should be passed without amendment. The Chair will accept 
    the responsibility if it is put up to the Chair.



 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                    B. MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
 
Sec. 10. When in Order

    Rule XXVII clause 1(15) specifies the days on which 
motions to suspend the rules are in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3929]]

        No rule shall be suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of 
    the Members voting, a quorum being present; nor shall the Speaker 
    entertain a motion to suspend the rules except on Mondays and 
    Tuesdays, and during the last six days of a session.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The rule was amended in the 93d and 95th Congresses to afford 
        additional days of the month for motions to suspend the rules 
        (see Sec. 10.1 infra).
            The ``last six days of a session'' cannot be determined 
        unless a concurrent resolution for adjournment ``sine die'' has 
        been adopted or unless the House is within six days of the time 
        that Congress expires pursuant to the 20th amendment to the 
        Constitution (see Sec. Sec. 10.8-10.10, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House may, however, vary the order of business (by unanimous 
consent, resolution, or suspension of the rules) in order to authorize 
the Speaker to recognize for motions to suspend the rules on days not 
specified in the rule.(17) And where such a request is 
agreed to, the consideration of a motion to suspend the rules on the 
day designated, if the Speaker recognizes for that purpose, is 
privileged.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 10.2-10.7, infra. The request may either authorize 
        the Speaker to recognize for any motion to suspend the rules, 
        or may designate a certain bill or bills to be affected.
18. See Sec. 10.7, infra. For recognition in relation to motions to 
        suspend the rules, see Sec. 11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the absence of an extraordinary request, the further 
consideration of a motion to suspend the rules which is unfinished at 
adjournment is in order on the next day on which motions to suspend the 
rules are in order.(19) However, that regular order may be 
varied. For example the further consideration of a motion to suspend 
the rules may be made in order on a day to which all roll call votes 
have been postponed.(20) Or a special order may provide that 
a motion to suspend the rules remain the unfinished business until 
disposed of.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 10.11, 10.12, infra.
20. See Sec. 10.13, infra.
 1. See Sec. 10.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regular Suspension Days

Sec. 10.1 The 93d Congress adopted rules with an amendment of Rule 
    XXVII clause 1 to authorize the Speaker to recognize for motions to 
    suspend the rules on the first and third Mondays of each month and 
    on the Tuesdays immediately following those Mandays (and 
    eliminating the distinction between committee motions and motions 
    by Members). Further amendments were adopted in the 95th Congress.

[[Page 3930]]

    On Jan. 3, 1973,(2) the House adopted House Resolution 
6, adopting the rules of the 92d Congress with certain amendments as 
the rules of the 93d Congress. One of the amendments changed Rule XXVII 
clause 1, on motions to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 17-26, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In Rule XXVII, clause 1 is amended to read as follows:

        ``No rule shall be suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of 
    the Members voting, a quorum being present; nor shall the Speaker 
    entertain a motion to suspend the rules except on the first and 
    third Mondays of each month, and on the Tuesdays immediately 
    following those days, and during the last six days of a session.'' 
    (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the adoption of the resolution, the Majority Leader 
discussed, in answer to opposition from the minority, the reason for 
the change in the suspension rule:

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    am truly amazed that there is so much opposition from the other 
    side. I thought if there were really going to be any debate on this 
    floor today, it would probably be on the policy of the war. I did 
    not think we would debate a matter of this type.
        We are discussing two bills. One is whether or not we would 
    have 2 extra suspension days in the month. Why did we offer this 
    particular rules change? We offered it because we thought it was 
    good reform. This change is no secret to the Members assembled here 
    today. The newspapers have been writing about it; various 
    organizations who want to reform the Congress have also been 
    discussing the proposal. They have complained because on one day we 
    had 46 suspension bills, which made for a long night session.
        Is this a way to legislate? Why should we not have quit at 8 
    o'clock that night and brought up the remaining suspensions the 
    next day'?
        That is what we have in mind. That is what we would like to do. 
    We do not want to go until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning.
        How does a bill get on the Suspension Calendar, the gentleman 
    from New Hampshire wants to know. I am sure the minority leader 
    knows. Although the chairman of the committee goes to the Speaker, 
    he always clears the legislation with the minority member of the 
    committee.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 21, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to its amendment in the 93d Congress, 
Rule XXVII clause 1 read as follows:

        No rule shall be suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of 
    the Members voting, a quorum being present; nor shall the Speaker 
    entertain a motion to suspend the rules except on the first and 
    third Mondays of each month, preference being given on the first 
    Monday to individuals and on the third

[[Page 3931]]

    Monday to committees, and during the last six days of a session.

    This clause of the rule was further amended in the 95th Congress to 
authorize the Speaker to recognize for motions to suspend the rules on 
every Monday and Tuesday. H. Res. 5, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 
1977.

Sec. 10.2 The applicable rule (Rule XXVII clause l) specifies the days 
    of the month on which the motion is in order; however, by unanimous 
    consent, it may be made in order for the Speaker to recognize a 
    Member or Members on any given day to move to suspend the rules and 
    pass a bill or bills.

    On July 28, 1959,(5) the House agreed to a request 
making in order a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 14475, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that it may be in order tomorrow for the Chair to 
    recognize me to move to suspend the rules and pass a joint 
    resolution making temporary appropriations for the month of August.
        The Speaker:(6) Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    On Feb. 7, 1966,(7) a similar unanimous-consent request 
was agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 2292, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl Albert of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order on any day this week other than 
    today for the Speaker to recognize a motion to suspend the rules 
    and pass the bill (H.R. 12563) to provide for participation of the 
    United States in the Asian Development Bank, a bill which has been 
    unanimously reported by the Committee on Banking and Currency.
        The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, do I understand that granting this unanimous-consent 
    request would enable the House to take up under suspension of the 
    rules perhaps tomorrow a bill to create a brand new international 
    bank to go along with the existing multiplicity of international 
    banks and other lending agencies? I am one of those Members of the 
    House who has never seen a copy of the bill. I have had no 
    opportunity to read the hearings or to know anything about the 
    bill. Yet the bill would embark the United States upon the 
    expenditure of perhaps billions of dollars.
        Mr. Albert: This, of course, would not preclude the gentleman 
    from reading the bill or the report, because I have specifically 
    requested that consideration of the bill not be made in order until 
    tomorrow or some later day in the week.

[[Page 3932]]

    A similar request was agreed to on April 10, 1967: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 113 Cong. Rec. 8729, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order on tomorrow or Wednesday for the 
    Speaker to recognize, under suspension of rules, a motion or joint 
    resolution covering the subject matter of extending the period for 
    making no change in conditions under section 10 of the Railway 
    Labor Act applicable in the current dispute between the railroad 
    carriers represented by the National Railway Labor Conference and 
    certain of their employees.
        The Speaker: (10) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, and I do not intend to object, as I understand it, 
    the need and necessity for such action is predicated on the 
    possibility that if such action is not taken affirmatively, the 
    Nation could be faced with a very critical and very serious rail 
    strike beginning 1 minute after midnight this coming Wednesday. Is 
    that correct?
        Mr. Albert: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection.

    Another such request was made on Aug. 9, 1972: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 118 Cong. Rec. 27532, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] McFall [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of clause 1, 
    rule XXVII, it shall be in order for the Speaker to entertain 
    motions to suspend the rules on Monday, August 14, 1972.
        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Varying Suspension Days

Sec. 10.3 The House by resolution may authorize the Speaker to 
    recognize for motions to suspend the rules on a day other than that 
    provided by Rule XXVII.

    On Aug. 21, 1961,(13) objection was made to a unanimous-
consent request relating to the order of business, and the same 
objective was therefore accomplished by the adoption of a resolution 
(under suspension of the rules):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 16562, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that it be in order at any time on Tuesday, 
    August 22, 1961, for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend 
    the rules.
        In making this unanimous-consent request I might say that Nos. 
    17 and 19 on today's program will not be subject to that unanimous-
    consent request.

[[Page 3933]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Objection is heard.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
    agree to House Resolution 422.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That it shall be in order for the Speaker at any 
        time on Tuesday, August 22, 1961, to entertain motions to 
        suspend the rules.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is, Will the House 
    suspend the rules and agree to the resolution?

Sec. 10.4 The Speaker has been authorized to recognize for suspensions 
    during the remainder of the session.

    On Sept. 11, 1959,(15) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request relating to the order of business for the remainder of 
the session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 19128, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that it shall be in order during the remainder of 
    this session of Congress to consider conference reports the same 
    day reported, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 of rule 
    XXVIII; that reports from the Committee on Rules may be considered 
    at any time, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 22 of rule 
    XI; for the Speaker to declare recesses subject to the call of the 
    Chair; and for the Speaker to recognize Members to move to suspend 
    the rules, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 1, rule XXVII.

Sec. 10.5 By unanimous consent, the Speaker was given authority to 
    recognize for motions to suspend the rules and pass certain bills 
    on a date to be agreed upon by himself and the Majority and 
    Minority Leaders.

    On Aug. 17, 1964,(16) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request made by the Majority Leader:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 19943, 19944, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it shall be in order for the Speaker to recognize for 
    motions to suspend the rules and pass the bills remaining 
    undisposed of on the whip notice today on a day to be agreed upon 
    by the Speaker, the majority leader, and the minority leader.
        The Speaker:(17) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that if arrangements can be 
    worked out on this or any other bill, through a unanimous-consent 
    request, where the matter has been carefully screened, the Chair 
    will be glad to recognize for that purpose. That does not mean 
    today. It means sometime this week, if it is

[[Page 3934]]

    carefully screened through the leader ship. Members are protected 
    in the knowledge that the screening has taken place.

Sec. 10.6 The Speaker has been authorized, by unanimous consent, to 
    recognize for motions to suspend the rules and pass certain bills 
    listed on the whip notice but not reached on the regular suspension 
    day.

    On Dec. 15, 1969,(18) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request put by the Majority Leader:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 39046, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order on Tuesday, December 16, 1969-that 
    is tomorrow-for the Speaker to recognize motions to suspend the 
    rules and pass the bills beginning with No. 11 listed on the whip 
    notice of December 12, 1969.
        The Speaker: (19) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, do I understand that there would be no additions of any 
    nature to the list of suspensions?
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the 
    gentleman is correct; it means No. 11 through No. 22 printed on the 
    whip's notice.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I withdraw 
    my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 10.7 Where a Member sought recognition to call up District of 
    Columbia business on the fourth Monday (privileged under Rule XXIV 
    clause 8) and another Member sought recognition to move to suspend 
    the rules and agree to a joint resolution amending the Constitution 
    (privileged pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement making it in 
    order on the fourth Monday for the Speaker to recognize Members to 
    move suspension and passage of bills), the Speaker recognized for 
    the motion to suspend the rules, the matters being of equal 
    privilege.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(20) which was the fourth Monday of the 
month and therefore a day eligible for District of Columbia business, 
under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, to move to suspend the 
rules and pass a joint resolution (to amend the Constitution to 
prohibit the use of a poll tax as a qualification for voting)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec 17654, 176.55, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3935]]

pursuant to a previous unanimousconsent request making in order on that 
day motions to suspend the rules. The Speaker overruled a point of 
order against prior recognition for the motion to suspend the rules:

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
    Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to the 
    Constitution of the United States relating to qualifications of 
    electors.
        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that this 
    is District Day, that there are District bills on the calendar, and 
    as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia I 
    respectfully demand recognition so that these bills may be 
    considered.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule, but the gentleman 
    may be heard.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, suspensions were 
    transferred to this day, and under the rules the Speaker has power 
    of recognition at his own discretion.
        Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully call the attention 
    of the chairman to clause 8, rule XXIV, page 432 of the House 
    Manual. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I submit that rule is clear that when the time is 
    claimed and the opportunity is claimed the Chair shall permit those 
    bills to be considered.
        Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit my point of order 
    is well taken, and that I should be permitted to call up bills 
    which are now pending on the calendar from the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I should like 
    to be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House on 
    some things are very clear, and the rules of the House either mean 
    something or they do not mean anything.
        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Abernethy], 
    has just called to the Chair's attention clause 8 of rule XXIV. 
    Nothing could be clearer; nothing could be more mandatory. I want 
    to repeat it because I hope the Chair will not fall into an error 
    on this proposition:

            The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the 
        disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the 
        disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires 
        reference only--

        And that is all; that is all that you can consider--disposition 
    of motions to discharge committees--

            and after the disposal of such business on the Speaker's 
        table as requires reference only--

        That is all that the Chair is permitted to consider.

        Mr. Speaker, after that is done the day--
        shall when claimed by the Committee on the District of 
        Columbia,

[[Page 3936]]

        be set apart for the consideration of such business as may be 
        presented by said committee.

        Mr. Speaker, I know that the majority leader bases his defense 
    upon the theory that the House having given unanimous consent to 
    hear suspensions on this Monday instead of last Monday when they 
    should have been heard--and I doubt if very many Members were here 
    when that consent order was made and I am quite sure that a great 
    number of them had no notice that it was going to be made, and 
    certainly I did not--now the majority leader undertakes to say that 
    having gotten unanimous consent to consider this motion on this day 
    to suspend the rules, therefore, it gives the Speaker carte blanche 
    authority to do away with the rule which gives first consideration 
    to District of Columbia matters.
        Mr. Speaker, there was no waiver of the rule on the District of 
    Columbia. That consent did not dispose or dispense with the 
    business on the District of Columbia day. The rule is completely 
    mandatory. The rule says that on the second and fourth Mondays, if 
    the District of Columbia claims the time, that the Speaker shall 
    recognize them for such dispositions as they desire to call.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to 
    transfer the consideration of business under suspension of the 
    rules on Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the 
    consideration of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the 
    rules today is a privileged motion. The matter is within the 
    discretion of the Chair as to the matter of recognition.

Last Six Days of Session

Sec. 10.8 Pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 1, it is in order during the 
    last six days of a session for the Speaker to recognize for motions 
    to suspend the rules.

    On Dec. 30, 1970,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized a Member to move to suspend the rules and 
pass a bill; the House agreed to the motion. Although Dec. 30 was not a 
first or third Monday of the month under Rule XXVII clause 1, it was 
within six days of the end of the session and motions to suspend the 
rules were therefore in order.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 44170, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. Rule XXVII Clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although a resolution providing for 
adjournment sine die had not yet been adopted, the term of a session of 
Congress automatically expires at noon on Jan. 3 pursuant to section 1 
of the 20th amendment to the U. S. Constitution

Sec. 10.9 The provisions of Rule XXVII clause 1, which confer authority 
    upon the Speaker

[[Page 3937]]

    to entertain motions to suspend the rules during the last six days 
    of a session, are not applicable until both Houses have agreed to a 
    concurrent resolution fixing a sine die adjournment date for the 
    Congress (or until the final six days of a session under the 
    Constitution).

    On Oct. 3, 1972,(3) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the last six days 
of a session, during which suspension motions are in order, cannot be 
determined until an adjournment resolution is passed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 33501, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Is it not within the prerogative of the 
    House to pass a resolution with a date certain and send it to the 
    other body?
        The Speaker: It is in the prerogative of the House to pass a 
    resolution setting a date certain, but it is not within the 
    prerogative of the Speaker to recognize for suspensions of rules 
    until that sine die resolution passes the other body.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: To clarify, the House can pass such a 
    resolution with a date certain?
        The Speaker: Yes, the House could; but it would not be operable 
    until agreed to by the Senate.

Sec. 10.10 The Speaker was authorized to recognize for suspensions from 
    a Wednesday for the remainder of that week (just prior to 
    adjournment sine die).

    On Aug. 26, 1957,(4) a unanimous-consent request was 
agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 15968, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that it be in order for the Consent Calendar to 
    be called on Wednesday next, and that it also be in order for the 
    Speaker to recognize on Wednesday next and the balance of the week 
    for suspension of the rules.
        The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Unfinished Business

Sec. 10.11 A motion to suspend the rules remaining undisposed of at 
    adjournment, after the conclusion of debate on one suspension day, 
    goes over as unfinished business to the next suspension day.

[[Page 3938]]

    On Aug. 5, 1935,(6) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, announced, on a suspension day, the order of business as to 
an unfinished motion to suspend the rules coming over from a previous 
suspension day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 79 Cong. Rec. 12506, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. the rules coming over 
        from a previous suspension day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: When the House adjourned on the last suspension 
    day there was under consideration the bill (S. 2865) to amend the 
    joint resolution establishing the George Rogers Clark 
    Sesquicentennial Commission, approved May 23, 1928. The question is 
    on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill. This motion 
    is, therefore, the unfinished business, as the Chair understands 
    debate was concluded on the measure.

    On Feb. 8, 1931, the House ordered a second on a motion to suspend 
the rules and then adjourned before concluding debate on the motion. 
The motion was resumed as unfinished business on the next day, Feb. 9, 
which was an eligible day for suspensions under Rule XXVII, the House 
being within the last six days of the session. (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 74 Cong. Rec. 6577, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where a portion of the 40 minutes of debate 
(20 minutes for each side) has been used on a motion to suspend the 
rules, and the House then adjourns, debate is resumed where it left off 
when the motion comes up as unfinished business.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 13.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.12 A motion to suspend the rules on which a second had been 
    ordered, remaining undisposed of at adjournment as the unfinished 
    business, was, on the next day when such motion was again in order, 
    withdrawn by unanimous consent.

    On May 5, 1958,(9) which was a day when motions to 
suspend the rules were in order, Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, asked 
unanimous consent to vacate the proceedings under suspension of the 
rules held two weeks prior on H.R. 11414, to amend the Public Health 
Service Act (on the prior occasion, a second had been ordered on the 
bill but the House had adjourned before completing its consideration). 
The unanimous-consent request was agreed to, and Mr. Harris moved to 
suspend the rules and pass the same bill with amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 104 Cong. Rec. 8004, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.13 Pursuant to a special order postponing roll calls

[[Page 3939]]

    until the following Thursday, consideration of the vote on a bill 
    called up under suspension of the rules was postponed and made the 
    unfinished business on the day when roll calls would again be in 
    order.

    On Oct. 5, 1965,(10) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of 
Wisconsin, moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill; when Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, put the question on the motion, 
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, objected to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum was not present. The Speaker then stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 25944, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Pursuant to the order of the House of October 1, 
    further proceedings on the Senate joint resolution will go over 
    until Thursday, October 7.

    The postponement of the vote on the motion to suspend the rules was 
carried as follows in the House Journal:

        On a division, demanded by Mr Gross, there appeared--yeas 55, 
    nays 12.
        Mr. Gross objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was 
    not present and not voting and made the point of order that a 
    quorum was not present.

     Order of Business--Further Consideration of the Motion to Suspend 
    the Rules and Pass the Joint Resolution of the Senate S.J. Res. 106

        Pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of October 1, 1965, 
    further consideration of the motion to suspend the rules and pass 
    the joint resolution of the Senate, S.J. Res. 106 was postponed 
    until Thursday, October 7, 1965.
        Mr. Gross then withdrew his point of no quorum.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Jour. 1256, 1257, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 5, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Oct. 1, the House had agreed to a 
unanimous-consent request that all roll call votes, other than on 
matters of procedure, which might arise on Oct. 5 or 6, be put over 
until Oct. 7.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 25796, 25797, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 10.14 The House, under a motion to suspend the rules, passed a 
    resolution extending the time for debate on a motion to suspend the 
    rules, and making said motion the unfinished business until 
    disposed of.

    On Sept. 20, 1943,(13) a resolution providing for the 
consideration of a motion to suspend the rules was itself brought up 
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646-55, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3940]]

passed under suspension of the rules:

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to suspend the rules and pass the resolution (H. Res. 302), which I 
    send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend 
        the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be 
        extended to 4 hours, such time to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Foreign Affairs; and said motion to suspend the 
        rules shall be the continuing order of business of the House 
        until finally disposed of.

Varying Suspension Days by Special Order

Sec. 10.15 Form of unanimous-consent request that the Speaker may 
    recognize Members to move to suspend the rules at any time until an 
    adjournment to a day certain.

    On July 2, 1943,(14) a unanimous-consent request was 
made, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 89 Cong. Rec. 7038, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack: [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to recognize 
    Members to move to suspend the rules at any time between now and 
    the time that the House takes its recess.
        The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 10.16 Form of resolution providing that at any time on a certain 
    day it shall be in order for the Speaker to entertain motions to 
    suspend the rules notwithstanding Rule XXVII clause 1.

    On May 25, 1946,(16~) the following resolution reported 
from the Committee on Rules was called up for consideration and adopted 
by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 5746, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That at any time on Saturday, May 25, 1946, or 
        Monday, May 27, 1946, it shall be in order for the Speaker to 
        entertain motions to suspend the rules notwithstanding the 
        provisions of clause 1, rule XXVII.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                    B. MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
 
Sec. 11. Recognition to Offer

    The Speaker is authorized but not required to recognize for motions 
to suspend the rules on eligible days, and recognition for such motions 
is entirely within the discretion of the Speaker.(18) The re
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 11.3-11.7, infra. For discussion of the Speaker's 
        power of recognition in relation to any business before the 
        House, see Ch. 29, infra.
            The Speaker has like discretion as to recognition where he 
        has been authorized to recognize for motions to suspend the 
        rules on a day which is not a regular day for suspension 
        motions (see Sec. 11.3, infra).
            For recognition for the demand for a second on the motion, 
        see Sec. 12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3941]]

jection of a motion to suspend the rules does not preclude the Speaker 
from exercising his discretion to recognize for a similar 
motion.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 11.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the 93d Congress, preference was given to ``individual'' 
motions on the first Monday and to ``committee'' motions on the third 
Monday; the rule was amended in the 93d Congress to eliminate such 
distinction (and to provide for additional days on which the motion 
would be in order).(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 11.1. infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Sec. 10, supra, motions to suspend the rules which 
will be entertained on a given day are generally programed in advance 
and announced to the membership of the House. Bills and resolutions 
listed for suspension are cleared with the leadership, and the Speaker 
may decline recognition for a motion which does not have the approval 
of the Majority Leader.(1) But the Speaker may recognize for 
motions to suspend the rules, to pass emergency legislation or for 
other purposes, which have not been scheduled in advance. For example, 
on one occasion the Speaker recognized for a motion to suspend the 
rules and pass emergency legislation immediately after a joint session 
to hear the President where the President urged the immediate passage 
of such legislation.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 11.6, infra.
 2. See Sec. 9.22, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many motions to suspend the rules and pass bills and resolutions 
are offered by the chairman of the committee having jurisdiction over 
the subject matter of the proposition.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 11.10-11.13, infra. The chairman of the committee 
        does not require authorization from the committee (see 
        Sec. 11.11, 
        infra).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition Generally

Sec. 11.1 The 93d Congress adopted rules with an amendment to Rule 
    XXVII clause 1 to eliminate the distinction between committee 
    motions and motions by individual Members (and to authorize 
    recognition by the Speaker for such motions on the first and third 
    Mondays of each

[[Page 3942]]

    month and on the Tuesdays immediately following those Mondays).

    On Jan. 3, 1973,(4) the House adopted House Resolution 
6, adopting the rules of the 92d Congress, with certain amendments, as 
the rules of the 93d Congress. One of the amendments changed Rule XXVII 
clause 1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 17-27, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In Rule XXVII, clause 1 is amended to read as follows:
        ``No rule shall be suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of 
    the Members voting, a quorum being present; nor shall the Speaker 
    entertain a motion to suspend the rules except on the first and 
    third Mondays of each month, and on the Tuesdays immediately 
    following those days, and during the last six days of a session.''

    Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to its amendment in the 93d Congress, 
Rule XXVII clause 1 read as follows:

        No rule shall be suspended except by a vote of two-thirds of 
    the Members voting, a quorum being present; nor shall the Speaker 
    entertain a motion to suspend the rules except on the first and 
    third Mondays of each month, preference being given on the first 
    Monday to individuals and on the third Monday to committees, and 
    during the last six days of a session.

Sec. 11.2 Three quorum calls and two record votes on dispensing with 
    further proceedings under quorum calls interrupted the reading of 
    the Journal and delayed the Speaker's recognition of a Member to 
    move to suspend the rules and pass a Senate joint resolution 
    proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish use of a poll tax 
    as a qualification for voting in elections of federal officials.

    Aug. 27, 1962, was a day on which motions to suspend the rules were 
in order, and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, intended to 
recognize Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, to move to suspend the rules 
and pass Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to abolish the use of a poll tax as a 
qualification for voting in elections of federal officials.
    After the offering of the prayer, a demand was made that the 
Journal be read in full. The reading was interrupted by three quorum 
calls and two recorded votes on dispensing with further proceedings 
under such calls, before the suspension motion was brought up. The 
House adopted the motion.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 17651-55, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule I was amended in the 92d Congress

[[Page 3943]]

to provide that the Journal be read only by motion instead of by demand 
of any Member.

Sec. 11.3 Where a Member sought recognition to call up District of 
    Columbia business on the fourth Monday (privileged under Rule XXIV 
    clause 8) and another Member sought recognition to move to suspend 
    the rules and agree to a joint resolution amending the Constitution 
    (privileged pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement making it in 
    order on the fourth Monday for the Speaker to recognize Members to 
    move suspension and passage of bills), the Speaker recognized for 
    the motion to suspend the rules, the matters being of equal 
    privilege.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(6) which was the fourth Monday of the 
month and therefore a day eligible for District of Columbia business, 
under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Emanual Celler, of New York, to move to suspend the 
rules and pass a joint resolution (to amend the Constitution to 
prohibit the use of a poll tax as a qualification for voting) pursuant 
to a previous unanimous-consent request making in order on that day 
motions to suspend the rules. The Speaker overruled a point of order 
against prior recognition for the motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654-70, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
    Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to the 
    Constitution of the United States relating to qualifications of 
    electors.
        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that this 
    is District Day, that there are District bills on the calendar, and 
    as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia I 
    respectfully demand recognition so that these bills may be 
    considered.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule, but the gentleman 
    may be heard.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, suspensions were 
    transferred to this day, and under the rules the Speaker has power 
    of recognition at his own discretion.
        Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully call the attention 
    of the chairman to clause 8, rule XXIV, page 432 of the House 
    Manual. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I submit that rule is clear that when the time is 
    claimed

[[Page 3944]]

    and the opportunity is claimed the Chair shall permit those bills 
    to be considered.
        Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit my point of order 
    is well taken, and that I should be permitted to call up bills 
    which are now pending on the calendar from the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I should like 
    to be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to 
    transfer the consideration of business under suspension of the 
    rules on Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the 
    consideration of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the 
    rules today is a privileged motion. The matter is within the 
    discretion of the Chair as to the matter of recognition.

Speaker's Power of Recognition

Sec. 11.4 Recognition for motions to suspend the rules is within the 
    discretion of the Chair.

    On Feb. 17, 1936,(7) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, recognized for a motion to suspend the rules and indicated 
such recognition was within his discretion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 80 Cong. Rec. 2239, 2240, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam D.] McReynolds [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 491) 
    extending and amending the joint resolution (Public Res. No. 67, 
    74th Cong.), approved August 31, 1935.
        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [Maury] Maverick [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Maverick: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that no specific 
    authority to request a suspension of the rules has been given by 
    the committee. May I ask the chairman if specific authority has 
    been granted by his committee on this particular bill? In other 
    words, has specific authority been given the gentleman by the 
    committee to ask for a suspension of the rules?
        Mr. McReynolds: Yes; twice.
        Mr. Maverick: On this particular bill?
        Mr. McReynolds: Yes.
        The Speaker: The Chair may say to the gentleman that it is 
    within the discretion of the Chair to recognize the gentleman's 
    move to suspend the rules.

Sec. 11.5 Recognition for motions to suspend the rules is entirely 
    within the discretion of the Speaker.

    On June 16, 1952,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 98 Cong. Rec. 7287 7288, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3945]]

nized a Member to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill with an 
amendment. In overruling a point of order against the motion, the 
Speaker discussed his power of recognition:

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule again.
        Suspension of the rules is a matter that can come up only twice 
    a month, either on the first and third Mondays, or the last 6 days 
    of the session if an adjournment date has been fixed. There can be 
    no amendment offered to the motion to suspend the rules and pass a 
    bill, but it is entirely in order for the Speaker to recognize a 
    Member to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill with amendments 
    and recognition for that is entirely within the discretion of the 
    Chair. The Chair can recognize a Member to move to suspend the 
    rules on the proper day and pass a bill with an amendment that has 
    been authorized by a committee, or if the Chair so desires he can 
    recognize a Member to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
    with his own amendment.
        The Chair overrules the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Nebraska.
        Mr. [Carl T.] Curtis of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry. Would it be possible to offer a substitute 
    motion to suspend the rules in reference to the motion now before 
    the Chair?
        The Speaker: Well, the Chair would not recognize the gentleman 
    for that purpose.
        Mr. Curtis of Nebraska: Perhaps I could induce another Member 
    to offer the amendment.
        The Speaker: The Chair would not recognize any other Member to 
    make that motion.

    On Mar. 16, 1964,(9) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition for 
motions to suspend the rules (in relation to a Senate bill not on the 
suspension list):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 5291, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Speaker, the bill 
    H.R. 9711, to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, is on the 
    suspension calendar for today. However, a similar bill, S. 2448, 
    has been passed by the other body. Therefore, in lieu of calling up 
    H.R. 9711, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill S. 2448
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        second sentence of section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 
        is hereby amended to read as follows: ``During the first ninety 
        days of each session of the Congress, the Joint Committee may 
        conduct hearings in either open or executive session for the 
        purpose of receiving information concerning the development, 
        growth, and state of the atomic energy industry.''

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [John P.] Saylor [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 3946]]

        Mr. Saylor: Mr. Speaker, the House Calendar lists a bill to 
    come up under suspension and it is a House bill. Does it not 
    require unanimous consent to suspend the rules and take up a Senate 
    bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, under the rules of the House, the Speaker may 
    recognize a Member on a motion to suspend the rules.
        Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 11.6 On ``suspension days,'' the motion to suspend the rules is 
    admitted at the discretion of the Speaker, and he may decline to 
    entertain such motions unless they have the approval of the 
    Majority Leader.

    On Aug. 2, 1948,(10) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, declined to recognize for a motion to suspend the rules 
and discussed his power of recognition in relation to such motions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 9639, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Helen Gahagan] Douglas [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to suspend the rules and discharge the Committee on Banking 
    and Currency from further consideration of S. 866.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not recognize the gentlewoman for 
    that purpose. The majority leader has already stated that there 
    will be no suspensions today; and, under the practice of the House, 
    suspensions must be cleared through the majority leader. The 
    gentlewoman is not recognized for that purpose.
        Mrs. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentlewoman will state it.
        Mrs. Douglas: Under paragraph 1 of rule XXVII it is in order, 
    is it not, for the Speaker to entertain a motion to suspend the 
    rules?
        The Speaker: Yes, it is within the discretion of the Speaker, 
    and the Speaker states that he will not recognize any Member for 
    that purpose without clearing it through the majority leader, and 
    using that discretion merely refuses to recognize the gentlewoman 
    from California.
        Mrs. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentlewoman will state it.
        Mrs. Douglas: Today is the first Monday in August, and under 
    the aforementioned rule individual Members may move to suspend the 
    rules and pass important legislation. Do I understand clearly then 
    that the Chair is exercising his discretion in dening the House to 
    vote on the so-called TaftEllender-Wagner bill, even under the 
    procedure requiring a two-thirds vote of the Members present?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the rule has existed for 
    more than 50 years, and in accordance with the procedure which has 
    been followed by not only the present Speaker but every other 
    Speaker, the Chair does not rec

[[Page 3947]]

    ognize the gentlewoman from California for that purpose.
        Mrs. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the 
    present consideration of S. 866.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not recognize the gentlewoman for 
    that purpose.

Sec. 11.7 The Speaker stated, in recognizing a Member for a unanimous-
    consent request to consider a bill, that if any amendments were 
    offered he would ask the Member to withdraw the request and to move 
    to suspend the rules and pass the bill because of the vital 
    importance that the bill pass immediately and without amendment

    On July 5, 1943,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized a Member for a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 89 Cong. Rec. 7213, 7214, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Dingell].
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 
    the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 35) to authorize the 
    use for war purposes of silver held or owned by the United States.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.

    The House discussed the bill under the reservation of the right to 
object, and the Speaker then answered a parliamentary inquiry as 
follows:

        Mr. [Frederick C.] Smith of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Smith of Ohio: It is my understanding this bill will be 
    read and will be subject to amendment, providing there is no 
    objection to its consideration under the unanimous-consent request.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct, it would be subject to 
    amendment, but the Chair is going to be very frank with the 
    gentleman. If there are going to be amendments offered to this bill 
    the Chair will request the gentleman from Michigan to withdraw his 
    request, and then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Michigan to move to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The Chair 
    thinks it vitally important that this bill pass immediately, and he 
    thinks it should be passed without amendment. The Chair will accept 
    the responsibility if it is put up to the Chair.

Sec. 11.8 The Majority Leader was recognized to offer a motion to 
    suspend the rules and agree to a resolution authorizing the Speaker 
    to declare recesses for the remainder of the session.

    On Dec. 21, 1970,(12) the Majority Leader was recognized 
for a motion to suspend the rules (a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 43069, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3948]]

unanimous-consent request having been objected to):

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it shall be in order during the remainder of this 
    session for the Speaker to declare a recess at any time subject to 
    the call of the Chair.
        The Speaker: (l3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution and move to 
    suspend the rules and adopt the resolution (H. Res. 1317), making 
    it in order for the Speaker to declare a recess at any time, 
    subject to the call of the Chair.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1317

            Resolved, That during the remainder of this session it 
        shall be in order for the Speaker to declare a recess at any 
        time, subject to the call of the Chair.

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second, and I make a point 
    of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the resolution until a 
    later time in the day.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Oklahoma withdraws his 
    resolution at the present time.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Once a second has been ordered (or 
considered as ordered by unanimous consent) on a motion to suspend the 
rules, unanimous consent is required to withdraw the motion.

Reoffering Motion

Sec. 11.9 Rejection of a motion to suspend the rules and agree to a 
    resolution does not preclude the Speaker from exercising his 
    discretionary authority to recognize a Member to offer a similar 
    resolution under suspension of the rules.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(14) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
overruled a point of order against recognition for a motion to suspend 
the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 43271, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to suspend the rules and agree to the House Resolution (H. 
    Res. 760) to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill S. 921, 
    to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, with a Senate amendment to 
    the House amendment thereto, and agree to the Senate amendment to 
    the House amendment with an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  H. Res. 760

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the

[[Page 3949]]

        bill S. 921, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment 
        thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's 
        table to the end that the Senate amendment to the House 
        amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to with an 
        amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment, insert the text of the bill H.R. 12129.

    The House rejected the motion.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The House had earlier rejected a motion to 
suspend the rules (offered by Mr. Staggers) and agree to a resolution 
to take the same bill with the Senate amendment from the table and 
agree to the Senate amendments with an amendment. The second motion 
offered by Mr. Staggers proposed a different amendment (text of another 
House bill) to the Senate amendment.

Recognition of Committee Chairman

Sec. 11.10 The Speaker may recognize the chairman of a committee to 
    move to suspend the rules and agree to a resolution submitted from 
    the floor, providing for the disposal of business on the Speaker's 
    table.

    On Sept. 17, 1962,(15) Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, 
of Oklahoma, recognized the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means 
for a motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution submitted from 
the floor (not introduced and referred to committee):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 19610, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and agree to the House Resolution 800.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill H.R. 7431, with the Senate amendments 
        thereto, be, and the same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's 
        table, to the end that the Senate amndments be, and the same 
        are hereby agreed to. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, a second will be 
    considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(16) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce was recognized for a motion to suspend 
the rules and pass a resolution submitted from the floor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong Rec. 17671, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
    the rules and agree to House Resolution 769.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the

[[Page 3950]]

        bill H.R. 11040, with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and the 
        same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that 
        the Senate amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to.

    A similar resolution was brought up under suspension of the rules 
by the Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency on Oct. 14, 
1972: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 118 Cong. Rec. 36408, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
    the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1165) to extend the 
    authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development with 
    respect to the insurance of loans and mortgages under the National 
    Housing Act.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1165

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1301) to extend the 
        authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
        with respect to the insurance of loans and mortgages under the 
        National Housing Act, together with the Senate amendment 
        thereto, be and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's 
        table to the end that the Senate amendment be, and the same is 
        hereby, agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Disposal of Senate amendments to a House 
bill on the Speaker's table before the stage of disagreement must be 
accomplished by unanimous consent, by suspension of the rules, or by a 
resolution from the Committee on Rules if the Senate amendments require 
consideration in Committee of the Whole; but if authorized by the 
committee with jurisdiction, a motion under Rule XX clause 1 may be 
made to send the bill to conference if entertained by the Speaker in 
his discretion.
    Thus a motion to suspend the rules may be used to adopt a 
resolution drafted to accomplish the disposal of such Senate 
amendments. The resolution is submitted directly from the floor, and is 
numbered when presented under a motion to suspend the rules, since 
prior introduction would require its reference to the Committee on 
Rules.

Sec. 11.11 The chairman of a committee is not required to have 
    authorization of his committee to move to suspend the rules and 
    pass a bill in the House.

    On Aug. 5, 1948,(18) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, recognized Charles A. Eaton, Chairman of the Committee 
on Foreign Affairs, to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill within 
the committee's jurisdiction. The Speaker overruled a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 94 Cong. Rec. 9890, 9891, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3951]]

point of order against recognition for the motion:

        Mr. [Frederick C.] Smith of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Smith of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by members of the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House that this motion has not 
    been formally and specifically authorized by the committee.
        The Speaker: The Chair may say, in order to clairfy the 
    situation, that it is possible for the chairman of a committee to 
    offer the motion on his own responsibility and if he does the Chair 
    will recognize him.

Sec. 11.12 The Speaker recognized the Chairman of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce to offer a resolution, under 
    suspension of the rules, which provided for taking a Senate bill 
    with a nongermame Senate amendment to a House amendment from the 
    Speaker's table and concurring in the Senate amendment with a 
    further amendment (the text of an introduced bill).

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(19) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce offered a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 43251, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to suspend the rules and agree to the House resolution (H. 
    Res. 759) to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill S. 921, 
    to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, with a Senate amendment to 
    the House amendment thereto, and agree to the Senate amendment to 
    the House amendment with an amendment. The Clerk read as follows:

                                  H. Res. 759

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill S. 921, with the Senate amendment to the 
        House amendment thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from 
        the Speaker's table to the end that the Senate amendment to the 
        House amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to with an 
        amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment, insert the text of the bill H.R. 12128.

    Mr. Craig Hosmer, of California, demanded a second on the motion, 
and the House ordered a second (on an automatic roll call vote when a 
quorum failed to vote by tellers on ordering a second). The motion to 
suspend the rules was, however, defeated.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The bill which was the subject of the 
motion, S. 921, was a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In 
the Senate, action had been postponed on a conference report on

[[Page 3952]]

the Energy Emergency Act (S. 2589), and the Senate had attached a 
nongermane amendment (consisting of a compromise version of that 
conference report) to the House amendment to S. 921. It was determined 
in the House therefore to seek to move to suspend the rules to amend 
that nongermane Senate amendment with the text of another version of 
the Energy Act (H.R. 12128). If the motion had been adopted, S. 921, 
with the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment, would have been returned to the Senate for an up-or-down 
vote, any further Senate amendment being in the third degree and not in 
order.

Sec. 11.13 The Speaker was authorized, by unanimous consent, to 
    recognize the chairman of one of the standing committees to move to 
    suspend the rules and pass a particular bill on a day other than a 
    suspension day.

    On Dec. 12, 1967,(20) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request relating to recognition for a motion to suspend the 
rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 35946, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that it may be in order on Friday next for the Speaker to 
    recognize the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Teague], to call the 
    veterans bill (H.R. 12555) under suspension of the rules.
        The Speaker: (1) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                    B. MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
 
Sec. 12. Seconding the Motion; Recognition to Demand Second

    Rule XXVII clause 2 (2) formerly required a second, if 
demanded, on all motions to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 906 (1973). second where printed copies 
        of the measure as proposed to be passed have been available for 
        at least one legislative day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All motions to suspend the rules shall, before being submitted 
    to the House, be seconded by a majority by tellers, if demanded.

    Clause 2 was amended in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 
1979) to delete the requirement for a second where printed copies of 
the measure as proposed to be passed have been available for at least 
one legislative day.

    The majority vote required on a second is a majority of those 
present and voting, and, if a sec

[[Page 3953]]

ond is ordered, the motion itself still requires, for adoption, a two-
thirds vote of those present and voting.(3) If a second is 
demanded and is not considered as ordered by unanimous consent, the 
failure of a majority to order the second precludes the consideration 
of the motion to suspend the rules.(4) But if a second is 
not even demanded, the Chair may put the question immediately on the 
adoption of the motion, since the absence of the demand for a second 
indicates that no Member wishes to oppose or debate the 
motion.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 12.1, 12.3, infra.
 4. See Sec. 12.2, infra.
 5. See Sec. 12.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule specifies that the vote on a second is taken by tellers 
and not by recorded vote; however, if objection is made to the teller 
vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present, and the point of 
order is made that a quorum is not present, an automatic roll call may 
occur pursuant to Rule XV clause 4.(6)
    The demand for a second is utilized to indicate opposition to the 
motion; the Member who is recognized to demand a second is entitled to 
control debate in opposition to the motion, amounting to 20 minutes 
under Rule XXVII clause 3.(7) Usually, a second is then 
considered as ordered without the necessity of a vote on ordering a 
second; where the unanimous-consent request that a second be ordered is 
objected to, the Chair appoints tellers on the question of a 
second.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 773 (1979). See Sec. 12.4, infra.
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1979). See Sec. Sec. 12.7, 12.8, 
        infra. For further discussion of debate on motions to suspend 
        the rules, see Sec. 13, infra.
            Only one Member may be recognized to demand a second, and 
        another request to demand a second comes too late after a 
        second has been ordered (see Sec. 12.9, infra).
 8. See Sec. 12 .5, infra. The Member who objects to the request that a 
        second be considered as ordered is not entitled to control the 
        debate in opposition to the motion (unless the same Member was 
        recognized to demand the second). See Sec. 12.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to qualify for recognition to demand a second, a Member 
must indicate his opposition to the proposition being brought up under 
suspension; in current practice, no distinction is made between degrees 
of opposition, it being sufficient that the Member seeking recognition 
state that he is opposed to the motion.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. Sec. 12.10-12.13, infra. If no Member qualifies as being 
        opposed to the motion, the Speaker may recognize a Member in 
        favor of the motion to demand the second (see Sec. 12.20, 
        infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recognizing a qualified Member to demand a second, the

[[Page 3954]]

Speaker grants priority of recognition to a member of the minority. If 
two minority members seek recognition, the Speaker may recognize the 
most senior member, and if a majority member opposed to the motion 
seeks recognition he will be recognized over a minority member who is 
not opposed to the bill.(10) Other factors governing 
recognition being equal, priority of recognition will be given to a 
member of the committee with jurisdiction over the subject 
matter.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. Sec. 12.14-12.20, infra.
11. See Sec. 12.17, infra. But see Sec. 12.16 (an opposed minority 
        member has priority of recognition to demand a second over a 
        majority member of the reporting committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once a second is ordered on a motion to suspend the rules, it is 
not in order (except b.y unanimous consent) to have the proposition 
sought to be passed read to the House.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 12.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requirement for a Second

Sec. 12.1 Rule XXVII clause 2 provides that all notions to suspend the 
    rules shall be seconded by a majority (of those present and voting) 
    by tellers, if demanded by any Member, before being submitted to 
    the House.

    On June 29, 1972,(13) Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass H. R. 14896, to amend the National 
School Lunch Act. A second was demanded and ordered (pursuant to Rule 
XXVII clause 2):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 23415, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (14) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: No, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Iowa opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I simply objected to the unanimous 
    consent for a second; that is all.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman insists, the vote on ordering a 
    second will be taken by tellers.
        Mr. Gross: That is exactly right, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Iowa objects to ordering a 
    second; and the Chair appoints the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
    Perkins) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross) as tellers.

[[Page 3955]]

        The question was taken; and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 120, noes 10.
        So a second was ordered.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky 
    for 20 minutes and the gentleman from Minnesota for 20 minutes 
    each.

Sec. 12.2 Under Rule XXVII clause 2, the failure of a majority to order 
    a second by tellers precludes consideration of the motion to 
    suspend the rules.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(15) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
answered an inquiry on the effect of failure to order a second on a 
motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 43261, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, under [rule 
    XXVII, clause 2], I demand a second by a majority by tellers.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from California, (Mr. Hosmer) 
    demands a second, and the Chair appoints as tellers the gentleman 
    from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) and the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Hosmer).
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: If 
    this second fails, then this resolution cannot be considered; is 
    that correct?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman is 
    correct.
        Will the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman from 
    California please take their places as tellers.

Voting on Second

Sec. 12.3 Motions to suspend the rules must be seconded by a majority 
    by tellers, if demanded, although the motion itself requires a two-
    thirds vote for passage.

    On June 5, 1939,(16) where a second was demanded on a 
motion to suspend the rules, the second was ordered by a majority vote 
but the motion failed to pass by a two-thirds vote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 6622-28, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the resolution (S.J. Res. 118) to 
    provide for the establishment and maintenance of the Franklin D. 
    Roosevelt Library, and for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the Senate joint resolution, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: (17) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Allen T.] Treadway [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker. I 
    demand a second.
        Mr. Keller: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second 
    be considered as ordered.
        The Speaker: Is there objection?
        Mr. [Stephen] Bolles [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I object.

[[Page 3956]]

        The Speaker: The Chair appoints as tellers the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts, Mr. Treadway, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
    Keller, to act as tellers.
        The House divided; and the tellers reported there were--ayes 
    133 and noes 114.
        So a second was ordered. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is, Shall the rules be suspended and 
    the resolution passed.
        The question was taken; and on a division there were ayes 161 
    and noes 131.
        Mr. Keller: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 229, nays 139, not 
    voting 62 as follows: . . .

Sec. 12.4 While Rule XXVII clause 2 requires the vote on seconding a 
    motion to suspend the rules to be taken by tellers and precludes 
    the demand for a recorded vote, the failure of a quorum to vote by 
    tellers on ordering a second may precipitate an automatic roll call 
    under Rule XV clause 4.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(18) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
answered an inquiry, pending a demand for a second on a motion to 
suspend the rules, on the procedure for voting on ordering a second:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 43261, 43262, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, under my reservation would it be possible to 
    inquire whether or not a record vote could be demanded on the 
    demand for a second?
        The Speaker: The rule provides for tellers, under the 
    provisions of clause 5, rule I.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the 
    right to object, is a recorded teller vote in order under that 
    procedure?
        The Speaker: The answer to the gentleman is that under the 
    rules this would not be in order.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi?
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]. Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Rhodes: What would be the effect, Mr. Speaker, if the 
    motion of the gentleman from West Virginia were not agreed to?
        The Speaker: Then the motion could not be considered.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi?
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object further, the Chair has just ruled that no 
    electronic vote can be taken on a demand for a second, but if a 
    quorum fails to vote by tellers, cannot then a yea and nay vote be 
    demanded?
        The Speaker: If a quorum fails to vote by tellers, an objection 
    can be

[[Page 3957]]

    made to the result of the vote, and when the objection is made or a 
    point of order is made an automatic rollcall can be had based upon 
    the absence of a quorum.

    The vote on ordering a second then proceeded as follows:

        The Speaker: . . . On this vote all those in favor of ordering 
    the second will continue to pass through the tellers. The committee 
    divided, and the tellers reported that there were--ayes 109, noes 
    20.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, under the 
    provisions of rule XXVII, clause 2, I demand the regular order that 
    the Chamber be closed and that the roll be called.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman object to the vote on the 
    ground that a quorum is not present?
        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will count. The Chair will count all 
    Members. (After counting) 182 Members are present, not a quorum. A 
    rollcall is automatic. So many as are in favor of ordering the 
    second will vote ``aye''; those opposed, ``no.''
        Members will record their vote by electronic device. . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    148, nays 113, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 170, as follows:
        So a second was ordered.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

    Following debate on the motion to suspend the rules, two-thirds 
failed to vote in the affirmative and the motion was rejected.
    Similarly, an automatic roll call under Rule XV clause 4, ensued on 
ordering a second on a motion to suspend the rules on Feb. 3, 1936, 
when objection was made to the teller vote thereon on the ground that a 
quorum was not present (Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
presiding): \(19)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 80 Cong. Rec. 1404, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        Mr. [Thomas F.] Ford of California: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that a second be considered as ordered.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California?
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speakar, I object.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering a second.
        The Chair appointed Mr. Ford of California and Mr. Taber to act 
    as tellers.
        The House divided; and the tellers reported there were ayes 63 
    and noes 31.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
    there is not a quorum present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will count. [After counting.] Evidently 
    there is not a quorum present. The Doorkeeper will close the doors, 
    the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will 
    call the roll.

[[Page 3958]]

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 199, nays 106, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 124, as follows: . . . 

Sec. 12.5 When objection is raised to a unanimous-consent request that 
    a second be considered as ordered on a motion to suspend the rules 
    and pass a bill, the Chair im- mediately appoints tellers on the 
    question of a second, not on the suspension and passage of the 
    bill.

    On Sept. 1, 1959,\(20)\ Speaker pro tempore Hale Boggs, of 
Louisiana, proceeded as follows where a second was demanded on a motion 
to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 105 Cong. Rec. 17600, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that a second be considered as ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair appoints the gentleman from 
    A:kansas [Mr. Mills] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] as 
    tellers. . . .
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mills: The question before the House, the Speaker having 
    appointed tellers' is on ordering a second, is it not?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        The House divided, and the tellers reported that there were--
    ayes 146, noes 1.
        So a second was ordered.

Where Second is Not Demanded

Sec. 12.6 Where no Member demands a second on a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass a bill, the Speaker may immediately put the question 
    on the motion.

    On Aug. 1, 1955,\(1)\ the House (Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
presiding) proceeded as follows on a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 101 Cong. Rec. 12663, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Blatnik [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2552) to authorize the 
    modification of the existing project for the Great Lakes connecting 
    channels above Lake Erie.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted, etc., That the project for improvement of 
        the Great Lakes connecting channels above Lake Erie is hereby 
        modified to provide controlling depths of not less than 27 
        feet,

[[Page 3959]]

        the work to be prosecuted under the direction of the Secretary 
        of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers in 
        accordance with plans approved by the Chief of Engineers, in 
        the report submitted in Senate Document No. 71, 84th Congress 
        1st session.
            Sec. 2. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 
        as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act.

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded? [After a pause.] The 
    question is on suspending the rules and passing the bill.
        The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.

Member Demanding Second Is Entitled to Debate

Sec. 12.7 The Member demanding the second and not the Member objecting 
    to a unanimous-consent request that a second be considered as 
    ordered is entitled to recognition for debate against the motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass a bill.

    On Sept. 1, 1959,\(2)\ Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, demanded 
a second on a motion to suspend the rules and Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, 
objected to the unanimous- consent request that a second be considered 
as ordered. Speaker pro tempore Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, answered an 
inquiry on who would be recognized to control time in opposition to the 
motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 17600, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Under this procedure does the gentleman 
    from Iowa control the time or does the gentleman from Missouri who 
    demanded the second have control of the time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Missouri demanded a 
    second, and the gentleman from Missouri will control the time.

Sec. 12.8 A demand for a second by a Member opposed to a motion to 
    suspend the rules does not exist where the House has previously 
    adopted a resolution fixing control of debate on such motion.

    On Sept. 20, 1943,\(3)\ the House passed (under suspension of the 
rules) a resolution providing for four hours of debate on a motion to 
suspend the rules, such time to be divided by the proponents and 
opponents of the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646-55, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend 
        the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be 
        extended to 4 hours, such time to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Foreign Affairs; and said motion to suspend the 
        rules shall be the continuing order of business of the House 
        until finally disposed of.

[[Page 3960]]

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, then indicated, when the motion so 
provided for was called up, that a demand for a second (to gain 
recognition to control time in opposition to the motion) was not 
necessary, the House having fixed by resolution the control of time in 
opposition: \(4)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 7655.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
    the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 with an 
    amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby expresses itself as 
        favoring the creation of appropriate international machinery 
        with power adequate to establish and to maintain a just and 
        lasting peace, among the nations of the world, and as favoring 
        participation by the United States therein through its 
        constitutional processes.

        Mr. [Charles A.] Eaton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. Bloom: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second 
    may be considered as ordered.
        Mr. [Clark E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: May a second be demanded by one who is not opposed 
    to the resolution?
        The Speaker: That was practically cured by the resolution just 
    passed, which provides that the time shall be in control of the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom] and the gentleman from New 
    Jersey [Mr. Eaton]. The formality was gone through.
        Mr. [John M.] Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Robston of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I raise the point that 
    the time now provided is in the control entirely of four Members.
        The Speaker: The House decided by a vote of 252 to 23 that that 
    was to be the program.
        Mr. Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the 
    Speaker ruled that a second is ordered, and then the same persons 
    who control the time controlled the 40 minutes.
        The Speaker: The House ordered that by unanimous consent. The 
    gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Eaton] demanded a second, and a 
    second was ordered by unanimous consent. However, that was a 
    formality, because the time was already controlled by the terms of 
    the resolution under which the House suspended the rules.

Requesting Recognition to Demand Second

Sec. 12.9 A request for recognition to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules

[[Page 3961]]

    comes too late after a second has been ordered (or considered as 
    ordered).

    On May 15, 1961,\(5)\ a second having been considered ordered, the 
Speaker ruled that a request for recognition to demand a second (or a 
point of order against such recognition) came too late:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 7988-91, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: \(6)\ Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Mailliard [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a second.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Armistead I.] Selden [Jr., of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from Florida 
    [Mr. (Dante B.) Fascell].
        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which is before us 
    expresses the sense of Congress that the President exercise his 
    authority under acts which are named to expend funds for assistance 
    to certain Cuban refugees, namely students who need this assistance 
    because of the authoritarian restrictions placed on the activities 
    of those citizens by the Cuban Government or because they are 
    refugees in the United States from the present Government of Cuba. 
    . . . 
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from California [Mr. Mailliard].
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second, and I make that demand to keep the record straight. The 
    gentleman did not qualify.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California demanded 
    a second and it has been already ordered.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: The gentleman did not qualify. He did 
    not say he was opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I 
    demand that the Chair ask if the gentleman is opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California is 
    recognized.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: What is the ruling on my demand?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's demand is too late.

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, made a similar ruling 
on May 1, 1967: \(7)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 11282, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [William L.] Springer [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a second.
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [Jr., of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer] 
    is not opposed to the joint resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Illinois 
    [Mr. Springer], is the gentleman opposed to the joint resolution?

[[Page 3962]]

        Mr. Springer: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the joint 
    resolution.
        Mr. Moss: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is any other member of the committee on the 
    Republican side opposed to the joint resolution?
        Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Theodore R.] Kupferman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a second. I am opposed to the joint resolution.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's demand comes too late.

Member Opposed Is Entitled to Recognition

Sec. 12.10 On a motion to suspend the rules, a Member opposed to the 
    bill has prior right to recognition to demand a second over a 
    Member who favors the motion.

    On Feb. 21, 1949,\(8)\ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as 
follows on recognition to demand a second on a motion to suspend the 
rules and pass a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 95 Cong. Rec. 1444, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Samuel K.] McConnell [Jr., of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I demand a second.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, is it not the rule of the House 
    that in order for a Member to demand a second he must qualify by 
    being opposed to the bill?
        The Speaker: If there is opposition to the bill, a Member who 
    is opposed to it may claim the right to demand a second.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill and I 
    demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McConnell] 
    opposed to the bill?
        Mr. McConnell: No; I am not, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Without objection a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.

    Speaker Rayburn delivered a similar ruling on May 1, 1950: \(9)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 96 cong. rec. 6093, 81st Cong. 2d sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman is not opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: The Chair was just about to interrogate the 
    gentleman about that.
        Is the gentleman from Kansas opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Rees: No, I am not, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.

[[Page 3963]]

        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Marcantonio: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.

    On July 23, 1956, recognition to demand a second was extended as 
follows by Speaker Rayburn: \(10)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 102 Cong. Rec. 14113, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York rose.
        Mr. [Hamer H.] Budge [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        A parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Budge: The committee report says the bill came from the 
    committee by unanimous action. I am opposed to the bill and demand 
    a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from New York opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. Reed of New York: I am not opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York does not qualify. The 
    gentleman from Idaho qualifies.
        Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.\(11)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 104 Cong. Rec. 4788, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 19, 1958; 
        102 Cong. Rec. 14108, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 1956; 102 
        Cong. Rec. 1575-77, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., May 21, 1956; and 101 
        Cong. Rec. 12694, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.11 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass a bill, the Speaker gives preference to 
    a Member who qualifies as being opposed to the bill.

    On Dec. 6, 1971,\(12)\ Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, extended 
recognition as follows on a demand for a second on a motion to suspend 
the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 44951, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [David H.] Pryor of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman 
    from Washington opposed to the bill?
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Washington opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Speaker, I voted to report the bill to the floor 
    of the House.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Arkansas opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. Pryor of Arkansas: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I demand a second.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Arkansas qualifies.
        Without objection a second will be considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.

    Also on Aug. 27, 1962,\(13)\ Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachuses, granted recognition as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 108 Cong. Rec. 17671, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?

[[Page 3964]]

        Mr. [William L.] Springer [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a second.
        Mr. [William Fitts] Ryan of New York: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois has demanded a second.

        Mr. Ryan of New York: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from 
    Illinois opposed to the bill?
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Illinios [Mr. Springer] 
    opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Springer: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ryan] opposed 
    to the bill?
        Mr. Ryan of New York: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill and 
    I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.

    On July 20, 1959,(14) recognition was extended as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 105 Cong. Rec. 13719, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) Is second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Russell V.] Mack of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Is the gentleman from Washington opposed to the 
    bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from Washington 
    opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Mack of Washington: I am not, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa qualifies, and 
    without objection a second will be considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  See also 109 Cong. Rec. 19947, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 21, 
        1963; and 111 Cong. Rec. 20689, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 17, 
        1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.12 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules, the Speaker does not distinguish between a 
    Member opposed to the bill ``in its present form'' and a Member 
    unqualifiedly opposed.

    On Feb. 7, 1972,(17) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
ruled as follows on recognition to demand a second on a motion to 
suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 118 Cong. Rec. 2881, 2882, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Fred] Schwengel [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Schwengel: In its present form, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the 
    bill without the reservation ``in its present form.''

[[Page 3965]]

        THE SPEAKER: If a Member is opposed to the bill at any point, 
    he is opposed to the bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under prior practice, the Chair would give 
priority of recognition, to demand a second on a motion to suspend the 
rules, to a Member who was unqualifiedly opposed to the bill sought to 
be passed, rather than to a Member who was opposed qualifiedly (as for 
example having objections to a portion of the bill or to the method of 
its consideration). (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See, for example, 80 Cong. Rec. 2239, 2240, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Feb. 17, 1936 (Member opposed to the way the bill was brought 
        up was not recognized); and 91 Cong. Rec. 5513, 5514, 79th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., June 4, 1945 ( Member opposed to certain 
        provisions in a bill not recognized).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But under current practice, the Speaker does not inquire into the 
degree of a Member's opposition to the bill, it being sufficient that 
he be opposed to the motion to qualify to demand a second.

Sec. 12.13 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules the Speaker recognizes a Member opposed to the 
    proposition, and where no Member on the minority side qualifies, 
    the Speaker recognizes any Member of the House who qualifies as 
    being opposed.

    On Aug. 5, 1948,(19) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, extended recognition as follows to demand a second on a 
motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 9892, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Bloom: No.
        The Speaker: The gentleman does not qualify. Is anyone on the 
    Democratic side opposed to the resolution? [After a pause.] Is 
    anyone opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. [Frederick C.] Smith of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to 
    the resolution and I demand a second.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.

Priorities of Recognition

Sec. 12.14 A minority member opposed to a motion to suspend the rules 
    is recognized to demand a second over a majority member.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(20) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized, to demand a second on a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 43285, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3966]]

motion to suspend the rules, a member of the minority party over a 
member of the majority:

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to suspend the rules and agree to House resolution (H. Res. 
    761) to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill S. 921, to 
    amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, with a Senate amendment to 
    the House amendment thereto, and agree to the Senate amendment to 
    the House amendment with an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  H. Res. 761

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill S. 921, with the Senate amendment to the 
        House amendment thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from 
        the Speaker's table to the end that the Senate amendment be, 
        and the same is hereby, agreed to.

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second, and I demand tellers.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Bauman: I am.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) 
    will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) will be recognized for 20 minutes.

    Recognition was similarly granted to the minority over the majority 
on Aug. 27, 1962:(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 108 Cono. Rec. 17655, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(2) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohiol: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
    know if the gentleman qualifies. I believe that the opposition has 
    the right to demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] opposed 
    to the resolution?
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the resolution.
        The Speaker: The gentleman does not qualify.
        Mr. [John H.] Ray [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Ray: Mr. Speaker, I am.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.15 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass a bill, the Speaker gives preference to 
    a minority member.

    On Aug. 4, 1958,(3) Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 16096, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3967]]

Massachusetts, ruled as follows on recognition to demand a second on a 
motion to suspend the rules:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Victor L.] Anfuso [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second. I am opposed to the bill.
        Mr. [Ralph] Harvey [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: A second is demanded by the gentleman 
    from Indiana, a member of the minority.
        Without objection, a second is considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.16 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules, the Speaker gives priority of recognition to a 
    minority member opposed to the bill over a majority member of the 
    reporting committee.

    On Apr. 15, 1946,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized a member of the minority over a majority member of the 
reporting committee to demand a second on a motion to suspend the 
rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 3722, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Kansas opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Hope: No; I am not, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Ralph E.] Church [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Church: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: I thought the gentleman on the majority side was 
    entitled to demand a second.
        The Speaker: If anyone on the minority claims the right, he is 
    entitled to it.

Sec. 12.17 A minority member of the committee who is opposed to a bill 
    has prior right to recognition to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules.

    On Dec. 1, 1941,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, gave 
priority of recognition, to demand a second on a motion to suspend the 
rules, to a minority member on the committee reporting the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 87 Cong. Rec. 9276, 9277, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fritz G.] Lanham [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6128) to amend the act 
    entitled `` An act to expedite the provision of housing in 
    connection with national defense, and for

[[Page 3968]]

    other purposes,'' approved October 14, 1940, as amended.
        The Clerk read the bill as follows: . . .
        Mr. [J. Harry] McGregor [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [Pehr G.] Holmes [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. Holmes: I am not opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Ohio opposed to the bill?
        Mr. McGregor: I am a member of the committee, and I am opposed 
    to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.
        Without objection, a second is considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.18 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass a bill, the Speaker gives preference to 
    a majority member opposed to the bill over a minority member who 
    does not qualify as being opposed.

    On Sept. 20, 1965,(6) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized, to demand a second on a motion to suspend 
the rules, a member of the majority when no minority member who was 
opposed to the bill sought recognition for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 24347, 24348, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [William S.] Mailliard [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Mailliard: I am not opposed to the resolution.
        The Speaker: The gentleman does not qualify. Does any other 
    Member on the minority side who is opposed to the resolution demand 
    a second?
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
         Hays: I am.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.
        Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.

    Speaker pro tempore William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, followed the 
same priority of recognition on Dec. 21, 1970 :(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 43087, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a second demanded?
        [John W.] Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Is the gentleman from Wisconsin opposed to 
    the bill, and does he qualify as a second?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    opposed to the bill?

[[Page 3969]]

        Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I am not.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from New York opposed 
    to the bill?
        Mr. Bingham: I am, Mr. Speaker, and I demand a second.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York qualifies.
        Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.

    On July 27, 1946, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized, to 
demand a second on a suspension motion, a member of the majority when 
no minority member qualified as being opposed to the 
bill:(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 10310, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Does any Member of the minority demand a second?
        Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: I demand a second, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the motion?
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: On the last suspension that rule 
    was not invoked. Both Members who controlled the time were in favor 
    of the bill.
        The Speaker: Since the question has been raised, the Chair 
    thinks the opposition is entitled to the time.
        Does the gentleman from Alabama demand a second?
        Mr. Hobbs: I do, Mr. Speaker.

Sec. 12.19 Where two minority members rise to demand a second on a 
    motion to suspend the rules and both qualify as being opposed to 
    the bill, the Speaker recognizes the Member with the most seniority 
    in the House if neither is a member of the committee reporting the 
    bill.

    On Feb. 7, 1972,(9)  Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized, to demand a second on a motion to suspend the rules, the 
more senior of two minority members seeking recognition, where neither 
of the two were on the Committee on the Judiciary, which reported the 
bill being brought up:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 118 Cong. Rec. 2881, 2882, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Fred] Schwengel [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Schwengel: In its present form, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the 
    bill without the reservation ``in its present form.''
        The Speaker: If a Member is opposed to the bill at any point, 
    he is opposed to the bill.

[[Page 3970]]

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: The bill, as I understand it, is brought up under 
    suspension of the rules and therefore is not subject to amendment. 
    Is that correct?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Gross: Then, in its present form, it cannot be amended.
        The Speaker: The gentleman to qualify, must be opposed to the 
    bill.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to it without reservation.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross), is 
    recognized.

Sec. 12.20 In recognizing Members to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules, the Speaker recognizes a Member in favor of the 
    motion if no one opposed demands recognition.

    On July 17, 1950,(10) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized a Member in favor of a bill to demand a second on a motion 
to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 10438, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Earl. C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        I am not opposed to the bill, but if no one is opposed, I would 
    demand a second.
        The Speaker: If no one else is opposed, the gentleman qualifies 
    if he desires.
        Mr. Michener: I demand a second, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: I ask unanimous consent, 
    Mr. Speaker, that the second be considered as ordered.
        Without objection, the second was ordered.

Reading and Rereading Measure Sought to Be Passed

Sec. 12.21 Where a motion to suspend the rules and agree to a 
    resolution providing for concurring in a Senate amendment with an 
    amendment consisting of the text of a numbered bill introduced in 
    the House was offered, the reading of the resolution was held 
    sufficient and its rereading pending a demand for a second by 
    tellers was in order only by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(11) Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
moved to suspend the rules and agree to a resolution relating to the 
order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 43261, 43262, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  H. Res. 759

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the

[[Page 3971]]

        bill S. 921, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment 
        thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's 
        table to the end that the Senate amendment to the House 
        amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to with an 
        amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment, insert the text of the bill H.R. 12128.

    Mr. Craig Hosmer, of California, then demanded, pursuant to Rule 
XXVII clause 2, a second on the motion. Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, ruled on a point of order as follows:

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of this 
    Chamber who knows what is being voted on. None of the Speaker's 
    last statements were heard by the Members of the House, and the 
    House is entitled to know what the vote is being cast upon and what 
    the issue is.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I further 
    state that the motion was not read.
        The Speaker: The motion was read.
        The Chair will state again to the gentleman that a second was 
    demanded, and tellers were demanded.
        Those in favor of a second on the motion will pass between the 
    tellers.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, what is the motion?
        The Speaker: The motion is to suspend the rules and agree to 
    House Resolution 759.
        Mr. Waggonner: Then, Mr. Speaker, what is that resolution?
        The Speaker: The resolution has been reported.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, the House does not understand the 
    resolution as reported and I ask unanimous consent that it be 
    reported again.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Louisiana?
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object. A 
    vote is in process.

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 759 itself did not contain 
the text of the introduced bill, H.R. 12128, and so the text of that 
bill was not read by the Clerk as part of the resolution, but the text 
of the bill was printed separately in the Record. Pursuant to 
Sec. 14.4, infra, the Chair, in his discretion upon demand of a Member, 
could have required the Clerk to report the entire text of the House 
bill, since it had only been introduced that day and was not yet 
printed and available to Members. That demand was not made by any 
Member.


 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                    B. MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
 
Sec. 13. Time and Control of Debate

    Rule XXVII clause 3 (12) provides that when a motion to 
suspend
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House RuIes and Manual Sec. 907 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3972]]

the rules has been properly submitted to the House,
        it shall be in order, before the final vote is taken thereon, 
        to debate the proposition to be voted upon for forty minutes, 
        one-half of such time to be given to debate in favor of, and 
        one-half to debate in opposition to, such proposition; and the 
        same right of debate shall be allowed whenever the previous 
        question has been ordered on any proposition on which there has 
        been no debate.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For a complete discussion of debate and consideration in the House 
        on all matters, including motions to suspend the rules, see Ch. 
        29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 20 minutes of debate in favor of the motion is controlled by 
the mover of the motion, and the 20 minutes against is controlled by 
the Member who has been recognized to demand a second. No Member may 
speak in debate on the motion unless he is yielded time by one of those 
Members.(14) And the proponent of the motion is entitled to 
open and close debate.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 13.7, infra. The allocation of the time is within the 
        discretion of the Members controlling it (see Sec. 13.10, 
        infra) and alternation of recognition ( between Members on both 
        sides of the aisle) is not required (see Sec. 13.9, infra ) .
15. See Sec. Sec. 13.13, 13.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House may by unanimous consent or resolution alter the normal 
procedures for debate on a motion to suspend the rules; time may be 
extended by unanimous consent if the request is timely made (before the 
motion is seconded).(16) On one occasion, the House passed a 
resolution (under suspension of the rules) fixing the time for debate 
on a motion to suspend the rules at four hours and designating the 
Members to control the time.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 13.3-13.5, infra.
17. See Sec. 13.18, infra. In that situation a demand for a second does 
        not exist (to gain control of the time in opposition to the 
        motion). See Sec. 13.12, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time for Debate

Sec. 13.1 On a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill with 
    amendments there is 40 minutes of debate, 20 minutes on a side, the 
    five-minute rule does not apply to such amendments, and amendments 
    other than those included in the motion are not in order.

    On June 19, 1948,(18) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the consideration of 
a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill with amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 94 Cong. Rec. 9185, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold H.] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    sus

[[Page 3973]]

    pend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6712) to provide for revenue 
    revision, to correct tax inequalities, and for other purposes, with 
    committee amendments.
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: I notice the motion stated ``permission to 
    offer amendments.'' Am I correct?
        The Speaker: The gentleman misheard the request. The request 
    was to suspend the rules and pass the bill with committee 
    amendments.
        Mr. Eberharter: Does that allow those who oppose the amendments 
    5 minutes on each amendment?
        The Speaker: The rule provides for 20 minutes on each side. 
    That is, the Republican side will have 20 minutes and the gentleman 
    from North Carolina [Mr. Doughton], who will demand a second, will 
    have 20 minutes.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, the only amendments that may be 
    considered then are those that the committee acted upon?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct. The Clerk will resort 
    the bill.

Sec. 13.2 If a portion of the time for debate on a motion to suspend 
    the rules is used and the House adjourns before completing debate, 
    the time begins where it left off when the motion comes up as 
    unfinished business.

    On Feb. 8, 1931,(19) a second was ordered on a motion to 
suspend the rules and the House adjourned. Before adjournment, Speaker 
Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, stated, in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, that the time for debate (20 minutes on a side) would resume 
where it left off at adjournment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 74 Cong. Rec. 6577, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The debate resumed on the motion on the following day (the House 
was within the last six days of the session, so the following day was 
an eligible day for motions to suspend the rules under Rule XXVII 
clause 1).(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extending Time for Debate

Sec. 13.3 The House, by unanimous consent, and pursuant to a timely 
    request, may extend the time for debate on a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass a bill.

    On Mar. 3, 1960,(1) the House agreed to a request 
extending time on a motion to suspend the rules and pass an 
authorization bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 4388, 4389, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: The legislative 
    program for next week is as follows:
        On Monday there is the Consent Calendar.
        There will be one suspension; that is H.R. 10809, the 
    authorization for the

[[Page 3974]]

    appropriation for NASA for 1961. In the committee it was agreed 
    upon that the request would be made to extend the usual time of 40 
    minutes to 1 hour and 20 minutes. I think I discussed that with my 
    friend from Indiana [Mr. Halleck].
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck: Yes; that is agreeable to me.

               National Aeronautics and Space Administration

        Mr. McCormack: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
    that when the bill H.R. 10809 comes up under suspension, debate may 
    not exceed 1 hour and 20 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 13.4 The Speaker stated he would object to a unanimous-consent 
    request for an extension of time for debate on a motion to suspend 
    the rules and pass a bill.

    On July 23, 1956,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
declined recognition for a request to extend time for debate on a 
pending motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 102 Cong. Rec. 14075, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I should 
    like to renew the request of the gentleman from New York previously 
    made to extend time of debate on this important matter for 20 
    minutes, 10 minutes on each side. I think it is very important that 
    we have that additional time for debate.
        I ask unanimous consent that time be extended to 20 minutes for 
    debate on this bill.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I join in that 
    request.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not join in that request, because 
    the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rayburn] is going to object, if 
    nobody else does.
        Mr. [Usher L.] Burdick [of North Dakota]: I object, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: According to the rules of the House, 20 minutes of 
    debate are permitted on each side.

Sec. 13.5 After the motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill has 
    been seconded and the Chair has recognized a member of the majority 
    and a member of the minority to control the 20 minutes allotted to 
    each under Rule XXVII clause 3, the Chair has declined to entertain 
    a unanimous-consent request for an additional allotment of time to 
    those opposed to the measure.

    On Oct. 21, 1963,(4) Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, refused to entertain a request relating to debate on a mo
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 19953, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3975]]

tion to suspend the rules, where Members had been recognized to control 
the 20 minutes of debate on each side:

        Mr. [Ralph R.] Harding [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, the rules of 
    the House wisely provide that there shall be 20 minutes allotted to 
    both the pro and con on each piece of legislation under a 
    suspension of the rules of the House.
        Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Alger] 
    has only used 2 minutes in opposing this bill, I would like to ask 
    unanimous consent that those people who are opposed to it be 
    allotted an additional 18 minutes in which to state our case.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot entertain that motion 
    under the rules of the House at this time.

Control of Debate

Sec. 13.6 Debate on a motion to suspend the rules, a second having been 
    ordered, is limited to 40 minutes--20 minutes controlled by the 
    mover and 20 minutes controlled by the Member demanding a second.

    On June 30, 1959,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the time and distribution of debate 
on a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 12306, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber] will demand a second on the motion to suspend 
    the rules on the Temporary Appropriations Act of 1960. How will the 
    time for debate be distributed under the circumstances?
        The Speaker: Twenty minutes on a ride.

Sec. 13.7 A Member may not speak on a motion to suspend the rules and 
    pass a bill unless time is yielded to him by the mover or the 
    Member demanding a second.

    On June 15, 1959,(6) Speaker pro tempore Clark W. 
Thompson, of Texas, answered an inquiry on obtaining time for debate on 
a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 10810, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    strike out the enactment clause of H.R. 7650.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That privilege is not available when a 
    bill is being considered under suspension of the rules.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, is there any way that a 
    Member of the House of Representatives can speak on H.R. 7650 
    before the matter is put to a vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Only if the gentlewoman from 
    Massachusetts chooses to yield time to the gentleman.

[[Page 3976]]

    On Jan. 20, 1930,(7) the House had under debate a motion 
to suspend the rules, with Mr. Louis C. Cramton, of Michigan, 
controlling the time in favor of the motion and Mr. Schuyler Otis 
Bland, of Virginia, controlling the time in opposition. Mr. Cramton 
yielded 10 minutes to Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, who 
attempted to reserve the balance of that time when he had not consumed 
all of it. Mr. Cramton objected that Mr. Stafford did not have control 
of the time, and Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, affirmed that was 
the case, indicating that where one of the Members in control yielded 
to another Member, that Member could not yield part of that time to a 
third Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 72 Cong. Rec. 1993, 1994, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.8 Where a Member moving to suspend the rules uses a portion of 
    the 20 minutes available to him for debate, and then yields ``the 
    balance of his time'' to another who does not, in fact, consume all 
    the remaining time, the unused time reverts to the mover who may 
    continue debate.

    On Sept. 19, 1966,(8) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
who had moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill, yielded the 
remainder of his 20 minutes of debate as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 22928, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Powell: . . . I yield now the balance of my time to the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara].

    Mr. O'Hara not having used all the remainder of the 20 minutes, Mr. 
Powell then yielded the remainder of the time to Mr. John H. Dent, of 
Pennsylvania. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled a 
point of order and answered a parliamentary inquiry in relation to such 
disposition of the time in favor of the motion:

        Mr. Powell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the 
    gentleman from Minnesota, who has worked very hard and 
    cooperatively on this legislation, on his remarks.

        Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
    distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania [Mr. Dent].
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross: [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] yielded his 
    remaining time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara] and that 
    he therefore cannot yield time.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan consumed 3 minutes.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York yielded the 
    remainder of his time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara].
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard?

[[Page 3977]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will state, when that is done on either 
    side, when a Member does not consume the remainder of the time, 
    control of the remaining time reverts to the Member who has charge 
    of the time.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: When the Member in charge of time yields the 
    remainder of his time to another Member, Mr. Speaker, I would not 
    know how he would then be able to yield time to any other Member.
        The Speaker: The Chair will rule that when the gentleman in 
    control of time yields the remainder of his time to another Member, 
    and the other Member does not use up all the time, then the 
    remainder of the time comes back under the control of the Member 
    who originally had control of the time.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        How may a Member yield the remainder of his time and still 
    control that time?
        The Speaker: Well, that is not a parliamentary inquiry, but the 
    Chair will assume, just making an observation, that every Member in 
    the House is aware that happens, and has happened frequently.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Would 
    that be in violation of the rules of the House?
        The Speaker: The Chair sees no violation of the rules under 
    those circumstances, but a protection of the right for full 
    debate.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at pp. 22933, 22934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.9 Alternation of recognition is not required during the 40 
    minutes of debate on a motion to suspend the rules.

    On Sept. 20, 1961,(10) the House had under debate a 
motion to suspend the rules where Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, was 
controlling the 20 minutes in favor of the motion and Mr. H. R. Gross, 
of Iowa, the 20 minutes in opposition. Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated that alternation of recognition 
was not required:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 20491-93, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Apparently they do not want to explain the bill.
        Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
        Mr. Poage: Does the gentleman have any other speaker? We have 
    only one more speaker.
        Mr. Gross: I understand that under the rules it is not 
    necessary to rotate time under a suspension of the rules.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is correct.

    Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered a similar 
parliamentary inquiry on Apr. 16, 1962:

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have only 
    one more request for time.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 3978]]

        Mr. Gross: Under suspension of the rules it is not necessary to 
    rotate time. Is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The proponents of the measure are 
    entitled to close the debate.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 6688, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Control of Time in Opposition

Sec. 13.10 Where a Member states that he is opposed to a motion to 
    suspend the rues and is recognized to demand a second thereon, he 
    controls the time in opposition to the motion; the Chair questions 
    neither his motives nor his allocation of the time and a point of 
    order will not lie against the manner in which he allocates the 
    time in opposition.

    On Dec. 15, 1969,(12) Mr. Robert W. Kastenmeier, of 
Wisconsin, moved to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 14646 (granting the 
consent of Congress to the Connecticut New York Railroad Passenger 
Transportation Compact). Mr. Burt L. Talcott, of California, demanded a 
second and assured Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, that he 
was opposed to the bill; he was recognized to demand a second and to 
control time in opposition to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 39029, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a point of order was made against the method in which Mr. 
Talcott was allocating the time in opposition to the motion, the 
Speaker overruled the point of order.

        The Speaker: Each gentleman in charge of time has 1 minute 
    remaining.
        Mr. [Lester L.] Wolff [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Wolff: The gentleman from California (Mr. Talcott) when he 
    was asked whether or not he opposed the legislation, said that he 
    did. However, he has not yielded any time whatsoever to any 
    opponents of the bill.
        The Speaker: That is not within the province of the 
    Chair.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 39034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following exchange then took place:

        The Speaker: The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
    expired.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Talcott).
        Mr. Talcott: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
        I just wish to say that I have tried to allot time to anyone 
    who requested it.
        I now yield the 1 minute remaining to the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Smith).(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.11 The Member demanding the second on a motion

[[Page 3979]]

    to suspend the rules, and not the Member objecting to the 
    unanimous-consent request that a second be considered as ordered, 
    is entitled to recognition for debate against the motion.

    On Sept. 1, 1959,(15) Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, 
demanded a second on a motion to suspend the rules, and Mr. H.R. Gross, 
of Iowa, objected to the unanimous-consent request that a second be 
considered as ordered. The House having ordered a second, Speaker pro 
tempore Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, answered a parliamentary inquiry on 
who would be recognized to control the 20 minutes of debate in 
opposition to the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 17600, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Under this procedure does the gentleman 
    from Iowa control the time or does the gentleman from Missouri who 
    demanded the second have control of the time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Missouri demanded a 
    second, and the gentleman from Missouri will control the time.

Sec. 13.12 A demand for a second by a Member opposed to a motion to 
    suspend the rules (to gain control of the time in opposition to the 
    motion) does not exist where the House has previously adopted a 
    resolution fixing the control of debate on such a motion.

    On Sept. 20, 1943,(16) the House adopted a motion to 
suspend the rules and pass a resolution which provided for time and 
control of debate on another motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646-55, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend 
        the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be 
        extended to 4 hours, such time to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Foreign Affairs; and said motion to suspend the 
        rules shall be the continuing order of business of the House 
        until finally disposed of.

    When the motion to suspend the rules so provided for was offered, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicated that the right to demand a 
second did not exist under the circumstances:

        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
    the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 with an 
    amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby expresses itself as 
        favoring the creation of ap

[[Page 3980]]

        propriate international machinery with power adequate to 
        establish and to maintain a just and lasting peace, among the 
        nations of the world, and as favoring participation by the 
        United States therein through its constitutional processes.

        Mr. [Charles A.] Eaton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. Bloom: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second 
    may be considered as ordered.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Spearer: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: May a second be demanded by one who is not opposed 
    to the resolution?
        The Speaker: That was practically cured by the resolution just 
    passed, which provides that the time shall be in control of the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom] and the gentleman from New 
    Jersey [Mr. Eaton]. The formality was gone through.
        Mr. [John M.] Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I raise the point that 
    the time now provided is in the control entirely of four Members.
        The Speaker: The House decided by a vote of 252 to 23 that that 
    was to be the program.
        Mr. Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the 
    Speaker ruled that a second is ordered, and then the same persons 
    who control the time controlled the 40 minutes.
        The Speaker: The House ordered that by unanimous consent. The 
    gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Eaton] demanded a second, and a 
    second was ordered by unanimous consent. However, that was a 
    formality, because the time was already controlled by the terms on 
    the resolution under which the House suspended the rules.

Mover Opens and Closes Debate

Sec. 13.13 Under Rule XXVII clause 3, the Member making a motion to 
    suspend the rules and the Member demanding a second are each 
    entitled to 20 minutes of debate, and the Speaker will first 
    recognize the mover of the motion to consume as much of his time as 
    he desires.

    On Dec. 7, 1970,(17) Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South 
Carolina, had offered a motion to suspend the rules and Mr. Robert L. 
Leggett, of California, had been recognized by Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, to demand a second. The Speaker indicated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 40114. 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3981]]

how debate would proceed on the motion:

        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes and the gentleman from California will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes.
        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman from South Carolina yield?
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rivers: The time is allocated 40 minutes----
        The Speaker: The Chair is unable to hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Rivers: The time is allocated 20 minutes to the committee 
    and 20 minutes to the gentleman from California.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina has been 
    recognized for 20 minutes.
        Mr. Rivers: And 20 minutes to the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Leggett)?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Rivers: Now, what priority will the time be allocated? Does 
    he speak first or I speak first, or who is in charge at this point 
    in time?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina presenting the 
    resolution and being the advocate thereof will be recognized first. 
    The gentleman, however, if he does not desire to use his time at 
    this time, then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Leggett) for 20 minutes.

Sec. 13.14 Where the Member who demands a second on a motion to suspend 
    the rules has been recognized for 20 minutes of debate, it is 
    customary for the Speaker to recognize the Member making the motion 
    to conclude the debate with any time remaining to him.

    On Dec. 30, 1970,(18) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, indicated that the Member offering a motion to suspend 
the rules and recognized to control 20 minutes of debate in favor of 
the motion should be recognized to close debate thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 44174, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: 
        Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Iowa use his 4 remaining 
    minutes now, and I will use my 4 remaining minutes after he 
    completes his presentation.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, am I correct in my impression that this 
    is a motion to suspend the rules?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman's 
    impression is correct.
        Mr. Gross: Then, the rules are suspended insofar as the 
    conclusion of debate is concerned, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair would ask the gentleman from Iowa if the 
    gentleman is going to use his remaining time.

[[Page 3982]]

        Mr. Gross: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I intend to use my time.
        The Speaker: Then, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Iowa. The gentleman from Iowa has 4 minutes remaining and under the 
    custom the gentleman from Texas ( Mr. Patman) should have the final 
    time

    On Apr. 16, 1962, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the Member 
offering a motion to suspend the rules had the right to close debate 
thereon:

        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have only 
    one more request for time.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Under suspension of the rules it is not necessary to 
    rotate time. Is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The proponents of the measure are 
    entitled to close the debate.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 108 Cong. Rec. 6688, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where Second Not Demanded

Sec. 13.15 Where no Member demands a second on a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass a bill, the Speaker may immediately put the question 
    on the motion.

    On Aug. 1, 1955,(20) the House (Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, presiding) proceeded as follows on a motion to suspend the 
rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 101 Cong. Rec. 12663, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Blatnik [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2552) to authorize the 
    modification of the existing project for the Great Lakes connecting 
    channels above Lake Erie.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted, etc., That the project for improvement of 
        the Great Lakes connecting channels above Lake Erie is hereby 
        modified to provide controlling depths of not less than 27 
        feet, the work to be prosecuted under the direction of the 
        Secretary of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of 
        Engineers in accordance with plans approved by the Chief of 
        Engineers, in the report submitted in Senate Document No. 71, 
        84th Congress 1st session.
            Sec. 2. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 
        as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act.

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded? [After a pause.] The 
    question is on suspending the rules and passing the bill.
        The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.

Motion to Adjourn

Sec. 13.16 Only one motion to adjourn is admissible during 
    consideration of a motion to suspend the rules.

    On July 21, 1947,(1) a motion to adjourn was offered by 
Mr. Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 93 Cong. Rec. 9529, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3983]]

Pickett, of Texas, while the House had under consideration a motion to 
suspend the rules and pass H.R. 290, to make unlawful the requirement 
for the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in national 
elections. The motion to adjourn was rejected on a yea and nay vote.

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, held to be 
dilatory a subsequent point of order that a quorum was not present, and 
then ruled that a second motion to adjourn was not in order:

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: That motion is not in order. Under the precedents, 
    a motion to adjourn is not in order until the final vote upon the 
    motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill.

Previous Question

Sec. 13.17 The motion for the previous question is not applicable to a 
    resolution where it is being considered under suspension of the 
    rules.

    On June 18, 1948,(2) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass House Resolution 690, providing 
that the House insist upon its amendment to a Senate bill, ask a 
conference with the Senate, and that the Speaker immediately appoint 
conferees. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, indicated 
that the motion for the previous question was not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 94 Cong. Rec. 8829, 8830, 80th Cong. 2d sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: I wish to say that if 
    the gentleman wishes to do so, as soon as the previous question is 
    ordered it is in order to offer a motion to instruct conferees. 
    That is the rule of the House that has always been followed.
        The Speaker: The Chair will inform the gentleman from 
    Mississippi that there is no previous question to be ordered, that 
    the House is now considering under a suspension of the rules House 
    Resolution 690, which carries the following provision:

            That the House insist upon its amendments to the bill of 
        the Senate, S. 2655, ask for a conference with the Senate on 
        the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Speaker 
        immediately appoint conferees.

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: I yield to the gentleman 
    from Mississippi.
        Mr. Rankin: It has always been the rule and it is the rule now.
        The Speaker: But this is under a suspension of the rules and it 
    would not be in order after the adoption of the pending resolution 
    to offer such a motion.
        Mr. Rankin: Then it is changing the rules of the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to instruct conferees is only

[[Page 3984]]

in order after the House has requested or agreed to a conference and 
before the Speaker appoints conferees; the resolution pending in this 
instance precluded any intervening motion, i.e., a motion to instruct. 
Whether or not the previous question is in order has no bearing on the 
timeliness of a motion to instruct when a bill is sent to conference; 
the inquiry apparently confused that situation with a motion to 
recommit a conference report with instructions after the previous 
question has been ordered on the adoption of the report (where the 
House acts first on the report).

Special Order Governing Time and Control of Debate

Sec. 13.18 The House under a motion to suspend the rules passed a 
    resolution extending the time for debate to four hours on a motion 
    to suspend the rules and pass a concurrent resolution, and fixing 
    control of time.

    On Sept. 20, 1943,(3) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, moved to suspend the rules and pass a resolution 
altering the method of consideration of another motion to suspend the 
rules, and explained its provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
    pass the resolution (H. Res. 302), which I send to the Clerk's 
    desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend 
        the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be 
        extended to 4 hours, such time to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Foreign Affairs; and said motion to suspend the 
        rules shall be the continuing order of business of the House 
        until finally disposed of.

        The Speaker: (4) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a 
    second be considered as ordered.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack]?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.
        Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution just reported by 
    the Clerk is simply to provide that under suspension of the rules 
    that will take place debate on the Fulbright resolution will be 
    extended to a period of 4 hours. As we all know, under the rules of 
    the House, unless this resolution is adopted, debate would be 
    limited to 40 minutes, 20 minutes on each side.
        The motion to suspend the rules on the Fulbright resolution 
    will be made in accordance with the rules of the House, rules that 
    have existed for many years and which this House,

[[Page 3985]]

    without regard to what party was in power or in control of the 
    House, provided many years ago. The motion to suspend the rules on 
    the Fulbright resolution, therefore, is strictly in accordance with 
    the rules provided for by this body and by many Congresses of the 
    past. Needless to say, I hope the resolution will be adopted as it 
    is proposed to extend the debate for a period of 4 hours.

    The House adopted the motion to suspend the rules and pass the 
resolution.

Unanimous-consent Requests

Sec. 13.19 The Speaker may decline to recognize a request for unanimous 
    consent to insert material in the Record during consideration of a 
    motion to suspend the rules.

    On July 21, 1947,(5) the House had under debate a 
motion, offered by Mr. Ralph A. Gamble, of New York, to suspend the 
rules and pass H.R. 29 (making unlawful the requirement for the payment 
of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in national elections). 
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, refused to entertain 
unanimous-consent requests:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 9525, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Pickett [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent----
        The Speaker: The Chair will refuse to entertain any unanimous-
    consent requests until after the vote on this bill.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Rankin: That is the most unusual ruling that I have ever 
    heard of, to shut us off--
        The Speaker: That is the ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. Rankin: From putting material in the Record.
        The Speaker: The Chair is perfectly willing to have the 
    material put in the Record, and the gentleman should so put the 
    request immediately after the vote.
        The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.

Sec. 13.20 After a second is ordered on a motion to suspend the rules 
    and pass a bill, it is not in order to change in any particular the 
    language in the bill as called up under suspension (except by 
    unanimous consent).

    On June 9, 1930,(6) a second had been ordered on a 
motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill, and the bill had been 
reread by unanimous consent. A Member objected that the second reading 
did not conform with the first, and proceedings were vacated by 
unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 72 Cong. Rec. 10331 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George] Huddleston [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, my point of 
    order

[[Page 3986]]

    is that I insist on the motion as originally made as read by the 
    Clerk, which does not include the word ``solicitor'' as now read in 
    line 14 of the amendment and the word ``general'' instead of 
    ``chief.'' I might suggest that if it is necessary to make the 
    amendment it can be made in the Senate.
        Mr. [Homer] Hoch [of Kansas]: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: (7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Nicholas Longworth (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoch: I understood the gentleman from New York moved to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill with an amendment; and this is 
    a part of the amendment that was suggested.
        The Speaker: But the point is made that this amendment was not 
    read by the Clerk at this time.
        Mr. Hoch: It was the Clerk's mistake.
        The Speaker: The Chair is informed by the Clerk that he read 
    what was sent to the desk.
        Mr. [James S.] Parker [of New York]: The Clerk did.
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the proceedings be vacated.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan asks unanimous consent 
    that the gentleman from New York may be permitted to withdraw his 
    original motion. Is there objection? (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also 104 Cong. Rec. 8004, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., May 5, 1958, 
        where a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill was 
        withdrawn by unanimous consent after a second was ordered; a 
        new motion was then made to suspend the rules and pass the same 
        bill with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Withdrawing Motion Under Consideration

Sec. 13.21 After a second has been ordered on a motion to suspend the 
    rules, the motion may be withdrawn only by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 5, 1932, Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, stated in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry that once a motion to suspend the 
rules had been seconded, the motion could not be withdrawn (except by 
unanimous consent).(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 76 Cong. Rec. 7-13, 72d Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 13.20, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 21, 1970, Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, moved to suspend 
the rules and pass a resolution (authorizing the Speaker to declare 
recesses for the remainder of the session). Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, 
demanded a second and made the point of order that a quorum was not 
present. Mr. Albert withdrew the resolution and Mr. Gross withdrew his 
point of order.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 43069, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.22 A motion to suspend the rules, on which a second had been 
    ordered, remained undisposed of at adjournment as the unfinished 
    busi

[[Page 3987]]

    ness and was, on the next day when such motion was again in order, 
    withdrawn by unanimous consent.

    On May 5, 1958,(11) which was a suspension day, the 
unfinished business was a motion to suspend the rules on which a second 
had been ordered on a previous day. The motion was withdrawn by 
unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 104 Cong. Rec. 8004, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to vacate proceedings under suspension of the rules held 2 
    weeks ago on the bill (H.R. 11414) to amend section 314(c) of the 
    Public Health Service Act, so as to authorize the Surgeon General 
    to make certain grants-in-aid for the support of public or 
    nonprofit educational institutions which provide training and 
    services in the fields of public health and in the administration 
    of State and local public health programs.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 13.23 A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill may, by 
    unanimous consent, be withdrawn after there has been debate on the 
    motion and the Speaker has put the question on its adoption.

    On May 6, 1963,(12) Mr. Donald R. Matthews, of Florida, 
had offered a motion to suspend the rules on which a second had been 
demanded and which had been debated. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, put the question on the motion that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the bill. Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then asked 
unanimous consent that the motion to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill be withdrawn; there was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 109 Cong. Rec. 7815, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                    B. MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
 
Sec. 14. Amendments to Propositions Under Suspension

    The motion to suspend the rules may be used to pass a bill or 
resolution with additions, corrections, or deletions. In this 
situation, the proponent offers the motion ``I move to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill with amendments.'' He transmits the copy of the 
bill, with the amendments included therein, to the Clerk. The bill and 
amendments proposed thereto (whether reported from committee or offered 
independently by the Member making the motion) are reported (usually by 
title only) and considered as one entity, and no separate vote is taken 
on the amendments.(13) A motion to sus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For the motion to pass a bill with amendments, see Sec. 14.1-14.3, 
        infra. For reporting the motion, see Sec. Sec. 14.4, 14.5, 
        infra, and for the prohibition against a separate vote on 
        amendments, see Sec. 15.5, infra.
            Usually the Clerk reports only the title of a bill brought 
        up under suspension, whether or not amendments are part of the 
        motion (although the full text is printed in the Record). The 
        Chair may, however, direct the Clerk to report an amendment 
        which has not been printed in the bill (see Sec. 14.4, infra). 
        See Sec. 12.21, supra, where on a motion to suspend the rules 
        and agree to a resolution amending a Senate amendment with an 
        amendment consisting of text of a separate numbered House bill 
        the Speaker considered the reading of the resolution itself to 
        be sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3988]]

pend the rules and pass a bill with amendments is not. however, subject 
to amendment on the floor; and the proponent of the motion may not 
yield for amendment.(14) If it is desired, after a motion to 
suspend the rules and pass a bill has been offered, to amend the 
proposition, it is necessary to withdraw the motion and reoffer it in a 
new form.(15) The prohibition against offering amendments to 
propositions under suspension of the rules includes pro forma 
amendments and motions to strike the enacting clause.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 14.6, 14.7, infra.
15. See Sec. 14.3, infra. For withdrawal of motions to suspend the 
        rules which are under debate, see Sec. Sec. 13.21-13.23, supra.
16. See Sec. Sec. 14.11 and 14.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Suspend Rules and Pass Bill With Amendment

Sec. 14.1 While it is not in order to offer an amendment to a bill 
    being considered under a motion to suspend the rules, the Speaker 
    may recognize a Member for a motion to suspend the rules and pass a 
    bill with amendments.

    On June 16, 1952,(17) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized for a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill with 
amendments and overruled a point of order against the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 98 Cong. Rec. 7287, 7288, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Doughton [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7800) to amend 
    title I1 of the Social Security Act to increase old-age and 
    survivors insurance benefits, to preserve insurance rights of 
    permanently and totally disabled individuals, and to increase the 
    amount of earnings permitted without loss of benefits, and for 
    other purposes, with amendments that I send to the Clerk's desk.
        Mr. [Carl T.] Curtis of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the motion.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman make a point of order against 
    the motion to suspend the rules?
        Mr. Curtis of Nebraska: Against the motion to suspend the rules 
    and to offer an amendment. My point of order

[[Page 3989]]

     is that an amendment cannot be offered under a motion to suspend 
    the rules.
        The Speaker: This rule has been in effect for a long time. As 
    long as the Chair recognizes a Member to suspend the rules, and one 
    in charge has the right to offer the motion to suspend the rules. A 
    point of order would not lie in a case like that.
        Mr. Curtis of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard?
        The Speaker: The Chair will be glad to hear the gentleman but 
    will perhaps repeat the decision when the gentleman gets through.
        Mr. Curtis of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I regret that situation 
    very much and perhaps I should not take the time. I shall try to be 
    brief.
        It is my contention that the procedure to suspend the rules and 
    pass a bill is that we must take the bill as is in a motion to 
    suspend the rules and by the very nature of the limited time 
    involved for debate the motion must be to pass without amendment.
        There are two or three decisions that are reported in the Fifth 
    Volume of Hinds' Precedents. I will not at this time refer to all 
    of them, but I call attention to paragraph 5322 of Hinds' 
    Precedents where it is stated in the caption:
        The motion to amend may not be applied to a motion to suspend 
    the rules.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule again.
        Suspension of the rules is a matter that can come up only twice 
    a month, either on the first and third Mondays, or the last 6 days 
    of the session if an adjournment date has been fixed. There can be 
    no amendment offered to the motion to suspend the rules and pass a 
    bill, but it is entirely in order for the Speaker to recognize a 
    Member to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill with amendments 
    and recognition for that is entirely within the discretion of the 
    Chair. The Chair can recognize a Member to move to suspend the 
    rules on the proper day and pass a bill with an amendment that has 
    been authorized by a committee, or if the Chair so desires he can 
    recognize a Member to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
    with his own amendment.
        The Chair overrules the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Nebraska.
        Mr. Curtis of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry. Would it be possible to offer a substitute motion to 
    suspend the rules in reference to the motion now before the Chair?
        The Speaker: Well, the Chair would not recognize the gentleman 
    for that purpose.
        Mr. Curtis of Nebraska: Perhaps I could induce another Member 
    to offer the amendment.
        The Speaker: The Chair would not recognize any other Member to 
    make that motion.

Sec. 14.2 Under a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill with 
    amendments it is not necessary for the mover to obtain approval of 
    the amendments by the committee which reported the measure.

    On July, 17, 1950,(18) where a Member was recognized by 
Speak
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 96 Cong. Rec. 10448, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
            See Sec. 14.4, infra, for reporting a motion to suspend the 
        rules and pass a bill with amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3990]]

er Sam Rayburn, of Texas, to move to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
with amendments, the Speaker discussed such procedure in response to 
parliamentary inquiries and ruled that the amendment brought up under 
the motion need not be authorized by the committee with jurisdiction:

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 10) to facilitate the 
    deportation of aliens from the United States, to provide for the 
    supervision and detention pending eventual deportation of aliens 
    whose deportation cannot be readily effectuated because of reasons 
    beyond the control of the United States, and for other purposes, as 
    amended.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Unless a second is demanded 
    on the other side, I shall demand a second, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second is considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentlemen will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: The motion that was made was to pass the bill 
    as amended. The amendments are a part of the bill as reported by 
    the committee, or what is the situation?
        The Speaker: There are some additional amendments.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Not reported by the committee?
        The Speaker: The Chair assumes that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania who made the motion was authorized by the committee to 
    make the amendments.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: Is this bill called up under a straight 
    suspension of the rules?
        The Speaker: Yes.
        Mr. Michener: Was the motion that the bill be called up under 
    suspension of the rules, together with amendments?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Michener: How many amendments? Under the rules, they must 
    designate the amendments.
        The Speaker: The Chair understands there are committee 
    amendments and amendments to the committee amendments.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Celler: I think the House should know whether those 
    amendments were approved by the Judiciary Committee.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter] will 
    be able to answer that.
        Mr. Celler: I have no recollection as chairman of the Judiciary 
    Com

[[Page 3991]]

    mittee, that those amendments were approved by the committee.
        The Speaker: The gentleman at least makes a motion to suspend 
    all the rules and pass this bill with amendments, which the Chair 
    thinks is a proper motion.
        Mr. Celler: Can that motion be made to suspend the rules and 
    pass the bill with amendments, if those amendments are simply the 
    amendments of the proposer of the bill who makes the motion and not 
    amendments of the committee?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter] made 
    the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill with amendments. 
    The Chair has recognized the gentleman for that purpose.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: I have never known a time when you could maintain 
    a motion of that type. The number of amendments must be specified, 
    not just the general statement ``with amendments.''
        The Speaker: If the gentleman insists, the Clerk will report 
    the bill as amended.
        Mr. Michener: I do not insist, but I should like to know 
    whether there is going to be at least definite amendment or whether 
    it is to be left indefinite.
        The Speaker: The Chair would assume that in the 20 minutes 
    allotted to the gentleman from Pennsylvania he would discuss the 
    amendments.

Sec. 14.3 A motion to suspend the rules having been withdrawn by 
    unanimous consent, new motion to suspend the rules and pass the 
    bill with an amendment was then made; a second was ordered and, 
    after debate, the motion was agreed to.

    On May 5, 1958,(19) unfinished business was a motion to 
suspend the rules, coming over from a previous suspension day, on which 
a second had been ordered. The motion was withdrawn in order that the 
motion could be reoffered to pass the same bill but with amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 104 Cong. Rec. 8004, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to vacate proceedings under suspension of the rules held 2 
    weeks ago on the bill (H.R. 11414) to amend section 314(c) of the 
    Public Health Service Act, so as to authorize the Surgeon General 
    to make certain grants-in-aid for the support of public or 
    nonprofit educational institutions which provide training and 
    services in the fields of public health and in the administration 
    of State and local public health programs.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
    the bill H.R. 11414, with amendments.
        The Clerk reported the bill, as amended.

[[Page 3992]]

Reporting Motion to Suspend Rules and Pass Bill With Amendments

Sec. 14.4 Where the Chair has recognized for a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass a bill with amendments, only the title of the bill 
    is normally read by the Clerk, and the amendments are not reported 
    separately, since the suspension procedure waives normal reading 
    requirements; but the Chair may in his discretion, where objection 
    is made to that procedure, require the reading of an amendment 
    which is not printed or otherwise available.

    On July 17, 1950,(20) a motion to suspend the rules and 
pass a bill with amendments was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 10448, 10449, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 10) to facilitate the 
    deportation of aliens from the United States, to provide for the 
    supervision and detention pending eventual deportation of aliens 
    whose deportation cannot be readily effectuated because of reasons 
    beyond the control of the United States, and for other purposes, as 
    amended.

    The Clerk then reported the bill by title.
    Following a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
directed the Clerk to report the bill as amended:

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: I have never known a time when you could maintain 
    a motion of that type. The number of amendments must be specified, 
    not just the general statement ``with amendments.''
        The Speaker: If the gentleman insists, the Clerk will report 
    the bill as amended.
        Mr. Michener: I do not insist, but I should like to know 
    whether there is going to be at least definite amendment or whether 
    it is to be left indefinite.
        The Speaker: The Chair would assume that in the 20 minutes 
    allotted to the gentleman from Pennsylvania he would discuss the 
    amendments.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, is it in order 
    for me to ask that the amendments be read?
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the bill as amended.
        The Speaker indicated, in response to a further parliamentary 
    inquiry, that a separate vote was not in order on amendments 
    brought up under a motion to suspend the rules:
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 3993]]

        Mr. Eberharter: Will the House have an opportunity to vote 
    separately on the amendments just read? Was that only one amendment 
    that the Clerk read or was it several?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania made a motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended, the amendment being 
    to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert other 
    matter.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: May any further amendments be offered now?
        The Speaker: No. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter] 
    is recognized.

Sec. 14.5 While a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill with 
    certain amendments is under debate, the amendments may be reread to 
    the House, without consuming part of the time for debate, by 
    unanimous consent.

    On Sept. 7, 1959,(1) the House had under debate a 
motion, offered by Mr. Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, to suspend the 
rules and pass a bill with certain amendments. Mr. H.R. Gross, of Iowa, 
who had been recognized to demand a second and to control the debate in 
opposition to the motion, propounded a unanimous-consent request where 
Speaker pro tempore Paul J. Kilday, of Texas, indicated that the 
request would be in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 105 Cong. Rec. 17437, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Would it be possible to have the amendments offered 
    by the gentleman from Tennessee read, without it coming out of his 
    time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: By unanimous consent that could be 
    done.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendments be read at this time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Iowa?
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

No Amendments to Motion To Suspend Rules and Pass Bill With Amendments

Sec. 14.6 Only those amendments included in a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass a bill are in order to a bill being considered under 
    that procedure, and the Member making that motion may not yield to 
    other Members for further amendment.

    On Oct. 18, 1971,(2) the Chairman of the Committee on 
Edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 36507, 36508, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3994]]

cation and Labor offered a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
with amendments:

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 923) to 
    assure that every needy schoolchild will receive a free or reduced 
    price lunch as required by section 9 of the National School Lunch 
    Act, as amended.

    Section 7 of the joint resolution, as amended, authorized the 
Secretary of Agriculture to transfer funds from a previous act for a 
new purpose, a provision which would have been subject to a point of 
order if the joint resolution were not brought up under suspension. 
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, indicated, in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry, that an amendment offered from the floor to 
delete that provision would not be in order, and that only amendments 
included in the motion to suspend the rules were in order:

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is that inasmuch as section 7 of this House 
    Joint Resolution 923 would under normal circumstances and methods 
    of consideration obviously be subject to a point of order because 
    it involves a transfer of funds in an authorization bill, at what 
    point under the motion to suspend the rules could such a point of 
    order be offered?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Missouri that the motion made by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
    Perkins), itself calls for a suspension of the rules, which means 
    all the rules, and, therefore, there would be no point in the 
    consideration of the joint resolution under a suspension of the 
    rules to make that point of order.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Does 
    the Chair mean to inform the Members of the House that the only way 
    that we could get redress and relief from what would otherwise be a 
    point of order, would be if the committee moved to suspend the 
    rules and pass the bill with an amendment deleting that section?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Missouri 
    that the joint resolution comes to the floor under a motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass it with amendments. The amendments will 
    be under consideration, but only the amendments which are embraced 
    in the motion made by the gentleman from Kentucky are in order.
        Mr. Hall: Therefore, if this motion passes and we do suspend 
    the rules, unless the gentleman making the motion yielded for the 
    purpose of an amendment there would be no way to seek relief?
        The Speaker: The Chair will inform the gentleman from Missouri 
    that the gentleman who is making the motion to suspend the rules 
    and pass this joint resolution cannot yield for the purpose of 
    further amendment.

Sec. 14.7 Where a bill and designated amendments thereto are being 
    considered under a motion to suspend the rules

[[Page 3995]]

    and pass the bill, as amended, further amendments from the floor 
    are not in order, and the Speaker will not entertain a unanimous-
    consent request to permit floor amendments to be offered.

    On Feb. 7, 1972,(3) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
stated, in response to parliamentary inquiries, that floor amendments 
could not be offered to a bill brought up, as amended, under a motion 
to suspend the rules, even by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 2882, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: The bill, as I understand it, is brought up under 
    suspension of the rules and therefore is not subject to amendment. 
    Is that correct?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Gross: Then, in its present form, it cannot be amended.
        The Speaker: The gentleman to qualify, must be opposed to the 
    bill.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to it without reservation.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross), is 
    recognized.
        Mr. [Lawrence G.] Williams [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Williams: Is it possible to amend a bill that is brought up 
    under suspension of the rules by unanimous consent?
        The Speaker: It is not possible to amend by unanimous consent 
    if the bill is brought up under suspension of the rules.
        Mr. Williams: It is not possible.
        The Speaker: The Chair will not recognize a Member for that 
    purpose.

Floor Amendments Not in Order

Sec. 14.8 Amendments from the floor are not in order to propositions 
    being considered under suspension of the rules.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(4) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
answered an inquiry on offering amendments to a resolution being 
offered under a motion to suspend the rules (pending a demand for a 
second on the motion):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 43262, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    rules are suspended, will then amendments be in order to the bill 
    on which it is proposed to suspend the rules and consider?
        The Speaker: The suspension of the rules, as the gentleman 
    knows, means that all rules are suspended. The resolution itself 
    orders the action which the House will take.

    Speaker Albert answered a similar inquiry, pending a motion

[[Page 3996]]

to suspend the rules and pass a bill, on Mar. 20, 1972: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 118 Cong. Rec. 8989, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phillip M.] Landrum [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Landrum: Under the rules of suspension, is an amendment in 
    order to change the effective date of this from the last Sunday in 
    April?
        The Speaker: No amendment is in order under the suspension 
    rule.

    Another inquiry was answered on Apr. 17, 1972: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 12931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Chet Holifield ( Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman who 
    brings the bill to the floor from our Committee on Foreign Affairs 
    whether or not it would be his intent to yield for the purpose of 
    an amendment.
        Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the rules of the House wherein 
    the gentleman would sacrifice control of the remaining time if he 
    did yield for such an amendment, but I am also aware of the 
    tradition and precedents of the House wherein we customarily strike 
    the whereases and even the nonappropriate resolves, so I merely 
    make that inquiry of the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: I believe the 
    parliamentary inquiry would have to be answered by the Chair rather 
    than by myself.
        Mr. Hall: The gentleman is correct, of course. Mr. Speaker, 
    would it be in order for the Chair to recognize other than the 
    leadership handling the bill on the floor under these circumstances 
    for the purpose of an appropriate amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will inform the gentleman 
    from Missouri that no amendments can be offered when the House is 
    considering a bill under suspension of the rules.

    On May 25, 1946, President Truman addressed a joint session of 
Congress relative to a national rail strike, and recommended the 
passage of urgent legislation to settle the strike (to, among other 
purposes, draft railroad employees into the armed services). Following 
the dissolution of the joint session, the legislation recommended by 
the President was brought up under a motion to suspend the rules, and 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicated the motion was not subject to 
amendment: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 5754, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack].
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
    rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6578) to provide

[[Page 3997]]

    on a temporary basis during the present period of emergency for the 
    prompt settlement of industrial disputes vitally affecting the 
    national economy in the transition from war to peace.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Ralph E.] Church [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Church: Is it not possible now before the bill is presented 
    that we take at least 10 minutes to read it? This bill is 6 pages 
    long and will not be subject to amendment, as I understand the 
    procedure under suspension of the rules. The bill as drafted only 
    came before us a few moments ago. Some of us have been able to 
    prevail upon the gentleman from Massachusetts to amend section 10 
    so that the following words are added ``or upon the date (prior to 
    the date of such proclamation) of the passage of the concurrent 
    resolution of the two Houses of Congress stating that such 
    provisions and amendments shall cease to be effective.''
        There may be other acceptable amendments that should be 
    included in the bill before it is offered, since it cannot be 
    amended under the parliamentary situation we find ourselves in.
        The Speaker: There will be 40 minutes in which Members may 
    familiarize themselves with the bill and it will be followed by a 
    reading of the bill also.
        Mr. Church: A further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Church: Do I understand that the bill is not subject to 
    amendment?
        The Speaker: Not under a suspension of the rules.

Sec. 14.9 A motion to suspend the rules and concur in a Senate 
    amendment to a House bill is not subject to amendment (to concur in 
    the Senate amendment with an amendment).

    On July 27, 1946,(9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized a Member to offer a motion to suspend the rules relating to 
a House bill with a Senate amendment on the Speaker's table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 92 Cong. Rec. 10310, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hatton W.] Sumners of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the joint 
    resolution (H.J. Res. 225) to quiet the titles of the respective 
    States, and others, to lands beneath tidewaters and lands beneath 
    navigable waters within the boundaries of such States and to 
    prevent further clouding of such titles.

    A second was demanded and considered as ordered, and the Speaker 
then ruled that the motion was not subject to amendment:

        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: No amendment is in order.
        Mr. Hobbs: Mr. Speaker, I move to concur in the Senate 
    amendment with an amendment.

[[Page 3998]]

        The Speaker: That motion is not in order.
        Mr. Hobbs: Mr. Speaker, I have an agreement with the gentleman 
    from Texas that I would be permitted to offer an amendment to the 
    Senate amendment.
        The Speaker: The Chair knows nothing about that agreement. An 
    amendment to this motion is not in order.

Sec. 14.10 The Speaker stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
    after recognizing a Member for unanimous consent to consider a 
    bill, that if any amendments were to be offered he would ask that 
    the bill be withdrawn and that a motion to suspend the rules and 
    pass the bill be offered, because of the vital importance that the 
    bill pass
    immediately and without amendment.

    On July 5, 1943,(10) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, to ask unanimous consent 
for the immediate consideration of S. 35, to authorize the use for war 
purposes of silver held or owned by the United States. In explanation 
of the request, Mr. Dingell stated that it was essential, for the 
conduct of the war, that the bill be passed without amendment as soon 
as possible, to avoid disagreement with the Senate and have the bill 
enacted into law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 89 Cong. Rec. 7213, 7214, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, indicated he 
would use his power of recognition to assure the bill pass without 
amendment:

        Mr. [Frederick C.] Smith of Ohio: Will the gentleman yield for 
    a parliamentary inquiry?

        Mr. Dingell: I yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Smith of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Smith of Ohio: It is my understanding this bill will be 
    read and will be subject to amendment, providing there is no 
    objection to its consideration under the unanimous-consent request.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct, it would be subject to 
    amendment, but the Chair is going to be very frank with the 
    gentleman. If there are going to be amendments offered to this bill 
    the Chair will request the gentleman from Michigan to withdraw his 
    request, and then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Michigan to move to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The Chair 
    thinks it vitally important that this bill pass immediately, and he 
    thinks it should be passed without amendment. The Chair will accept 
    the responsibility if it is put up to the Chair.

[[Page 3999]]

Pro Forma Amendments Not in Order

Sec. 14.11 Pro forma amendments are not in order when a bill is being 
    considered under suspension of the rules.

    On Sept. 7, 1959,(11) a motion to suspend the rules and 
pass a bill with amendments was under debate, Mr. Thomas J. Murray, of 
Tennessee, controlling the time in favor of the motion and Mr. H. R. 
Gross, of Iowa, controlling the time in opposition. Speaker pro tempore 
Paul J. Kilday, of Texas, stated that ``pro forma'' amendments would 
not be in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 18438, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [ Clark E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry 
    is, Is it permissible now under the situation which has developed 
    to move to strike out the last word?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No, it is not. The time is under the 
    control of the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from 
    Iowa.

Motion to Strike Enacting Clause Not in Order

Sec. 14.12 Since the motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill is not 
    subject to amendment, a motion to strike out the enacting clause, 
    in effect a preferential amendment, is not in order.

    On June 15, 1959,(12) the House had under debate a 
motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 7650. Speaker pro tempore 
Clark W. Thompson, of Texas, ruled that a preferential motion to strike 
out the enacting clause (to obtain time for debate) was not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 105 Cong. Rec. 10810, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    strike out the enacting clause of H.R. 7650.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That privilege is not available when a 
    bill is being considered under suspension of the rules.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, is there any way that a 
    Member of the House of Representatives can speak on H.R. 7650 
    before the matter is put to a vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Only if the gentlewoman from 
    Massachusetts chooses to yield time to the gentleman.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, delivered a similar ruling on Aug. 
5, 1957: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 103 Cong. Rec. 13648, 85th Cong. 1st. Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 4000]]

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, is a motion to strike out 
    the enacting clause in order at this time?
        The Speaker: A motion to strike out the enacting clause is not 
    in order under a motion to suspend the rules.



                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                    B. MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
 
Sec. 15. Voting on the Motion

    Rule XXVII clause 1 (~14) requires that a motion to 
suspend the rules be adopted by a ``vote of two-thirds of the Members 
voting, a quorum being present.'' (15) As indicated in 
Sec. 12, supra, the motion must first be seconded (if a second is 
demanded and not considered as ordered) by a majority vote before the 
motion may be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. House Rules and Manual Sec. 902 (1979). Clause 3(b) of Rule XXVII 
        was added on Apr. 9, 1974 (H. Res. 998, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.) to 
        authorize the Speaker to postpone, until the conclusion of 
        debate on all motions to suspend the rules on one legislative 
        day, votes on such motions on which recorded votes or the yeas 
        and nays have been ordered, or the vote objected to under Rule 
        XV clause 4; and to reduce, after the first postponed vote, to 
        five minutes the time for voting (by electronic device) on each 
        other postponed vote on that day. In the 97th Congress, 
        references in Rule XXVII clause 3 to postponement of votes on 
        suspensions were deleted and were transferred to Rule I clause 
        5(b)(1) to be consolidated with all authorities of the Speaker 
        on postponing rollcall votes for up to two legislative days.
15. Two-thirds of those Members present and voting is construed as two-
        thirds of Members present and voting for or against the motion 
        (votes of ``present'' are discounted).
            That requirement is identical to the requirement for 
        adopting a proposed amendment to the Constitution under article 
        V of the U.S. Constitution (see House Rules and Manual 190 
        [1979]) and thus such a proposed amendment may be adopted under 
        a motion to suspend the rules (see Sec. 15.2, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker has voted on a motion to suspend the rules, to ensure 
the adoption of the motion.(16) Although a motion to suspend 
the rules may be used to pass a bill with amendments, or to pass 
measure which would ordinarily be divisible for a separate vote, a 
separate vote is not in order on a motion to suspend the rules, and the 
motion as offered must be voted on in its entirety.(17~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 15.3, 15.4, infra.
17 See Sec. Sec. 15.5, 15.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a motion to suspend the rules and pass a proposition is 
rejected, the same or a similar proposition may be brought up under 
suspension of the rules, or pursuant to a special order from the 
Committee on Rules.(18) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 15.7. 15.8. infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4001]]

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

Requirement of Two-thirds for Adoption

Sec. 15.1 A two-thirds vote is required for suspension of the rules 
    (Rule XXVII clause 1), and unanimous consent for the consideration 
    of a bill under suspension does not waive the two-thirds vote 
    requirement for the passage of the bill.

    On June 27, 1972,(19) the Speaker pro tempore stated, in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry, that a unanimous-consent order 
making in order a motion to suspend the rules on a day other than a 
regular suspension day, would not alter the requirement of a two-thirds 
vote for the adoption of such a motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 22562, 22563, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that after all other legislative business on 
    Thursday it may be in order to call up for consideration the bill 
    H.R. 14896, the school lunch bill, under suspension of the rules.
        The Speaker: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Miseouri]: . . . Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Henry B. Gonzalez (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Would the Chair confirm that if the unanimous-consent 
    request is granted that the rules for suspension would be in effect 
    and a two-thirds vote would be required to suspend the rules and 
    pass the bill?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the gentleman's unanimous-
    consent request it would require a two-thirds vote to suspend the 
    rules and pass the bill.
        Mr. Hall: I thank the Chair, I withdraw my reservation.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Kentucky?
        There was no objection.

Passage of Constitutional Amendments

Sec. 15.2 A proposed amendment to the Constitution may be passed by the 
    House under a motion to suspend the rules, since the motion 
    requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.

    On Dec. 5, 1932,(2~) Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 480, 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
repealing the 18th amendment to the Constitution. Two-thirds failed to 
vote in favor thereof and the motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 76 Cong. Rec. 7-13, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 27, 1962, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,

[[Page 4002]]

recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, to move to suspend the 
rules and pass Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States to abolish nonpayment of a poll 
tax as a bar to voting in federal elections; the House had previously 
agreed to a request authorizing the Speaker to recognize for motions to 
suspend the rules on the fourth Monday of the month. Before Mr. Celler 
was recognized, a demand was made that the Journal be read in full, and 
three quorum calls and two record votes on dispensing with further 
proceedings under the calls interrupted such reading.
    The House adopted the motion and the joint resolution was passed. 
The joint resolution was, pursuant to title I, United States Code, 
section 106b, presented to the Administrator of General Services for 
ratification by the states, and was ratified as the 24th amendment to 
the Constitution.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654-70, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
            See also 96 Cong. Rec. 10427, 10428, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., 
        July 17, 1950, where a motion to suspend the rules and pass 
        S.J. Res. 2, proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
        providing for a method of electing the President and Vice 
        President, was rejected by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The two-thirds vote requirement for both a 
proposed amendment to the Constitution and for a motion to suspend the 
rules is two-thirds of those Members present and voting in the 
affirmative or negative.

Speaker's Vote

Sec. 15.3 The Speaker directed the Clerk to call his name on a roll 
    call vote, and his vote enabled a bill to receive the two-thirds 
    necessary for passage under suspension of the rules.

    On Oct. 2, 1972,(4) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
voted on a motion to suspend the rules where the motion would not have 
passed without his vote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 118 Cong. Rec. 33219, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
            Without the Speaker's vote, the tally was 243 yeas, 122 
        nays; see H. Jour. 1139, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia that the House suspend the rules and 
    pass the bill H.R. 15859, as amended.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.

[[Page 4003]]

        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk 
    will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 244, nays 122, not 
    voting 65, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will call my name.
        The Clerk called the name of Mr. Albert, and he answered 
    ``yea.''
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were 
    suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.

Sec. 15.4 The Speaker voted on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a 
    bill where the vote, as reported to him by the tally clerk, was 
    very close, and subject to reversal if an error appeared in 
    rechecking the tally.

    On Nov. 6, 1967,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, voted on a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 31287, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia that the House suspend the rules and pass the 
    Senate Joint Resolution 33, as amended.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors. The Sergeant at Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 206, nays 102, not 
    voting 124, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will call my name.
        The Clerk called the name of Mr. McCormack and he answered 
    ``yea.''
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof), the rules were 
    suspended and the Senate joint resolution, as amended, was passed.

    Parliamentarian's Note: At the conclusion of the roll call, the 
tally clerk advised that the vote as recorded was 204 yeas and 102 nays 
but that there was a possible error in that count. To obviate any such 
error and assure that the motion pass by a two-thirds vote, the Speaker 
voted in the affirmative and announced the vote as 205 yeas, 102 nays. 
Upon reviewing the tally, an error was found and the vote, as 
corrected, stood at 204 yeas and 102 nays, which was sufficient for the 
two-thirds vote. Two Members subsequently corrected the vote to show 
that they were present, voting in the affirmative, but were not 
recorded. Thus the final tally, as carried in the Record, showed 206 
yeas, 102 nays.

Separate Vote Not in Order

Sec. 15.5 During consideration of motion to suspend the rules

[[Page 4004]]

    and pass a bill, it is not in order to demand a separate vote on 
    amendments submitted with the text of the bill when sent to the 
    deck.

    On Oct. 7, 1968,(6) Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, stated that separate vote could not be demanded on a motion 
to suspend the rules and pass a bill with amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 114 Cong. Rec. 29800, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George A.] Goodling [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    yield myself such time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Goodling: Under a suspension of the rules procedure, are 
    amendments in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No; amendments can be included in the 
    motion, but other amendments are not in order.
        Mr. Goodling: If amendments are presented, can a rollcall be 
    had on the amendments?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No rollcall can be had on the 
    amendments; only on those amendments which are submitted with the 
    bill and which are included in the motion.

Sec. 15.6 It is not in order to demand a division of the question on a 
    proposition considered under a motion to suspend the rules.

    On Sept. 20, 1943,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that a division of the 
question could not be demanded on a motion to suspend the rules (and 
pass a resolution providing an order of business):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646, 7655, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to suspend the rules and pass the resolution (H. Res. 302), which I 
    send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend 
        the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be 
        extended to 4 hours, such time to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Foreign Affairs; and said motion to suspend the 
        rules shall be the continuing order of business of the House 
        until finally disposed of. . . .

        The Speaker: The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has 
    expired.
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dirksen: I believe there is some confusion as to the exact 
    terminology of the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts, and I ask unanimous consent that the resolution may 
    be again read.

[[Page 4005]]

        The Speaker: Without objection, the Clerk will again read the 
    resolution.

        There was no objection.
        The Clerk again read the resolution.
        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dirksen: The resolution contains two substantive proposals. 
    Is it by reason of this fact divisible?
        The Speaker: Not under a suspension of the rules, because the 
    first proposal suspends all the rules.

Effect of Rejection

Sec. 15.7 Rejection of a motion to suspend the rules and agree to a 
    resolution does not preclude the Speaker from exercising his 
    discretionary authority to recognize a Member to offer a similar 
    resolution under suspension of the rules.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(8) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
overruled a point of order against recognition for a motion to suspend 
the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 43271, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to suspend the rules and agree to the House Resolution (H. 
    Res. 760) to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill S. 921, 
    to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, with a Senate amendment to 
    the House amendment thereto and agree to the Senate amendment to 
    the House amendment with an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  H. Res. 760

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill S. 921, with the Senate amendment to the 
        House amendment thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from 
        the Speaker's table to the end that the Senate amendment to the 
        House amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to with an 
        amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment, insert the text of the bill H.R. 12129.

    A point of order was made as follows:

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against this 
    resolution because it, in effect, does nothing more than call up a 
    matter that has already been voted on within the last half hour by 
    this House.
        Anyone who says it is not to the contrary has no authority, 
    because no one has read it and we do not know the substance.
        The Speaker: The Chair has read the resolutions, they have been 
    read to the House, and the Chair has authority to recognize for 
    motions to suspend the rules.
        There are substantial differences, and the Chair has recognized 
    the gentleman from West Virginia.

[[Page 4006]]

    The House rejected the motion.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The House had earlier rejected a motion to 
suspend the rules (offered by Mr. Staggers) and agree to a resolution 
to take the same bill with the Senate amendment from the table and 
agree to the Senate amendments with an amendment. The second motion 
offered by Mr. Staggers proposed a different amendment (text of another 
House bill) to the Senate amendment.
    Since the rejection of a motion to suspend the rules does not 
prejudice its being offered again, no motion to reconsider is in order 
on a negative vote on a motion to suspend the rules (see 5 Hinds' 
Precedents Sec. Sec. 5645, 5646; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2781).

Sec. 15.8 The Committee on Rules may report a special rule to make in 
    order the consideration of a joint resolution that had previously 
    been defeated on a motion to suspend the rules.

    On Aug. 24, 1935,(~9) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that the 
rejection of a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill did not 
preclude bringing up the same bill pursuant to a special order from the 
Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 79 Cong. Rec. 14652, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules I present a privileged report from that 
    committee and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 372

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the House shall proceed to the consideration of 
        (S.J. Res. 175), a joint resolution to extend the time within 
        which contracts may be modified or canceled under the 
        provisions of section 5 of the Independent Offices 
        Appropriation Act 1935, and all points of order against said 
        joint resolution are hereby waived.

        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which was 
    considered today under suspension of the rules but failed of 
    passage. It is a matter about which there was some confusion. It is 
    a very simple matter and has nothing to do with ship subsidies. It 
    merely extends the time within which the President can determine 
    whether or not to cancel or modify the contracts. The President has 
    before him this important situation: many of these contracts will 
    expire between October of this year and January of next year. I am 
    authorized to say that the President feels he needs this authority.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
        Mr. [Maury] Maverick [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Maverick: After a bill has been passed on, can it be 
    brought up again

[[Page 4007]]

    the same day? What about the Puerto Rico bill, which failed? If we 
    can again bring up the bill made in order by this resolution, we 
    can do it with the Puerto Rico bill, or with any other bill that 
    has been defeated once during the day. This bill was defeated a few 
    hours ago.
        The Speaker: The Chair will answer the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry. This is an effort on the part of the 
    gentleman from New York, Chairman of the Rules Committee, to bring 
    this bill up under a special rule.
        The question is up to the House as to whether or not that can 
    be done.
        Mr. Maverick: I did not hear the Chair.
        The Speaker: This is a special rule which is under 
    consideration and is in order.
        Mr. [William D.] McFarlane [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McFarlane: Is it in order for the Chairman of the Rules 
    Committee to bring in a rule on a bill which we defeated this 
    afternoon and then move the previous question before the opponents 
    have an opportunity to be heard?
        The Speaker: It is, under the rules of the House.
        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, all the opponents were heard today.
        The Speaker: It is a question for the House itself to 
    determine.


                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       C. SPECIAL RULES OR ORDERS
 
Sec. 16. Authority of Committee on Rules; Seeking Special Orders

    Under Rule XI clause 17,(10) the Committee on Rules has 
jurisdiction over the rules, joint rules, and order of business of the 
House.(11) And under Rule XI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1973) [Rule X clause 1(q), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 686(a) (1979)].
11. The jurisdiction defined in the rule was made effective Jan. 2, 
        1947, as part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. 
        The jurisdiction was further defined in the 90th Congress when 
        jurisdiction over rules relating to official conduct and 
        financial disclosure was transferred to the Committee on 
        Standards of Official Conduct (H. Res. 1099, 90th Cong.).
            Prior to the 1946 act, Rule XI clause 35 provided that 
        ``all proposed action touching the rules, joint rules, and 
        order of business shall be referred to the Committee on 
        Rules.'' And Rule XI clause 45 conferred privilege on reports 
        from the Committee on Rules.
            For a short history of the Committee on Rules, including 
        its procedures, composition and authority in relation to the 
        current and past rules of the House, see 115 Cong. Rec. 9498-
        501, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 17. 1969 (insertion in the 
        Record by Richard Bolling [Mo.], a member of the Committee on 
        Rules, of a short history of that committee prepared by Walter 
        Kravitz of the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of 
        Congress).
            See also Ch. 17, supra, for further information on the 
        committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4008]]

clause 23, it is always in order to call up for consideration a report 
from tile Committee on Rules on such matters,(~12) which 
report may be adopted in the House by a majority vote. If the report is 
called up the same day reported, it may not be considered unless so 
determined by a two-thirds vote.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973) [Rule XI clause 4(b), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)].
13. For the privilege of reports from the Committee on Rules, see 
        Sec. 17, infra. For consideration of and voting on such 
        reports, see Sec. 18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Rules may waive any rule which impedes the 
consideration of a bill or amendment thereto, and points of order do 
not lie against the consideration of such rules, as it is for the House 
to determine, by a majority vote on the adoption of the resolution, 
whether certain rules should be waived.(14) Thus an 
objection that a report from the Committee on Rules changes the rules 
of the House and thus should require a two-thirds vote rather than a 
majority vote has no merit.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For the authority of the Committee on Rules as to waiving rules and 
        points of order, see Sec. Sec. 16.9-16.14, infra. Rules may 
        also be waived by unanimous-consent requests and motions to 
        suspend the rules; for discussion of motions to suspend the 
        rules and their effect, see Sec. 9, supra.
            The power of the House to change or to waive its rules is 
        derived from U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, clause 2, which 
        authorizes each House of Congress to determine the rules of its 
        proceedings.
15. See Sec. 16.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A major portion of the legislation considered in the House is 
considered pursuant to resolutions, also called ``rules'' and ``special 
orders,'' reported by the Committee on Rules. As most bills reported by 
the other committees of the House are not privileged under the rules 
for immediate consideration, the special order from the Committee on 
Rules gives privilege to the bill sought to be considered in the 
House,(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For a statement by Speaker Nicholas Longworth (Ohio) as to the 
        privilege conferred on a bill by the adoption of a special 
        order, see Sec. 16.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule XIII clause 1,(17) most bills require 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole; therefore the special 
order usually provides that it shall be in order, upon adoption of the 
resolution to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for the consideration of the designated bill.(18) 
But if the resolu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 742 (1979).
18. Special orders may also provide for the consideration of bills or 
        resolutions in the House, or in the House as in the Committee 
        of the Whole (see for example Sec. Sec. 20.16 and 20.17, 
        infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4009]]

tion is for the consideration of a bill not reported from committee, 
the resolution may provide that the House shall immediately resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the 
bill (since the committee of jurisdiction has in effect been discharged 
from the further consideration of the bill). The resolution usually 
provides for a certain period of general debate (one hour or more), 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the reporting committee, and for reading the bill for 
amendment under the five-minute rule. A ``closed'' rule restricts or 
prohibits the offering of amendments; an ``open'' rule allows the 
offering of germane amendments from the floor. Whether a rule is 
characterized as a ``modified open'' or a ``modified closed'' rule is a 
matter of degree, the former describing rules permitting any germane 
amendment with designated exceptions, and the latter prohibiting the 
offering of amendments, with designated exceptions.
    The resolution will generally provide that at the conclusion of the 
reading of the bill for amendment, the bill shall be reported back to 
the House, where the previous question shall be considered as ordered 
on the bill to passage without intervening motion except the motion to 
recommit. The resolution may provide that a separate vote may be 
demanded on any amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to a 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as otherwise only 
amendments in their perfected form are reported from Committee of the 
Whole and voted on in the House. Frequently, the resolution provides 
that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in 
the reported version of the bill may be read as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment.
    Due to the numerous possible variations in the form of special 
orders, only a representative sample is included in this and the 
following sections.
    The grant of jurisdiction to the Committee on Rules is necessarily 
broad, in order that the rules may be temporarily waived in order to 
consider and pass particular pieces of legislation. The only 
restrictions on the power of the Committee on Rules in reporting rules, 
under Rule XI clause 23,(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973) [Rule XI clause 4(b), House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4010]]

are as follows: ``The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or 
order which shall provide that business under clause 7 of Rule XXIV 
[the Calendar Wednesday rule] shall be set aside by a vote of less than 
two-thirds of the Members present; nor shall it report any rule or 
order which would prevent the motion to recommit from being made as 
provided in clause 4 of Rule XVI.(20) The committee's 
authority extends to reporting resolutions making in order the 
consideration of bills not yet reported from standing or conference 
committees,(1) and to reporting resolutions providing 
certain procedures or waiving certain points of order during the 
further consideration of bills already under consideration in the House 
or Committee of the Whole.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Calendar Wednesday is a little-used procedure, and is customarily 
        dispensed with by unanimous consent rather than by the two-
        thirds vote on a motion (see Sec. 4, supra).
            Although the Committee on Rules may not prevent a motion to 
        recommit (see Sec. 16.19, infra), recommittal is not in order 
        when a bill is being considered under a motion to suspend the 
        rules.
            Thus the Committee on Rules may report a resolution making 
        in order motions to suspend the rules on days not specified in 
        the suspension rule, which in effect precludes motions to 
        recommit on bills passed under that procedure (see 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 2267).
 1. See Sec. Sec. 16.15-16.18, infra. A special order from the 
        committee may even provide for the consideration of a bill 
        which has not yet been introduced. 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 3388.
 2. See Sec. Sec. 16.26, 16.27, infra; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules or special orders are requested from the Committee on Rules, 
usually, by the committee which has reported, or which has jurisdiction 
over, the measure to be considered, and the Committee on Rules may hold 
hearings and meetings on requested orders regardless of whether the 
House is in session and reading for amendment under the five-minute 
rule.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 16.20-16.22, infra, for requests for special orders 
        from the Committee on Rules. See Sec. Sec. 16.23-16.25, infra, 
        for meetings and hearings by the committee, including the 
        provisions of the House rules and the rules of the committee 
        itself in the 93d Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Power and Function of Rules Committee Generally

Sec. 16.1 During consideration of a resolution allowing legislation to 
    be included in an appropriation bill, the functions of the 
    Committee on Rules were discussed.

    On Jan. 23, 1932, during consideration of a special order from

[[Page 4011]]

the Committee on Rules making in order on a general appropriation bill 
certain legislative language, Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, of the 
Committee on Rules discussed that committee's functions:

        Mr. O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, this resolution was introduced 
    before the Committee on Rules by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
    Byrns], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations at the request 
    of his committee. We were informed that every member of the 
    Appropriations--Republican and Democratic members--favored it 
    except as to one gentleman objecting in one small particular. As 
    for the necessity for the resolution it was stated that there was a 
    probability that a point of order might be made against these 
    provisions of sections 2 and 3 now carried in this agricultural 
    appropriation bill. It was therefore thought best that the matter 
    be laid before the House so that the membership of the House could 
    determine whether the provisions of these two sections now in the 
    bill should remain in the bill.
        It has always been my understanding that the Rules Committee is 
    not a committee that passes on the merits of measures. As has often 
    been said before, that committee merely determines whether or not a 
    measure is in accord with the program of the House and in answer to 
    a reasonable demand from the membership of the House, that they 
    have an opportunity to pass their judgment upon it. It is in that 
    customary spirit that the Rules Committee approached this 
    resolution without going into its merits to any extent. The entire 
    membership of the Appropriations Committee without regard to 
    politics wanted to give the House an opportunity to pass upon it. 
    In such a situation I believe it to be the duty of the Rules 
    Committee to lay the matter before the House for such action as it 
    shall see fit to take. That we have done in this 
    case.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 75 Cong. Rec. 2568, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.2 The Chairman of the Committee on Rules discussed that 
    committee's functions when calling up the first major special order 
    of the 73d Congress.

    On Mar. 21, 1933, when William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, the 
Chairman of the Committee on Rules, called up by direction of that 
committee a special order providing for the consideration of a bill, he 
delivered some remarks on the functions of the committee:

        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of a number of the 
    new Members of the House, it will be noticed that this is the first 
    time since the convening of the special session of Congress that 
    the consideration of a bill of major importance has been brought 
    forward under the provisions of the authority and jurisdiction of 
    the Committee on Rules.
        So this resolution provides for the consideration of this 
    measure as it is presented. No doubt the distinguished minority 
    leader, as already indicated by some interviews in the newspapers,

[[Page 4012]]

    will undertake to say that this is a very drastic rule. I admit it. 
    The minority will also say that it is a gag rule. In the common 
    acceptation of this term I admit it; but I want to say that many 
    years ago when, as a somewhat green Member of the House of 
    Representatives, I was assigned to service on the Committee on 
    Rules, under Republican administrations for many years, all that I 
    absorbed or learned about so-called gag rules I learned while 
    sitting at the feet of the distinguished gentleman from New York, 
    Mr. Snell, and his associates.
        I may say to the new Members of this Congress, also, and we 
    might as well be candid and frank about the function and 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York 
    and his associates well know what these functions are. The 
    Committee on Rules is the political and policy vehicle of the House 
    of Representatives to effectuate the party program and the party 
    policy. This is what it is, nothing more and nothing less, and 
    although, individually, I express the opinion here and now that we 
    regret the necessity sometimes of bringing resolutions upon the 
    floor of this House that will prevent the ordinary freedom of 
    action and freedom of offering amendments, there come times when, 
    under our system of party government, the Committee on Rules, 
    acting as I have suggested, is requested, as we have been requested 
    in this instance, by the leadership of the House, to bring in the 
    rule that we now have under consideration, for reasons which they 
    thought were wise and appropriate under the circumstances.
        So if you adopt this rule for the consideration of this bill, 
    it provides for four hours of general debate which will give all 
    gentlemen who desire to do so a fairly reasonable opportunity to 
    express their views upon it, and at the end of that time we are 
    going to have a vote on this bill, if the rule is adopted, and we 
    are going to vote the bill as it is up or down (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 77 Cong. Rec. 665, 666, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.3 The failure of a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill 
    does not prejudice the status of a bill and the Committee on Rules 
    may subsequently bring in a special rule providing for its 
    consideration and requiring only a majority vote for its passage.

    On June 5, 1933,(6) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill relating to the appointment 
of the Governor of Hawaii; the motion failed to obtain two-thirds (yeas 
222, nays 114). Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 77 Cong. Rec. 5015, 5022, 5023, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Blanton: If that motion [to lay on the table the motion to 
    reconsider] is carried, then the Rules Committee

[[Page 4013]]

    nevertheless will be able to bring in a rule tomorrow to take that 
    bill up when it can be passed by a majority vote?
        The Speaker: The Rules Committee can bring in a bill suspending 
    the rules.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to reconsider is no longer 
utilized following a negative vote on a motion to suspend the rules 
(see Sec. 15.7, supra).
    On June 6, the Committee on Rules reported a resolution providing 
for the consideration of the bill, and the resolution was adopted by 
the House on June 7.
    On Aug. 24, 1935,(7) there was called up by direction of 
the Committee on Rules a resolution making in order the consideration 
of a bill which had on that day failed of passage on suspension of the 
rules. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, answered parliamentary 
inquiries on the power of the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 14652, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Maury] Maverick [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Maverick: After a bill has been passed on, can it be 
    brought up again the same day? What about the Puerto Rico bill, 
    which failed? If we can again bring up the bill made in order by 
    this resolution, we can do it with the Puerto Rico bill, or with 
    any other bill that has been defeated once during the day. This 
    bill was defeated a few hours ago.
        The Speaker: The Chair will answer the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry. This is an effort on the part of the 
    gentleman from New York, Chairman of the Rules Committee, to bring 
    this bill up under a special rule.
        The question is up to the House as to whether or not that can 
    be done.
        Mr. Maverick: I did not hear the Chair.
        The Speaker: This is a special rule which is under 
    consideration and is in order.
        Mr. [William D.] McFarlane [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McFarlane: Is it in order for the Chairman of the Rules 
    Committee to bring in a rule on a bill which we defeated this 
    afternoon and then move the previous question before the opponents 
    have an opportunity to be heard?
        The Speaker: It is, under the rules of the House.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, all the 
    opponents were heard today.
        The Speaker: It is a question for the House itself to 
    determine.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Jefferson's Manual states [at Sec. 515, 
House Rules and Manual (1979)] that it is not in order to consider a 
bill the same as one already rejected in the same session; this 
prohibition may be waived by a resolution reported from the Rules

[[Page 4014]]

Committee providing for consideration.

Sec. 16.4 The question whether the House will consider a resolution 
    making in order the consideration of a bill which seeks to amend a 
    nonexisting law is a matter for the House and not the Chair to 
    decide.

    On May 13, 1953,(8) Mr. Leo E. Allen, of Illinois, 
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, a resolution 
providing for the consideration of a bill to amend the ``Submerged 
Lands Act,'' reported from the Committee on the Judiciary. Speaker 
Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, overruled a point of order 
against the consideration of the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 99 Cong. Rec. 4877, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Feighan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of this rule because it attempts to make in order the 
    consideration of the bill H.R. 5134, which is a bill to amend a 
    nonexisting act.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the point of order that 
    has been raised by the gentleman from Ohio is not one within the 
    jurisdiction of the Chair, but is a question for the House to 
    decide, whether it wants to consider such legislation.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 16.5 Objection having been made to a unanimous-consent request to 
    take from the Speaker's table a bill with Senate amendments 
    thereto, disagree to the amendments and agree to a conference, the 
    Committee on Rules met immediately and reported out a resolution to 
    accomplish such action; it was agreed by a two-thirds vote to 
    consider the resolution and the resolution was adopted that day.

    On Aug. 9, 1949, Mr. J. Vaughan Gary, of Virginia, asked unanimous 
consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill H.R. 4830 (foreign 
aid appropriations) with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the 
amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. Mr. Vito 
Marcantonio, of New York, having objected to the request, the Committee 
on Rules held a meeting, reported out a resolution making in order the 
action requested by Mr. Gary, and the House agreed to consider the 
resolution by a two-thirds vote and adopted the 
resolution.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 11139-46, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4015]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: This function of the Committee on Rules has 
been exercised less frequently since adoption (on Jan. 4, 1965, H. Res. 
8, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.) of that portion of clause 1 Rule XX permitting 
a motion to go to conference when authorized by the committee with 
legislative jurisdiction.

Sec. 16.6 The effect of a special rule providing for the consideration 
    of a bill is to give to the bill the privileged status for 
    consideration that a revenue or appropriation bill has under Rule 
    XVI clause 9.

    On June 28, 1930,(10) 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, 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 72 Cong. Rec. 11994, 11995. 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl R.] Chindblom [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, if pressed, 
    I will make the point of order that the resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules is not in order because it relates to a bill 
    which is not now upon the calendar of the House under the 
    conditions and in the status which existed when this resolution was 
    adopted by the Committee on Rules.
        The calendar shows that H.R. 12549 was reported to the House on 
    June 24, 1930, Report No. 2016, and was placed on the House 
    Calendar. The resolution or rule now called up for consideration by 
    the Committee on Rules was presented to the House June 20, 1930, 
    and therefore before the bill on the calendar had been reported to 
    the House.
        Of course, we all know that this bill is now upon the calendar 
    for the third time. A previous rule was adopted for its 
    consideration on June 12, 1930, and at that time a point of order 
    was made, when it was sought to take up the bill in Committee of 
    the Whole House on the state of the Union, on the ground that the 
    report did not comply with the Ramseyer rule. Subsequently, after 
    the present rule was presented in the House on June 20, 1930, I 
    think it is well known that another irregularity in the adoption of 
    the report became known, so on June 23, if my recollection is 
    correct, the chairman of the Committee on Patents obtained 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the bill and the report, and the bill 
    was thereupon again reported the following day and placed upon the 
    House Calendar.
        The situation is novel and arises, so far as I can learn, for 
    the first time, and it raises the question whether the Committee on 
    Rules has authority in advance of the report of a bill, and in 
    advance of the placing of a bill on any calendar of the House, to 
    bring in a

[[Page 4016]]

    rule for the consideration of the bill under the general rules of 
    the House, as this resolution does, because the rule merely makes 
    it in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill. As I construe the rule, it does not 
    suspend any of the rules of the House in reference to the 
    consideration of legislation. It does not suspend the rule which 
    requires bills to be upon the calendar of the House before they can 
    have consideration. It merely makes it in order to move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    state of the Union for the consideration of the bill.
        Mr. [John Q.] Tilson [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Chindblom: Yes.
        Mr. Tilson: Does not the effect of this resolution date from 
    the time it is adopted by the House, and not from the time it was 
    reported by the Committee on Rules? And if we to-day in the House 
    adopt the rule, is not the effect of the rule to be applied as of 
    to-day, and not three or four days ago, when the rule was reported?
        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.

Rules Committee Jurisdiction Over Order of Business.

Sec. 16.7 The Speaker stated in overruling a point of order against a 
    special order from the Committee on Rules that the committee could 
    report a resolution to change the rules of the House on any

[[Page 4017]]

    matter except that which is prohibited by the Constitution.

    On Sept. 3, 1940,(11) there was pending before the House 
a special order from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
consideration of, and providing for two days of general debate on, a 
bill. Speaker pro tempore Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, overruled a point 
of order against the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 11359, 11360, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that 
    the resolution is contrary to the unwritten law of the House. It 
    has been the universal practice, custom, and tradition of the House 
    to have debate fixed by hours. This resolution fixes general debate 
    by days. This is entirely meaningless, because a day may be 
    terminated by a motion that the Committee rise or by adjournment, 
    and for that reason I press my point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the 
    resolution is contrary to the unwritten rules of the House in that 
    general debate is fixed by days instead of hours.
        In the first place, the point of order comes too late.
        In the second place, this is a resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules to change the rules of the House, which is 
    permissible on anything except that which is prohibited by the 
    Constitution.
        The point of order is overruled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XI clause 17 gives jurisdiction to the 
Committee on Rules over the rules, joint rules, and order of business 
of the House. But under Rule XI clause 23, the Committee on Rules may 
not report any order providing that business under Rule XXIV clause 7 
(Calendar Wednesday) shall be dispensed with by less than a two-thirds 
vote, or any order operating to prevent the motion to recommit being 
made pursuant to Rule XVI clause 4.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XI clause 17, House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1973) [Rule X 
        clause 1(q), House Rules and Manual Sec. 686(a) (1979)]. Rule 
        XI clause 23, House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973) [Rule XI 
        clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)]. Rule 
        XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1979). Rule XVI 
        clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.8 To a bill amending the rules of the House [Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1970] being considered pursuant to a 
    resolution prohibiting amendments to the bill ``which would have 
    the effect of changing the jurisdiction

[[Page 4018]]

    of any committee of the House listed in Rule XI,'' an amendment to 
    clause 23 [clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual (1979)] of Rule XI 
    proscribing the power of the Committee on Rules to report special 
    orders which would limit the reading of a measure for amendment or 
    the offering of amendments thereto, was ruled out of order as an 
    attempt to change the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.

    On July 29, 1970, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (H.R. 
17654) was being read for amendment in the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant to a special order (H. Res. 1093) prohibiting the offering of 
amendments which would change the jurisdiction of House committees. 
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, sustained a point of order 
against an amendment (and discussed the jurisdiction of the Committee 
on Rules): (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 26414, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jacobs: On page 39, after line 4, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 123(a) Clause 23 of Rule XI of the Rules of the 
        House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following: `In addition, the Committee on Rules 
        shall not report any rule or order for the consideration of any 
        legislative measure which limits, restricts, or eliminates the 
        actual reading of that measure for amendment or the offering of 
        any amendment to that measure.'.''. . .

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: Mr. Chairman, I raise the 
    point of order that this very definitely limits the jurisdiction of 
    the Rules Committee and would prohibit us from issuing a closed 
    rule and other types of rules. The rule under which this measure 
    was considered strictly prohibits the changing of any jurisdiction 
    of any committee.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Indiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the term 
    ``jurisdiction,'' it means the territory or subject matter over 
    which legal power is exercisable, not the rules by which such power 
    proceeds.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would like to point out to the gentleman from Indiana 
    that under House Resolution 1093 we have the following language, 
    beginning in line 11:

            No amendments to the bill shall be in order which would 
        have the effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee 
        of the House listed in Rule XI.

        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 4019]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is for some 
    enlightenment about the word ``jurisdiction'' itself, the 
    definition of the word ``jurisdiction''? Does it refer to subject 
    matter and territory, or relate to the manner in which the 
    Committee on Rules can make a report within its jurisdiction?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to point out to the 
    gentleman from Indiana that under the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana there is the following language:

            The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or order 
        for the consideration of any legislative measure which limits, 
        restricts, or eliminates the actual reading of that measure for 
        amendment or the offering of any amendment to that measure.

        Therefore the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
    restricts the jurisdictional powers of the Committee on Rules. For 
    that reason the point of order must be sustained.

Waiver of Rules by Special Orders

Sec. 16.9 Rules of the House may be changed or temporarily suspended by 
    a majority vote by the adoption of a resolution from the Committee 
    on Rules providing for such a change, such as waiving points of 
    order in the consideration of a bill.

    On June 14, 1930,(14) Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New 
York, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 
253, providing for the consideration of two conference reports on the 
same bill together as one, for the purposes of debate and voting. 
Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, overruled a point of order against 
the resolution, where the point of order was based on the fact that the 
resolution waived all points of order in the consideration of the 
reports:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 72 Cong. Rec. 10694, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to 
    make a point of order against the resolution.

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: The resolution provides that ``in the 
    consideration of the reports all points of order shall be waived.'' 
    Points of order are based on the rules of the House, either the few 
    published rules or the precedents and rulings by presiding 
    officers. This resolution proposes to do what should be done by a 
    motion to suspend the rules. The difficulty is, however, that to 
    suspend the rules a two-thirds vote is required. This is not a 
    resolution brought in for the purpose of obtaining by a majority 
    vote the direct repeal of all of the rules of the House but is 
    intended to serve a certain specific purpose in reference to only 
    one measure of the House. For instance, the rule relating to 
    Calendar Wednesday requires that to set that aside there must be a 
    two-thirds vote. The rule prohibiting legislation on an 
    appropriation bill could not be set aside, in my opinion, by this 
    method,

[[Page 4020]]

    and that applies to other rules of the House. Points of order being 
    rules of the House, in my opinion this resolution violates the 
    rules of the House, in that it sets aside all rules relating to 
    points of order.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad to argue the 
    point of order with the gentleman if I knew what his point of order 
    is, but from anything my friend has said so far, I am unable to 
    identify it.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state it is not necessary. This is 
    a very ordinary proceeding. It has been done hundreds of times to 
    the knowledge of the Chair. The Chair overrules the point of order.

    On Oct. 27, 1971,(15) the House had under consideration 
House Resolution 661, reported from the Committee on Rules and 
providing for consideration of H.R. 7248, to amend and extend the 
Higher Education Act and for other purposes. The resolution waived 
points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for failure to comply with Rule XVI clause 7 (germaneness) 
and Rule XXI clause 4 [clause 5 in the 96th Congress] (appropriations 
in a legislative bill) and also provided that points of order could be 
raised against portions of the bill whose subject matter was properly 
within another committee's jurisdiction rather than within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor, which had 
reported the bill. (Under normal procedure, a point of order based on 
committee jurisdiction cannot be raised after a committee to which has 
been referred a bill has reported it, the proper remedy being a motion 
to correct reference.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 37768, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, indicated that a majority vote, and not a two-thirds vote, 
would be required to adopt the resolution:

        Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Speaker, at this point is it proper for the 
    Speaker to determine whether a two-thirds vote would be required 
    for the passage of this resolution, House Resolution 661, or merely 
    a majority?
        The Speaker: The resolution from the Committee on Rules makes 
    in order the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7248) and a majority 
    vote is required for that purpose.
        Mr. Matsunaga: Even with the reference to the last section, Mr. 
    Speaker, relating to the raising of a point of order on a bill 
    which is properly reported out by a committee to which the bill was 
    referred, which would in effect contravene an existing rule of the 
    House?

[[Page 4021]]

        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules proposes to make in order 
    in its resolution (H. Res. 661) the opportunity to raise points of 
    order against the bill on committee jurisdictional grounds, but as 
    is the case with any resolution reported by the Committee on Rules 
    making a bill a special order of business, only a majority vote is 
    required.
        Mr. Matsunaga: I thank the Speaker.

Sec. 16.10 The Speaker stated in overruling a point of order against a 
    special order from the Committee on Rules that the committee could 
    report a resolution to change the rules of the House on any matter 
    except that which is prohibited by the Constitution.

    On Sept. 3, 1940,(16) there was pending before the House 
a special order from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
consideration of, and providing for two days of general debate on, a 
bill. Speaker pro tempore Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, overruled a point 
of order against the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 11359, 11360, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that 
    the resolution is contrary to the unwritten law of the House. It 
    has been the universal practice, custom, and tradition of the House 
    to have debate fixed by hours. This resolution fixes general debate 
    by days. This is entirely meaningless, because a day may be 
    terminated by a motion that the Committee rise or by adjournment, 
    and for that reason I press my point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the 
    resolution is contrary to the unwritten rules of the House in that 
    general debate is fixed by days instead of hours.
        In the first place, the point of order comes too late.
        In the second place, this is a resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules to change the rules of the House, which is 
    permissible on anything except that which is prohibited by the 
    Constitution.
        The point of order is overruled.

Sec. 16.11 It is for the House, and not the Chair, to decide upon the 
    efficacy of adopting a special rule which has the effect of setting 
    aside the standing rules of the House insofar as they impede the 
    consideration of a particular bill; it is not within the province 
    of the Chair to rule out, on a point of order, a resolution 
    reported by the Committee on Rules which is properly before the 
    House and which provides for a

[[Page 4022]]

    special order of business (abrogating the provisions of Rule XX 
    clause 1).

    On Nov. 28, 1967,(17) the previous question had been 
moved on House Resolution 985, called up by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, providing for concurring in a Senate amendment to a House 
bill; the resolution was necessary in order to waive the requirement of 
Rule XX clause 1 [House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1979)], that Senate 
amendments be considered in Committee of the Whole if they would be 
subject to that procedure where originating in the House. Speaker John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled a point of order against the 
resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 34038, 34039, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against a vote on this resolution, and I make the point of 
    order based entirely on rule XX, which says that any amendment of 
    the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to a point of order 
    that it shall first be considered in the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union. If it originated in the House it 
    would be subject to that point of order. I believe there is no 
    question about it being subject to a point of order should it 
    originate here in this House. Until that issue is debated in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union I believe 
    that we are violating rule XX of the House rules.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has previously 
    [see footnote 18, infra] ruled on the point of order raised by the 
    gentleman, and the matter is one that is now before the House for 
    the consideration of the House, and the will of the House.
        For the reasons heretofore stated and now stated, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me under 
    what authority the House can consider this in the House rather than 
    in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, in 
    view of rule XX which says it shall first be considered in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the House can change its 
    rules at any time upon a resolution that is properly before the 
    House reported by the Committee on Rules. The present resolution 
    has been put before the House by the Committee on Rules within the 
    authority of the Committee on Rules, therefore the matter presents 
    itself for the will of the House.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The reason I am making this is that I want to get some record 
    on this for this reason: The Chair has said that the Committee on 
    Rules may make a resolution which has not been adopted by the House 
    which summarily amends the Rules of the House which the Members of 
    the House are supposed to rely upon. This rule has not been adopted 
    as yet.

[[Page 4023]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Committee on Rules 
    has reported the rule under consideration--
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: But it has never been voted upon.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that we are about to approach 
    that matter now.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: And I am challenging that, and the point 
    of order is made that we cannot vote on that because it says in 
    rule XX that this first shall be considered in the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot be any more specific or clear in 
    responding to the point of order or in answering the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The matter is properly before the House and it is a matter on 
    which the House may express its will.

    The Speaker had previously, when the resolution was called up, 
overruled the same point of order: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 34032, 34033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has given 
    serious consideration to the point of order raised by the gentleman 
    from Missouri. The Committee on Rules has reported out a special 
    rule. It is within the authority of the rules, and a reporting out 
    by the Rules Committee is consistent with the rules of the House. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 16.12 The Committee on Rules may report a resolution waiving 
    points of order against provisions in a legislative bill containing 
    appropriations in violation of Rule XXI clause 4 (clause 5 in the 
    96th Congress) and it is not in order to make such points of order 
    when the resolution and not the bill is before the House.

    On Aug. 1, 1939,(19) there was pending before the House 
a resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
consideration of a bill reported from the Committee on Banking and 
Currency and waiving points of order against the bill (certain sections 
of the bill contained appropriations in a legislative bill). Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, overruled a point of order against the 
resolution where the point of order was directed against those sections 
of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 84 Cong. Rec. 10710, 10711, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against certain sections of the bill referred to in the rule.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman desire to make a point of order 
    against the resolution?
        Mr. Taber: Against certain sections of the bill referred to in 
    the resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair will not entertain that point of order, 
    because the matter now pending before the House

[[Page 4024]]

    is whether or not it should agree to the resolution making a 
    certain bill in order. . . .
        The Chair has no disposition to limit the argument of the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber], but the Chair is very clearly 
    of the opinion that the points of order the gentleman seeks to 
    raise against certain provisions of the bill are not in order at 
    this time. The House is now considering a resolution providing for 
    the consideration of the bill against which the gentleman desires 
    to raise certain points of order. The resolution which is now being 
    considered itself provides, if adopted, that all points of order 
    against the bill are waived. This is no innovation or new matter. 
    Time after time the Committee on Rules has brought to the House 
    resolutions waiving points of order against bills. Under the 
    general rules of the House, the Chair will say to the gentleman, 
    aside from the considerations which the Chair has mentioned, points 
    of order cannot be raised against the bill until the section is 
    reached in the bill which attempts to make appropriations and 
    against which the point of order is desired to be made.
        For those reasons the Chair does not feel like recognizing the 
    gentleman at this juncture to state points of order against the 
    proposed bill.
        Mr. Taber: May I call the attention of the Chair to the last 
    sentence in clause 4 of rule XXI:

            A question of order on an appropriation in any such bill, 
        joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised at any 
        time.

        There have been decisions holding that the point of order would 
    not lie to the bill or to its consideration, but I have cited to 
    the Chair cases where such points of order have been made and have 
    been sustained when the bill itself was not under consideration.
        The Speaker: The Chair has undertaken to make it plain that the 
    Chair's decision is based very largely upon the proposition that 
    the resolution now being considered specifically waives all points 
    of order that may be made against the bill, and includes those 
    matters evidently against which the gentleman has in mind in making 
    points of order.

Sec. 16.13 The House rejected a resolution reported from the Committee 
    on Rules, providing for the consideration of a bill improperly 
    reported (failure of a quorum to order the bill reported).

    On July 23, 1973,(20) the House rejected House 
Resolution 495, called up by Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules and providing for the consideration 
of H.R. 8929 (to amend title 39, on the reduced mailing rate for 
certain matter). The resolution specifically waived Rule XI clause 
27(e) (clause 2(1)(2)(A) in the 96th Congress) in relation to the bill; 
that clause provided that a quorum must actually be present when a bill 
is ordered reported by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 25482, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4025]]

a committee, a requirement that was not followed in the reporting of 
the bill in question.

Sec. 16.14 Despite certain defects in the consideration or reporting of 
    a bill by a standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a 
    special rule from the Committee on Rules.

    On May 2, 1939,(1) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
made a point of order against an order of business resolution reported 
by the Committee on Rules and called up for consideration, on the 
ground that the bill made in order by the resolution had been referred 
to, considered by, and reported from a committee (the Committee on the 
Judiciary) which had no jurisdiction over the subject matter involved. 
After extended argument on the point of order, Speaker William B. 
Bankhead, of Alabama, overruled the point of order on the ground that 
after a public bill has been reported it is not in order to raise a 
question of committee jurisdiction. The Speaker further commented that 
even if there were defects in the committee consideration and report, 
the rule from the Committee on Rules would have the effect of remedying 
such defects:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 84 Cong. Rec. 5052-55, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, in order to 
    protect the rights of the Committee on Rules, will the Chair permit 
    this observation? The gentleman from New York slept on his rights 
    further until the Committee on Rules reported a rule making the 
    consideration of this measure in order. Even though the reference 
    had been erroneous and the point of order had been otherwise made 
    in time, the Committee on Rules has the right to change the rules 
    and report a rule making the legislation in order. This point also 
    might be taken into consideration by the Speaker, if necessary.

        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the statement 
    made by the gentleman from Michigan, although not necessary to a 
    decision of the instant question, is sustained by a particular and 
    special decision rendered by Mr. Speaker Garner on a similar 
    question. The decision may be found in the Record of February 28, 
    1933. In that decision it is held, in effect, that despite certain 
    defects in the consideration or the reporting of a bill by a 
    standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a special rule 
    from the Committee on Rules making in order a motion to consider 
    such bill. The Chair thinks that that decision by Mr. Speaker 
    Garner clearly sustains the contention made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For the Feb. 28, 1933, decision referred to by the Chair, see 76 
        Cong. Rec. 5247-49, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 23, 1942,(3) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
made a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 88 Cong. Rec. 6541, 6542, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4026]]

point of order against a bill ``not legally before the House,'' on the 
grounds that the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Election 
of President, Vice President, and Representatives in Congress, had 
never reported the bill with a quorum present. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, responded as follows:

        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        At this time there is no bill pending before the House. A 
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules will be presented to 
    the House, which, if adopted, will make in order the consideration 
    of H.R. 7416. If the Committee on Election of President, Vice 
    President, and Representatives in Congress had never taken any 
    action upon this bill and the Committee on Rules had decided to 
    report a rule making it in order and putting it up to the House 
    whether or not the House would consider the bill, they would have 
    been within their rights. Therefore, the Chair cannot do otherwise 
    than hold that there is nothing at the time before the House. It is 
    anticipated that a special rule will be presented, making in order 
    the consideration of H.R. 7416. If the House adopts the rule then 
    the House has decided that it desires to consider the bill at this 
    time, and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] and recognizes the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath].

    Parliamentarian's Note: It is the present practice to waive points 
of order against the consideration of a bill by reason of specific 
defects in committee reports. For example, the failure of a committee 
to comply with the ``Ramseyer'' rule (Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules 
and Manual Sec. 745 [1979]) may be raised after the House agrees to a 
resolution making the consideration of the bill in order and before the 
House resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider the 
bill unless the rule has waived that point of order.

Orders for Considering Unreported Measures

Sec. 16.15 A point of order that the Committee on Rules has reported a 
    special rule providing for the consideration of a bill prior to the 
    time the bill to be considered was reported and referred to the 
    Union Calendar does not lie.

    On June 28, 1930,(4) Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a resolution making in 
order the consideration of a bill. Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, 
made a point of order against the report of the Committee on Rules, on 
the ground that the committee had reported the resolution to the House 
on June 20, 1930, whereas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 72 Cong. Rec. 11994, ll99a, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4027]]

the bill was first reported to the House on a later date, on June 24, 
1930 (and was recommitted twice to the committee of jurisdiction in 
order to correct errors in the report). Mr. Chindblom asserted that the 
effect of the resolution was to make it in order to resolve into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill, but not to 
waive the ``rule which requires bills to be upon the calendar of the 
House before they can have consideration.''
    Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, overruled the point of order 
and stated in part as follows:

        . . . The Chair thinks that all that special rules of this sort 
    do is 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.

Sec. 16.16 The Committee on Rules may consider any matter that is 
    properly before them, including providing for the consideration of 
    a bill on which a majority report has not yet been made.

    On July 30, 1959,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered parliamentary inquiries on the procedures of the Committee on 
Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 14743, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: I ask the question, under 
    the rules of the House, can the Committee on Rules report out a 
    bill before they get a majority report from the committee?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Barden] 
    asked unanimous consent, which was obtained, to have until midnight 
    tonight to file a report of the Committee on Education and Labor on 
    the so-called labor bill.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: My question is, until a majority of 
    the committee sign the report, can the Committee on Rules consider 
    the bill?
        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules has the authority to 
    consider any matter which is properly before them. The Chair would 
    certainly hold that this is properly before the Committee on Rules.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Still, there is that word 
    ``properly.'' I was asking a simple question.

[[Page 4028]]

        The Speaker: The Chair has answered the question.

Sec. 16.17 The Committee on Rules may report resolutions providing for 
    the immediate consideration of bills not yet reported by the 
    committees to which referred.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(6) the House adopted House Resolution 
845, reported by the Committee on Rules, providing for the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 11926 (limiting the jurisdiction of federal 
courts in apportionment cases) which was pending before, and not yet 
reported by, the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 20212, 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the adoption of the resolution, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, held that a point of order against 
consideration of the bill did not lie on the ground that the Committee 
on the Judiciary had not compiled with the ``Ramseyer'' rule (requiring 
comparative prints in committee report), since that rule only applies 
where a committee has reported a bill, and not where it has been 
discharged from consideration of the bill.
    Similarly on Mar. 29, 1961, the House agreed to a special order 
from the Committee on Rules which provided for the immediate 
consideration of S. 153; the Senate bill had been referred to the 
Committee on Government Operations and had not yet been 
reported.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 107 Cong. Rec. 5267, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.18 The Committee on Rules may report to the House a resolution 
    making in order the consideration of a conference report when 
    filed, although the conference report was not prepared at the time 
    of the action taken by the Committee on Rules.

    On many occasions, the Committee on Rules has reported resolutions 
making in order the consideration of conference reports on the same day 
reported, notwithstanding the prohibition in clause 2, (a) and (b), 
Rule XXVIII, against consideration of conference reports, and 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement, until the third 
day after the report is filed in the House and printed in the 
Congressional Record. For example, on July 25, 1956, the House adopted 
a resolution from the Committee on Rules providing as follows:

            Resolved, That during the remainder of this week it shall 
        be in order to consider conference reports the same day 
        reported notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule

[[Page 4029]]

        XXVIII; that it shall also be in order during the remainder of 
        this week for the Speaker at any time to entertain motions to 
        suspend the rules, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 1, 
        rule XXVII.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 102 Cong. Rec. 14456, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 1951, the House adopted a resolution from the Committee 
on Rules which not only provided for a conference on an appropriation 
bill but also provided for the consideration of the conference report 
when reported:

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules I submit a privileged report (H. Res. 
    309, Rept. No. 667) and ask for its immediate consideration.

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 277) making 
        temporary appropriations for the fiscal year 1952, and for 
        other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto be, and the 
        same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table; that the Senate 
        amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to by the House; 
        that the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing 
        votes of the two Houses on the said joint resolution be, and 
        hereby is, agreed to by the House, and that the Speaker shall 
        immediately appoint conferees without intervening motion.
            Sec. 2. It shall be in order to consider the conference 
        report on the said joint resolution when reported 
        notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule 
        XXVIII.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 97 Cong. Rec. 7538, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Orders May Not Prevent Motion to Recommit

Sec. 16.19 The Committee on Rules may not report any order or rule 
    which operates to prevent the offering of a motion to recommit as 
    provided in Rule XVI clause 4, but such restriction does not apply 
    to a special rule prohibiting the offering of amendments to a title 
    of a bill during its consideration and thus prohibiting a motion to 
    recommit with instructions to include such an amendment.

    On Jan. 11, 1934,(10) Mr. William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a resolution 
providing for the consideration of an appropriation bill; the 
resolution prohibited the offering of amendments to title II of the 
bill. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, made a point of order against 
the rule on the ground that it violated Rule XI clause 45 [Rule XI 
clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)] since it would 
operate to prevent certain motions to recommit, such as to recommit 
with instructions to include an amendment in title II. Speaker
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. 78 Cong. Rec. 479-83, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4030]]

Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, overruled the point of order:

        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York makes the point of order that the Committee on Rules has 
    reported out a resolution which violates the provisions of clause 
    45, rule XI, which are as follows:

            The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or order . 
        . . which shall operate to prevent the motion to recommit being 
        made as provided in clause 4, rule XVI.

        The pertinent language of clause 4, rule XVI is as follows:

            After the previous question shall have been ordered on the 
        passage of a bill or joint resolution one motion to recommit 
        shall be in order and the Speaker shall give preference in 
        recognition for such purpose to a Member who is opposed to the 
        bill or resolution.

        The special rule, House Resolution 217, now before the House, 
    does not mention the motion to recommit. Therefore, any motion to 
    recommit would be made under the general rules of the House. The 
    contention of the gentleman from New York that this special rule 
    deprives the minority of the right to make a motion to recommit is, 
    therefore, obviously not well taken. The right to offer a motion to 
    recommit is provided for in the general rules of the House, and 
    since no mention is made in the special rule now before the House 
    it naturally follows that the motion would be in order.
        A question may present itself later when a motion to recommit 
    with instructions is made on the bill H.R. 6663 that the special 
    rule which is now before the House may prevent a motion to recommit 
    with instructions which would be in conflict with the provisions of 
    the special rule. It has been held on numerous occasions that a 
    motion to recommit with instructions may not propose as 
    instructions any-thing that might not be proposed directly as an 
    amendment. Of course, inasmuch as the special rule prohibits 
    amendments to title II of the bill H. R. 6663 it would not be in 
    order after adoption of the special rule to move to recommit the 
    bill with instructions to incorporate an amendment in title II of 
    the bill. The Chair, therefore, holds that the motion to recommit, 
    as provided in clause 4, Rule XVI, has been reserved to the 
    minority and that insofar as such rule is concerned the special 
    rule before the House does not deprive the minority of the right to 
    make a simple motion to recommit. The Chair thinks, however, that a 
    motion to recommit with instructions to incorporate a provision 
    which would be in violation of the special rule, House Resolution 
    217, would not be in order. For the reasons stated, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Snell: Will the Chair allow me to make a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        The Speaker: Certainly.
        Mr. Snell: Do I understand from the ruling of the Chair the 
    minority will be allowed to offer the usual motion to recommit?
        The Speaker: The usual simple motion to recommit provided by 
    the rules.

    On appeal, the House upheld the decision of the Chair by a rollcall 
vote of 260-112.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The language of the resolution in ques

[[Page 4031]]

tion prohibited the offering of amendments to title II of the bill 
``during the consideration'' of the bill (both in the House and in the 
Committee of the Whole). Normally, such resolutions only prohibit 
certain amendments during consideration in Committee of the Whole, 
allowing a motion to recommit with instructions in the House to add 
such amendments. This is apparently the only ruling by the Speaker on 
the authority of the Committee on Rules to limit, but not to prohibit, 
the motion to recommit.

Requesting Resolutions on the Order of Business

Sec. 16.20 Any Member may request that the Chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules call a meeting of that committee to consider reporting a 
    resolution making in order disposition of a House bill with Senate 
    amendments which require consideration in Committee of the Whole, 
    but a motion to send the bill to the Committee on Rules is not in 
    order.

    On Aug. 13, 1957,(11) objection was made to a unanimous-
consent request to take from the Speaker's table a House bill with a 
Senate amendment, disagree to the amendment, and ask for a conference 
with the Senate, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered parliamentary 
inquiries on requesting a special order from the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 11. 103 Cong. Rec. 14568, 8ath Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Would the Speaker 
    recognize me to move to send the bill to the Rules Committee?
        The Speaker: The Chair would not. It is not necessary to do 
    that.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keating: Would the Speaker advise what action is necessary 
    now in order to get the bill to the Committee on Rules?
        The Speaker: Anyone can make the request of the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules to call a meeting of the committee to consider 
    the whole matter.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, if that were done, would the bill 
    which is now on the Speaker's desk be before the Rules Committee?
        The Speaker: It would not be before the Committee on Rules. The 
    Committee on Rules could consider the matter of what procedure to 
    recommend to the House for the disposition of this whole matter.

Requesting ``Closed Rule''

Sec. 16.21 Members discussed, during debate on a resolu

[[Page 4032]]

    tion from the Committee on Rules providing a ``closed'' rule for a 
    bill, the requirements of the Democratic Caucus rules as to seeking 
    such rules and as to the procedures of the Committee on Rules in 
    reporting such rules.

    On Nov. 13, 1973,(12) the House was considering House 
Resolution 695, providing for the consideration of H.R. 11333, 
increasing social security benefits and reported from the Committee on 
Ways and Means. The resolution permitted only committee amendments to 
the bill. The following colloquy took place during the debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 12. 119 Cong. Rec. 36861-63, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phillip] Burton [of California]: Mr. 
    Speaker,(13) first I would like to state that I think, 
    given the time constraints, that the Committee on Ways and Means 
    has enacted essentially a very thoughtful set of changes to the 
    Social Security Act. However, there is one aspect of this procedure 
    that is potentially disturbing, so that the record can be clear in 
    this one respect, I would like to pose a question to the 
    distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman) the acting 
    chairman of the committee. The question I pose is this:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As I understand the rules of the majority party caucus, there 
    are certain procedures clearly delineated to be followed in the 
    event a closed rule is to be sought. As I understand, the gentleman 
    from Oregon indicated to the Rules Committee that because of this 
    unexpected time crunch and for that reason only, that the seeking 
    and obtaining of a closed rule in this one instance is not intended 
    in any way, nor should it be considered to be a precedent for any 
    future such effort by any committee to seek a closed rule without 
    complying with whatever the ground rules as explicitly stated in 
    the caucus recommendations.
        Is that essentially a fair statement of the situation?
        Mr. [Albert C.] Ullman: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend 
    from California that the sole motivation of the Committee was to 
    meet the timetable that was before the Congress. It certainly is 
    not our intention to change any rules or procedures of any 
    institution in this body, but we were under a time frame of action 
    that demanded that we go to the Rules Committee and get a rule 
    immediately.
        I say to the gentleman that we have no present intention but to 
    get this bill passed just as expeditiously as possible.
        Mr. Burton: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the gentleman's 
    response, it is in no way his intention, nor should it be construed 
    by anyone in terms of establishing a precedent in overriding the 
    rule I referred to earlier, is that correct?
        Mr. Ullman: Yes.

Sec. 16.22 Pursuant to clause 17 of the Addendum of the Rules of the 
    Democratic Caucus, a Member inserted in

[[Page 4033]]

    the Record notice of his intention to request the Committee on 
    Rules to report to the House a ``modified closed rule'' for the 
    consideration of a bill reported from the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.

    On Nov. 12, 1973,(14) William L. Hungate, of Missouri, a 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary who would be managing a bill 
reported from that committee on the floor, made an announcement 
regarding the request for a special order from the Committee on Rules 
for the consideration of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 36601, 36602, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hungate: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 6, 1973, the 
    Committee on the Judiciary ordered favorably reported the bill H. 
    R. 5463, to establish rules of evidence for certain courts and 
    proceedings.
        Pursuant to the provisions of clause 17 of the Addendum to the 
    Rules of the Democratic Caucus for the 93d Congress, I am hereby 
    inserting in the Congressional Record notice of my intention to 
    request, following the expiration of 4 legislative days, the 
    Committee on Rules to report to the House a resolution providing 
    for a ``modified closed rule'' on the bill H.R. 5463. The rule I 
    will be requesting would provide in effect that after an extensive 
    period of general debate not to exceed 4 hours, on the bill, 
    further consideration of the bill for amendment would be postponed 
    to a time certain to give Members an opportunity to draft and to 
    insert in the Record any amendments which they proposed to offer to 
    the bill. Those amendments, if offered, would not be subject to 
    amendment on the floor, and article V of the bill, the 
    ``Privilege'' article, would not be subject to amendment. Such a 
    rule would I believe, best permit the House of Representatives to 
    work its will on this important and complicated piece of 
    legislation.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Addendum 17 to the Rules of the Democratic 
Caucus read as follows in the 93d Congress, first session:

        17. (a) It shall be the policy of the Democratic Caucus that no 
    committee chairman or designee shall seek, and the Democratic 
    Members of the Rules Committee shall not support, any rule or order 
    prohibiting any germane amendment to and bill reported from 
    committee until four (4) legislative days have elapsed following 
    notice in the Congressional Record of an intention to do so. (b) 
    If, within the four (4) legislative days following said notice in 
    the Congressional Record, 50 or more Democratic members give 
    written notice to the chairman of the committee seeking the rule 
    and to the chairman of the Rules Committee that they wish to offer 
    a particular germane amendment, the chairman or designee shall not 
    seek and the Democratic Members of the Rules Committee shall not 
    support, any rule or order relating to the bill or resolution 
    involved until the Democratic Caucus has met and decided whether 
    the proposed amendment should be allowed to be consid

[[Page 4034]]

    ered in the House. (c) If 50 or more Democratic Members give notice 
    as provided in subsection (b) above, then, notwithstanding the 
    provisions of Caucus Rule No. 3, the Caucus shall meet for such 
    purpose within three (3) legislative days following a request for 
    such a Caucus to the Speaker and the chairman of the Democratic 
    Caucus by said committee chairman or designee. (d) Provided, 
    further, that notices referred to above also shall be submitted to 
    the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the chairman of the 
    Democratic Caucus.

Meetings of Committee

Sec. 16.23 The Chairman of the Committee on Rules announced that the 
    committee would meet in a larger than usual committee room in order 
    to hear the application for a special order on controversial tax 
    bill.

    On Sept. 17, 1963,(15) Howard W Smith, Chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, made an announcement relative to a meeting of the 
committee on a tax bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 17210, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
    address the House for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Virginia?
      There was no objection.

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, on tomorrow the Committee 
    on Rules will hear the application of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means for a rule on the tax bill. There is considerable interest in 
    this subject matter and our quarters in the Rules Committee are 
    rather confining for a large crowd. For the convenience of the 
    Members of the House who wish to be informed on the subject, and 
    through the courtesy of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, the Committee on Rules will meet not in our own chamber 
    tomorrow but in the chamber of the Committee on Ways and Means in 
    the New House Office Building in order to hear the application of 
    the committee for a rule on the tax bill. There are many Members 
    interested in this who would like to hear the discussion that will 
    be carried on by the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Mills], and the ranking minority 
    member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Byrnes]. This meeting 
    will be at 10:30 tomorrow morning.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XI clauses 2 (b) and (c) [House Rules 
and Manual Sec. 705 (1979)] provides for regular meeting days, pursuant 
to written rules adopted by committees, and for additional meetings of 
committees to be called by the chairman thereof for the consideration 
of any bill or resolution pending before the committee.

Sec. 16.24 Rules were adopted by the Committee on Rules in the 93d 
    Congress to govern meeting procedures.

[[Page 4035]]

    In the 93d Congress, the Committee on Rules adopted (on Mar. 27, 
1973) rules to govern its proceedings, including the following 
provisions to govern meetings:

        (a) The Committee on Rules shall meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday 
    of each week when the House is in session. Meetings and hearings 
    shall be called to order and presided over by the Chairman or, in 
    the absence of the Chairman, by the Ranking Majority Member of the 
    Committee present as Acting Chairman.
        (b) A minimum 48 hours' notice of regular meetings and hearings 
    of the Committee shall be given to all members except that the 
    Chairman, acting on behalf of the Committee, may schedule a meeting 
    or hearing for the consideration of emergency and/or procedural 
    measures or matters at any time. As much notice as possible will be 
    given to all members when emergency meetings or hearings are 
    called; provided, however, that an effort has been made to consult 
    the Ranking Minority Member.
        (c) Meetings, hearings, and executive sessions of the Committee 
    shall be open to the public in accordance with clause 16 and clause 
    27 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, as 
    amended by H. Res. 259, 93d Congress.
        (d) For the purpose of hearing testimony, a majority of the 
    Committee shall constitute a quorum.
        (e) For the purpose of executive meetings, a majority of the 
    Committee shall constitute a quorum.
        (f) All measures or matters which have been scheduled for 
    consideration by the Committee on which any Member of the House 
    wishes to testify, and so requests, will be the subject of 
    hearings, at which time all interested Members who are proponents 
    or opponents will be provided a reasonable opportunity to testify.
        (g) There shall be a transcript of regularly scheduled hearings 
    and meetings of the Committee which may be printed if the Chairman 
    decides it is appropriate, or if a majority of the members request 
    it.
        (h) A Tuesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with 
    where, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need therefor, 
    and additional meetings may be called by the Chairman, or by 
    written request of a majority of the Committee duly filed with the 
    Counsel of the Committee.
        (i) The Committee may permit, by a majority vote on each 
    separate occasion, the coverage of any open meeting or hearing, in 
    whole or in part, by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and 
    still photography under such requirements and limitations as set 
    forth in the Rules of the House of Representatives.
        (j) The five-minute rule in the interrogation of witnesses, 
    until such time as each member of the Committee who so desires has 
    had an opportunity to question the witness, shall be followed.
        (k) When a recommendation is made as to the kind of rule which 
    should be granted a copy of the language recommended shall be 
    furnished to each member of the Committee at the beginning of the 
    meeting where such language is to be considered or as soon 
    thereafter as such recommendation becomes available.

[[Page 4036]]

Sec. 16.25 The Speaker held that the Committee on Rules had authority 
    to sit during sessions of the House and was not included in a 
    previous ruling of the Speaker that committees could not sit while 
    bills were being read for amendment.

    On May 27, 1946,(16) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the power of the Committee on Rules 
to meet while the House was in session:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 5863, 5864, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Geelan [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Geelan: In view of the previous ruling by the Chair that he 
    would recognize reports of no committee which was meeting while the 
    House was in session, what would be the situation?
        The Speaker: If the Chair made any such ruling today he does 
    not remember it.

        Mr. Geelan: I distinctly recall the Chair's prohibiting any 
    committee's being in session or holding hearings while the House 
    was in session.
        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules is exempt from that rule.

    Parliamentarian's Note: ln the 79th Congress, when the Speaker made 
the ruling cited, Rule XI clause 46 read as follows:

            No committee, except the Committee on Rules, shall sit 
        during the sitting of the House, without special leave.
That rule was adopted in 1794, and the exception for the Committee on 
Rules was inserted in 1893.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4546.
            In the 73d Congress, the Speaker ruled that he could order 
        stricken from the calendar a bill where it was shown that the 
        committee reporting it had sat during the session of the House 
        without permission. 78 Cong. Rec. 7057, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Apr. 20, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 93d Congress, Rule XI clause 17 [now Rule X clause 1(q)(4), 
House Rules and Manual Sec. 686(a) (1979)] specifically provided that 
the Committee on Rules was authorized to sit and act whether or not the 
House was in session, and Rule XI clause 31 [now Rule XI clause 2(i), 
House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 (1979)] provided that five committees, 
including the Committee on Rules, could sit without special leave while 
the House was reading a measure for amendment under the five-minute 
rule.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The rule formerly provided that no committee except those named in 
        the rule could sit without special leave at any time when the 
        House was in session. The form of the rule in the 93d Congress 
        was derived from the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 
        (see House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 [1979] for the history of 
        the provision).

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

[[Page 4037]]

Granting Special Order Governing Bill Already Under Consideration

Sec. 16.26 Where a section in a bill pending before the Committee of 
    the Whole was struck out on a point of order (as constituting an 
    appropriation on a legislative bill), the Committee rose, the House 
    took a recess, and the Committee on Rules met and reported to the 
    House a resolution which the House adopted, making in order an 
    amendment to such bill in Committee of the Whole to reinsert the 
    section which had been stricken out.

    On Mar. 29, 1933, the Committee of the Whole was considering S. 598 
(reforestation and unemployment relief) pursuant to a unanimous consent 
request that the Senate bill be in order for consideration, instead of 
a similar House bill (H.R. 3905) which had previously been made a 
special order of business for that day (also by unanimous consent).
    Chairman Ralph F. Lozier, of Missouri, sustained a point of order 
against section 4 of the Senate bill on the grounds that it constituted 
an appropriation on a legislative bill in violation of Rule XXI clause 
4 [now Rule XXI clause 5, House Rules and Manual Sec. 1846 (1979)], and 
section 4 was thus stricken from the bill. Immediately following the 
Chair's ruling the Committee rose and a motion for a recess was adopted 
(at 5:42 p.m.).(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 77 Cong. Rec. 988-90, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recess having expired at 5:52 p.m., Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, called the House to order and Mr. William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, reported and called up by direction of the Committee on Rules 
(which had met during the recess) a special order making in order an 
amendment to the Senate bill pending before the Committee of the Whole: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                After Recess

        The recess having expired (at 5 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.), 
    the House was called to order by the Speaker.
        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I report a privileged resolution, which I send to the desk 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        Mr. [Joseph B.] Shannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker does not the 
    rule have to lie over for a day?
        The Speaker: It does not.
        The Clerk will report the resolution.

[[Page 4038]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 85

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to offer as an amendment in Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union to the bill S. 598 the 
        following language:
            ``Sec. 4. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of 
        this act, there is hereby authorized to be expended, under the 
        direction of the President, out of any unobligated moneys 
        heretofore appropriated for public works (except for projects 
        on which actual construction has been commenced or may be 
        commenced within 90 days, and except maintenance funds for 
        river and harbor improvements already allocated), such sums as 
        may be necessary; and an amount equal to the amount so expended 
        is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the same purposes 
        for which such moneys were originally appropriated.''
            All points of order against said amendment shall be 
        considered as waived in the House and in the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union. . . .

        The Speaker: It requires a two-thirds vote to consider it. The 
    question is, Shall the House consider the resolution?

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Snell) there were--ayes 189; noes 71.
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House 
    determined to consider the resolution.
        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    adoption of the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution. The 
    resolution was agreed to.

    The Committee of the Whole resumed its sitting and proceeded to 
consider the amendment: (21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: 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 
    (S. 598) for the relief of unemployment through the performance of 
    useful public work, and for other purposes.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 
    consideration of the bill S. 598, with Mr. Lozier in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ramspeck: Page 3, after line 21, 
        insert the following:
            ``Sec. 4. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of 
        this act there is hereby authorized to be expended, under the 
        direction of the President, out of any unobligated moneys 
        heretofore appropriated for public works (except for projects 
        on which actual construction has been commenced or may be 
        commenced within 90 days, and except maintenance funds for 
        river and harbor improvements already allocated), such sums as 
        may be necessary, and an amount equal to the amount so expended 
        is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the same purposes 
        for which such moneys were originally appropriated.''. . .

        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Chairman, this simply puts back in the bill 
    section 4

[[Page 4039]]

    exactly, which was ruled out on the point of order.
        I move that all debate on this section do now close.

Sec. 16.27 A resolution waiving points of order against a certain 
    provision in a general appropriation bill was considered and agreed 
    to by the House after the general debate on the bill had been 
    concluded and reading for amendment had begun in Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On May 21, 1969, general debate had been concluded in Committee of 
the Whole on H.R. 11400, the supplemental appropriations bill, and the 
first section of the bill had been read for amendment when the 
Committee rose.
    The House then adopted a special order from the Committee on Rules 
which waived points of order against one section of the bill: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 13246-51, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William: M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 414 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 414

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        11400) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, all points of 
        order against title IV of said bill are hereby waived.

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
    the minority, to the very able and distinguished gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Smith). Pending that I yield myself such time as I 
    may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, I shall not use all the time on this resolution. 
    This is a rather unusual situation that we find ourselves in, 
    parliamentarily speaking. We have debated the supplemental 
    appropriation bill at some length under the privileged status of 
    the Appropriations Committee. Now we come in with a resolution from 
    the Rules Committee for one purpose and one purpose alone; that is, 
    to waive points of order against a particular section of the bill.

Special Rule With Continuing Effect

Sec. 16.28 Form of resolution waiving points of order against certain 
    legislative provisions in a general appropriation bill and 
    providing that during the remainder of the Congress no amendments 
    shall be in order to any other general appropriation bill which 
    conflict with the provisions of the legislative language made in 
    order by the special rule.

[[Page 4040]]

    On Jan. 11, 1934,(2) the following resolution reported 
from the Committee on Rules was called up and adopted by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Res. 217, 78 Cong. Rec. 479, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the consideration of H.R. 6663, a bill 
    making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry 
    independent bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1935, and for other purposes, all 
    points of order against title II or any provisions contained 
    therein are hereby waived; and no amendments or motions to strike 
    out shall be in order to such title except amendments or motions to 
    strike out offered by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, 
    and said amendments or motions shall be in order, any rule of the 
    House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments shall not be in 
    order to any other section of the bill H.R. 6663 or to any section 
    of any general appropriation bill of the Seventy-third Congress 
    which would be in conflict with the provisions of title II of the 
    bill H.R. 6663 as reported to the House, except amendments offered 
    by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, and said 
    amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Title II of the bill proposed permanent and 
legislative amendments to a variety of statutes, to limit the salaries 
of federal officials, allowances and pensions, and was entitled 
``Economy Provisions.'' The effect of the resolution was to prohibit 
certain amendments to general appropriation bills during the remainder 
of the Congress, regardless of whether such amendments would have been 
in order under the general rules of the House. This special rule also 
prohibited the inclusion in a motion to recommit with instructions, on 
H.R. 6663 or any other general appropriations bill during the remainder 
of the Congress, of the type of amendment prohibited by the rule, since 
the special rule prohibited such amendments ``during the 
consideration'' of the bill (in both the Committee of the Whole and the 
House) and prohibited such amendments to any other general 
appropriation bill (by implication in both the Committee of the Whole 
and the House).


 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       C. SPECIAL RULES OR ORDERS
 
Sec. 17. Reports and Their Privilege

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

[[Page 4041]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4042]]

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

Filing Reports

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

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

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

[[Page 4043]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4044]]

    House under the old rule. Can that be done?

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

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

Form of Reports

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

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

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

[[Page 4045]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4046]]

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

Quorum of Committee Required to Report Resolutions

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

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

Regularity of Meeting

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

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

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

[[Page 4047]]

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

Privilege and Precedence of Reports

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

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

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

[[Page 4048]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4049]]

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

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

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

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

    On Aug. 21, 1935,(3) which was Calendar Wednesday under 
Rule XXIV clause 7, there was called up a resolution from the Committee 
on Rules, giving privilege to a motion to recess and waiving the two-
thirds voting requirement for consideration of certain reports from the 
Committee on Rules. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, objected that 
the resolution was not privileged on Calendar Wednesday and Speaker 
Joseph

[[Page 4050]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4051]]

Nonprivileged Reports

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

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

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

                                H. Res. 176

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

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

                            House Resolution 226

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

[[Page 4052]]

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

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

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

                                H. Res. 1021

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

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

[[Page 4053]]




                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       C. SPECIAL RULES OR ORDERS
 
Sec. 18. Consideration in the House

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4054]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4055]]

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

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

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

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

Calling Up Rules Committee Reports

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

[[Page 4056]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4057]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4058]]

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

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

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

        The resolution was agreed to.

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

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

[[Page 4059]]

Consideration on Same Day Reported by Two-thirds Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4060]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4061]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4062]]

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

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

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

Putting Question of Consideration on Same Day Reported

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

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

[[Page 4063]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4064]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4065]]

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

        There was no objection.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4066]]

Debate Under the Hour Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4067]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4068]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4069]]

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

When Amendments Are in Order

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4070]]

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

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

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

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

Committee Amendments

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

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

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

[[Page 4071]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4072]]

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

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

[[Page 4073]]

Amendments Offered by Manager

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

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

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

[[Page 4074]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4075]]

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

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

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

    The committee amendment was offered and adopted:

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

[[Page 4076]]

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

Yielding for Amendment

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4077]]

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

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

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

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

Nongermane Amendments

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

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

[[Page 4078]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4079]]

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

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

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

[[Page 4080]]

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

Rejection of Previous Question

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4081]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4082]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4083]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4084]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4085]]

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

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

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

Postponing Consideration

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

[[Page 4086]]

    tion reported from the Committee on Rules is a matter of high 
    privilege, and when consideration has begun and the resolution is 
    under de-bate, the House can postpone further consideration and 
    proceed to other business only by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 29, 1969, Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, called up, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules, a special order providing for the 
consideration of a bill. After consideration had begun and the 
resolution was under debate, Mr. Young asked unanimous consent ``that 
further consideration of this resolution be postponed until tomorrow.'' 
The House agreed to the request.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 32076-83, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
            Rule XI clause 23 is now Rule XI clause 4(b), House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Recommitting Resolution

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

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

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

[[Page 4087]]

tion to recommit the resolution was not in order:

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

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

Relevancy in Debate

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

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

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

[[Page 4088]]

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

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

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

[[Page 4089]]

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

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

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

Withdrawing Resolution

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

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

[[Page 4090]]

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

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

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

Division of the Question

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

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

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

[[Page 4091]]

                            House Resolution 410

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

    During the reading of the resolution the following occurred:

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4092]]

Discharging Committee on Rules From Special Order

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

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

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

                              House Resolution 125

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

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

[[Page 4093]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4094]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4095]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4096]]

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

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

Considering Motion to Discharge Committee on Rules

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

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

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

[[Page 4097]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4098]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4099]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4100]]

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

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

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

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

Twenty-one Day Discharge Rule

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

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

[[Page 4101]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4102]]

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

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

[[Page 4103]]

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

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

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

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

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

                            House Resolution 123

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

[[Page 4104]]

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

                            House Resolution 125

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

[[Page 4105]]

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

                            House Resolution 139

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

                            House Resolution 515

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

[[Page 4106]]

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


 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       C. SPECIAL RULES OR ORDERS
 
Sec. 19. Interpretation and Effect

    Since the interpretation and effect of special orders depends on 
their exact language and purpose, few general principles can be laid 
down in that regard.
    While the general effect of the adoption of a resolution making in 
order the consideration of a bill is to give to the bill a privileged 
status, the adoption of the resolution making in order the 
consideration of a bill does not make the consideration of the bill 
mandatory unless so stated therein, and the bill must still be called 
up by a Member designated in the resolution or authorize by the 
committee to do so.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 19.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker in the House and the Chairman in the Committee of the 
Whole are often requested to interpret the effect of a pending or 
adopted order of business resolution. In responding to such inquiries, 
the Chair may rely upon the legislative history of the resolution, 
including hearings on the resolution, statements as to purpose and 
intent made by members of the Committee on Rules, and debate on the 
resolution in the House.(1) But the actions of the Committee 
on Rules in construing the rules of the House and their application to 
factual situations are not binding on the Chair, who has the 
responsibility to interpret the rules when the question is properly 
presented.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 19.1-19.3, infra.
 2. See Sec. 19.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker may decline to answer parliamentary inquiries, stated 
in the House, as to parliamentary situations which may arise in the 
Committee of the Whole when operating under a resolution affecting the 
order of business; such questions are properly presented, when they 
arise, to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.(3) The 
Speaker, moreover, will not entertain points of order against such 
resolutions on the ground that they
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 19.4, 19.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4107]]

are inconsistent or that they abrogate the rules of the House, as it is 
for the House to pass on the efficacy of such resolutions by voting 
thereon.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 19.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole will not 
question the validity of the provisions of such a resolution which has 
been adopted by the House.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 19.6, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair's Interpretation of Special Orders

Sec. 19.1 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,(6) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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 items. Under that interpretation it would be in order to 
    bring those conference reports upon 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,

[[Page 4108]]

    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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: When called upon to interpret the 
provisions of a special rule adopted by the House, the Speaker may 
examine the legislative history of that resolution, including debate 
and statements of members of the Committee on Rules during its 
consideration in the House.

Sec. 19.2 In construing a resolution waiving points of order, the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may examine debate on the 
    resolution in the House in determining the scope of the waiver.

    On June 22, 1973,(7) Mr. Edward P. Boland, of 
Massachusetts, made a point of order against three amendments offered 
en bloc by Mr. Robert O. Tiernan, of Rhode Island, to H.R. 8825 (the 
HUD and independent agencies appropriation bill) on the ground that 
they violated Rule XXI clause 2, prohibiting legislation on an 
appropriations bill. Before reaching the question whether the 
amendments did in fact violate that rule,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 20981-83, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4109]]

Chairman James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, heard argument on and ruled on 
the scope of the resolution providing for the consideration of the bill 
and waiving certain points of order:

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair feels that it will be necessary first to speak on the 
    contention raised by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Tiernan) 
    and amplified upon by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) 
    with respect to the provisions of the resolution under which the 
    bill is being considered, and whether or not the provisions of that 
    resolution have an effect on the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland).
        The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) is correct in 
    asserting that if the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island ( Mr. Tiernan) is out of order at all it is out of order 
    because of the second sentence of clause 2 of rule XXI, which 
    contains the provisions that ``nor shall any provision in any such 
    bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in order,'' and 
    so forth, setting forth exceptions. But the gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) contends, and the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island (Mr. Tiernan) concurs, that the resolution providing for the 
    consideration of the bill waives the provisions of that rule. The 
    Chair has again read the rule. It says:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        8825) making appropriations for the Department of Housing and 
        Urban Development . . . the provisions of clause 2, rule XXI 
        are hereby waived.

        It does not say that points of order are waived only with 
    respect to matters contained in the bill. It says ``During the 
    consideration of the bill'' the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI 
    are waived.
        The Chair was troubled by that language and has examined the 
    statements made by the members of the Committee on Rules who 
    presented the rule to see if their statements in any way amplified 
    or explained or limited that language. The Chair has found that 
    both the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Long) and the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Latta) in their explanations of the resolution did, 
    indeed, indicate that it was their intention, and the intention of 
    the committee, that the waiver should apply only to matters 
    contained in the bill and that it was not a blanket waiver.
        Therefore whatever ambiguity there may have been in the rule as 
    reported, the Chair is going to hold, was cured by the remarks and 
    legislative history made during the presentation of the rule, which 
    were not disputed in any way by the gentleman from Connecticut or 
    anyone else. However, the Chair, recognizes that it is a rather 
    imprecise was of achieving that result and would hope that in the 
    future such resolutions would be more precise in their application.

Sec. 19.3 In ruling on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair 
    considers the purpose of the amendment with relation to the bill 
    under consideration, and is not

[[Page 4110]]

    bound by the fact that the Committee on Rules, in reporting the 
    resolution providing for the consideration of the bill, 
    specifically waived points of order against the consideration of a 
    similar amendment.

    On Mar. 15, 1960,(8) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
made a point of order, on the grounds of germaneness, against an 
amendment offered by Mr. William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, to H.R. 8601, 
to enforce constitutional rights and for other purposes. In argument on 
the point of order, Mr. Smith stated in support of his contention that 
the amendment was not germane, that the Committee on Rules had reported 
a resolution for the consideration of the bill, which resolution waived 
points of order against a specified amendment containing similar 
language. Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, and Mr. Charles A. Halleck, 
of Indiana, argued that the action of the Committee on Rules in 
resolving any doubts about the nongermaneness of an amendment by 
waiving points of order should not indicate whether the amendment was 
in fact germane. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruled as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 106 Cong. Rec. 5655-57, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        It is quite true that the rule House Resolution 359, under 
    which H.R. 8601 is being considered, contains the language that the 
    gentleman from Virginia mentioned a moment ago, concerning putting 
    in order H.R. 10035 in order to eliminate any question of 
    germaneness of that particular proposal.
        The Chair dislikes to substitute the judgment of the Chair for 
    that of the distinguished Committee on Rules, but, frankly, the 
    Chair does not believe that including this language necessarily 
    binds the present occupant of the Chair.
        It is quite true that the measure, H.R. 8601, deals with 
    Federal election records, and the Chair is quite certain that the 
    membership agrees with the Chair that the scope is rather narrow. 
    However, the Chair feels that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio has to do with the basic purpose of title 3 of 
    the bill H.R. 8601.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Interpretations Not Within the Chair's Province

Sec. 19.4 During consideration in the House of a resolution waiving 
    points of order against a designated amendment, the Speaker 
    declined to respond to a parliamentary inquiry concerning 
    amendments which might be

[[Page 4111]]

    offered to that amendment in Committee of the Whole, since the 
    Speaker does not construe parliamentary situations which might 
    arise in the Committee of the Whole.

    On June 29, 1973,(9) the House was considering House 
Resolution 479, providing for the consideration of H.R. 9055, a 
supplemental appropriations bill; the resolution waived points of order 
against a designated amendment which contained legislation. Mr. James 
J. Pickle, of Texas, inquired of Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, as 
to the process of amending the amendment designated in the resolution. 
The Speaker responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 22336, 22337, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will answer that this is a matter for the Chairman of 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
        The Chair is not able at this time to take over the 
    responsibility of making parliamentary rulings from the Chairman of 
    the Committee of the Whole House.
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, the Speaker is 
    absolutely correct. This is something that can be taken up in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

Sec. 19.5 The Speaker declined, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
    to interpret the provisions of a resolution which would control the 
    consideration of amendments in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 16, 1973,(10) the House was considering a 
resolution making in order the consideration of a bill in the Committee 
of the Whole, where the resolution made in order a designated amendment 
as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and if that amendment 
was rejected made in order the committee amendments printed in the 
bill. In response to a parliamentary inquiry as to the procedure in the 
consideration of such amendments in the Committee of the Whole, Speaker 
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated that the question was properly for the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and that the Speaker did not 
desire to ``get into the parliamentary situation which would properly 
be considered in the Committee of the Whole.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 12501, 12503, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 19.6 It is the duty of the Chair to determine whether language in 
    a pending bill conforms with the rules of the House, but where the 
    House has adopted a resolution waiving points of order

[[Page 4112]]

    against provisions in violation of the standing rules, the Chair 
    will not construe the constitutional validity of those provisions.

    On May 10, 1973,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment under the five-minute rule the bill H.R. 
7447, making supplemental appropriations, where the House had 
previously adopted House Resolution 389 waiving points of order against 
unauthorized appropriations, legislation, and reappropriations of 
unexpended balances in the bill. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, made 
a point of order against language contained in the bill, appropriating 
moneys for the Department of Defense, on the grounds that such 
appropriation violated constitutional principles:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 15290, 15291, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman. I make a point of order against the language set 
    forth in lines 10, 11, and 12, on page 6.
        Article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States 
    says:
        ``The Congress shall have the power to declare war.''
        Congress has not declared war against Cambodia or Laos or 
    against any other country in Southeast Asia for that matter. 
    Congress has not given the President any authority to use the 
    American Armed Forces in Cambodia and Laos. Nevertheless, on order 
    of President Nixon, American military planes are bombing in both 
    those countries. The appropriation contained in the transfer 
    authority includes funds to continue the bombing of Cambodia and 
    Laos. . . .
        Now, my argument, Mr. Chairman, will not relate to an 
    interpretation by the Chair of the Constitution. I want to make 
    that clear at this point.
        Rule XXI, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the House says:

            No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriation bill for any expenditure not previously 
        authorized by law.

        Mr. Chairman, under that rule it is not enough that there be 
    ordinary legislative authority which is required for other 
    appropriations. It is not enough that there be ordinary legislative 
    authority upon which to base an appropriation for American Armed 
    Forces to engage in war.
        There must be constitutional authority for that appropriation 
    as well, namely, there must be congressional approval for American 
    forces to engage in a war. Both authorizations are essential for 
    that kind of appropriation.
        Mr. Chairman, I am contending that there are two forms of 
    legislative authorization that are essential for military 
    appropriations which are to be used to carry on a war, as the 
    bombing is in Cambodia and Laos. One is the ordinary legislative 
    authorization, and the other, which is necessary, also, is a 
    following of the constitutional mandate as well.
        It will be argued, Mr. Chairman, what difference does that 
    make? Points of order have been waived by rule approved by the 
    House and granted by

[[Page 4113]]

    the Committee on Rules. That argument might be appropriate with 
    respect the need for ordinary legislation which would authorize the 
    use of that transfer of authority, but, as I pointed out, we have 
    two forms of legislation. While that waiver of points of order 
    might apply to ordinary legislation, it cannot apply to a waiver of 
    the constitutional provisions, because the Committee on Rules 
    cannot waive any constitutional provisions. The provisions of the 
    Constitution cannot be waived by the Committee on Rules, because to 
    hold otherwise would be to authorize any unconstitutional action by 
    the House. This House cannot pass any rule of procedure that would 
    vitiate or violate any provision of the Constitution. . . .
        I am asking the Chair for its ruling on two points. One, I ask 
    the Chair to rule with respect to military appropriations which 
    provide funds for American Armed Forces to engage in war under rule 
    XXI, section 2, of the Rules of Procedure of the House of 
    Representatives, which states there must be, as well as any other 
    legislation authorizing such action, compliance with article I, 
    section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the approval of 
    the Congress for American Armed Forces to engage in that war; and, 
    secondly, I am asking the Chair to rule that the requirements in 
    article I, section 8, cannot be waived by any rule of the Committee 
    on Rules.
        Mr. Chairman, with your ruling, if favorable, the language 
    authorizing the transfer authority should be stricken.

    After further argument, Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas, ruled as 
follovs:

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has read the resolution, and the resolution adopted 
    by the House under which this legislation is being considered says 
    that--

            All points of order against said bill for failure to comply 
        with the provisions of clause 2 and clause 5 of rule XXI are 
        hereby waived.

        Under clause 2, which the Chair has read, the pending paragraph 
    would be subject to a point of order, as legislation, were it not 
    for this rule.
        The Chair is not in a position, nor is it proper for the Chair 
    to rule on the constitutionality of the language, or on the 
    constitutionality or other effect of the action of the House in 
    adopting the resolution of the Committee on Rules. In the head 
    notes in the precedents of the House it very clearly states that it 
    is not the duty of a chairman to construe the Constitution as it 
    may affect proposed legislation, or to interpret the legality or 
    effect of language; and the Chair therefore overrules the point of 
    order raised by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).

Sec. 19.7 A point of order does not lie against the consideration of a 
    resolution, reported by the Committee on Rules and properly before 
    the House as a privileged matter, on the ground that its adoption 
    will abrogate the provisions of a House rule, as it is for the 
    House and not the Chair to determine the order of its proceedings.

[[Page 4114]]

    On Nov. 28, 1967,(12) the previous question had been 
moved on House Resolution 985, called up by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, providing for concurring in a Senate amendment to a House 
bill; the resolution was necessary in order to waive the requirement of 
Rule XX clause 1, that Senate amendments be considered in Committee of 
the Whole if originating in the House they would be subject to that 
procedure. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled a 
point of order against the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 34038, 34039, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against a vote on this resolution, and I make the point of 
    order based entirely on rule XX, which says that any amendment of 
    the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to a point of order 
    that it shall first be considered in the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union. If it originated in the House it 
    would be subject to that point of order. I believe there is no 
    question about it being subject to a point of order should it 
    originate here in this House. Until that issue is debated in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union I believe 
    that we are violating rule XX of the House rules.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has previously 
    ruled on the point of order raised by the gentleman, and the matter 
    is one that is now before the House for the consideration of the 
    House, and the will of the House.
        For the reasons heretofore stated and now stated, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me under 
    what authority the House can consider this in the House rather than 
    in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, in 
    view of rule XX which says it shall first be considered in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the House can change its 
    rules at any time upon a resolution that is properly before the 
    House reported by the Committee on Rules. The present resolution 
    has been put before the House by the Committee on Rules within the 
    authority of the Committee on Rules, therefore the matter presents 
    itself for the will of the House.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The reason I am making this is that I want to get some record 
    on this for this reason: The Chair has said that the Committee on 
    Rules may make a resolution which has not been adopted by the House 
    which summarily amends the Rules of the House which the Members of 
    the House are supposed to rely upon.
        This rule has not been adopted as yet.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Committee on Rules 
    has reported the rule under consideration--

[[Page 4115]]

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: But it has never been voted upon.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that we are about to approach 
    that matter now.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: And I am challenging that, and the point 
    of order is made that we cannot vote on that because it says in 
    rule XX that this first shall be considered in the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot be any more specific or clear in 
    responding to the point of order or in answering the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The matter is properly before the House and it is a matter on 
    which the House may express its will.

Sec. 19.8 The question whether the House will consider a resolution 
    making in order the consideration of a bill which allegedly seeks 
    to amend a nonexisting law is a matter for the House and not the 
    Chair to decide.

    On May 13, 1953,(13) Mr. Leo E. Allen, of Illinois, 
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules, a resolution 
providing for the consideration of a bill to amend the ``Submerged 
Lands Act,'' reported from the Committee on the Judiciary Speaker 
Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, overruled a point of order 
against the consideration of the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 99 Cong. Rec. 4877, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Feighan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of this rule because it attempts to make in order the 
    consideration of the bill H.R. 5l34, which is a bill to amend a 
    nonexisting act.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the point of order that 
    has been raised by the gentleman from Ohio is not one within the 
    jurisdiction of the Chair, but is a question for the House to 
    decide, whether it wants to consider such legislation.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Effect of Adoption of Special Order

Sec. 19.9 The adoption of a resolution making in order the 
    consideration of a bill does not necessarily make the bill the 
    unfinished business the next day, and the bill can only be called 
    up by a Member designated by the committee to do so.

        On July 19, 1939,(14) the House adopted a resolution 
    from the Committee on Rules making in order the consideration of a 
    bill. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, an
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 9541, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4116]]

    swered a parliamentary inquiry on the status of the bill thereby 
    made in order as unfinished business:

        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. 19.10 The effect of a special rule providing for the consideration 
    of a bill is to give to the bill the privileged status for 
    consideration that a revenue or appropriation bill has under Rule 
    XVI clause 9.

    On June 28, 1930,(15) 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, 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 72 Cong. Rec. 11994, 11995, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl R.] Chindblom [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, if pressed, 
    I will make the point of order that the resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules is not in order because it relates to a bill 
    which is not now upon the calendar of the House under the 
    conditions and in the status which existed when this resolution was 
    adopted by the Committee on Rules.
        The calendar shows that H.R. 12549 was reported to the House on 
    June 24, 1930, Report No. 2016, and was placed on the House 
    Calendar. The resolution or rule now called up for consideration by 
    the Committee on Rules was presented to the House June 20, 1930, 
    and therefore before the bill on the calendar had been reported to 
    the House.
        Of course, we all know that this bill is now upon the calendar 
    for the third time. A previous rule was adopted for its 
    consideration on June 12, 1930, and at that time a point of order 
    was made, when it was sought to take up the bill in Committee of 
    the Whole House on the state of the Union, on the ground that the 
    report did not comply with the Ramseyer rule. Subsequently, after 
    the present rule was presented in the House on June 20, 1930, I 
    think it is well known that another irregularity in the adoption of 
    the report became known, so, on June 23, if my recollection is 
    correct, the chairman of the Committee on Patents obtained 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the bill and the report, and the bill 
    was thereupon

[[Page 4117]]

    reported the following day and placed upon the House Calendar.
        The situation is novel and arises, so far as I can learn, for 
    the first time, and it raises the question whether the Committee on 
    Rules has authority in advance of the report of a bill, and in 
    advance of the placing of a bill on any calendar of the House, to 
    bring in a rule for the consideration of the bill under the general 
    rules of the House, as this resolution does, because the rule 
    merely makes it in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill. As I construe the rule, it does not 
    suspend any of the rules of the House in reference to the 
    consideration of legislation. It does not suspend the rule which 
    requires bills to be upon the calendar of the House before they can 
    have consideration. . . .
        Mr. [John Q.] Tilson [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Chindblom: Yes.
        Mr. Tilson: Does not the effect of this resolution date from 
    the time it is adopted by the House, and not from the time it was 
    reported by the Committee on Rules? And if we today in the House 
    adopt the rule, is not the effect of the rule to be applied as of 
    today, and not three or four days ago, when the rule was reported?
        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.

Sec. 19.11 Where a special rule gives a highly privileged status to a 
    motion for a recess, such motion takes precedence over a motion to 
    adjourn.

[[Page 4118]]

    On June 4, 1934,(16) Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, ruled that a motion to recess, given privilege by a special 
rule, took precedence over a motion to adjourn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 78 Cong. Rec. 10470, 10471, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Byrns [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, under the 
    rules it is in order today to call up bills under suspension of the 
    rules and to call the Consent Calendar. We have been here since 11 
    o'clock. The entire day has been taken up in suspensions. There are 
    quite a number of bills on the Unanimous Consent Calendar. A number 
    of Members have come to me and said they were very anxious to have 
    those bills called. Perhaps this will be the last time the Consent 
    Calendar can be called during this session. I think it is only fair 
    that this legislative day shall go over until tomorrow.
        Mr. Speaker, I move that the House stand in recess until 11 
    o'clock tomorrow.

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
        Mr. Byrns: Mr. Speaker, under the rule adopted last week my 
    motion is highly privileged.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Wisconsin cannot be recognized.

    The special rule referred to was reported from the Committee on 
Rules and adopted on June 1, 1934:

        Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    a privileged report (Rept. No. 1856) from the Committee on Rules 
    (H. Res. 410) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 410

            Resolved, That during the remainder of the second session 
        of the Seventy-third Congress it shall be in order for the 
        Speaker at any time to entertain motions, to suspend the rules, 
        notwithstanding the provisions of clause 1, rule XXVII; it 
        shall also be in order at any time during the second session of 
        the Seventy-third Congress for the majority leader to move that 
        the House take a recess, and said motion is hereby made of the 
        highest privilege; and it shall also be in order at any time 
        during the second session of the Seventy-third Congress to 
        consider reports from the Committee on Rules, as provided in 
        clause 45, rule XI, except that the provision requiring a two-
        thirds vote to consider said reports is hereby suspended during 
        the remainder of this session of Congress.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 10239.

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

[[Page 4119]]


 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       D. TYPES OF SPECIAL ORDERS
 
Sec. 20. Varying Order of Business; Providing for Consideration

    Pursuant to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules over the 
rules and order of business,(18) the committee has broad 
power to report and the House to adopt resolutions changing the regular 
order of business for the consideration of a proposition, and directing 
how the proposition will be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XI clause 17(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1973) [now 
        Rule X clause 1(q)(1), House Rules and Manual Sec. 786(a) 
        (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The measure whose consideration is made in order by a special rule 
may include, but is not limited to, a House or Senate bill or 
resolution, a House bill or resolution not reported from committee, or 
a measure which has not yet even been introduced.(19) The 
authority of the Committee on Rules to recommend to the House the 
specific procedures whereby a measure may be considered on the floor of 
the House is also broad. The only restrictions on that power are those 
provisions relating to the motions to recommit and to dispense with 
Calendar Wednesday, contained in Rule XI clause 23.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 20.5-20.15, infra. A special order may similarly make 
        in order the consideration of a conference report not yet 
        reported (see Sec. 27, infra). For the principle that the power 
        extends to providing for the consideration of a bill not yet 
        introduced, see 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3388.
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973) [now Rule XI clause 4(b), 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)].
            Where the purpose of a special order is to bring before the 
        Committee of the Whole a bill not yet reported from a standing 
        committee, the usual form of the resolution is to provide that 
        upon the adoption of the resolution the House shall immediately 
        resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
        consideration of the bill, rather than to provide that it shall 
        be in order to so move. See, for example, Sec. 20.13, infra.
            For further discussion of the authority of the Committee on 
        Rules and the applicable restrictions, including the extent to 
        which its reports are privileged, see Sec. Sec. 16, 17, supra. 
        For specific precedents on the motion to recommit as it relates 
        to special orders, see Sec. 26, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even while a bill is pending before and open to amendment in 
Committee of the Whole, the Committee on Rules may report and the House 
may adopt a resolution changing the method of consideration, such as 
making in order an amendment not otherwise in order under the rules of 
the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. Sec. 20.32, 20.33, infra. For an earlier precedent, 
        wherein it was held that a resolution, authorizing the offering 
        of an amendment otherwise not in order during the further 
        consideration of a bill pending in Committee of the Whole, was 
        privileged when reported from the Committee on Rules, see 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2258.

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

[[Page 4120]]

    Furthermore, a special order may waive any rule or point of order 
insofar as it relates to a proposition to be considered.
    In providing a method of consideration, the Committee on Rules may 
recommend that a Union Calendar bill be considered in the House, that a 
simple resolution on the House Calendar be considered in Committee of 
the Whole and read for amendment, or that a Senate bill or amendment 
normally subject to consideration in Committee of the Whole be 
considered and amended in the House.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 20.16-20.23, 27.3, 27.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the following sections, some attempt is made to distinguish 
between ``open'' and ''closed'' rules, which dictate the degree to 
which amendments may be offered to a measure under consideration. But, 
for the most part, the possible forms and variations of resolutions on 
the order of business are so numerous, and depend so much on the 
evolution of the rules and practices of the House of Representatives, 
that a complete catalogue would be of doubtful utility. Thus, whenever 
possible in ensuing sections, general principles are stressed over 
specific. It is also emphasized that it is the function of the 
Committee on Rules, and not of the individual Member, to conceptualize 
and draft resolutions affecting the order of business, since the 
committee initiates special rules and reports them to the House as 
original propositions. Such resolutions are not generally introduced by 
Members, except when brought to the House floor by a motion to 
discharge.
    The reader may expect to find in this and the following sections 
brief discussions of procedural matters which are extensively discussed 
in other chapters of this work, since order of business resolutions 
reported from the Committee on Rules may cover every aspect of 
parliamentary procedure in the House of Representatives. An 
understanding of the precedents and practices governing any given area 
of procedure may aid in appreciating the form and purpose of such 
resolutions.

                            Cross References
As to the order of business generally, see Sec. 1, supra.
As to suspension of the rules to vary the order of business, see 
    Sec. 9, supra.

[[Page 4121]]

As to the regular order of business and consideration in Committee of 
    the Whole, see Ch. 19, supra.
As to bills, resolutions, and procedures for their consideration and 
    passage, see Ch. 24, infra.
As to consideration in the House and in the Committee of the Whole 
    generally, see Ch. 29, 
    infra.
                          -------------------

Making in Order Motion That House Resolve Into Committee of Whole for 
    Consideration of Bill

Sec. 20.1 Form of resolution providing that the Speaker shall recognize 
    a designated Member to move that the House resolve itself into 
    Committee of the Whole for consideration of a bill.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Mar. 10, 1960: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 359, 106 Cong. Rec. 5192, 5193, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
    Speaker shall recognize the chairman of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 8601) to enforce constitutional rights, and for 
    other purposes. All points of order against said bill are hereby 
    waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and continue not to exceed two days to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and 
    the ranking minority member thereof, the bill shall be considered 
    as having been read and open at any point for amendment under the 
    five-minute rule. At the conclusion of such consideration, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as shall have been adopted, and the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
    to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit with or without instructions.

    As a further example, the following resolution was considered on 
Sept. 27, 1965:

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
    shall recognize Representative Abraham J. Multer, or Representative 
    Carlton R. Sickles, or Representative Charles McC. Mathias, Junior, 
    or Representative Frank J. Horton to move that the House resolve 
    itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4644) to provide an 
    elected mayor, city council, and nonvoting Delegate to the House of 
    Representatives for the District of Columbia, and for other 
    purposes, and all points of order against said bill are hereby 
    waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and continue not to exceed five hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by one of the aforementioned Members and a

[[Page 4122]]

    Member who is opposed to said bill to be designated by the Speaker, 
    the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule by 
    titles instead of by sections. At the conclusion of such 
    consideration the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. After 
    the passage of H.R. 4644, the Committee on the District of Columbia 
    shall be discharged from the further consideration of the bill S. 
    1118, and it shall then be in order in the House to move to strike 
    out all after the enacting clause of said Senate bill and insert in 
    lieu thereof the provisions contained in H.R. 4644 as passed. This 
    special order shall be a continuing order until the bill is finally 
    disposed of.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Brought up by motion to discharge, H. Res. 515, 111 Cong. Rec. 
        25185, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Section 23, infra, discusses raising points 
of order against bills when the special order makes in order motion to 
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for consideration thereof.

Sec. 20.2 The Speaker held that the effect of a special rule providing 
    for the consideration of a bill was to give to the bill the 
    privileged status for consideration that a revenue or appropriation 
    bill has under Rule XVI clause 9, and that such privilege could be 
    granted notwithstanding the fact that the bill was not on a 
    calendar of the House.

    On June 28, 1930,(5) 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 would be in order 
to 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 72 Cong. Rec. 11994, 11995, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl R.] Chindblom [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, if pressed, 
    I will make the point of order that the resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules is not in order because it relates to a bill 
    which is not now upon the calendar of the House under the 
    conditions and in the status which existed when this resolution was 
    adopted by the Committee on Rules.
        The calendar shows that H.R. 12549 was reported to the House on 
    June 24, 1930, Report No. 2016, and was placed on the House 
    Calendar. The resolution or rule now called up for consideration

[[Page 4123]]

    by the Committee on Rules was presented to the House June 20, 1930, 
    and therefore before the bill on the calendar had been reported to 
    the House.
        Of course, we all know that this bill is now upon the calendar 
    for the third time. A previous rule was adopted for its 
    consideration on June 12, 1930, and at that time a point of order 
    was made, when it was sought to take up the bill in Committee of 
    the Whole House on the state of the Union, on the ground that the 
    report did not comply with the Ramseyer rule. Subsequently, after 
    the present rule was presented in the House on June 20, 1930, I 
    think it is well known that another irregularity in the adoption of 
    the report became known, so, on June 23, if my recollection is 
    correct, the chairman of the Committee on Patents obtained 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the bill and the report, and the bill 
    was thereupon again reported the following day and placed upon the 
    House Calendar.
        The situation is novel and arises, so far as I can learn, for 
    the first time, and it raises the question whether the Committee on 
    Rules has authority in advance of the report of a bill, and in 
    advance of the placing of a bill on any calendar of the House, to 
    bring in a rule for the consideration of the bill under the general 
    rules of the House, as this resolution does, because the rule 
    merely makes it in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill. As I construe the rule, it does not 
    suspend any of the rules of the House in reference to the 
    consideration of legislation. It does not suspend the rule which 
    requires bills to be upon the calendar of the House before they can 
    have consideration. It merely makes it in order to move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    state of the Union for the consideration of the bill.
        Mr. [John Q.] Tilson [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Chindblom: Yes.
        Mr. Tilson: Does not the effect of this resolution date from 
    the time it is adopted by the House, and not from the time it was 
    reported by the Committee on Rules? And if we to-day in the House 
    adopt the rule, is not the effect of the rule to be applied as of 
    to-day, and not three or four days ago, when the rule was reported?
        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:

[[Page 4124]]

            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.

Sec. 20.3 The adoption of a resolution making in order the 
    consideration of a bill does not necessarily make such bill the 
    unfinished business the next day, and such bill can only be called 
    up by a Member designated by the committee to do so.

    On July 19, 1939,(6) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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.
        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.

Filing Supplemental Report on Measure on Which Special Order Has Been 
    Reported

Sec. 20.4 The reporting of a special rule for the consideration of a 
    bill does not preclude the committee from which the bill is 
    reported from obtaining unanimous

[[Page 4125]]

    consent to file a supplemental report advocating an amendment to 
    the bill.

    On Feb. 29, 1940,(7) there was pending before the House 
a special order from the Committee on Rules providing for the 
consideration of a bill. A parliamentary inquiry was propounded 
relative to the fact that following the report from the Committee on 
Rules, the legislative committee reporting the bill reported a 
supplemental report recommending an amendment to the bill on the House 
floor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 86 Cong. Rec. 2184, 2185, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: The Speaker was not in 
    the Chair when I raised my original point. The point was this, that 
    a legislative committee asked for a rule to consider a specific 
    piece of legislation dealing with a specific matter in a particular 
    way. I was not then a member of the committee. After consideration 
    the Rules Committee felt it wise to recommend a rule providing for 
    the consideration of this particular thing in this particular way. 
    Shortly after that the legislative committee secured unanimous 
    consent to file a supplemental report on this original bill, and in 
    their report the legislative committee adopted another bill dealing 
    with the same matter but in an entirely different way and in a way 
    that possibly--and probably--would not have been authorized when 
    the rule was asked for.
        A confidential copy is floating around here of the bill which 
    the committee intends to bring up. My inquiry is whether that can 
    be done under the rules of the House. If that can be done, it is a 
    simple matter for any committee to ask for a rule on a perfectly 
    harmless bill which everyone might be for, and then, after they get 
    the rule, bring in another bill in fact, under the same number. 
    This rule was granted on July 10 last year. Then in January, 7 
    months later, they introduce a new bill in a supplemental report 
    and are attempting to bring this new bill dealing with the same 
    subject matter in an entirely different manner before the House 
    under the old rule. Can that be done?

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

        The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Michener], who raises this 
    question by parliamentary inquiry, of course, is familiar with the 
    general principle that all proposed action touching the rules, 
    joint rules, and orders of business shall be referred to the 
    Committee on Rules. Under a broad, uniform construction of that 
    jurisdiction, the Rules Committee, as the Chair understands it, has 
    practically plenary power, unreserved and unrestricted power, to 
    submit for the consideration of the House any order of business it 
    sees fit to submit, subject, of course, to the approval of the 
    House.
        The Chair, of course, knows nothing about what was in the minds 
    of the committee in reference to this legislation. The Chair can 
    only look at the face of the record as it is presented from a 
    parliamentary standpoint. As

[[Page 4126]]

    the Chair construes the resolution now pending, it is very broad in 
    its terms. It provides for the consideration of a Senate bill 
    pending on the Union Calendar and the Chair assumes that the 
    Committee on Rules was requested to give a rule for the 
    consideration of that bill, which was the original basis for any 
    legislation that may be passed touching this subject of stream 
    pollution.
        In conformance with the general power and jurisdiction of the 
    Rules Committee, it did report a resolution providing that in the 
    consideration of the Senate bill any germane amendments may be 
    offered; and, of course, it is not the province of the Chair, 
    presiding over the House, to determine the relevancy or germaneness 
    of any amendment that may be submtted in the Committee of the 
    Whole, whether by way of a substitute or by way of amendment.
        The Chair is clearly of the opinion that the Rules Committee 
    had a perfect right under the general authority conferred upon it 
    to report this resolution providing for this method of 
    consideration of the bill.

Immediate Consideration of Bills Not Reported From Committee

Sec. 20.5 Form of resolution making in order the immediate 
    consideration of a joint resolution not yet reported by the 
    committee to which referred.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 24, 
1965:(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H. Res. 433, 111 Cong. Rec. 14705, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That, upon the adoption of this resolution, the House 
    shall immediately resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the House 
    joint resolution (H.J. Res. 541) to extend the Area Redevelopment 
    Act for a period of two months. 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 Banking and Currency, 
    the resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
    rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the resolution for 
    amendment the Committee shall rise and report the resolution to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution 
    and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 20.6 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

[[Page 4127]]

    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):

        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.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 14705, 14706, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly on Mar. 17, 1970, the House proceeded as follows (Speaker 
McCormack presiding):

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 874 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 874

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the House shall resolve itself into the Committee of 
        the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
        of the bill (S. 858) to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act 
        of 1938 with respect to wheat. After general debate, which 
        shall be confined to the bill 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 Agriculture, 
        the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
        rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for 
        amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
        House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
        previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
        and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
        motion except one motion to recommit. . . .

        Mr. Sisk: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed 
    to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        The Speaker: Pursuant to House Resolution 874, the House 
    resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole

[[Page 4128]]

    House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
    (S. 858) to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 with 
    respect to wheat.
        Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    bill S. 858, with Mr. Flynt in the chair.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 7690, 7691, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.7 The Committee on Rules, pursuant to its authority under Rule 
    XI clause 23 [Rule XI clause 4(b) in the 1979 House Rules and 
    Manual] to call up privileged resolutions relating to the order of 
    business, may provide for the discharge of a standing committee 
    from consideration of a measure pending before that committee.

    On Feb. 9, 1972,(11) Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules, and 
the House adopted, House Resolution 796, providing that upon its 
adoption the House should immediately resolve itself into the Committee 
of the Whole for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 1025 (to 
provide a procedure for the settlement of a dispute on the Pacific 
Coast and Hawaii among certain shippers and employees), to be managed 
by the Committee on Education and Labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 118 Cong. Rec. 3437, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effect of the resolution was to discharge the Committee on 
Education and Labor from the further consideration of the joint 
resolution, as it had not yet been reported to the House by that 
committee.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Education and Labor had 
ordered reported another joint resolution on the same subject, but was 
unable to file its report because certain Members had, pursuant to Rule 
XI clause 27(d)(3) [now Rule XI clause 2(l)(5), House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 714 (1979)] requested three calendar days to file supplemental, 
minority, or additional views.

Sec. 20.8 Where the House adopts a resolution providing for discharging 
    a legislative committee from the further consideration of the bill 
    pending before that committee, a point of order against the 
    consideration of the bill on the ground that the ``Ramseyer Rule'' 
    has not been complied with does not lie, since that rule (Rule XIII 
    clause 3) pertains only to bills reported by the committees and not 
    to bills brought before the House by other means.

[[Page 4129]]

    On Aug. 19, 1964, the House adopted a special order from the 
Committee on Rules, House Resolution 845, with a committee amendment, 
providing for the immediate consideration of a bill pending before and 
not yet reported by a standing committee: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 20213-21, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

        The Speaker: Without objection, the committee amendments are 
    agreed to.
        There was no objection.

    Following the adoption of the resolution, Speaker McCormack 
overruled a point of order against the consideration of the bill on the 
grounds that it had not been ``properly reported'': (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 20221, 20222, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the consideration of the bill H.R. 11926.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
    against the consideration of H.R. 11926 on the ground that the bill 
    has not been properly reported in that it purports to amend title 
    28 of the United States Code, that is, the act of June 25, 1948, 
    chapter 646, but it fails to show in its report or in an 
    accompanying document a comparative print of that part of the bill 
    making and amending the statute or part thereof proposed to be 
    amended as required by part 3, rule XIII, of the House of 
    Representatives.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Rule XIII, clause 3, provides, ``whenever a committee reports a 
    bill or a joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or 
    part thereof it shall include in its report or in an accompanying 
    document the text of the stat

[[Page 4130]]

    ute or part thereof which is proposed to be repealed;''. It will be 
    noted that the rule only applies when a committee reports a bill. 
    In this case the Committee on the Judiciary did not file a report 
    on H.R. 11926. Therefore, that rule does not apply to the present 
    situation.
        In addition, the resolution before the House provides for the 
    House immediately to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the consideration of this 
    particular bill.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 20.9 A point of order that the Committee on Rules has reported a 
    special rule providing for the consideration of a bill prior to the 
    time the bill to be considered was reported and referred to the 
    Union Calendar does not lie.

    On June 28, 1930,(15) Mr. Fred S. Purnell, of Indiana, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 264, 
making in order the consideration of a bill. Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of 
Illinois, made a point of order against the report of the Committee on 
Rules, on the ground that the committee had reported the resolution to 
the House on June 20, 1930, whereas the bill was first reported to the 
House on a later date, on June 24, 1930 (and was recommitted twice to 
the committee of jurisdiction in order to correct errors in the 
report). Mr. Chindblom asserted that the effect of the resolution was 
to make it in order to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of the bill, but not to waive the ``rule which requires 
bills to be upon the calendar of the House before they can have 
consideration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 72 Cong. Rec. 11994, 11995, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, overruled the point of order 
and stated in part as follows:

        . . . 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.

[[Page 4131]]

Sec. 20.10 The Committee on Rules may consider any matter that is 
    properly before them, including a provision for the consideration 
    of a bill on which a majority report has not yet been made.

    On July 30, 1959,(16) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered parliamentary inquiries on the procedures of the Committee on 
Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 105 Cong. Rec. 14743, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark E.] Hoffman of Michigan: I ask the question, under 
    the rules of the House, can the Committee on Rules report out a 
    bill before they get a majority report from the committee?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Barden] 
    asked unanimous consent, which was obtained, to have until midnight 
    tonight to file a report of the Committee on Education and Labor on 
    the so-called labor bill.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: My question is until a majority of the 
    committee sign the report, can the Committee on Rules consider the 
    bill?
        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules has the authority to 
    consider any matter which is properly before them. The Chair would 
    certainly hold that this is properly before the Committee on Rules.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Still, there is that word 
    ``properly.'' I was asking a simple question.
        The Speaker: The Chair has answered the question.

Sec. 20.11 The Committee on Rules may report a resolution providing for 
    the consideration of a bill, even though the effect be to discharge 
    a committee and bring before the House a bill not yet reported.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(17) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, overruled a point of order against a special order from 
the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill not 
yet reported from the committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 20212, 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
    Resolution 845 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
    against the consideration of House Resolution 845 on the grounds 
    that the Committee on Rules is without jurisdiction to bring such 
    resolution to the floor of the House under the provisions of rule 
    16 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and I ask 
    permission to be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a review of the precedents 
    of this House reveals occasions on which the

[[Page 4132]]

    House has permitted the Committee on Rules to bring before it 
    resolutions making in order the consideration of bills that have 
    been improperly referred to legislative committees, bills that had 
    not yet been referred to the Committee on Rules, and possibly even 
    a bill not yet introduced. In addition, a decision of the Speaker 
    of the House permitted the consideration of resolution of the 
    Committee on Rules of a bill that had not been placed on the 
    calendar at the time the resolution was reported by the Committee 
    on Rules. However, Mr. Speaker, I can find no occasions on which 
    the Hose has clearly permitted the Committee on Rules to report to 
    it a resolution making in order the consideration of a bill that 
    had been introduced in the House of Representatives and referred by 
    it--properly referred by it--to one of its legislative committees 
    and not yet reported out or acted upon by that legislative 
    committee to which the bill had been referred.
        Mr. Speaker, I move to make this point of order after noting 
    the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules, which reported out House Resolution 845, is on record 
    strongly opposing such action by the Committee on Rules as 
    unprecedented and unwarranted. . . .
        The only comparable incident I can find which might provide a 
    precedent for this, Mr. Speaker, was the action taken by this 
    Congress on the price control legislation in the 79th Congress, 2d 
    session, found at page 8059 of the Congressional Record. This, 
    however, it might be pointed out, was emergency legislation and a 
    similar version had earlier been reported by a legislative 
    committee, acted upon by the House and vetoed by the President. . . 
    .
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Smith: of Virginia: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker. The rules 
    are perfectly clear. The Committee on Rules, under the rules of the 
    House, may report a rule on any pending bill. This is a pending 
    bill before the Rules Committee and the precedents for that are 
    well established. The rule itself is very plain.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair finds a precedent in volume 5 of ``Hinds' Precedents 
    of the House of Representatives'' at section 6771. On February 4, 
    1895, a similar point of order was raised against an action taken 
    by the Rules Committee. The Speaker at that time, Speaker Crisp, of 
    Georgia, ruled on a point of order made by Mr. Thaddeus M. Mahon, 
    of Pennsylvania. The point of order was the same as that made by 
    the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara], that the bill had not 
    been reported from the Committee on War Claims and therefore it was 
    not in order for the Committee on Rules to report a resolution for 
    its consideration in the House.
        Speaker Crisp overruled the point of order, holding that the 
    Committee on Rules had jurisdiction to report a resolution fixing 
    the order of business and the manner of considering a measure, even 
    though the effect of its adoption would be to discharge a committee 
    from a matter pending before it, thereby changing the existing rule 
    relative to the consideration of business.

[[Page 4133]]

        Speaker Crisp further said that it was for the House to 
    determine whether the change in the mode of consideration should be 
    made, as recommended by the committee.
        The rules of the House provide that--

            The following-named committees shall have leave to report 
        at any time on the matters herein stated, viz: The Committee on 
        Rules, on rules, joint rules, and order of business.

        The Chair also desires to state that in 1929 a similar point of 
    order was raised. In 1946 and again in 1953 the Committee on Rules 
    reported similar resolutions and on each occasion the precedent 
    established by Speaker Crisp was followed and adhered to.
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 20.12 The Committee on Rules may report resolutions providing for 
    the immediate consideration of bills not yet reported by the 
    committees to which referred.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(18) the House adopted House Resolution 
845, reported by the Committee on Rules, providing for the immediate 
consideration of H.R. 11926 (limiting the jurisdiction of federal 
courts in apportionment cases) which was pending before, and not yet 
reported by, the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 110 Cong. Rec. 20212, 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the adoption of the resolution, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, held that a point of order against 
consideration of the bill did not lie on the ground that the Committee 
on the Judiciary had not complied with the ``Ramseyer'' rule (requiring 
comparative prints in committee report), since that rule only applies 
where a committee has reported a bill, and not where it has been 
discharged from consideration of the bill.
    Similarly on Mar. 29, 1961, the House agreed to a special order 
from the Committee on Rules which provided for the immediate 
consideration of S. 153; the Senate bill had been referred to the 
Committee on Government Operations and had not yet been 
reported.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 19. H. Res. 238, 107 Cong. Rec. 5267, 5268, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.13 A privileged resolution, reported by the Committee on Rules, 
    was amended to provide that immediately upon its adoption the House 
    would resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider a bill 
    pending before, and not yet reported by, the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(20) the House passed, as amended by 
committee amendment, a special order from
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 845, 110 Cong. Rec. 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4134]]

the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill 
pending before but not yet reported by a committee.

        The Speaker: (1) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John W. Mc(Cormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

        The Speaker: Without objection, the committee amendments are 
    agreed to.
        There was no objection

Sec. 20.14 The Committee on Rules reported and the House adopted a 
    resolution making in order the immediate consideration of a joint 
    resolution which had not been reported the committee to which it 
    had been referred.

    On June 24, 1965,(2) the House adopted a resolution 
providing for the consideration of a measure not reported from 
committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Res. 433, 111 Cong. Rec. 14705, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That, upon the adoption of this resolution, the House 
    shall immediately resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the House 
    joint resolution (H.J. Res. 541) to extend the Area Redevelopment 
    Act for a period of two months. 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 Banking and Currency, 
    the resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
    rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the resolution for 
    amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the resolution to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution 
    and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit.

[[Page 4135]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Banking and Currency was 
in thorough agreement with the procedure and had requested the special 
order from the Committee on Rules.

Sec. 20.15 The Committee on Rules reported out a resolution, providing 
    for the consideration of a bill, with a committee amendment to the 
    resolution substituting for consideration another designated bill 
    on the same subject, which bill had not been reported by the 
    committee to which referred.

    On Aug. 8, 1949, Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, called up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules a special order for the 
consideration of a bill, with a committee amendment:

        Mr. Madden: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 183 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

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

        With the following committee amendments:

            Page 1, line 4, strike out ``(H.R. 3190) `` and insert 
        ``(H.R. 5856).''
            Page 2, line 1, strike out the remainder of the line after 
        the period and all of lines 2 through 6, 
        inclusive.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 10988, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In debate on the resolution, Mr. James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New 
York, of the Committee on Rules explained the provisions of the 
resolution in part as follows:

        Mr. Wadsworth: . . . This new bill, H.R. 5856, has never been 
    reported by

[[Page 4136]]

    the Committee on Education and Labor. Just what would be its fate 
    if it had come to a vote before that committee I am not prepared to 
    say. But, there appeared before the Committee on Rules the 
    supporters of the so-called second Lesinski bill, H.R. 5856, with 
    the plea that instead of our granting a rule on H.R. 3190, the 
    original bill, which otherwise would have come up today under the 
    21-day rule, we report a rule on the new bill, H.R. 5856, a bill 
    not yet considered officially by the Committee on Education and 
    Labor.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 10991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House agreed to the resolution as amended.

Consideration of Union Calendar Bill in House

Sec. 20.16 Form of special rule providing for the consideration of a 
    Union Calendar bill in the House, waiving all points of order, 
    fixing time for debate, and ordering the previous question at the 
    conclusion of such debate.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Mar. 11, 1933: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 77 Cong. Rec. 198, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 32

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2820, a bill 
    to maintain the credit of the United States Government, and all 
    points of order against said bill shall be considered as waived; 
    that, after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and 
    shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Economy, the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill to final passage.

Consideration of Union Calendar Bills in the House as in Committee of 
    the Whole.

Sec. 20.17 Form of resolution authorizing a standing committee to call 
    up a list of enumerated bills and providing for their consideration 
    in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 2, 1936 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H. Res. 528, 80 Cong. Rec. 8746, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 80 
        Cong. Rec. 9966, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., June 18 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order for the Committee on the Judiciary to call up for 
    consideration, without the intervention of any point of order the 
    following bills:
        S. 3389. An act to provide for the appointment of two 
    additional judges for the southern district of New York.

        S. 2075. An act to provide for the appointment of additional 
    district judges for the eastern and western districts of Missouri.

[[Page 4137]]

        S. 2137. An act to provide for the appointment of one 
    additional district judge for the eastern, northern, and western 
    districts of Oklahoma.
        S. 2456. An act to provide for the appointment of an additional 
    district judge for the northern and southern districts of West 
    Virginia.
        H.R. 11072. A bill authorizing the appointment of an additional 
    district judge for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.
        H.R. 3043. A bill to provide for the appointment of an 
    additional district judge for the northern district of Georgia.
        Each such bill when called up shall be considered in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole. After general debate on each such 
    bill, which shall continue not to exceed 20 minutes, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be read for 
    amendment under the 5-minute rule.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Some of the bills dealt with by this 
special order were on the Union Calendar, and others had not been 
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary.

Consideration of House Resolution in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 20.18 The Committee on Rules reported a resolution providing for 
    consideration of a privileged resolution, amending the rules of the 
    House, under a procedure permitting amendments under the five-
    minute rule.

    On Mar. 7, 1973, the House adopted a resolution from the Committee 
on Rules providing for the consideration of a privileged resolution 
reported by that committee: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Res. 272, 119 Cong. Rec. 6700-05, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the resolution (H. Res. 259) to amend the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives to strengthen the requirement that committee 
    proceedings be held in open session. 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 
    resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
    At the conclusion of the consideration of the resolution for 
    amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the resolution to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution 
    and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution provided for in the special 
order was privileged for con

[[Page 4138]]

sideration, since amending the rules of the House, and therefore did 
not require a special order from the Committee on Rules. Since the 
resolution would only have been debatable under the hour rule in the 
House, however, a special order was reported in order to allow more 
extensive debate in Committee of the Whole and to allow germane 
amendments to be offered.

Sec. 20.19 Form of special order providing for consideration in 
    Committee of the Whole, without the opportunity of amendment, of a 
    House resolution referred to the House Calendar (confirming the 
    nomination of the Vice President under the 25th amendment to the 
    U.S. Constitution).

        The following resolution was under consideration on Dec. 6, 
    1973: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 39807, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 738

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, clause 27(d) (4) of rule XI to the 
        contrary notwithstanding, 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. 735) confirming 
        the nomination of Gerald R. Ford, of the State of Michigan, to 
        be Vice President of the United States. After general debate, 
        which shall be confined to the resolution and shall continue 
        not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and controlled 
        by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
        the Judiciary, the Committee shall rise and report the 
        resolution to the House, and the previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the resolution to final passage.

Sec. 20.20 Form of special rule making in order the consideration of a 
    simple resolution in Committee of the Whole.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Aug. 23, 1935: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 362, 79 Cong. Rec. 14371, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately 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 House Resolution 350, a resolution requesting that 
    the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization be requested to 
    continue to stay the deportation in the cases of aliens of good 
    character in which deportations would result in unusual hardship 
    until Congress had had adequate time to consider proposed 
    legislation. That after general debate. which shall be confined to 
    the resolution and shall continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, the 
    resolution shall be read for amendment

[[Page 4139]]

    under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the 
    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 
    bill and amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
    motion except one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Sec. 20.21 Form of resolution providing ``open'' rule for consideration 
    in Committee of the Whole of a resolution reported from the 
    Committee on House Administration, and referred to the House 
    Calendar, making office space and certain emoluments available to 
    the retiring Speaker.

        The following resolution was under consideration on Dec. 22, 
    1970: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H. Res. 1309, 116 Cong. Rec. 43313, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1238) relating to 
        the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Ninety-first 
        Congress. 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 House Administration, the 
        resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
        rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the resolution 
        for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
        resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been 
        adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the resolution and amendments thereto to final 
        passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit.

Sec. 20.22 The House considered a House resolution, reported from the 
    Committee on House Administration and referred to the House 
    Calendar, in Committee of the Whole under an ``open'' rule.

    On Dec. 3, 1970, the House considered in the Committee of the Whole 
a simple resolution reported from the Committee on House 
Administration, pursuant to a special rule, where the resolution had 
been referred to the House Calendar: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 1272, 116 Cong. Rec. 39846, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of the resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the resolution (H. Res. 1147) relating to certain allowances of 
    Members, officers, and standing committees of the House of 
    Representatives, and for other purposes. After general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the resolution and shall continue not to 
    exceed one hour, to be equally divided

[[Page 4140]]

    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on House Administration, the resolution shall be read for 
    amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
    consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on House Administration as an original resolution for 
    the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, and all points 
    of order against sections 2(a) and 3(a) of said substitute are 
    hereby waived. At the conclusion of such consideration, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the resolution to the House with 
    such amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand 
    a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
    Committee of the Whole to the resolution or to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and amendments 
    thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
    motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Sec. 20.23 A resolution amending the rules of the House was, pursuant 
    to the provisions of a resolution reported from the Committee on 
    Rules, considered in the Committee of the Whole under an ``open'' 
    rule.

    On May 26, 1970, the House considered a House resolution which had 
been referred to the House Calendar in the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant to a special order: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Res. 971, 116 Cong. Rec. 17012, 17013, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the resolution (H. Res. 796) amending the Rules of the House of 
    Representatives relating to financial disclosure. 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 Standards of Official Conduct, the resolution shall be 
    read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of 
    the consideration of the resolution for amendment, the Committee 
    shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall 
    be considered as ordered on the resolution and amendment thereto to 
    final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit.

Consideration of Resolution in House Under Special Rule

Sec. 20.24 Where the House adopts a resolution providing for the 
    immediate consideration of another resolution in the House, the 
    Speaker directs the Clerk to report that resolution without its 
    being called up by the Member in charge.

[[Page 4141]]

    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): 
(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Res. 176, 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: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 2812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (15) The Clerk will report House 
    Resolution 132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 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 recessed 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 ex

[[Page 4142]]

        penses 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).

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 132, creating the select 
committee, was not privileged because of the funding mechanism in the 
final paragraph.

Consideration of Private Bills

Sec. 20.25 The House considered a private bill under a special rule.

    On Aug. 13, 1940, the House agreed to a resolution, called up by 
Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, at the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, providing for the consideration in the Committee of the Whole of 
a private bill: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 10258-67, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 407

        Resolved, That immediately 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 
    consideration of H. R. 7230, a bill to provide for an appeal to the 
    Supreme Court of the United States from the decision of the Court 
    of Claims in a suit instituted by George A. Carden and Anderson T. 
    Herd. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill and shall continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be read for amendment 
    under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the 
    bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the same to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

    The bill failed of final passage in the House after consideration 
in Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 20.26 Form of resolution authorizing the chairman of a standing 
    committee to call up private claim bills and providing for their 
    consideration in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 5, 1934: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Res. 421, 78 Cong. Rec. 10548, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order for

[[Page 4143]]

    the Speaker on any day during the remainder of this session of 
    Congress, after the reading of the Journal and the disposition of 
    matters on the Speaker's table, to recognize the Chairman of the 
    Committee on Claims to call up bills favorably reported from the 
    Committee on Claims and heretofore objected to. Said bills shall be 
    considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole House: 
    Provided, however, That general debate on any bill called up shall 
    be limited to 20 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by 
    the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
    Claims. At the conclusion of the general debate the bill shall be 
    read for amendment under the 5-minute rule, and at the conclusion 
    of such reading the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Rescinding Previous Resolution

Sec. 20.27 By resolution, considered by unanimous consent, the House 
    rescinded a previously adopted resolution whereby a bill had been 
    referred to the Court of Claims for a report, and the court was 
    directed to return the bill.

    On Apr. 30, 1957, the House adopted a resolution rescinding the 
adoption by the House of a previous resolution which had referred a 
private bill to the Court of Claims for a report: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 6159, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Lane [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    resolution (H. Res. 241) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

            Resolved, That the adoption by the House of Representatives 
        of House Resolution 174, 85th Congress, is hereby rescinded. 
        The United States Court of Claims is hereby directed to return 
        to the House of Representatives the bill (H.R. 2648) entitled 
        ``A bill for the relief of the MacArthur Mining Co., Inc., in 
        receivership,'' together with all accompanying papers, referred 
        to said court by said House Resolution 174.

        The Speaker: (19) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, has this matter been cleared with the leadership on this 
    side?

        The Speaker: It has been cleared with everybody, so the Chair 
    has been informed.
        Mr. Bow: I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts?
        There was no objection.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Consideration of Motion to Suspend Rules

Sec. 20.28 Form of resolution providing that the time for de

[[Page 4144]]

    bate on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a concurrent 
    resolution shall be extended to four hours, such time to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the Chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and such motion shall be the 
    continuing order of business of the House until finally disposed 
    of.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Sept. 20, 1943: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 302, 89 Cong. Rec. 7646, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be extended to 
    4 hours, such time to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs; and said motion to suspend the rules shall be the 
    continuing order of business of the House until finally disposed 
    of.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This resolution was itself passed under a 
motion to suspend the rules. Following its adoption Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that a demand for a second, to gain control of 
time in opposition to the motion provided for, was not necessary, the 
House already having fixed control of debate on the motion.

Consideration of Nonprivileged Rules Committee Reports

Sec. 20.29 Although the Committee on Rules has authority under clause 
    23 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, 973,(1) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 176, 
a privileged order of business making in order the consideration of 
House Resolution 132, another resolution reported from the Committee on 
Rules creating a select committee. The first resolution was necessary 
because House Resolution 132 was not a privileged resolution under Rule 
XI clause 23 [now Rule XI clause 4(b) in the 1979 House Rules and 
Manual], since paying money from the con
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 2804, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4145]]

tingent fund on vouchers approved by the Speaker (a matter within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration).

    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: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 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 Senate Joint Resolution 155, a joint resolution to create a 
    Joint Congressional Committee on Tax Evasion and Avoidance, and all 
    points of order against said joint resolution are hereby waived. 
    That after general debate, which shall be confined to the joint 
    resolution and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Rules, the joint resolution shall be read for 
    amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading 
    of the joint resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and 
    report the same to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered 
    on the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with or 
    without instructions.

Making in Order Motion to Recommit Proposition Reported by Rules 
    Committee

Sec. 20.30 A motion to recommit a proposition reported by the Committee 
    on Rules may be made in order by a special rule to that effect.

    On May 25, 1970, the House adopted the following resolution 
reported from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of 
(and allowing a motion to recommit) a joint resolution also reported 
from that committee:

[[Page 4146]]

                                H. Res. 1021

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1117) to establish a Joint 
    Committee on Environment and Technology. After general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the joint resolution and shall continue 
    not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, the 
    joint resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
    rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the joint 
    resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    joint resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
    the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 16973, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XI clause 4(b) [House Rules and Manual 
(1979)], relating to privileged Rules Committee reports, has been 
interpreted to bar the motion to recommit as applied to reports called 
up as privileged under that rule. (See, for example, 5 Hinds' 
Precedents Sec. 5594.) But where a special rule provides for the 
consideration of another matter reported from the Rules Committee, the 
special rule may provide for a motion to recommit whether or not the 
matter could have been called up as privileged. (The motion to recommit 
no: privileged matter from the Committee on Rules--such as the joint 
resolution described above, which contained nonprivileged matter--may 
be permitted on the same basis as other motions to recommit, under Rule 
XVII clause 1 [House Rules and Manual (1979)]. The motion to recommit 
under that rule has also been interpreted as applying to simple House 
resolutions as well as bills; see 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2742.)

Making in Order Motion to Recess

Sec. 20.31 Where a special rule gives a highly privileged status to a 
    motion for a recess, such motion takes precedence over a motion to 
    adjourn.

    On June 4, 1934,(~4) Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, ruled that a motion to recess, given privilege by a special 
rule, took precedence over a motion to adjourn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 78 Cong. Rec. 10470, 10471, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Byrns [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, under the 
    rules

[[Page 4147]]

    it is in order today to call up bills under suspension of the rules 
    and to call the Consent Calendar. We have been here since 11 
    o'clock. The entire day has been taken up in suspensions. There are 
    quite a number of bills on the Unanimous Consent Calendar. A number 
    of Members have come to me and said they were very anxious to have 
    those bills called. Perhaps this will be the last time the Consent 
    Calendar can be called during this session. I think it is only fair 
    that this legislative day shall go over until tomorrow.
        Mr. Speaker, I move that the House stand in recess until 11 
    o'clock tomorrow.
        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
        Mr. Byrns: Mr. Speaker, under the rule adopted last week my 
    motion is highly privileged.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Wisconsin cannot be recognized.

    The special rule referred to was reported from the Committee on 
Rules and adopted on June 1, 1934:

        Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    a privileged report (Rept. No. 1856) from the Committee on Rules 
    (H. Res. 410) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 410

            Resolved, That during the remainder of the second session 
        of the Seventy-third Congress it shall be in order for the 
        Speaker at any time to entertain motions to suspend the rules, 
        notwithstanding the provisions of clause 1, rule XXVII; it 
        shall also be in order at any time during the second session of 
        the Seventy-third Congress for the majority leader to move that 
        the House take a recess, and said motion is hereby made of the 
        highest privilege; and it shall also be in order at any time 
        during the second session of the Seventy-third Congress to 
        consider reports from the Committee on Rules, as provided in 
        clause 45, rule XI, except that the provision requiring a two-
        thirds vote to consider said reports is hereby suspended during 
        the remainder of this session of Congress.(~5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 10239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adopting Special Order Relating to Bill Already Under Consideration in 
    Committee of the Whole 

Sec. 20.32 Where a section in a bill pending before the Committee of 
    the Whole was struck out on a point of order (as constituting an 
    appropriation on a legislative bill), the Committee rose, the House 
    took a recess, and the Committee on Rules met and reported to the 
    House a resolution which the House adopted, making in order an 
    amendment to such bill in Committee of the Whole to reinsert the 
    section which had been stricken out.

[[Page 4148]]

    On Mar. 29, 1933, the Committee of the Whole was considering S. 598 
(reforestation and unemployment relief) pursuant to a unanimous-consent 
request that the Senate bill be in order for consideration, instead of 
a similar House bill (H.R. 3905) which had previously been made a 
special order of business for that day (also by unanimous consent).
    Chairman Ralph F. Lozier, of Missouri, sustained a point of order 
against section 4 of the Senate bill, on the grounds that it 
constituted an appropriation on a legislative bill in violation of Rule 
XXI clause 4 [see Sec. 846 House Rules and Manual (1979)], and section 
4 was thus stricken from the bill. Immediately following the Chair's 
ruling, the Committee rose and a motion for a recess was adopted (at 
5:42 p.m.).(~6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 77 Cong. Rec. 988-990, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recess having expired at 5:52 p.m., Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, called the House to order and Mr. William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, reported and called up by direction of the Committee on Rules 
(which had met during the recess) a special order making in order an 
amendment to the Senate bill pending before the Committee of the 
Whole:(~7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at p. 990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The recess having expired (at 5 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.), 
    the House was called to order by the Speaker.
        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I report a privileged resolution, which I send to the desk 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        Mr. [Joseph B.] Shannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, does not 
    the rule have to lie over for a day?
        The Speaker: It does not.
        The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 85

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to offer as an amendment in Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union to the bill S. 598 the 
        following language:
            ``Sec. 4. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of 
        this act, there is hereby authorized to be expended, under the 
        direction of the President, out of any unobligated moneys 
        heretofore appropriated for public works (except for projects 
        on which actual construction has been commenced or may be 
        commenced within 90 days, and except maintenance funds for 
        river and harbor improvements already allocated), such sums as 
        may be necessary; and an amount equal to the amount so expended 
        is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the same purposes 
        for which such moneys were originally appropriated.''
            All points of order against said amendment shall be 
        considered as waived in the House and in the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union. . . .

        The Speaker: It requires a two-thirds vote to consider it. The 
    question

[[Page 4149]]

    is, Shall the House consider the resolution?
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Snell) there were--ayes 189, noes 71.
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House 
    determined to consider the resolution.
        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    adoption of the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.

    The Committee of the Whole resumed its sitting and proceeded to 
consider the amendment: (~8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: 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 
    (S. 598) for the relief of unemployment through the performance of 
    useful public work, and for other purposes.
        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 further 
    consideration of the bill S. 593, with Mr. Lozier in the Chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ramspeck: Page 3, after line 21, 
        insert the following:
            ``Sec. 4. For the purposes of carrying out the provisions 
        of this act there is hereby authorized to be expended, under 
        the direction of the President, out of any unobligated moneys 
        heretofore appropriated for public works (except for projects 
        on which actual construction has been commenced or may be 
        commenced within 90 days, and except maintenance funds for 
        river and harbor improvements already allocated), such sums as 
        may be necessary; and an amount equal to the amount so expended 
        is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the same purposes 
        for which such moneys were originally appropriated.''

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Chairman, this simply puts back in the bill 
    section 4 exactly, which was ruled out on the point of order.

        I move that all debate on this section do now close.

Sec. 20.33 A resolution waiving points of order against a certain 
    provision in a general appropriation bill was considered and agreed 
    to by the House after the general debate on the bill had been 
    concluded and reading for amendment had begun in Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On May 21, 1969, general debate had been concluded in Committee of 
the Whole on H.R. 11400, the supplemental appropriations bill, and the 
first section of the bill had been read for amendment when the 
Committee rose.

[[Page 4150]]

    The House then adopted a special order from the Committee on Rules 
which waived points of order against one section of the bill: 
(~9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 13246-51, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 414 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 414

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        11400) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, all points of 
        order against title IV of said bill are hereby waived.

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
    the minority, to the very able and distinguished gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Smith). Pending that I yield myself such time as I 
    may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, I shall not use all the time on this resolution. 
    This is a rather unusual situation that we find ourselves in, 
    parliamentarily speaking. We have debated the supplemental 
    appropriation bill at some length under the privileged status of 
    the Appropriations Committee. Now we come in with a resolution from 
    the Rules Committee for one purpose and one purpose alone; that is, 
    to waive points of order against a particular section of the bill.



                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       D. TYPES OF SPECIAL ORDERS
 
Sec. 21. ``Open'' Rules Allowing Amendments and Making in Order Certain 
    Amendments

    The term ``open rule'' is often used to refer to a resolution 
reported from the Committee on Rules which provides for the 
consideration of a bill or resolution in the Committee of the Whole, 
and provides for the bill to be read for amendment under the five-
minute rule, without restricting the offering of germane amendments. (A 
``closed'' or ``modified closed'' rule typically provides that no 
amendments may be offered except by the direction of the reporting 
committee or except certain amendments, such amendments not to be 
subject to amendment.)
    Under an open rule, any amendments may be offered which are 
otherwise in order under the rules of the House.(~10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 21.1, infra.
            The procedure whereby a measure is considered in the 
        ``House as in the Committee of the Whole'' presents another 
        context in which a measure is usually ``open'' to amendment. 
        Such procedure, however, in which a measure is read for 
        amendment under the five-minute rule, is usually followed 
        pursuant to a unanimous-consent request and not by a special 
        order. But see Sec. 20.17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A resolution allowing amendments may contain detailed provi

[[Page 4151]]

sions. For example, the special order frequently provides that a 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute may be read as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment.(~11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 25, infra, for discussion of reading bills and amendments 
        in the nature of a substitute thereto under special rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution may waive points of order against a designated 
amendment by providing that it shall be in order to offer such 
amendment without the intervention of any point of 
order.(~12) But the waiver of points of order is confined 
only to the amendment to which directed. Thus, if parts of the 
amendment made in order are offered as independent amendments they must 
comply with the rules of the House,(~13) and independent 
amendments offered to amendments or to original text protected by 
waivers must be germane and otherwise in order under the 
rules.(~14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. Sec. 21.3-21.10, infra.
13. See Sec. 21.13, infra.
14. See Sec. 23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a resolution makes in order a designated amendment but does 
not attach a particular priority to such amendment (such as an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order but not to be 
read for amendment as an original bill), recognition to offer the 
amendment is governed by the ordinary practices as to recognition and 
offering amendments.(~15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. Sec. 21.3, 21.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to an open rule which makes in order a designated amendment 
is a ``modified open'' rule which prohibits a certain amendment or type 
of amendment, while allowing other amendments otherwise in 
order.(~16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 21.15-21.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
As to procedures in Committee of the Whole, generally, see Ch. 19, 
    supra.
As to amendments generally, see Ch. 27, infra.
As to offering amendments to bills and amendments protected against 
    points of order, see Sec. 23, infra.
As to waiving points of order against bills considered under ``open'' 
    rules, see Sec. 23, infra.
As to waiving points of order against designated amendments, see 
    Sec. 23, infra.
As to Senate bills considered under an open'' rule. see Sec. 27. 
    infra.                          -------------------

Offering Amendments Under ``Open'' Rules

Sec. 21.1 Where a bill is considered under an ``open rule,'' germane 
    amendments to the bill are in order under the standing rules of the 
    House.

[[Page 4152]]

    On July 26, 1965,(17) Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, called up under the 
21-day discharge rule a resolution making a special order of business:

                                H. Res. 437

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 77) to repeal section 14(b) of the National Labor 
    Relations Act, as amended, and section 705(b) of the Labor-
    Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 and to amend the 
    first proviso of section 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations 
    Act, as amended. After general debate, which shall be confined to 
    the bill, and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Education and Labor, the bill shall be read for 
    amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the 
    consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise 
    and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
    been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 18076, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Powell then offered an amendment to the resolution to extend 
the time for general debate on the bill from two hours to five hours. 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered parliamentary 
inquiries on offering amendments to the bill under the provision of the 
``open'' rule:

        The Speaker: Will the gentleman state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: The parliamentary inquiry 
    would be simply this: Does the amendment of the gentleman to the 
    resolution provide that there can be amendments offered to the bill 
    itself, that will be meaningful, that will be constructive in their 
    application; or is his amendment to the rule limited only to the 
    extension of time for debate?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the pending amendment 
    relates in no way to any other amendments which might be germane 
    under the resolution. This amendment would extend the time for 
    general debate from 2 hours to 5 hours, if the amendment is 
    adopted.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Do I correctly understand that the 
    gentleman's amendment to the resolution precludes the offering of 
    any amendment such as that sponsored by the distinguished 
    gentlewoman from Oregon [Mrs. Green]?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the resolution is in 
    accordance with the standing rules of the House, and any amendment 
    that is germane under the standing rules of the House

[[Page 4153]]

    would be in order. The standing rules of the House would determine 
    the germaneness of any amendment that might be 
    offered.
                          -------------------

Special Orders ``Open'' in Part, ``Closed'' in Part

Sec. 21.2 Forms of special orders dividing general debate between two 
    committees and providing that one part of the bill, within one 
    committee's jurisdiction, be open to amendment and that the other 
    part of the bill, within the other committee's jurisdiction, be 
    closed to amendment.

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 14465) to provide for the expansion and 
    improvement of the Nation's airport and airway system, for the 
    imposition of airport and airway user charges, and for other 
    purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and shall continue not to exceed four hours, two hours to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and two 
    hours to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, title I 
    of the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
    At the conclusion of the consideration of title I of the bill for 
    amendment, title II of the bill shall be considered as having been 
    read for amendment. No amendments shall be in order to title II of 
    the bill except amendments offered by the direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, and said amendments shall be in order, 
    any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, but shall 
    not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration 
    of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and 
    the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
    and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.  H. Res. 610, 115 Cong. Rec. 33260, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 6, 
        1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 18583) to amend the Public Health Service Act and 
    other laws to provide increased research into, and prevention, of, 
    drug abuse and drug dependence; to provide for treatment and 
    rehabilitation of drug abusers and drug dependent persons; and to 
    strengthen existing law enforcement authority in the field of drug 
    abuse. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and shall continue not to exceed four hours, three hours to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

[[Page 4154]]

    and one hour to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
    and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
    bill shall be read for amendment under the fiveminute rule. It 
    shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point 
    of order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now printed in the 
    bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
    five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of title 
    II of the amendment in the nature of a substitute for amendment, 
    title III of said substitute shall be considered as having been 
    read for amendment. No amendments shall be in order to title III of 
    said substitute except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, and said amendments shall be in order, 
    any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, but shall 
    not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration 
    of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, 
    and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
    amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
    question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
    thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
    motion to recommit with or without instructions.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Res. 1216, 116 Cong. Rec. 33296, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 23 
        1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Points of Order Waived Against Designated Amendments

Sec. 21.3 Where a special rule provided that amendments relating to a 
    certain subject matter could be offered as substitutes for the 
    pending bill, notwithstanding any rule of the House to the 
    contrary, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole explained the 
    parliamentary situation.

    On Mar. 19, 1935, the House adopted House Resolution 165, reported 
from the Committee on Rules and providing for the consideration of a 
bill for the payment of world war adjusted service certificates:

        Resolved, That immediately 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 H.R. 3896, ``a bill to provide for the immediate 
    payment of World War adjusted-service certificates, to extend the 
    time for filing applications for benefits under the World War 
    Adjusted Compensation Act, and for other purposes''; and all points 
    of order against said bill are hereby waived; that after general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to 
    exceed 10 hours, to be evenly divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority members of the Committee on Ways and

[[Page 4155]]

    Means, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute 
    rule. It shall be in order to consider as substitute amendments for 
    the bill any such amendments that relate to the payment of World 
    War adjusted-service certificates, and such substitute amendments 
    shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill 
    for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the same to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, 
    except two motions to recommit, with or without instructions: 
    Provided, however, That if the instructions in such motions relate 
    to the payment of World War adjusted-service certificates, they 
    shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 79 Cong. Rec. 3984, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 21, 1935, the bill was being considered pursuant to the 
special order in Committee of the Whole, and all time for general 
debate had expired. Chairman Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, made a 
statement regarding the procedure under which the bill would be 
considered for amendment: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 4216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
    Vinson] has expired. All time has expired. The Chair will briefly 
    recapitulate the parliamentary situation.
        This is an unusual rule--but a very adequate one. The Chairman 
    of the Committee on Rules and his committee are to be congratulated 
    on the admirable manner in which they have met a difficult 
    situation.
        Under the special order, all amendments pertaining to the 
    payment of the adjusted-service certificates are in order, the 
    rules of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. At a time when 
    it is the vogue to term all special rules ``gag rules'', here is a 
    special order which liberalizes, instead of restricts, the rules of 
    the House. As Chairman O'Connor well says, it is the antithesis of 
    a gag rule.
        Under the clause waiving the restrictions of the rules of the 
    House against any proposition to pay adjusted-service certificates, 
    it permits consideration of the Patman bill, the Cochran bill, the 
    McReynolds bill, the Andrew bill, and similar measures which 
    otherwise, could not be considered because not germane. 
    Accordingly, after conference with the Speaker, the Chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules, the majority leader, and the authors of the 
    several bills, the Chair will recognize Members who desire to offer 
    major amendments in the following order:
        The first section of the pending bill, the Vinson bill, having 
    been read for amendment, the Chair will recognize the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Patman] to offer his bill as a substitute for the 
    Vinson bill. While it will be offered as a substitute, it will be, 
    technically speaking, an amendment. Then the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cochran] will be recognized to offer his bill

[[Page 4156]]

    as a substitute for the Patman bill in the pending amendment to the 
    Vinson bill. If the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McReynolds] 
    desires, he will then be recognized to offer his bill as an 
    amendment to the Cochran bill or, if he prefers to await a vote on 
    the Cochran substitute and the Cochran substitute is disposed of 
    adversely, he may then offer his bill as a substitute for the 
    Patman bill in the amendment to the Vinson bill. We may have 
    pending at the same time an amendment, an amendment to the 
    amendment, a substitute for the amendment, and an amendment to the 
    substitute. All four forms of amendment may be pending 
    simultaneously. That is the limit, as any further proposal would be 
    an amendment in the third degree.
        Under the rules of the House, an amendment is perfected before 
    it is voted on. Any substitute is then perfected; and then, both 
    the amendment and the substitute for the amendment having been 
    perfected, the Committee takes its choice of the two. It should 
    also be borne in mind that the Committee, having chosen one of the 
    two, and having adopted either the amendment or the substitute for 
    the amendment, it is then too late to offer further perfecting 
    amendments.
        If the various bills are offered in the order indicated, the 
    Vinson bill comprises the text of the bill; the Patman bill is the 
    amendment to the text; the Cochran bill is the substitute for the 
    amendment to the text; and any further bill proposed is an 
    amendment to the substitute.
        The question will come first on perfecting amendments to the 
    Patman bill; second, on perfecting amendments to the Cochran bill. 
    The two bills having been perfected, the Committee will then vote 
    on substituting the Cochran bill--or the Cochran bill, as amended--
    for the Patman bill. The question will then recur on adopting the 
    prevailing bill as an amendment to the Vinson bill.

Designated Amendments Made in Order

Sec. 21.4 Form of resolution making in order, and waiving points of 
    order against, designated amendment.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 13, 1973: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 19337, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 437

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 8410) to continue the existing temporary increase 
    in the public debt limit through November 30, 1973, and for other 
    purposes, and all points of order against said bill for failure to 
    comply with the provisions of clause 4, rule XXI, are hereby 
    waived. After general debate which shall be confined to the bill 
    and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be read for amendment 
    under the five-minute rule. It shall be in

[[Page 4157]]

    order to consider without the intervention of any point of order an 
    amendment to the bill H.R. 8410 which shall consist of the text of 
    H.R. 3932, as passed by the House by a vote of two hundred and 
    twenty-nine yeas to one hundred and seventy-one nays on May 1, 
    1973, with conforming changes in section numbers and internal 
    references to comply with the bill H.R. 8410. At the conclusion of 
    the consideration of H.R. 8410 for amendment, the Committee shall 
    rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
    have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    As a further example, a resolution was considered on Apr. 17, 1973, 
as follows: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 12793.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 356

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (S. 502) to authorize appropriations for the 
    construction of certain highways in accordance with title 23 of the 
    United States Code, and for other purposes. After general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to 
    exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Public 
    Works, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute 
    rule. It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Public Works now 
    printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment under the five-minute rule, said substitute shall be read 
    for amendment by titles instead of by sections, and all points of 
    order against said substitute for failure to comply with the 
    provisions of clause 16(c), rule XI, and clause 4, rule XXI, are 
    hereby waived. It shall also be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order as an amendment to section 123 
    of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute the text 
    of the proposed amendment as set forth on pages 125 and 126 of the 
    minority views accompanying House Report 93-118. At the conclusion 
    of the consideration of the bill (S. 502) for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a 
    separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
    Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 
    with or without instructions.

Sec. 21.5 Form of resolution providing for the consideration of a bill 
    and making in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, a certain type of amendment.

[[Page 4158]]

    The following resolution was under consideration on Dec. 5, 1945: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Res. 444, 91 Cong. Rec. 11477, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 4649) to enable the United States to further 
    participate in the work of the United Nations Relief and 
    Rehabilitation Administration. That after general debate, which 
    shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 day, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the bill shall 
    be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order 
    to consider, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
    an amendment prohibiting the use of funds involved in the bill 
    (H.R. 4649) in countries that refuse free access to examination of 
    United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration operations 
    by representatives of the United States press and radio. At the 
    conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment, the committee 
    shall rise and report the same to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 21.6 Form of resolution consecutively making in order and waiving 
    points of order against the consideration of the texts of three 
    designated bills if offered as amendments in the nature of a 
    substitute for the pending bill.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Oct. 9, 1973: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H. Res. 581, 119 Cong. Rec. 33352, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 9682) to reorganize the governmental structure of 
    the District of Columbia, to provide a charter for local government 
    in the District of Columbia subject to acceptance by a majority of 
    the registered qualified electors in the District of Columbia, to 
    delegate certain legislative powers to the local government, to 
    implement certain recommendations of the Commission on the 
    Organization of the Government of the District of Columbia, and for 
    other purposes, and all points of order against sections 202, 204, 
    713, 722, and 731 of said bill for failure to comply with the 
    provisions of clause 4, rule XXI are hereby waived. After general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not 
    to exceed four hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia, the bill shall be read for amendment under 
    the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the 
    inter

[[Page 4159]]

    vention of any point of order the text of the bill H.R. 10597 if 
    offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill 
    H.R. 9682. If said amendment in the nature of a substitute is not 
    agreed to in the Committee of the Whole, it shall then be in order 
    to consider without the intervention of any point of order the text 
    of the bill H.R. 10693 if offered as an amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute for the bill H.R. 9682. If said amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute (H.R. 10693) is not agreed to in the 
    Committee of the Whole, it shall then be in order to consider 
    without the intervention of any point of order the text of the bill 
    H.R. 10692 if offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    for the bill H.R. 9682. At the conclusion of the consideration of 
    H.R. 9682 for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, 
    and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
    bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
    motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 
    After the passage of H.R. 9682, the Committee on the District of 
    Columbia shall be discharged from the further consideration of the 
    bill S. 1435, and it shall then be in order in the House to move to 
    strike out all after the enacting clause of the said Senate bill 
    and insert in lieu thereof the provisions contained in H.R. 9682 as 
    passed by the House.

Sec. 21.7 Form of resolution providing for consideration in Committee 
    of the Whole of a Senate bill (the Legislative Reorganization Act 
    of 1946) and making in order (as an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute) the provisions contained in a committee print and 
    previously inserted in the Congressional Record.

    The following resolution was under consideration on July 25, 1946: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H. Res. 717, 92 Cong. Rec. 10037, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (S. 2177) to provide for increased efficiency in the 
    legislative branch of the Government, and all points of order 
    against said bill are hereby waived. That after general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed two 
    hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma, Mr. Monroney, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
    Michener, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
    minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order as a substitute for the bill the 
    provisions contained in the committee print of July 20, 1946, and 
    printed in the Congressional Record of July 19, 1946, page 9496, 
    and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be 
    considered under the five-minute rule as an original bill. At the 
    conclusion of such consideration,

[[Page 4160]]

    the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a 
    separate vote in the House on any of the amendments adopted in the 
    Committee of the Whole to the bill or committee substitute. The 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 21.8 The House rejected the previous question on a resolution 
    reported from the Committee on Rules which in part sought to make 
    the text of a specified bill in order as an amendment. The House 
    then adopted an amendment making the text of a different bill in 
    order as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment 
    to the resolution further struck out provisions in the resolution 
    waiving points of order against nongermane committee amendments.

    On Apr. 16, 1973, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, called up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules the following resolution: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Res. 357, 119 Cong. Rec. 12501 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 6168) to amend and extend the Economic 
    Stabilization Act of 1970. After general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Banking and Currency, the bill 
    shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. Immediately 
    after the reading of the first section of H.R. 6168 under the five-
    minute rule, it shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the text of H.R. 6879 as an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute for the bill. If said 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute is not agreed to in 
    Committee of the Whole, it shall then be in order to consider the 
    amendments recommended by the Committee on Banking and Currency now 
    printed in the bill notwithstanding the provisions of clause 7, 
    rule XVI. At the conclusion of the consideration of H.R. 6168 for 
    amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. After 
    the passage of H.R. 6168, the Committee on Banking and Currency 
    shall be discharged from the further consideration of the bill S. 
    398, and it shall then be in order in the House to move to strike 
    out all after the enacting clause of the said Senate bill and 
    insert in lieu thereof the provisions contained in H.R. 6168 as 
    passed by the House.

[[Page 4161]]

    The House rejected the previous question on the resolution and 
adopted an amendment offered by Mr. David T. Martin, of Nebraska. 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 12509.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin, of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Martin of Nebraska: On page 2, 
        line 1, strike ``H.R. 6879,'' and insert in lieu thereof, 
        ``H.R. 2099.''
            On page 2, lines 2 through 7, strike the words: ``If said 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute is not agreed to in 
        Committee of the Whole, it shall then be in order to consider 
        the amendments recommended by the Committee on Banking and 
        Currency now printed in the bill notwithstanding the provisions 
        of clause 7, rule XVI.''

        Mr. Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain 
    this amendment to the Members. The amendment makes in order the 
    consideration of the committee bill, H.R. 6168. Then it makes in 
    order the offering of H.R. 2099 as a substitute. This strikes out 
    the Stephens bill and substitutes H.R. 2099, which is a bill which 
    was jointly introduced by the chairman of the Banking and Currency 
    Committee and the ranking minority member, and provides for a 
    simple 12 months' extension of the Economic Stabilization Act.
        Then in addition it strikes from the original resolution (H. 
    Res. 357) the waiving of points of order in regard to germaneness. 
    In other words, those are stricken from the resolution. That is all 
    this amendment does.
        Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling).
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska 
    for yielding, but I see no purpose in debating the matter further. 
    I thank the gentleman again.
        Mr. Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the 
    amendment, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on 
    the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (9~) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Martin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 21.9 The House voted down the previous question on a resolution 
    providing for the consideration of a bill and amended the 
    resolution by striking out a provision which would have made in 
    order sections or paragraphs of another bill as amendments.

    On June 7, 1944, Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, called up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules a special order providing for the 
consideration of a bill, and making in order without the interven

[[Page 4162]]

tion of any point of order amendments containing the text of another 
bill: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H. Res. 582, 90 Cong. Rec. 5465, 78th Cong. 21 Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution is shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 4941) to extend the period of operation of the 
    Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 and the Stabilization Act of 
    October 2, 1942, and for other purposes, and all points of order 
    against said bill are hereby waived. That after general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 9 
    hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking and Currency, 
    the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It 
    shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point 
    of order any amendment which may be offered to the bill embodying 
    any of the sections or paragraphs contained in the bill H.R. 4647. 
    At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, 
    the Committee shall rise and report the same to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall 
    be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
    final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit.

    After debate on the resolution, during which Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, opposed the provisions in the rule making certain amendments 
in order, the previous question was rejected on the resolution and the 
House adopted the following amendment to the resolution:

        Mr. [Brent] Spence [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Spence: Page 2, line 1, after the 
        word ``rule'', strike out the entire sentence commencing with 
        the words ``It shall'', ending with ``H.R. 4647'' in line 4.

Sec. 21.10 Where a committee reported out a bill similar to one which 
    was eligible to be called up on the Discharge Calendar, the House 
    adopted a special order providing for the consideration of the 
    reported bill and making in order, after passage, a motion to 
    substitute the title, provisions, and number of the other House 
    bill, such motion not to be debatable.

    On June 11, 1956,(11) the House adopted a special order 
reported from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of 
a bill and making in order a motion after passage thereof:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 102 Cong. Rec. 10025 84th Cong. 2d Sess., H. Res. 521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 4163]]

        into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
        for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 1840) to strengthen the 
        Robinson-Patman Act and amend the antitrust law prohibiting 
        price discrimination. That after general debate, which shall be 
        confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 3 hours, to be 
        equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
        minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill 
        shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the 
        conclusion of the consideration of the bill H.R. 1840, the 
        Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
        amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question 
        shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
        thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except one 
        motion to recommit. After the passage of the bill H.R. 1840, it 
        shall be in order to move to strike out the number H.R. 1840 
        and title and provisions thereof and to substitute in lieu 
        thereof the number H.R. 11 and the title and provisions 
        thereof: Provded, however, That such motion shall not be 
        debatable.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A discharge petition, discharging the 
Committee on Rules from the further consideration of House Resolution 
414 (providing a rule for the consideration of H.R. 11) was signed by 
the requisite number of Members on May 21 and was therefore eligible, 
pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4, to be called up from the Calendar of 
Motions to Discharge Committees on June 11. The Committee on the 
Judiciary had however reported out H.R. 1840 (identical to H.R. 11 
except for the title thereof) on May 24. The resolution providing for 
the consideration of H.R. 1840 and making in order the substitution of 
H.R. 11 in the House was reported by the Committee on Rules.
    Although the House passed H.R. 1840 and amended the title thereof 
to conform with the title of H.R. 11, the number of H.R. 11 was not 
substituted for that of the reported bill.

Designated Amendments Made in Order

Sec. 21.11 Where a bill was being considered in Committee of the Whole 
    under a special procedure which made in order the text of another 
    bill as an amendment in the nature of a substitute (but not 
    providing for reading said substitute as an original bill for 
    amendment) and which made in order as an amendment to said 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute another designated bill, 
    the Chair indicated that recognition to offer the amendment made in 
    order to the substitute would be governed by precedents relating to 
    recognition, where the special order did not attach a priority to 
    that amendment.

[[Page 4164]]

    On Dec. 12, 1973,(12) the House adopted the following 
special order for the consideration of a bill, making in order a 
designated bill as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and 
making in order another designated bill as an amendment to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 41105, 41106, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 744

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move, clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, 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. 11450) to direct the President to take action to 
    assure, through energy conservation, rationing, and other means, 
    that the essential energy needs of the United States are met, and 
    for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined 
    to the bill and shall continue not to exceed three hours, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the 
    bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
    shall be in order immediately after the enacting clause is read to 
    consider without the intervention of any point of order the text of 
    the bill H.R. 11882, if offered as an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for the bill H.R. 11450. It shall also be in order to 
    consider without the intervention of any point of order the text of 
    the bill H.R. 11891 if offered as an amendment to said amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. At the conclusion of the consideration 
    of H.R. 11450 for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report 
    the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered 
    on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
    instructions.

    At the conclusion of general debate on the bill in Committee of the 
Whole, the amendment in the nature of a substitute (the text of H.R. 
11882) was offered by Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, and Mr. 
Staggers asked unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as 
read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point. 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, then answered a series of 
parliamentary inquiries on the procedure for offering amendments under 
the provisions of the special order governing consideration of the 
bill. One of the inquiries related to recognition for offering the 
amendment made in order to the amendment in the nature of a substitute:

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I should like to inquire, if the request of the 
    gentleman is accepted

[[Page 4165]]

    and there is no objection to it, when it would be timely for the 
    amendment made in order by the rule to the text of the substitute 
    to be offered, that amendment being H.R. 11891, which would be the 
    amendment, as the rule prescribes, to H.R. 11882?
        The Chairman: The Chair would repeat what the Chair has already 
    said. The Chair would recognize Members to offer amendments as they 
    are reached in the customary procedure of the House.
        There is no particular priority, there is no special priority 
    given to that amendment but the gentleman is a member of the 
    committee and he ranks on the committee and the Chair would seek to 
    reach him in an orderly fashion.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 41153-55. For a discussion of the other parliamentary 
        inquiries propounded on this occasion, see Sec. 25.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.12 Where a special rule makes in order the text of another bill 
    as an amendment, that text may be offered as an amendment to the 
    bill or as an amendment in the nature of a substitute therefor.

    On July 17, 1968, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, called up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules a special order providing for the 
consideration of a bill and making in order a specified amendment: 
(~14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 21765, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up 
    House Resolution 1249 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1249

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 17735) to amend title 18, 
        United States Code, to provide for better control of the 
        interstate traffic in firearms. After general debate, which 
        shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 
        three hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
        Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
        Judiciary, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
        minute rule. It shall be in order to consider, without the 
        intervention of any point of order, the text of the bill H.R. 
        6137 as an amendment to the bill. At the conclusion of the 
        consideration of the bill H.R. 17735 for amendment, the 
        Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
        amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
        shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
        thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
        motion to recommit.

    Mr. Bolling, in debate on the special order, discussed how the 
specified amendment could be offered: (~15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at p. 21766.

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

[[Page 4166]]

        Mr. Speaker, I have just gotten permission to include in the 
    Record the text of the so-called Casey bill, H.R. 6137, which was 
    made in order by the rule as an amendment to H.R. 17735, the bill 
    this rule will make in order for consideration under a 3-hour open 
    rule.
        I do so because the procedure followed by the Committee on 
    Rules in granting this rule is a relatively unusual procedure. I 
    think it important that the Members understand what may be offered 
    as an amendment. It is also important that they understand that 
    this amendment, this so-called Casey bill, may be offered either as 
    a substitute for H.R. 17735, or as an amendment to it.

Sec. 21.13 Where a resolution providing for the consideration of a bill 
    makes in order (notwithstanding the rule of germaneness) the text 
    of another specific bill as an amendment, points of order are 
    considered as waived only against the complete text of the proposed 
    bill and not against portions thereof; and if parts of the text are 
    offered as independent amendments they must meet the test of 
    germaneness under Rule XVI clause 7.

    On Dec. 10, 1969, the House had under consideration a special order 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules by Mr. Ray J. Madden, 
of Indiana, the resolution made in order as an amendment to the bill 
the text of another bill, and waived points of order against the 
consideration of such amendment: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 38123, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 714

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 4249) to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
    with respect to the discriminatory use of tests and devices. After 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
    continue not to exceed three hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee of the Judiciary, the bill shall be read for amendment 
    under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider, 
    without the intervention of any point of order, the text of the 
    bill H.R. 12695 as an amendment to the bill. At the conclusion of 
    the consideration of H.R. 4249 for amendment, the Committee shall 
    rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
    have adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
    instructions.

    Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered 
parliamentary inquiries on whether

[[Page 4167]]

portions of the text of the bill thus made in order could be offered as 
amendments or as part of the instructions in a motion to 
recommit:(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 38130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, under the resolution (H. Res. 714), 
    if adopted, should the bill, H.R. 12695, be considered and 
    rejected, would it then be in order, following rejection of H.R. 
    12695, should that occur, to offer a portion or portions of H.R. 
    12695 as amendments to H.R. 4249?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that would be in 
    order subject to the rule of germaneness, if germane to the bill 
    H.R. 4249.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, should a portion of H.R. 12695 be 
    offered under the conditions set forth in my previous inquiry and 
    should it not be germane, a motion to that effect, to rule it out 
    of order, would be then in order and be sustained, I gather?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That, of course, would be a matter for 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to consider when it is 
    before him.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, I have one additional parliamentary 
    inquiry. Under House Resolution 714, if adopted, would it be in 
    order to include in the motion to recommit a portion or portions of 
    H.R. 12695 which might otherwise be subject to a point of order on 
    the point of germaneness?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would not want to pass upon 
    that hypothetically. At the time the occasion arises the Chair 
    would pass upon it.

Sec. 21.14 Where the Committee on Rules had reported a resolution 
    making in order consideration of a committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute as an original bill for amendment, and 
    making in order the text of another bill as a substitute therefor, 
    the Speaker pro tempore indicated, in response to a series of 
    parliamentary inquiries, that (1) amendments would be in order to 
    such substitute at any point and would not be in the third degree; 
    (2) if the substitute text were offered to section 1 of the 
    committee-amendment, only that section of the committee amendment 
    would be open to perfecting amendment while the substitute was 
    pending; and (3) if the substitute were defeated in Committee of 
    the Whole, the committee amendment would be read by sections for 
    amendment.

[[Page 4168]]

    On June 16, 1970, there was pending before the House, House 
Resolution 1077 providing for the consideration of H.R. 17070, the 
Postal Reform Act of 1970:

                                H. Res. 1077

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 17070) to improve and modernize the postal 
    service, to reorganize the Post Offlce Department, and for other 
    purposes, and all points of order against said bill are hereby 
    waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and shall continue not to exceed four hours, to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, the bill shall be read 
    for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
    consider without the intervention of any point of order the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Post Office and Civil Service now printed in the bill 
    as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
    minute rule. It shall also be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the text of the bill H.R. 17966 
    as a substitute for the said committee amendment. At the conclusion 
    of the consideration of H.R. 17070 for amendment, the Committee 
    shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in 
    the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to 
    the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
    the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
    instructions.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 19837, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered 
parliamentary inquiries on offering amendments under the provisions of 
the special order:

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: Mr. Speaker, may I present 
    a parliamentary inquiry at this time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Smith of California: In connection with H.R. 17070, which 
    the Rules Committee has made in order as a committee substitute for 
    the original committee bill, which was stricken out, and against 
    which bill points of order are to be waived, and in addition in 
    connection with H.R. 17966, which has been made in order as a 
    substitute, waiving points of order, my understanding of the 
    parliamentary situation is, if we do not get into the third degree 
    where we are stopped, that when H.R. 17966 is offered as a 
    substitute it will be open to amendment as we go through the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It will be open to amendment at any 
    point.
        Mr. Smith of California: It is my understanding if we have an 
    amendment

[[Page 4169]]

    pending on that bill, which is one amendment, we can also have an 
    amendment pending on the original bill if it applies to the same 
    section or same part of the bill. In other words, we are not 
    precluded from amending H.R. 17070 until we completely take care of 
    H.R. 17966 and the Committee rises and you vote on that. We can 
    amend in the Committee of the Whole H.R. 17070.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the Chair correctly understands the 
    gentleman, the answer to it is that the Udall substitute can be 
    offered as an amendment to section 1. Other amendments can be 
    offered to section 1 of the committee amendment, but no other 
    amendments can be offered beyond section 1 to the committee 
    amendment.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Smith of California: I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Is it not accurate to say, however, that if 
    the Udall-Derwinski substitute, H.R. 17966, is defeated in the 
    Committee of the Whole, then any other part of H.R. 17070 is open 
    for amendment at any point?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In that event, the Committee of the 
    Whole would go back and read the committee amendment as an original 
    bill, in which case each section would be open for amendment as it 
    was read.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 19838.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certain Amendments Prohibited

Sec. 21.15 The House adopted a resolution providing for consideration 
    of a bill amending the rules of the House under a procedure 
    prohibiting amendments which would change the jurisdiction of any 
    standing committee.

    On July 13, 1970, Mr. B. F. Sisk, of California, called up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules a special order, providing for the 
consideration of a bill reported by the Committee on Rules (Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970). The resolution prohibited the offering of 
certain types of amendments and was adopted by the House: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 1093, 116 Cong. Rec. 23901 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 17654) to improve the operation of the 
    legislative branch of the Federal Government, and for other 
    purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and shall continue not to exceed four hours, to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Rules, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 
    five-minute rule. No amendment to the bill shall be in order which 
    would have the effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee 
    of the House listed in rule XI. At the conclusion of the 
    consideration

[[Page 4170]]

    of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, 
    and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
    bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
    motion except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 21.16 To a bill amending the rules of the House being considered 
    under a special order prohibiting amendments to the bill ``which 
    would have the effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee 
    of the House listed in Rule XI,'' an amendment proposing a new Rule 
    XLV to require that a majority of at least one subcommittee of the 
    Committee on Government Operations consist of minority members of 
    the House was ruled out of order as an attempt to change the 
    ``jurisdiction and makeup of the Committee on Government 
    Operations.''

    On July 29, 1970, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 
17654, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, pursuant to a 
special order (H. Res. 1093) prohibiting certain kinds of amendments. 
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, sustained a point of order 
against an amendment as in violation of the special order: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 26421, 26422, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cleveland: on page 39, immediately 
        below line 4, insert the following:

         ``minority party control of one subcommittee of the committee 
                            on government operations

            ``Sec.--. The Rules of the House of Representatives are 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new rule:

                                  `` `Rule XLV

         ``minority party control of one subcommittee of the committee 
                            on government operations

            `` `A majority of the members of no fewer than one 
        subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations shall 
        consist of members of the largest minority party in the House 
        of Representatives.' ''
            And make the necessary technical changes in the table of 
        contents, section numbers and references in the bill.

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        As the gentleman from New Hampshire knows, the House resolution 
    under which we are now operating, House Resolution 1093, 
    specifically provides, in part:

[[Page 4171]]

            No amendment to the bill shall be in order which would have 
        the effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee of the 
        House listed in rule XI.

        The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire would 
    change the jurisdiction and the makeup of the Committee on 
    Government Operations to the extent that it would force the 
    Committee on Government Operations to set up a subcommittee for the 
    purpose to which the amendment goes.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order that was 
    raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sisk), that the 
    amendment violates that part of the resolution under which we are 
    operating and, therefore, for the reasons the Chair has given, the 
    point of order is sustained.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The sponsor of the amendment had originally 
offered an amendment proposing a new rule of the House to establish a 
Minority Committee on Investigations but had withdrawn that amendment 
when advised that it would have the effect of changing the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Government Operations and would therefore be in 
violation of the special order under which the bill was being 
considered.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 26421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.17 To a bill amending the rules of the House, being considered 
    pursuant to a resolution prohibiting amendments to the bill ``which 
    would have the effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee 
    of the House listed in Rule XI,'' an amendment to Rule XI clause 23 
    [Rule XI clause 4(b), in the 1979 House Rules and Manual] 
    proscribing the power of the Committee on Rules to report special 
    orders which would limit the reading of a measure for amendment or 
    the offering of amendments thereto, was ruled out of order as an 
    attempt to change the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules.

    On July 29, 1970, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 
17654, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. The special order 
under which the bill was being considered (H. Res. 1093) prohibited 
amendments ``which would have the effect of changing the jurisdiction 
of any committee of the House listed in Rule XI.'' Chairman William H. 
Natcher, of Kentucky, sustained a point of order against an amendment: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 26414, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. For language sought to be 
        amended, see House Rules and Manual, Sec. 729 ( 1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 4172]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jacobs: On page 39, after line 4, 
        add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 123(a) Clause 23 of Rule XI of the Rules of the 
        House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following: `In addition, the Committee on Rules 
        shall not report any rule or order for the consideration of any 
        legislative measure which limits, restricts, or eliminates the 
        actual reading of that measure for amendment or the offering of 
        any amendment to that measure.'.'' . . .

        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment. However, I would be perfectly 
    happy to have the gentleman from Indiana explain what he proposes 
    to do, but I would like to reserve a point of order against the 
    amendment.
        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: Mr. Chairman, I was going 
    to make a point of order against the gentleman's amendment because 
    it clearly limits and violates the rule under which we are 
    proceeding. But if the gentleman has a desire to speak on it, I 
    shall reserve a point of order until after the gentleman speaks on 
    it.

        Mr. Jacobs: I have expressed no such desire.
        Mr. Smith of California: Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of 
    order that this very definitely limits the jurisdiction of the 
    Rules Committee and would prohibit us from issuing a closed rule 
    and other types of rules. The rule under which this measure was 
    considered strictly prohibits the changing of any jurisdiction of 
    any committee.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Indiana desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the term 
    ``jurisdiction,'' it means the territory or subject matter over 
    which legal power is exercisable, not the rules by which such power 
    proceeds.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair would like to point out to the gentleman from Indiana 
    that under House Resolution 1093 we have the following language, 
    beginning in line 11:

            No amendments to the bill shall be in order which would 
        have the effect of changing the jurisdiction of any committee 
        of the House listed in Rule XI.

        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is for some 
    enlightenment about the word ``jurisdiction'' itself, the 
    definition of the word ``jurisdiction''? Does it refer to subject 
    matter and territory, or relate to the manner in which the 
    Committee on Rules can make a report within its jurisdiction?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to point out to the 
    gentleman from Indiana that under the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Indiana there is the following language:

            The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or order 
        for the consideration of any legislative measure which limits, 
        restricts, or eliminates the actual reading of that measure for 
        amendment or the offering of any amendment to that measure.

        Therefore the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
    restricts

[[Page 4173]]

    the jurisdictional powers of the Committee on Rules. For that 
    reason the point of order must be sustained.



                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       D. TYPES OF SPECIAL ORDERS
 
Sec. 22. ``Closed'' Rules, Prohibiting Amendments and Allowing Only 
    Certain Amendments

    Certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules are 
commonly termed ``closed rules'' or ``modified closed'' rules because 
they prohibit amendments, or allow only certain specified amendments. 
Such a special order typically provides that, following general debate 
in Committee of the Whole, the bill or resolution shall be considered 
as having been read for amendment, and that no amendments shall be in 
order except amendments offered by direction of the committee which 
reported the bill, such amendments not to be subject to amendment. Or 
the resolution may provide that no amendments except committee 
amendments or other designated amendments shall be in order, such 
amendments not to be subject to amendment.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The rules of the Democratic Caucus have on occasion required notice 
        of intent to seek a ``closed'' rule from the Committee on 
        Rules. See Sec. 22.22, infra.
            The motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill, under Rule 
        XXVII clauses 1-3, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 902-907 
        (1979), may be used to pass a bill without amendment on the 
        floor. See Sec. 14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A special order may also provide a closed rule for the 
consideration of a measure in the House, by providing that at the 
expiration of a certain period of debate, the previous question shall 
be considered as ordered.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 22.16, infra.
            The Member who calls up a proposition in the House has 
        control of one hour of debate and may move the previous 
        question, which, if adopted, precludes amendment, even without 
        a special order. See Ch. 29, infra, for discussion of 
        consideration and debate in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a resolution allows only certain amendments, with such 
amendments not subject to amendment, pro forma amendments to strike out 
the last word are not in order.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 22.20, infra. A ``closed'' rule may, however, specifically 
        allow pro forma amendments. See Sec. 22.19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the provisions of a closed rule which prohibits the offering 
of amendments to a bill in Committee of the Whole but allows a motion 
in the House to recommit, a motion to recommit with instructions may be 
offered to incorporate an amendment which would not have been in order 
in Committee of the Whole because of the terms of the special 
order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Compare Sec. Sec. 26.11, 26.12, infra, where the special order 
        prevented such a motion to recommit by prohibiting amendments 
        to a title of a bill during its consideration in both the House 
        and Committee of the Whole.

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

[[Page 4174]]

                            Cross References
As to procedure in Committee of the Whole generally, see Ch. 19, supra.
As to amendments generally, see Ch. 27, infra.
As to amendments under the hour rule in the House, see Ch. 29, infra.
As to amendments prohibited to propositions brought up under suspension 
    of the rules, see Sec. 14, supra.
As to the motion to recommit under a ``closed'' rule, see Sec. 26, 
    infra. As to the provision that the previous question be considered 
    as ordered by special rule, see Sec. 26 infra.

Committee Amendments Only Permitted

Sec. 22.1 Form of resolution permitting only committee amendments to a 
    bill, such amendments not to be subject to amendment.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Dec. 19, 1947:

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 167) to aid in the stabilization 
    of commodity prices, to aid in further stabilizing the economy of 
    the United States, and for other purposes, and all points of order 
    against the 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 
    Banking and Currency, the joint resolution shall be considered as 
    having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to 
    said joint resolution except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Banking and Currency, and said amendments shall be in 
    order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. 
    Amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Banking and 
    Currency may be offered to any section of the joint resolution at 
    the conclusion of the general debate, but such amendments shall not 
    be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration 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.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H. Res. 412, 93 Cong. Rec. 11720, 11721, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a further example, the following resolution was considered on 
Feb. 18, 1959:

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

[[Page 4175]]

    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    4245) relating to the taxation of the income of life insurance 
    companies, and all points of order against said bill are hereby 
    waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, 
    and shall continue not to exceed three hours, to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as having 
    been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said 
    bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on 
    Ways and Means, but said amendments shall not be subject to 
    amendment. At the conclusion of such consideration the Committee 
    shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion, except one motion to 
    recommit.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 171, 105 Cong. Rec. 2565, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.2 Form of resolution providing for the consideration of a bill 
    and providing that only committee amendments, or amendments 
    proposing to strike portions of the bill. be in order.

    The following resolution was under consideration on July 23, 1953: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H. Res. 347, 99 Cong. Rec. 9635, 9636, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 5894) to amend the Trade Agreements Extension Act 
    of 1951 and certain other provisions of law to provide adequate 
    protection for American workers, miners, farmers, and producers, 
    and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall 
    continue not to exceed 3 hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as having 
    been read for amendment. No amendments shall be in order to said 
    bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on 
    Ways and Means or amendments proposing to strike out a section, 
    paragraph, or subparagraph of the bill. Amendments that may be 
    offered to said bill under the terms of this resolution shall not 
    be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of 
    the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, 
    and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
    bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
    motion, except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 22.3 Form of resolution providing a ``closed'' rule for the 
    consideration of a resolution dealing with a declaration of foreign 
    policy, allowing only committee amendments.

[[Page 4176]]

    The following resolution was under consideration on July 17, 1969: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 36080, 36081, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. In debate on the 
        resolution, Mr. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.) referred to 
        ``clearly established precedents in an unbroken chain for at 
        least the past 15 years ``which'' brought foreign policy 
        resolutions to the House on a closed rule.'' Id. at p. 36081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 722

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the resolution ( H. Res. 613) toward peace with justice in 
    Vietnam. After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    resolution and shall continue not to exceed four hours, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the resolution shall be 
    considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be 
    in order to said resolution except amendments offered by direction 
    of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and such amendments shall not 
    be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of 
    the resolution for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report 
    the resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered 
    on the resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 22.4 Form of resolution permitting no amendments except an 
    amendment printed in a Record of a previous day and offered by a 
    member of the committee.

    The following resolution was under consideration on July 7, 1953:

        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 H.R. 5173, a bill to provide that the excess of collections from 
    the Federal unemployment tax over unemployment compensation 
    administrative expenses shall be used to establish and maintain a 
    $200 million reserve in the Federal unemployment account which will 
    be available for advances to the States, to provide that the 
    remainder of such excess shall be returned to the States, and for 
    other purposes, and all points of order against said bill and any 
    provisions contained in said bill are hereby waived. After general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not 
    to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, the bill shall be considered as having been read for 
    amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said bill, except that 
    it shall be in order for any member of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means to offer either or both of the proposed amendments printed in 
    the Congressional Record of July 6, 1953, page

[[Page 4177]]

    8037, and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House 
    to the contrary notwithstanding, but said amendments shall not be 
    subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the 
    bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, 
    except one motion to recommit.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Res. 316, 99 Cong. Rec. 8152, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a further example, the following resolution was considered on 
Apr. 20, 1955:

        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 H.R. 4644, a bill to increase the rates of basic salary of 
    postmasters, officers, supervisors, and employees in the postal 
    field service, to eliminate certain salary inequities, and for 
    other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are 
    hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill, and shall continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, the bill shall 
    be considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall 
    be in order to said bill, except that it shall be in order for any 
    member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service to offer 
    any of the amendments proposed by the gentleman from California, 
    Mr. Moss, and printed in the Congressional Record of Tuesday, April 
    19, 1955, and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of the 
    House to the contrary notwithstanding, but said amendments shall 
    not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration 
    of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, 
    and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
    bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
    motion except one motion to recommit.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Res. 211, 101 Cong. Rec. 4828. 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where a special rule makes in order only a 
specified amendment, the amendment when offered must take the exact 
form as specified, except by unanimous consent, to be in order.
    If the rule designates the Member who may offer the amendment, only 
that Member may offer it.

Sec. 22.5 Form of resolution permitting by way of amendments only a 
    motion by a member of the committee to substitute the text of 
    another hill

    The following resolution was under consideration on July 25, 1956: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 618, 102 Cong. Rec. 14456, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 4178]]

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 11742) to extend and amend laws relating to the 
    provision and improvement of housing and the conservation and 
    development of urban communities, and for other purposes. After 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall 
    continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Banking and Currency, the bill shall be considered as 
    having been read for amendment. No amendments shall be in order to 
    the said bill except that it shall be in order for any member of 
    the Committee on Banking and Currency to move to strike out all 
    after the enacting clause of the bill H.R. 11742 and insert as a 
    substitute the text of the bill H.R. 12328, and such substitute 
    shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, but shall not be subject to amendment. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill H.R. 11742, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendment as may have been adopted and the previous question shall 
    be considered as ordered on the bill and amendment thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 22.6 Form of resolution permitting only committee amendments to a 
    certain portion of the bill.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 9, 1955: 
(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Res. 265, 101 Cong. Rec. 7956, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 6227) to provide for the control and regulation 
    of bank holding companies, and for other purposes. After general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not 
    to exceed 4 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking 
    and Currency, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-
    minute rule. No amendments shall be in order to the portions of the 
    bill beginning on line 7, page 19, and ending on line 13, page 30, 
    amending the Internal Revenue Code, except amendments offered by 
    direction of the Committee on Banking and Currency and such 
    amendments shall be in order notwithstanding any rule of the House 
    to the contrary, but shall not be subject to amendment. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall 
    be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
    final passage without intervening motion, except one motion to 
    recommit.

Sec. 22.7 The House defeated the previous question on a reso

[[Page 4179]]

    lution providing for a ``closed'' rule and then, after considering 
    an amendment to permit reading the bill by titles and motions to 
    strike matter in the bill, ordered the previous question on the 
    amendment and resolution, rejected the amendment, and finally 
    agreed to the resolution as reported from the Committee on Rules.

    On Nov. 18, 1970, there was called up by direction of the Committee 
on Rules a resolution making in order the consideration of a bill (the 
Trade Act of 1970) and providing a ``closed'' rule, permitting only 
committee amendments, such amendments not to be subject to amendment: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 37823, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Young [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1225 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1225

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 18970) to amend the tariff 
        and trade laws of the United States, and for other purposes, 
        and all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. 
        After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and 
        shall continue not to exceed eight hours, to be equally divided 
        and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
        the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered 
        as having been read for amendment. No amendments shall be in 
        order to said bill except amendments offered by direction of 
        the Committee on Ways and Means, and said amendments shall be 
        in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
        notwithstanding. Amendments offered by direction of the 
        Committee on Ways and Means may be offered to any section of 
        the bill at the conclusion of the general debate, but said 
        amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion 
        of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee 
        shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
        amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
        shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
        thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
        motion to recommit.

    After debate on the resolution, the previous question was moved and 
rejected; Mr. Sam M. Gibbons, of Florida, offered an amendment to the 
resolution: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 37834. 37835.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Gibbons: Strike out all of that 
    material beginning on page 1, line 10, after the comma down to the 
    period on line 7, page 2, and insert the following in lieu thereof: 
    ``the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule 
    by titles instead of by sections. No amendments shall be in order 
    to said

[[Page 4180]]

    bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on 
    Ways and Means or amendments proposing to strike out any matter in 
    the bill and such amendments of a conforming or clerical nature as 
    are necessary to perfect the text of the bill following the 
    adoption of any such amendment to strike. Amendments that may be 
    offered to said bill under the terms of this resolution shall be in 
    order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding.''. . 
    .
        Mr. Gibbons: . . . There is nothing very magical or very 
    different about my amendment to the rule than the rule reported by 
    the Rules Committee. All my amendment seeks to do is to give each 
    Member of this House, as the bill is read, as each title is 
    completed, the opportunity to come in and present an amendment to 
    strike--not an amendment to add any new material and not any 
    amendment to add any substance to the bill, but only to strike from 
    that bill.
        If things are stricken, obviously it is going to be necessary 
    to adopt clerical or perfecting amendments relating to punctuation 
    and numbering and so on, and that is provided for in this rule.
        This rule also provides there shall be the same amount of 
    general debate as provided in the rule reported by the Rules 
    Committee.
        There is really no substantial difference in the rule I am 
    proposing or the amendment to the rule I am proposing other than 
    that this rule, if adopted, would allow Members to come in and to 
    strike from this very important bill and this very controversial 
    bill items that the Members do not agree with.

    The previous question was ordered on the amendment and on the 
resolution; the amendment was rejected and the original resolution was 
agreed to.

Committee Amendments or Designated Amendments Only Permitted

Sec. 22.8 Form of resolution permitting only committee amendments and 
    specified amendments, such amendments not to be subject to 
    amendment.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 29, 1951:

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 278) to continue 
    for a temporary period the Defense Production Act of 1950; the 
    Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended; and for other purposes, 
    and all points of order against the joint resolution are hereby 
    waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    joint resolution and continued not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Banking and Currency, the joint resolution 
    shall be considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment 
    shall be in order to said joint res

[[Page 4181]]

    olution except (1) amendments offered by direction of the Committee 
    on Banking and Currency, and (2) the following amendment: 
    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution or any 
    other provision of law, the authority conferred under the Defense 
    Production Act of 1950, as amended, shall not be exercised during 
    the period, June 30, 1951, to July 31, 1951, inclusive, to place 
    into effect, or permit to become effective, a price ceiling for any 
    material or service lower than the ceiling in effect for such 
    material or service on the date of the enactment of this resolution 
    or to put into effect a ceiling for any material or service for 
    which a ceiling is not in effect on the date of the enactment of 
    this resolution'', and said amendments shall be in order, any rule 
    of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments offered by 
    direction of the Committee on Banking and Currency or the amendment 
    provided herein may be offered to any section of the joint 
    resolution at the conclusion of the general debate, but said 
    amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of 
    the consideration of the joint resolution for amendment, the 
    committee shall rise and report the joint resolution to the House 
    with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous 
    question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Res. 294, 97 Cong. Rec. 7482, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a further example, the following resolution was considered on 
July 8, 1954:

        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 H.R. 9709, a bill to extend and improve the unemployment 
    compensation program, and all points of order against said bill are 
    hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill, and shall continue not to exceed 3 hours, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as 
    having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to 
    said bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee 
    on Ways and Means and except that it shall be in order for any 
    member of the Committee on Ways and Means to offer either or both 
    of the proposed amendments printed in the Congressional Record of 
    July 7, 1954, and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of 
    the House to the contrary notwithstanding, but said amendments 
    shall not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the 
    consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise 
    and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
    been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion, except one motion to recommit.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Res. 614, 100 Cong. Rec. 10062, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, a resolution was considered on June 18, 1962, as 
follows:

[[Page 4182]]

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 12154) to amend and extend the provisions of the 
    Sugar Act of 1948, as amended, and all points of order against said 
    bill are hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill, and shall continue not to exceed three hours, 
    to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, the bill shall be 
    considered as having been read for amendment. No amendments shall 
    be in order to said bill except amendments offered by the direction 
    of the Committee on Agriculture; an amendment to page 2, line 17, 
    proposing to insert the following: ``Provided, however, that the 
    total amount of sugar needed to meet requirements of consumers in 
    the continental United States shall not be less than the amount 
    required after allowances for normal carryover, to give consumers 
    of the continental United States a per capital consumption of 100 
    pounds.''; and an amendment to page 25, lines 3 to 23, inclusive, 
    to strike out Sec. 18; and said amendments shall be in order, any 
    rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments 
    offered by direction of the Committee on Agriculture may be offered 
    to any section of the bill at the conclusion of the general debate, 
    but said amendments shall not be subject to amendment; nor shall 
    the two additional amendments permitted under this rule be subject 
    to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill 
    for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 691, 108 Cong. Rec. 10796, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.9 Form of resolution providing ``modified closed rule,'' 
    permitting only committee amendments or designated amendments (1) 
    containing text previously inserted in the Congressional Record or 
    (2) striking out specified portions of the bill, with such 
    amendments not subject to amendment.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Dec. 10, 1973:

                                  H. Res. 657

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill H.R. 10710) to promote the development of an open 
    nondiscriminatory, and fair world economic system, to stimulate the 
    economic growth of the United States, and for other purposes, and 
    all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
    continue not to exceed seven hours, six

[[Page 4183]]

    hours to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and one 
    hour to be controlled by Representative John H. Dent, of 
    Pennsylvania, the bill shall be considered as having been read for 
    amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said bill except 
    amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    an amendment offered to section 402 of said bill containing the 
    text printed on page 34311 of the Congressional Record of October 
    16, 1973, an amendment proposing to strike out title IV of said 
    bill and an amendment proposing to strike out title V of said bill, 
    and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the 
    contrary notwithstanding, but shall not be subject to amendment. At 
    the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
    to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 119 Cong. Rec. 40489, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.10 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker pro 
    tempore indicated that if the House adopted an amendment to a 
    pending ``closed rule'' permitting motions to ``strike out any 
    matter in the bill,'' motions to strike out any portion of the bill 
    would be in order.

    On Nov. 18, 1970, there was pending before the House House 
Resolution 1225, reported from the Committee on Rules and providing for 
consideration of a tariff bill. The resolution as reported allowed only 
committee amendments to the bill, such amendments not to be subject to 
amendment. The previous question was rejected on the resolution, and 
Mr. Sam M. Gibbons, of Florida, was recognized to offer an amendment to 
the resolution:

        Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gibbons: Strike out all of that 
        material beginning on page 1, line 10, after the comma down to 
        the period on line 7, page 2, and insert the following in lieu 
        thereof: ``the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
        minute rule by titles instead of by sections. No amendments 
        shall be in order to said bill except amendments offered by 
        direction of the Committee on Ways and Means or amendments 
        proposing to strike out any matter in the bill and such 
        amendments of a conforming or clerical nature as are necessary 
        to perfect the text of the bill following the adoption of any 
        such amendment to strike. Amendments that may be offered to 
        said bill under the terms of this resolution shall be in order, 
        any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding.'' 
        (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 116 Cong. Rec. 37835, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.

Speaker pro tempore John J. Rooney, of New York, answered a par

[[Page 4184]]

liamentary inquiry on the effect of the amendment should it be adopted:

        Mr. Gibbons: I will be glad to yield for the purpose of a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: I would like to make this 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Speaker, under the rule as has been submitted by the 
    gentleman from Florida, am I correct in understanding that it will 
    be in order to strike out either any language or any section or any 
    provision which presently exists in the trade bill as reported by 
    the Committee on Ways and Means?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the terms of the amendment, any 
    motion to strike out any language, word or otherwise in any part of 
    the bill would be in order.
        Mr. Vanik: Including an entire section?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Including an entire section, or 
    title.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 37838.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House then rejected the amendment and agreed to the resolution 
as originally called up.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 37841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.11 When a bill was being considered under a resolution 
    providing that ``no amendment shall be in order to said bill except 
    proposals to strike out any of its provisions or to increase or 
    decrease the amounts authorized therein,'' amendments proposing to 
    change the time when provisions of the bill were to be effective 
    were held not to be in order.

    On Feb. 16, 1955, Chairman Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, ruled as 
follows on an amendment offered in Committee of the Whole to a bill 
being considered under a special rule (H. Res. 141) allowing only 
certain kinds of amendments to be offered.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 101 Cong. Rec. 1585, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 5. (a) The provisions of sections 1, 2, and 3 shall 
        take effect on the 1st day of January 1955.
            (b) The provisions of section 4 shall take effect as of the 
        commencement of the 84th Congress.

        Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment, which I send to the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Poff: On page 5, line 13, strike 
        out ``84th'' and insert in lieu thereof ``85th.''

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. Under the rule, House Resolution 141, the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Virginia, is not germane, and therefore not 
    in order.
        The Chairman: As stated by the Chair before the reading of the 
    bill, under the rule by which the bill is being considered, no 
    amendments are in order except those raising or low

[[Page 4185]]

    ering the amount, or striking out some portion of the bill.
        Therefore, such amendment changing the effective date of the 
    bill would not be in order, and the Chair sustains the point of 
    order.

    The Chairman made a similar ruling further on during the 
consideration of the same bill: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 1586.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Usher L.] Burdick [of North Dakota]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Burdick: Page 5, strike out 
        section 5 and insert a new section 5 to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 5. This act shall take effect on January 1, 1957.''

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that under 
    the terms of House Resolution 141, this amendment is out of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that this amendment falls 
    within the same class as the one previously ruled on with respect 
    to this section.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.

Partially Closed Rule on Bill Managed by Two Committees

Sec. 22.12 Form of resolution, on bill managed by two committees, 
    permitting only amendments by one of those committees to a title of 
    the bill

    The following resolution was under consideration on Apr. 26, 1956: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Res. 485, 102 Cong. Rec. 7110, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H. R. 10660) to amend and supplement the Federal-Aid 
    Road Act approved July 11, 1916, to authorize appropriations for 
    continuing the construction of highways; to amend the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954 to provide additional revenue from the taxes 
    on motor fuel, tires, and trucks and buses; and for other purposes. 
    After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and 
    shall continue not to exceed 5 hours, 3 hours to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Public Works, and 2 hours to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be read for amendment 
    under the 5-minute rule. No amendments shall be in order to title 
    II of the bill except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means which shall be in order notwithstanding 
    any rule of the House to the contrary, but shall not be subject to 
    amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

[[Page 4186]]

    amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
    to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit.

Sec. 22.13 A special order may provide for the consideration of a bill 
    where general debate is to be divided between two committees 
    involved with the bill, and where no amendments may be offered to 
    one title except by direction of one of the committees, and where 
    no amendments may be offered to the other title except by direction 
    of the second committee.

    On May 4, 1961, the House adopted a special order reported by the 
Committee on Rules:

        Mr. [James W.] Trimble [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker? by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 275) 
    providing for the consideration of H.R. 6713, a bill to amend 
    certain laws relating to Federal aid highways, to make certain 
    adjustments in the Federal-aid highway program, and for other 
    purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            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 sState of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6713) to amend certain laws 
        relating to Federal-aid highways, to make certain adjustments 
        in the Federal-aid highway program, and for other purposes, and 
        all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After 
        general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall 
        continue not to exceed six hours, three hours to be equally 
        divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
        member of the Committee on Public Works, and three hours to be 
        equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
        minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill 
        shall be considered as having been read for amendment. No 
        amendments shall be in order to title I of the bill except 
        amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Public 
        Works, and no amendments shall be in order to title II of the 
        bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on 
        Ways and Means, which shall be in order notwithstanding any 
        rule of the House to the contrary, but any such amendments 
        shall not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the 
        consideration of the bill, the Committee shall rise and report 
        the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
        adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
        without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 7378, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The bill provided for originated from draft 
legislation submitted by the President and referred to the Committee on 
Ways and Means, since containing extensive revisions of the revenue 
features associated with the highway program. The

[[Page 4187]]

Committee on Ways and Means considered the tax measures contained 
therein and informally reported their recommendations to the Committee 
on Public Works. A ``clean bill,'' H.R. 6713, was introduced by George 
H. Fallon, of Maryland, Chairman of the Committee on Public Works 
Subcommittee on Public Roads, and was reported by the Committee on 
Public Works; title II of the reported bill contained the tax measures.
    When the bill was considered in Committee of the Whole, the 
Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Public Works 
were first recognized for general debate and they used all the time 
they wished to consume before the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means was recognized to debate title II of the bill.

Special Orders Closed in Part, Open in Part

Sec. 22.14 Form of special order dividing general debate between two 
    committees and providing that one part of the bill, within one 
    committee's jurisdiction, be open to amendment and that the other 
    part of the bill, within the other committee's jurisdiction, be 
    closed to amendment.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Nov. 6 1969:

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 14465) to provide for the expansion and 
    improvement of the Nation's airport and airway system, for the 
    imposition of airport and airway user charges, and for other 
    purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and shall continue not to exceed four hours, two hours to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and two 
    hours to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, title I 
    of the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
    At the conclusion of the consideration of title I of the bill for 
    amendment, title II of the bill shall be considered as having been 
    read for amendment. No amendments shall be in order to title II of 
    the bill except amendments offered by the direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, and said amendments shall be in order, 
    any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, but shall 
    not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration 
    of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted and 
    the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
    and amendments thereto to final

[[Page 4188]]

    passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 610, 115 Cong. Rec. 33260, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.15 Form of special order dividing general debate between two 
    committees and providing that parts of the bill, within one 
    committee's jurisdiction, be open to amendment and that another 
    part of the bill, within the other committee's jurisdiction, be 
    closed to amendment.

    The following resolution was considered on Sept. 23, 1970:

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 18583) to amend the Public Health Service Act and 
    other laws to provide increased research into, and prevention of, 
    drug abuse and drug dependence; to provide for treatment and 
    rehabilitation of drug abusers and drug dependent persons; and to 
    strengthen existing law enforcement authority in the field of drug 
    abuse. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and shall continue not to exceed four hours, three hours to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and one 
    hour to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
    bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
    shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point 
    of order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now printed in the 
    bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
    five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of title 
    II of the amendment in the nature of a substitute for amendment, 
    title III of said substitute shall be considered as having been 
    read for amendment. No amendments shall be in order to title III of 
    said substitute except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, and said amendments shall be in order, 
    any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, but shall 
    not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration 
    of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, 
    and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
    amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
    question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
    thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
    motion to recommit with or without instruction.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. H. Res. 1216, 116 Cong. Rec. 33296, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Closed Rule for Consideration in House

Sec. 22.16 The right to offer amendments does not exist

[[Page 4189]]

    where a special rule, in providing for the consideration of a bill 
    in the House, orders the previous question after a fixed time for 
    general debate.

    On Mar. 11, 1933, Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, offered a 
resolution, before committees were elected:

                            House Resolution 32

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2820, a bill 
    to maintain the credit of the United States Government, and all 
    points of order against said bill shall be considered as waived; 
    that, after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and 
    shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Economy, the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill to final passage.

    Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry as to the right to offer amendments under the provisions of the 
resolution:

        Mr. [Gordon] Browning [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Browning: If this resolution is adopted, there will not be 
    any privilege of amendment given to the House, under any 
    consideration?
        The Speaker: There will not be.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 11. 77 Cong. Rec. 198, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion That Committee Rise With Recommendation Enacting Clause Be 
    Stricken

Sec. 22.17 Where a bill is being considered under a rule permitting 
    only committee amendments and no amendments thereto, a motion that 
    the Committee rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out is in order 
    until the stage of amendment has passed, and is debatable, five 
    minutes for and five against.

    On Sept. 3, 1959,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8678 (Federal Aid Highway Act) for amendment under the 
five-minute rule, pursuant to a ``closed'' rule permitting only 
committee amendments and no amendments thereto. After a Member had 
spoken for five minutes in favor of a pending committee amendment 
(there being other committee amendments not yet considered), the Chair 
refused recognition for another speech in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 12. 105 Cong. Rec. 17988, 17989, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4190]]

favor of the amendment, and the Committee proceeded as follows:

        The Chairman: (13) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman that only 5 minutes is permitted in support of the 
    amendment and 5 minutes in opposition. Five minutes has been 
    consumed in support of the amendment. Therefore, the Chair cannot 
    recognize the gentleman at this time.
        The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 13. William Pat Jennings (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from New York has 
    expired, all time on the amendment has expired.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hays moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken out.

    Mr. Hays debated the motion for five minutes and another Member was 
recognized for five minutes in opposition to the motion.
    The bill was being considered under a special order providing as 
follows: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 372, 105 Cong. Rec. 17946, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill, and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Public Works, the bill shall be considered as 
    having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to 
    said bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee 
    on Public Works. Amendments offered by direction of the Committee 
    on Public Works may be offered to any section of the bill at the 
    conclusion of the general debate, but said amendments shall not be 
    subject to amendment.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 12720-25, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 
        1960; and 106 Cong. Rec. 10577-79, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 18, 
        1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.18 Where a bill is being considered under a ``closed'' rule 
    permitting only committee amendments and no amendments thereto, a 
    motion that the Committee rise and report the bill back to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    out is not in order where no committee amendments are offered, 
    since the stage of amendment has been passed.

    On Apr. 16, 1970, the Committee of the Whole concluded general 
debate on H.R. 16811 (the Family Assistance Act of 1970) where the 
House had adopted a ``closed'' rule for the consideration of the bill 
(H. Res. 916), allowing only committee amendments to

[[Page 4191]]

the bill, such amendments not be be subject to amendment. Chairman John 
D. Dingell, of Michigan, indicated in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry that since the bill was considered read for amendment and no 
committee amendments were offered, the stage of amendment was passed 
and a preferential motion was not in order:(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have no 
    further requests for time. I had some time to reserve for myself, 
    but I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the bill is considered as having 
    been read for amendment. No amendments are in order to the bill 
    except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means.
        Are there any committee amendments?
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Chairman, there are no committee amendments.
        Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential 
    motion. Is it in order to offer a preferential motion at this time?
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman advise the Chair what sort of 
    preferential motion he has in mind?
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: To strike the enacting clause.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas 
    that that motion is not in order unless amendments are in order, 
    and are offered. There being no committee amendments, that motion 
    will not be in order at this time.
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, if there 
    are no committee amendments to be offered, if the bill is 
    perfected?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas 
    that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman 
    from Arkansas (Mr. Mills), has just advised the Chair that there 
    are no committee amendments. That being so, the motion is not in 
    order at this time.
        Under the rule, the Committee rises.

Pro Forma Amendments Under Closed Rule

Sec. 22.19 Form of resolution permitting only committee amendments and 
    a specified amendment, such amendments not being subject to 
    amendment except pro forma amendments.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Feb. 24, 1955: 
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4259) to provide a 1-year extension of the

[[Page 4192]]

existing corporate normal-tax rate and of certain existing excise-tax 
rates, and to provide a $20 credit against the individual income tax 
for each personal exemption. After general debate, which shall be 
confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 4 hours, to be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered 
as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to 
said bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on 
Ways and Means or one amendment to strike out all after line 17, page 
4, of the bill, but said amendments shall not be subject to amendment 
except pro forma amendments which shall be in order. At the conclusion 
of such consideration, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, except 
one motion to recommit.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Res. 153, 101 Cong. Rec. 2031, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.20 Pro forma amendments are not in order when a bill is being 
    considered under a closed rule which permits no amendments except 
    by direction of the committee reporting the bill, such amendments 
    not to be subject to amendment.

    On Sept. 3, 1959,(18) the House adopted a resolution 
providing for the consideration of the Federal Aid Highway Act and 
limiting amendments as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Res. 372, 105 Cong. Rec. 17946, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill, and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Public Works, the bill shall be considered as 
    having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to 
    said bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee 
    on Public Works. Amendments offered by direction of the Committee 
    on Public Works may be offered to any section of the bill at the 
    conclusion of the general debate, but said amendments shall not be 
    subject to amendment.

    While this bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman William Pat Jennings, of Virginia, ruled that pro forma 
amendments (to ``strike out the last word'') were not in order:

        The Chairman: No amendments are in order except amendments 
    offered by

[[Page 4193]]

    the Committee on Public Works. The Clerk will report the first 
    committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 2, line 4, after ``1956'' insert 
        ``as amended.''

        Mr. [Frank J.] Becker [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the last word.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that that 
    is not in order.
        The question is on the committee amendment.
        The committee amendment was agreed to.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 17987, 17988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, made a similar ruling on 
Oct. 5, 1962, when House Concurrent Resolution 570 (expressing the 
sense of Congress with respect to Berlin) was being considered under a 
similar special order.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H. Res. 827, 108 Cong. Rec. 22636, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: There being no further requests for time, under 
    the rule the House concurrent resolution is considered as having 
    been read for amendment. No amendment is in order except amendments 
    offered by the direction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 
    such amendments shall not be subject to amendment.
        The Clerk will report the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Page 2, line 2, after ``concurring,'' 
        strike out the remainder of page 2 and lines 1, 2, and 3 on 
        page 3 and insert the following: . . .

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the last word.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the only amendment in 
    order is the amendment offered by the committee.
        The gentleman can rise in support of the amendment.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

    On Mar. 8, 1960,(2) the House adopted House Resolution 
468, providing for the consideration of H.R. 5, the Foreign Investment 
Incentive Tax Act, and limiting amendments as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 106 Cong. Rec. 4956, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill, and shall continue not to exceed three hours, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as 
    having been read for amendment. It shall be in order to consider 
    without the intervention of any point of order the substitute 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now in the 
    bill and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be 
    considered under the five-minute rule as an original bill. No other 
    amendment to the bill or com

[[Page 4194]]

    mittee substitute shall be in order except amendments offered by 
    direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and said amendments 
    shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, but such amendments shall not be subject to 
    amendment.

    On May 18, while H.R. 5 was under consideration in Committee of the 
Whole, Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, answered an inquiry on 
recognition to discuss amendments: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at D. 10576.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment, and I oppose the legislation in 
    general.
        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bailey: On what ground may I get recognition for the 
    purpose of opposing the legislation?
        The Chairman: The Chair recognized the gentleman from Louisiana 
    [Mr. Boggs] for 5 minutes in support of the committee amendment, so 
    the gentleman from Louisiana would have to yield to the 
    distinguished gentleman from West Virginia.
        Mr. Bailey: At the expiration of the 5 minutes allowed the 
    gentleman from Louisiana, may I be recognized to discuss the 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: If no other member of the committee rises in 
    opposition to the amendment, the Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman.

Sec. 22.21 Pro forma amendments are not in order when a bill is being 
    considered under a ``closed'' rule.

    On Mar. 16, 1965, the House adopted House Resolution 272 (providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 5505, federal standards for congressional 
districting). The resolution was a ``closed'' rule, allowing only 
committee amendments: (4~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 5080, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and continue not to exceed three hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be considered as having 
    been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said 
    bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, and except amendments offered by the chairman or any 
    member of the Committee on the Judiciary with respect to the 
    following language of the bill: Page 2, line 6, beginning after the 
    word ``entitled'' through the end of that sentence on line 8, to 
    wit, ``and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so 
    established, no district to elect more than one Representative.'', 
    but said amendments shall not be subject to amendment.

    The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Albert C. Ullman, of 
Oregon, made a statement and answered an inquiry on permissible 
amendments following the conclusion of general debate: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 5099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4195]]

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from California has 
    expired. All time has expired.
        Under the rule, the bill is considered as having been read for 
    amendment. No amendments are in order to the bill except amendments 
    offered by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, or 
    amendments offered by the chairman or any member of the Committee 
    on the Judiciary to the language of the bill on page 2, line 6, 
    beginning after the word ``entitled'' through the end of the 
    sentence on line 8, but such amendments shall not be subject to 
    amendment.
        Are there any amendments made in order by the rule?
        Mr. [Charles McC.] Mathias [Jr., of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: Is the amendment in accordance with the rule, I 
    would ask the gentleman from Maryland?
        Mr. Mathias: Yes, it is.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [John J.] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Flynt: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is, Will any 
    Member of the Committee of the Whole be entitled to recognition for 
    the purpose of discussing the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Maryland?
        The Chairman: No amendments or pro forma amendments are in 
    order under the rule.
        Mr. Flynt: In other words, the gentleman from Maryland would be 
    recognized for 5 minutes and one person to be recognized for 5 
    minutes in opposition thereto?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.

Requesting Closed Rule

Sec. 22.22 Pursuant to clause 17 of the Addendum of the Rules of the 
    Democratic Caucus, a Member inserted in the Record notice of his 
    intention to request the Committee on Rules to report to the House 
    a ``modified closed rule'' for the consideration of a bill reported 
    from the Committee on the Judiciary.

    On Nov. 12, 1973,(6) Mr. William L. Hungate, of 
Missouri, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary who would be 
managing a bill reported from that committee on the floor, made an 
announcement regarding the request for a special order from the 
Committee on Rules for the consideration of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 36651, 36652, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 6, 1973, the Committee on the 
    Judiciary ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 5463, to 
    establish rules of evidence for certain courts and proceedings.
        Pursuant to the provisions of clause 17 of the Addendum to the 
    Rules of the Democratic Caucus for the 93d Congress, I am hereby 
    inserting in the Congressional Record notice of my intention to 
    request, following the expi

[[Page 4196]]

    ration of 4 legislative days, the Committee on Rules to report to 
    the House a resolution providing for a ``modified closed rule'' on 
    the bill H.R. 5463. The rule I will be requesting would provide in 
    effect that after an extensive period of general debate not to 
    exceed 4 hours, on the bill, further consideration of the bill for 
    amendment would be postponed to a time certain to give Members an 
    opportunity to draft and to insert in the Record any amendments 
    which they proposed to offer to the bill. Those amendments, if 
    offered, would not be subject to amendment, on the floor, and 
    article V of the bill, the ``Privilege'' article, would not be 
    subject to amendment. Such a rule would I believe, best permit the 
    House of Representatives to work its will on this important and 
    complicated piece of legislation.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Addendum 17 to the Rules of the Democratic 
Caucus read as follows in the 93d Congress, first session:

        17. (a) It shall be the policy of the Democratic Caucus that no 
    committee chairman or designee shall seek, and the Democratic 
    Members of the Rules Committee shall not support, any rule or order 
    prohibiting any germane amendment to any bill reported from 
    committee until four (4) legislative days have elapsed following 
    notice in the Congressional Record of an intention to do so. (b) 
    If, within the four (4) legislative days following said notice in 
    the Congressional Record, 50 or more Democratic Members give 
    written notice to the chairman of the committee seeking the rule 
    and to the chairman of the Rules Committee that they wish to offer 
    a particular germane amendment, the chairman or designee shall not 
    seek and the Democratic Members of the Rules Committee shall not 
    support, any rule or order relating to the bill or resolution 
    involved until the Democratic Caucus has met and decided whether 
    the proposed amendment should be allowed to be considered in the 
    House. (c) If 50 or more Democratic Members give notice as provided 
    in subsection (b) above, then, notwithstanding the provisions of 
    Caucus Rule No. 3, the Caucus shall meet for such purpose within 
    three (3) legislative days following a request for such a Caucus to 
    the Speaker and the chairman of the Democratic Caucus by said 
    committee chairman or designee. (d) Provided, further, that notices 
    referred to above also shall be submitted to the Speaker, the 
    Majority Leader, and the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.



 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       D. TYPES OF SPECIAL ORDERS
 
Sec. 23. Waiving and Permitting Points of Order

    The Committee on Rules, pursuant to its jurisdiction over the rules 
and order of business, may report resolutions providing that during the 
consideration of a measure or measures, it shall be in order to proceed 
in a certain way notwithstanding the provisions of a House rule or 
rules which would otherwise prohibit proceeding in such 
manner.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. A special order reported from the Committee on Rules may waive all 
        rules or designated rules for a certain purpose. A motion to 
        suspend the rules and pass a bill, however, suspends all rules 
        in conflict with the motion (see Sec. 9, supra). A unanimous-
        consent request may also be used to suspend rules in conflict 
        with the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4197]]

Thus a point of order does not lie against a report from the Committee 
on Rules on the ground that it changes or violates the rules of the 
House by waiving the provisions of certain rules.(8) 
Provisions which the Committee on Rules may not by resolution waive are 
those relating to the right to offer a motion to recommit, and the 
requirement of a two-thirds vote to dispense with (Calendar Wednesday, 
both cited in Rule XI clause 23.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 5 23.1-23.3, 23.48, infra.
 9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (1973) [now Rule XI clause 4(b), 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reader is advised to consult other relevant sections of this 
chapter for the applicability of special orders waiving points of order 
to specific subject.(10)~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See in particular Sec. 21, supra, for resolutions making in order 
        and waiving points of order against designated amendments and 
        Sec. 27, infra, for resolutions waiving various points of order 
        in relation to Senate bills and amendments and conference 
        reports.
            For special orders affecting the motion to recommit, see 
        Sec. 26, infra The House may by unanimous consent dispense with 
        Calendar Wednesday. See Sec. 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Resolutions waiving points of order are strictly construed and 
points of order are deemed waived only to the extent of the specific 
language of the rule. Thus, a resolution waiving points of order 
against the text of a bill does not protect nongermane amendments 
offered from the floor.(11) Where a designated amendment is 
made in order and protected by a special order, parts of that amendment 
are not protected if offered as independent amendments.(12)~ 
And a resolution waiving points of order against specific amendments, 
such as committee amendments, does not extend to other amendments 
offered from the floor, although a floor amendment may be offered to a 
nongermane amendment protected by resolution, if germane to such 
amendment and otherwise in order under the rules of the 
House.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 23.5, infra.
12. See Sec. 23.20, infra.
13. See Sec. Sec. 23.23, 23.24, 23.43-23.47, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Rules may recommend waiving points of order 
against bills or resolutions where defects in committee reports thereon 
would otherwise

[[Page 4198]]

prevent consideration if a point of order were raised. It is presently 
the practice to specifically waive such points of order by reference to 
a specific rule and clause thereof.(14) Or a resolution may, 
by providing that notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary 
it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill, waive all 
possible reporting defects which would prevent the consideration of the 
bill.(15) Where a resolution provides for the consideration 
of a bill not yet reported from committee, points of order do not lie 
that there is no committee report and that committee reporting 
requirements under the rules have not been met.(l6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 23.6, 23.13, infra.
15. See Sec. Sec. 23.7-23.12, infra. In an early ruling, no longer 
        valid, the Speaker held that a resolution simply making it in 
        order to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for 
        consideration of a bill, but not waiving points of order, cured 
        defects in reporting of the bill. See Sec. 23.11, infra
16. See, for example, Sec. 20.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Resolutions waiving points of order are often used in considering 
general appropriation bills, which under Rule XXI clause 2 
(17) are subject to points of order if containing 
unauthorized appropriations or legislation. In recent years the 
Committee on Rules has recommended specific waivers of points of order 
rather than complete waivers against appropriation 
bills.(18) A resolution waiving points of order against an 
appropriation bill or amendment thereto may waive all points of order, 
may waive points of order under Rule XXI clause 5 (19) 
(reappropriations in a general appropriation bill), may waive points of 
order under Rule XXI clause 2 only with respect to legislation in the 
bill or only with respect to unauthorized appropriations in the bill, 
or may restrict the waiver to certain language in the bill for any of 
the foregoing reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1979).
18. See Sec. 23.26, infra.
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1973). [Rule XXI clause 6, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 847 (1979).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A resolution which only waives points of order against the bill or 
a specific amendment does not protect amendments offered from the 
floor, which must be germane and may not add additional legislation or 
unauthorized appropriations to those contained in the bill, or 
amendment thereto, protected by a special order.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. Sec. 23.30, 23.31, 23.43-23.47, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a portion of an appropriation bill or an amendment

[[Page 4199]]

thereto is protected by a special order during its consideration in the 
House, the waiver carries over to identical provisions in the 
conference report on the bill, since under Rule XX clause 2, House 
conferees are only proscribed from agreeing to provisions in a Senate 
amendment which would have been subject to a point of order if 
originally raised in the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 23.37, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
As to appropriation bills and points of order, see Chs. 25, 26, infra.
As to amendments and the germaneness rule, see Ch. 28, infra.
As to points of order generally, see Ch. 31, infra.
As to suspension of rules as waiving all rules, see Sec. 9, supra.
As to the authority of the Committee on Rules to recommend changing or 
    waiving the rules of the House, see Sec. 16, supra.
As to committee procedure and reports and points of order against 
    consideration of bills improperly reported, see Sec. 17, supra.
As to making in order and waiving points of order against designated 
    amendments, see Sec.  21, supra.
As to waiving points of order against the motion to recommit, see Sec.  
    26, infra.
As to waiving points of order against conference reports and motions on 
    amendments in disagreement, see Sec. 27, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Authority to Waive Points of Order

Sec. 23.1 Rules of the House may be changed by a majority vote by the 
    adoption of a resolution from the Committee on Rules providing for 
    such a change, such as waiving points of order in the consideration 
    of a bill.

    On June 14, 1930,(2) Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, 
called up, by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 253, 
providing for the consideration of two conference reports on the same 
bill together as one, for the purposes of debate and voting. Speaker 
Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, overruled a point of order against the 
resolution, where the point of order was based on the fact that the 
resolution waived all points of order in the consideration of the 
reports:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 72 Cong. Rec. 10694, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to 
    make a point of order against the resolution.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: The resolution provides that ``in the 
    consideration of the reports all points of order shall be waived.'' 
    Points of order are based on the rules of the House, either the few 
    published rules or the

[[Page 4200]]

    precedents and rulings by presiding officers. This resolution 
    proposes to do in effect what should be done by a motion to suspend 
    the rules. The difficulty is, however, that to suspend the rules a 
    two-thirds vote is required. This is not a resolution brought in 
    for the purpose of obtaining by a majority vote the direct repeal 
    of all of the rules of the House but is intended to serve a certain 
    specific purpose in reference to only one measure of the House. For 
    instance, the rule relating to Calendar Wednesday requires that to 
    set that aside there must be a two-thirds vote. The rule 
    prohibiting legislation on an appropriation bill could not be set 
    aside, in my opinion, by this method, and that applies to other 
    rules of the House. Points of order being rules of the House, in my 
    opinion this resolution violates the rules of the House, in that it 
    sets aside all rules relating to points of order.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I should be very glad to argue the 
    point of order with the gentleman if I knew what his point of order 
    is, but from anything my friend has said so far, I am unable to 
    identify it.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state it is not necessary. This is 
    a very ordinary proceeding. It has been done hundreds of times to 
    the knowledge of the Chair. The Chair overrules the point of order.

    On Oct. 27, 1971,(3) the House had under consideration 
House Resolution 661, reported from the Committee on Rules and 
providing for consideration of H.R. 7248, to amend and extend the 
Higher Education Act and for other purposes. The resolution waived 
points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute for failure to comply with Rule XVI clause 7 (germaneness) 
and Rule XXI clause 4 (Rule XXI clause 5 in the 1979 House Rules and 
Manual, appropriations in a legislative bill) and also provided that 
points of order could be raised against portions of the bill whose 
subject matter was properly within another committee's jurisdiction 
rather than within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and 
Labor, which had reported the bill. (Under normal procedure, a point of 
order based on committee jurisdiction cannot be raised after a 
committee to which has been referred a bill has reported it, the proper 
remedy being a motion to correct reference under Rule XXII clause 4.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 117 Cong. Rec. 37768, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, indicated that a majority vote, and not a two-thirds vote, 
would be required to adopt the resolution:

        Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Speaker, at this point is it proper for the 
    Speaker

[[Page 4201]]

    to determine whether a two-thirds vote would be required for the 
    passage of this resolution, House Resolution 661, or merely a 
    majority?
        The Speaker: The resolution from the Committee on Rules makes 
    in order the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7248) and a majority 
    vote is required for that purpose.
        Mr. Matsunaga: Even with the reference to the last section, Mr. 
    Speaker, relating to the raising of a point of order on a bill 
    which is properly reported out by a committee to which the bill was 
    referred, which would in effect contravene an existing rule of the 
    House?
        The Speaker: The Committee on Rules proposes to make in order 
    in its resolution (H. Res. 661) the opportunity to raise points of 
    order against the bill on committee jurisdictional grounds, but as 
    is the case with any resolution reported by the Committee on Rules 
    making a bill a special order of business, only a majority vote is 
    required.
        Mr. Matsunaga: I thank the Speaker.

Sec. 23.2 It is for the House, and not the Chair, to decide upon the 
    efficacy of adopting a special rule which has the effect of setting 
    aside the standing rules of the House insofar as they impede the 
    consideration of a particular bill; it is not within the province 
    of the Chair to rule out, on a point of order, a resolution 
    reported by the Committee on Rules which is properly before the 
    House and which provides for a special order of business 
    (abrogating the provisions of Rule XX clause 1).

    On Nov. 28, 1967,(4) the previous question had been 
moved on House Resolution 985, called up by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, providing for concurring in a Senate amendment to a House 
bill; the resolution was necessary in order to waive the requirement of 
Rule XX clause 1, that Senate amendments be considered in Committee of 
the Whole if, had they originated in the House, they would be subject 
to that procedure. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
overruled a point of order against the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 34038, 34039, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against a vote on this resolution, and I make the point of 
    order based entirely on rule XX, which says that any amendment of 
    the Senate to any House bill shall be subject to a point of order 
    that it shall first be considered in the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union. If it originated in the House it 
    would be subject to that point of order. I believe there is no 
    question about it being subject to a point of order should it 
    originate here in this House. Until that issue is de

[[Page 4202]]

    bated in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
    I believe that we are violating rule XX of the House rules.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has previously 
    ruled on the point of order raised by the gentleman, and the matter 
    is one that is now before the House for the consideration of the 
    House, and the will of the House.
        For the reasons heretofore stated and now stated, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me under 
    what authority the House can consider this in the House rather than 
    in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, in 
    view of rule XX which says it shall first be considered in the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the House can change its 
    rules at any time upon a resolution that is properly before the 
    House reported by the Committee on Rules. The present resolution 
    has been put before the House by the Committee on Rules within the 
    authority of the Committee on Rules, therefore the matter presents 
    itself for the will of the House.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The reason I am making this is that I want to get some record 
    on this for this reason: The Chair has said that the Committee on 
    Rules may make a resolution which has not been adopted by the House 
    which summarily amends the Rules of the House which the Members of 
    the House are supposed to rely upon. This rule has not been adopted 
    as yet.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Committee on Rules 
    has reported the rule under consideration--
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: But it has never been voted upon.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that we are about to approach 
    that matter now.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: And I am challenging that, and the point 
    of order is made that we cannot vote on that because it says in 
    rule XX that this first shall be considered in the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot be any more specific or clear in 
    responding to the point of order or in answering the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The matter is properly before the House and it is a matter on 
    which the House may express its will.

    The Speaker had previously, when the resolution was called up, 
overruled the same point of order: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 34032. 34033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has given serious 
    consideration to the point of order raised by the gentleman from 
    Missouri. The Committee on Rules has reported out a special rule. 
    It is within the authority of the rules, and a reporting out by the 
    Rules Committee is consistent with the rules of the House. 
    Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

[[Page 4203]]

Sec. 23.3 It is the duty of the Chair to determine whether language in 
    a pending bill conforms to the rules of the House, but where the 
    House has adopted a resolution waiving points of order against 
    provisions in violation of the standing rules, the Chair will not 
    construe the constitutional validity of those provisions.

    On May 10, 1973,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment the bill H.R. 7447, making supplemental 
appropriations, where the House had previously adopted House Resolution 
389 waiving points of order against unauthorized appropriations, 
legislation, and reappropriations of unexpended balances in the bill. 
Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, made a point of order against 
language contained in the bill, appropriating moneys for the Department 
of Defense, on the grounds that such appropriation violated 
constitutional principles:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 15290, 15291, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Chairman. I make a point of order against the 
    language set forth in lines 10, 11, and 12, on page 6.
        Article I, section 8, of the Constitution of the United States 
    says:

            The Congress shall have the power to declare war.

        A Congress has not declared war against Cambodia or Laos or 
    against any other country in Southeast Asia for that matter. 
    Congress has not given the President any authority to use the 
    American Armed Forces in Cambodia and Laos. Nevertheless, on order 
    of President Nixon, American military planes are bombing in both 
    those countries. The appropriation contained in the transfer 
    authority includes funds to continue the bombing of Cambodia and 
    Laos. . . .
        Now, my argument, Mr. Chairman, will not relate to an 
    interpretation by the Chair of the Constitution. I want to make 
    that clear at this point.
        Rule XXI, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the House says:

            No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriation bill for any expenditure not previously 
        authorized by law.

        Mr. Chairman, under that rule it is not enough that there be 
    ordinary legislative authority which is required for other 
    appropriations. It is not enough that there be ordinary legislative 
    authority upon which to base an appropriation for American Armed 
    Forces to engage in war.
        There must be constitutional authority for that appropriation 
    as well, namely, there must be congressional approval for American 
    forces to engage in a war. Both authorizations are essential for 
    that kind of appropriation.
        Mr. Chairman, I am contending that there are two forms of 
    legislative authorization that are essential for military 
    appropriations which are to be used to carry on a war. as the 
    bombing is in Cambodia and Laos. One is the ordinary legislative 
    authorization, and

[[Page 4204]]

    the other, which is necessary, also, is a following of the 
    constitutional mandate as well.
        It will be argued, Mr. Chairman, what difference does that 
    make? Points of order have been waived by rule approved by the 
    House and granted by the Committee on Rules. That argument might be 
    appropriate with respect [to] the need for ordinary legislation 
    which would authorize the use of that transfer of authority, but, 
    as I pointed out, we have two forms of legislation. While that 
    waiver of points of order might apply to ordinary legislation, it 
    cannot apply to a waiver of the constitutional provisions, because 
    the Committee on Rules cannot waive any constitutional provisions. 
    The provisions of the Constitution cannot be waived by the 
    Committee on Rules, because to hold otherwise would be to authorize 
    any unconstitutional action by the House. This House cannot pass 
    any rule of procedure that would vitiate or violate any provision 
    of the Constitution. . . .
        I am asking the Chair for its ruling on two points. One, I ask 
    the Chair to rule with respect to military appropriations which 
    provide funds for American Armed Forces to engage in war under rule 
    XXI, section 2, of the Rules of Procedure of the House of 
    Representatives, which states there must be, as well as any other 
    legislation authorizing such action, compliance with article I, 
    section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the approval of 
    the Congress for American Armed Forces to engage in that war; and, 
    secondly, I am asking the Chair to rule that the requirements in 
    article XI, section 8, cannot be waived by any rule of the 
    Committee on Rules.
        Mr. Chairman, with your ruling, if favorable, the language 
    authorizing the transfer authority should be stricken.

    After further argument, Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas, ruled as 
follows:

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has read the resolution, and the resolution adopted 
    by the House under which this legislation is being considered says 
    that--

            All points of order against said bill for failure to comply 
        with the provisions of clause 2 and clause 5 of rule XXI are 
        hereby waived.

        Under clause 2, which the Chair has read, the pending paragraph 
    would be subject to a point of order, as legislation, were it not 
    for this rule.
        The Chair is not in a position, nor is it proper for the Chair 
    to rule on the constitutionality of the language, or on the 
    constitutionality or other effect of the action of the House in 
    adopting the resolution of the Committee on Rules. In the headnotes 
    in the precedents of the House it very clearly states that it is 
    not the duty of a chairman to construe the Constitution as it may 
    affect proposed legislation, or to interpret the legality or effect 
    of language; and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order 
    raised by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).

Waiving All Points of Order Against Bill or Against Its Consideration

Sec. 23.4 Form of resolution providing ``that notwithstanding the 
    provisions of any other

[[Page 4205]]

    rule of the House'' it shall be in order to resolve into the 
    Committee of the Whole for consideration of a joint resolution.

    The following resolution was under consideration on July 1, 1946: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Res. 689, 92 Cong. Rec. 8059, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That notwithstanding the provisions of any other rule 
    of the House immediately 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 
    consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 371, extending the 
    effective period of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942), as 
    amended, and the Stabilization Act of 1942, as amended, and all 
    points of order against said joint resolution are hereby waived. 
    That after general debate, which shall be confined to the joint 
    resolution and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Banking and Currency, the joint resolution shall be 
    read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of 
    the consideration 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.

Sec. 23.5 Waiving points of order against the text of a bill (through 
    adoption of a resolution making its consideration a special order 
    and waiving points of order against the bill) does not vitiate the 
    requirement in Rule XVI clause 7, that amendments from the floor 
    must be germane.

    On Aug. 22, 1963, the Committee of the Whole was considering for 
amendment the Foreign Assistance Act Amendments of 1963, pursuant to a 
special order (H. Res. 493) which made in order the consideration of 
said bill and waived all points of order against the bill. Chairman pro 
tempore Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, ruled that the waiver did not 
extend to nongermane amendments offered from the floor.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cong. Rec. 15608, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman [Albert M. Rains, of Alabama]: The gentleman will 
    state the point of order.
        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    amendment on the ground that it is not germane to the foreign aid 
    bill.

[[Page 4206]]

        Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kansas will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that all points of order 
    have been waived on this bill?
        The Chairman: Under the rule, all points of order are waived as 
    to the text of the bill, as reported by the committee. Points of 
    order are not waived as to amendments that might be offered to the 
    bill. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Dole] offers an amendment to the 
    bill which the Chair has had an opportunity to read and analyze. 
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Morgan] makes the point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not germane to 
    the bill before the Committee. The Chair is of the opinion that the 
    amendment is not germane to the bill.
        The point of order is sustained.

Waiving Defects in Reporting of Bill

Sec. 23.6 Form of resolution waiving points of order against a bill on 
    the grounds of noncompliance with the Ramseyer rule (Rule XIII 
    clause 3).

    The following resolution was under consideration on Apr. 15, 1970: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 916, 116 Cong. Rec. 11863, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 16311) to authorize a family assistance plan 
    providing basic benefits to low-income families with children, to 
    provide incentives for employment and training to improve the 
    capacity for employment of members of such families, to achieve 
    greater uniformity of treatment of recipients under the Federal-
    State public assistance programs and to otherwise improve such 
    programs, and for other purposes, and any point of order against 
    said bill pursuant to clause 3, Rule XIII, is hereby waived. After 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
    continue not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as having 
    been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said 
    bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on 
    Ways and Means, and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of 
    the House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments offered by 
    direction of the Committee on Ways and Means may be offered to any 
    section of the bill at the conclusion of the general debate, but 
    said amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
    to

[[Page 4207]]

    final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit.

Sec. 23.7 Despite certain defects in the consideration or reporting of 
    a bill by a standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a 
    special rule from the Committee on Rules

    On May 2, 1939,(10) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
made a point of order against an order of business resolution reported 
by the Committee on Rules and called up for consideration (H. Res. 
175), on the ground that the bill made in order by the resolution had 
been referred to, considered by, and reported from a committee (the 
Committee on the Judiciary) which had no jurisdiction over the subject 
matter involved (the special rule made in order a motion to resolve 
into the Committee of the Whole to consider the bill but waived no 
points of order). After extended argument on the point of order, 
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, overruled the point of order 
on the ground that after a public bill has been reported it is not in 
order to raise a question of committee jurisdiction. The Speaker 
further commented that even if there were defects in the committee 
consideration and report, the rule from the Committee on Rules would 
have the effect of remedying such defects:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 5052-55, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, in order to 
    protect the rights of the Committee on Rules, will the Chair permit 
    this observation? The gentleman from New York slept on his rights 
    further until the Committee on Rules reported a rule making the 
    consideration of this measure in order. Even though the reference 
    had been erroneous and the point of order had been otherwise made 
    in time, the Committee on Rules has the right to change the rules 
    and report a rule making the legislation in order. This point also 
    might be taken into consideration by the Speaker, if necessary.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the statement 
    made by the gentleman from Michigan, although not necessary to a 
    decision of the instant question, is sustained by a particular and 
    special decision rendered by Mr. Speaker Garner on a similar 
    question. The decision may be found in the Record of February 28, 
    1933. In that decision it is held, in effect, that despite certain 
    defects in the consideration or the reporting of a bill by a 
    standing committee, such defects may be remedied by a special rule 
    from the Committee on Rules making in order a motion to consider 
    such bill. The Chair thinks that that decision by Mr. Speaker 
    Garner clearly sustains the contention made by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For the Feb. 28, 1933, decision referred to by the Chair, see 
        Sec. 23.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4208]]

    On July 23, 1942,(12) Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, made a point of order against a bill ``not legally before 
the House,'' on the grounds that the committee of jurisdiction, the 
Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and Representatives 
in Congress, had never reported the bill with a quorum present. Speaker 
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, responded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 88 Cong. Rec. 6541, 6542, 77th Cong. 21 Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        At this time there is no bill pending before the House. A 
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules will be presented to 
    the House, which, if adopted, will make in order the consideration 
    of H.R. 7416. If the Committee on Election of President, Vice 
    President, and Representatives in Congress had never taken any 
    action upon this bill and the Committee on Rules had decided to 
    report a rule making it in order and putting it up to the House 
    whether or not the House would consider the bill, they would have 
    been within their rights. Therefore, the Chair cannot do otherwise 
    than hold that there is nothing at the time before the House. It is 
    anticipated that a special rule will be presented, making in order 
    the consideration of H.R. 7416. If the House adopts the rule then 
    the House has decided that it desires to consider the bill at this 
    time, and the Chair therefore overrules the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] and recognizes the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath].

    Parliamentarian's Note: It is the present practice to specifically 
waive points of order against consideration of bills because of defects 
in committee reports. For example, the failure of a committee to comply 
with the ``Ramseyer'' rule (Rule XIII clause 3) may be raised after the 
House agrees to a resolution making the consideration of the bill in 
order and before the House resolves itself into the Committee of the 
Whole to consider the bill, where the resolution does not waive that 
point, or all points of order.

Sec. 23.8 The Chair indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that if a pending ``closed'' rule providing for the consideration 
    of the bill were rejected, the bill would not be called up since 
    the committee report did not comply with the ``Ramseyer'' rule and 
    could be considered only if the rule, waiving points of order, were 
    adopted.

    On May 21, 1970, there was pending before the House a ``closed'' 
rule (H. Res. 1022) providing for and waiving points of order against 
the consideration of a bill reported from the Committee on Ways and 
Means, amending the Social Security Act.

[[Page 4209]]

Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered parliamentary 
inquiries on the effect of rejection of the resolution: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 116 Cong. Rec. 16554, 16555, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phillip] Burton of California: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Burton of California: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the 
    situation, if the rule is rejected, then that would leave us an 
    effective opportunity to restore the current Federal matching to 
    the States for certain nursing home care after 90 days; is that 
    correct, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: The Chair understands the gentleman's question, 
    but the Chair must state that that is not a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bolling: As the manager of the rule, would I be correct in 
    stating that the parliamentary situation would be that if this rule 
    were defeated, the bill made in order by the rule, namely, the 
    increase in social security, could not come up?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that that is a matter of 
    procedure and a question for the gentleman from Arkansas [Chairman 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means].
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bolling: If the rule making in order the bill which is 
    provided for by the rule were defeated, the bill would not be in 
    order?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state, without passing upon the 
    question at this point as to whether or not this would be a 
    privileged bill, that if the rule should be rejected the bill would 
    not come up at this time.
        Mr. [John W.] Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, will you permit 
    me to comment on the fact that the report on this bill did not 
    comply with the Ramseyer rule, so an objection could be made to 
    bringing up the legislation unless there is a rule waiving that 
    point of order.
        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: That is exactly the point 
    of the gentleman from Missouri.

Sec. 23.9 Where the House adopts a resolution providing that it shall 
    be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
    to move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole 
    for the consideration of a bill, such action waives the requirement 
    of compliance with the Ramseyer rule (Rule XIII clause 3).

    On Feb. 15, 1949, the House adopted a special order from the 
Committee on Rules providing for and waiving points of order against 
the consideration of an appropriation bill: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 99, 95 Cong. Rec. 1214-18, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 4210]]

        Resolved, That notwithstanding any rule of the House to the 
    contrary, it shall be in order on Tuesday, February 15, 1949, to 
    move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    2632) making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies for the 
    fiscal year 1949, and for other purposes, and all points of order 
    against the bill or any of the provisions contained therein are 
    hereby waived. That after general debate which shall be confined to 
    the bill and continue not to exceed three hours, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Appropriations, the bill shall be read for 
    amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading 
    of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    same to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, 
    and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
    bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
    motion except one motion to recommit.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, then overruled a point of order 
against the consideration of the bill: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id. at pp. 1218, 1219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the report accompanying the bill, H.R. 2632, 
    does not comply with the so-called Ramsever rule.
        I call the attention of the Chair to the fact that although the 
    resolution which has been adopted waives points of order against 
    the bill by the provisions contained therein it does not 
    specifically waive or exempt the socalled Ramseyer rule which 
    requires that a report accompanying a bill, including appropriation 
    bills, shall set forth in appropriate type the text of the statute 
    it is proposed to repeal.
        In this connection I invite the Chair's attention to the fact 
    that on page 8 of the proposed bill, line 6, it is proposed to 
    repeal a title in a previous act of Congress, and again on page 16, 
    lines 15 and 16, the bill carries this language: ``and the first, 
    fourth, and fifth provisos under said head are hereby repealed.''
        I have diligently searched the entire report on the bill and 
    can find no citation of the statute to be repealed in order to 
    comply with the Ramseyer rule.
        I make the point of order which, if sustained, as I understand 
    it, would automatically recommit the bill to the committee.
        The Speaker: The Chair will read the rule:

            Notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary, it 
        shall be in order--

        And so forth--
        and all points of order against the bill or any of the 
            provisions contained therein are hereby waived.

        The Chair overrules the point of order.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr Speaker, will the Chair indulge me 
    for a moment?
        The Speaker: The Chair will indulge the gentleman.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Under the rule in the House Manual, a 
    cita

[[Page 4211]]

    tion is made to a precedent in the Congressional Record of the 
    Seventy-first Congress, second session, page 10595. This citation 
    reads:

            Special orders providing for consideration of bills, unless 
        making specific exemption, do not preclude the point of order 
        that reports on such bills fail to indicate proposed changes in 
        existing law. (Cannon's, sec. 9220a; 71st Cong., 2d sees., 
        Congressional Record, p. 10595.)

        I fail to see any provision in the rule adopted which 
    specifically exempt clause 2a of rule XIII, the Ramseyer rule.
        The Speaker: The Ramseyer rule is a rule of the House, and this 
    resolution states ``all rules to the contrary notwithstanding,'' it 
    shall be in order to consider the bill.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 23.10 Where a special rule provides that ``upon the adoption of 
    this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve 
    itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union for the consideration of the bill H.R.--'' (an open rule), 
    the provisions of such rule do not prohibit the raising of a point 
    of order under the Ramseyer rule.

    On June 12, 1930, the House adopted a special order from the 
Committee on Rules (H. Res. 243) providing that ``upon the adoption of 
this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
for the consideration of the bill H.R. 12549.'' During debate on the 
resolution, Speaker pro tempore John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the proper time to raise a point of 
order against consideration of the bill on the grounds that the report 
thereon did not comply with the provisions of Rule XIII clause 2, the 
Ramseyer rule: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 72 Cong. Rec. 10593-96, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
            The Ramseyer rule was subsequently renumbered to become 
        Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [T. Jeef] Busby [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Indiana yield 
    for that purpose?
        Mr. [Fred S.] Purnell [of Indiana]: For a parliamentary 
    inquiry; yes.
        Mr. Busby: Mr. Speaker, the rule we are about to consider deals 
    with a legislative bill which was reported by the Committee on 
    Patents. The report of the committee does not comply with the 
    provisions of the Ramseyer rule. What I want to ask the Chair is 
    this: At what point in the proceedings it would be proper for me to 
    make a point of order against the consideration of this legislation 
    because the report does not comply with the Ramseyer rule? Should 
    it come before the rule is adopted?

[[Page 4212]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present impression of the Chair is 
    that such a point of order would be in order when the motion is 
    made to go into the Committee of the Whole under the rule.
        Mr. Busby: Then the rule does not automatically carry us into 
    the Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It does not. It makes it in order to 
    move to go into the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to 
    me that there might be another interpretation given the rule than 
    that indicated by the Speaker in his last statement. This 
    resolution makes it in order to move that the House consider this 
    particular piece of legislation, H.R. 12549. If this particular 
    piece of legislation is improperly on the calendar, a motion to 
    strike it from the calendar is in order at any time; but when the 
    Rules Committee by a special rule--which rule makes it possible to 
    consider the bill- provides that it shall be in order to move to 
    consider that bill, H.R. 12549, it seems to me that whether the 
    bill--was correctly reported or not has nothing to do with the 
    matter. The Rules Committee may report a rule providing for 
    consideration of a bill which has not even been reported. The 
    report has no place in the picture. The rule makes in order the 
    consideration of H.R. 12549, and not the report.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It seems to the Chair that the Rules 
    Committee has it entirely within its own power. If the Rules 
    Committee by this rule, or by an amendment to this rule, should 
    make it in order, regardless of paragraph 2(a) of Rule XIII, it 
    would be in order; but as the rule now reads it occurs to the Chair 
    that it does not go far enough to mark it in order in contravention 
    of the general rules of the House.

    Following the adoption of the resolution, Mr. Albert H. Vestal, of 
Indiana, moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
Whole for the consideration of the bill, and the Speaker pro tempore 
sustained a point of order (raised by Mr. Busby) against the 
consideration of the bill: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 72 Cong. Rec. 10593-96, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Paragraph 2a of Rule XIII reads:

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

        Section 64 of the bill provides:

            The provisions of this act apply to existing copyrights 
        save as expressly indicated by this Act. All other acts or 
        parts of acts relating to copyrights are hereby repealed, as 
        well as all other laws or parts of laws in conflict with the 
        provisions of this act.

[[Page 4213]]

        The gentleman from Indiana argues well that it would be a task 
    of considerable magnitude to do what is proposed here, and yet that 
    seems to be the purpose of the rule that the Member making the 
    report of the committee shall do the work of investigation and 
    submit to the House the information as to what statutes are to be 
    repealed.

        On March 17, 1930, a point of order was made against a bill in 
    very much the same situation as this bill, that it did not conform 
    to section 2a of Rule XIII. In that case the Speaker pro tempore, 
    who happened to be the gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell], 
    chairman of the Rules Committee, that reports this rule, sustained 
    the point of order. It seems to the Chair clear that the ruling 
    then made was correct and that no other ruling can be made here 
    than to sustain the point of order and send the bill back to the 
    committee for a report in accordance with the rule. The Chair 
    therefore sustains the point of order.

Sec. 23.11 In earlier practice, the Speaker held that defects by a 
    committee in reporting a bill to the House (sitting without 
    permission while the House was in session and failing to properly 
    vote on reporting the bill) could be remedied by a special order 
    from the Committee on Rules making in order a motion that the House 
    resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
    consideration of the bill but not specifically waiving points of 
    order.

    On Feb. 28, 1933, Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, called up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules a special order providing for the 
consideration of a bill:

        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, I call up a privileged resolution 
    from the Committee on Rules.
        The Clerk read the House resolution as follows:

                              House Resolution 397

            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. 5122, ``An act to provide for the 
        purchase and sale of cotton under the supervision of the 
        Secretary of Agriculture.''
            That after general debate, which shall be confined to the 
        bill 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 Agriculture, the bill shall be read 
        for amendment under the 6-minute rule. At the conclusion of the 
        reading of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and 
        report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
        been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to final passage 
        without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit.

    Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, overruled a point of order 
against the resolution and against the bill: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 76 Cong. Rec. 5247-49, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point

[[Page 4214]]

    of order, first, that this bill, S. 5122, is not properly on the 
    calendar.
        In the first place, the committee was in session after the 
    House had been called to order, and they had not special permission 
    to be in session on that day, after the House was in session.
        Furthermore, there was no definite vote taken in the committee 
    reporting out the bill.
        In addition, the rule itself is not in proper order, 
    considering the fact that the bill is not properly reported and on 
    the calendar at the present time.
        If the Chair will look at Cannon's book of procedure, the Chair 
    will find that this is a regular rule taking up and giving 
    privilege to a bill that is properly on the House Calendar. Had the 
    Committee on Rules desired to take this bill away from the 
    committee and discharge the committee, it should have brought in a 
    different form of rule than is before us at the present time.
        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the bill was not 
    properly reported, because the committee was sitting at a time when 
    it had no right to sit; and, furthermore, the bill not being on the 
    calendar at the present time in accordance with the rules and the 
    precedents of the House, the rule itself is not in proper order. . 
    . .
        The Speaker: . . . With respect to the point that the committee 
    has not properly reported the bill, the Chair does not think it 
    necessary to go back of the rule to determine what is the condition 
    of the bill. The Rules Committee undoubtedly has authority to bring 
    in a rule providing for the consideration of a bill that has never 
    even been referred to a committee; or if it has been referred to 
    the committee, not reported; or if reported, improperly reported.
        As to the form of the rule, the resolution says:

            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. 5122, ``An act to provide for the 
        purchase and sale of cotton under the supervision of the 
        Secretary of Agriculture.''

        Then the resolution goes on and lays down the conditions under 
    which the bill shall be considered.
        It occurs to the Chair that this form of resolution undoubtedly 
    gives the House the right and the power to consider S. 5122, under 
    the limitations laid down in the resolution. So if the House 
    adopted the resolution, it would make in order the consideration of 
    the bill which is the object of the rule.
        The third problem is one that the Chair can not rule upon until 
    the Chair knows the facts, and the Chair would have to make inquiry 
    of the individual member of the Rules Committee whether or not it 
    was properly reported. So far as appears on the face of the 
    resolution, it has been reported by the Rules Committee, but if, 
    indeed, and in fact, it is shown that it was not reported by the 
    Rules Committee, then the Chair would consider that fact in 
    reaching a decision.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion right here?
        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, in order that we may clarify the 
    issue now pending, does the gentleman from New York challenge the 
    fact that the Rules Committee had a regular meet

[[Page 4215]]

    ing for the consideration of this resolution and reported it out in 
    the regular way?
        Mr. Snell: No, I do not; but I claim that the resolution 
    reported here is not in the form to do what the gentleman is 
    contending here he has the right to do. I maintain that the bill 
    itself was not properly on the House Calendar and under the 
    precedents prepared by Mr. Cannon himself there is shown one kind 
    of rule for a bill on the House Calendar and another kind of rule 
    for a bill that is not properly reported and on the House Calendar.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not understand that the philosophy 
    of that rule could possibly be that the Rules Committee is limited 
    as to the provisions of a rule that suspends all other rules of the 
    House of Representatives. All rules to the contrary, when this 
    resolution is adopted, if it is adopted by the House, it takes the 
    place of all other rules of the House of Representatives 
    inconsistent with its purpose.
        Mr. Snell: The Speaker does not entirely get my point. I claim 
    if they wanted to suspend the rules of the House and consider a 
    bill not properly reported by the committee, they should have 
    drafted a rule in different form from the one now before us.
        The Speaker: Let us see what the rule says.
        Mr. Snell: I know what the rule says.
        The Speaker: It says:

            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 what? For the consideration of S. 5122.
        Mr. Snell: I am not arguing that point with the Chair. I am 
    simply making the point of order that the bill is not properly on 
    the House Calendar, and when a bill is not properly on the House 
    Calendar this rule does not apply to it.
        The Speaker: Suppose there was not any calendar at all?
        Mr. Snell: Then you would have to draft a different kind of 
    rule from the one you have now.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Suppose it was in Phil 
    Campbell's hip pocket?
        Mr. Snell: That does not make any difference, and has nothing 
    to do with the point under discussion.
        The Speaker: The Chair overrules the point of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: For contemporary practice, see 
Sec. Sec. 23.9, 23.10, supra.

Sec. 23.12 A point of order that a committee in reporting a bill has 
    not complied with the provisions of Rule XIII clause 3 (the 
    Ramseyer rule) will not lie during consideration of a special rule 
    providing for the consideration of such bill and waiving all points 
    of order against the bill.

    On Mar. 11, 1933, there was pending before the House a resolution 
from the Committee on Rules, providing for the consideration of a bill 
and providing that ``all points of order against said

[[Page 4216]]

bill shall be considered as waived'' (H. Res. 32). Speaker Henry T. 
Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that under the provisions on the special 
order, a point of order against consideration of the bill for defects 
in the committee report could not be raised: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 77 Cong. Rec. 198. 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the bill is not in order at this time for the 
    reason that the report does not comply with the Ramseyer rule, with 
    which the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Byrns] is entirely 
    familiar. The bill changes existing law and the report does not set 
    out the existing law as provided in the Ramseyer rule and therefore 
    I make the point of order that it is not in order at this time.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Byrns [of Tennessee]: The point of order would 
    be against the bill and not against the resolution.
        Mr. Rankin: It is against consideration of the bill.
        Mr. Byrns: That would come later.
        Mr. Rankin: No; you shut me off from all points of order with 
    the passage of this resolution.
        The Speaker: The point of order is overruled.
        The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to make my point of 
    order against the bill now or shall I make it when the bill is 
    read? I do not want to waive my right to make the point.

        The Speaker: The gentleman can make the point when the bill is 
    called up.
        The resolution was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As with other waivers against defects in 
accompanying reports, waivers should be against consideration of a bill 
for failure to comply with the Ramseyer rule, rather than against the 
bill itself.

Sec. 23.13 The House rejected a resolution reported from the Committee 
    on Rules, providing for the consideration of a bill improperly 
    reported (failure of a quorum to order the bill reported).

    On July 23, 1973,(20) the House rejected House 
Resolution 495, called up by Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, by 
direction of the Committee on Rules and providing for the consideration 
of H.R. 8929 (to amend title 39, on the reduced mailing rate for 
certain matter). The resolution specifically waived Rule XI clause 
27(e) [now Rule XI clause 2(1)(2)(A) in the 1979 House Rules and 
Manual] in relation to the bill; that clause provided that a quorum 
must actually be present
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 25482, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4217]]

when a bill is ordered reported by a committee, a requirement that was 
not followed by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, in the 
reporting of the bill in question.

Waiving All Points of Order Against Certain Amendments

Sec. 23.14 Form of resolution providing for the consideration of a bill 
    and making in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, a certain type of amendment.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Dec. 5, 1945: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H. Res. 444, 91 Cong. Rec. 11477, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 4649) to enable the United States to further 
    participate in the work of the United Nations Relief and 
    Rehabilitation Administration. That after general debate, which 
    shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 day, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the bill shall 
    be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order 
    to consider, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
    an amendment prohibiting the use of funds involved in the bill (H. 
    R. 4649) in countries that refuse free access to examination of 
    United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration operations 
    by representatives of the United States press and radio. At the 
    conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment, the Committee 
    shall rise and report the same to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 23.15 Where a special rule provided that amendments relating to a 
    certain subject matter could be offered as substitutes for the 
    pending bill, notwithstanding any rules of the House to the 
    contrary, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole explained the 
    parliamentary situation.

    On Mar. 19, 1935, the House adopted House Resolution 165, reported 
from the Committee on Rules and providing for the consideration of a 
bill for the payment of world war adjusted service certificates:

        Resolved, That immediately 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 H.R. 3896, ``a

[[Page 4218]]

    bill to provide for the immediate payment of World War adjusted-
    service certificates, to extend the time for filing applications 
    for benefits under the World War Adjusted Compensation Act, and for 
    other purposes''; and all points of order against said bill are 
    hereby waived; that after general debate, which shall be confined 
    to the bill and continue not to exceed 10 hours, to be evenly 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority members 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be read for 
    amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
    as substitute amendments for the bill any such amendments that 
    relate to the payment of World War adjusted-service certificates, 
    and such substitute amendments shall be in order, any rule of the 
    House to the contrary notwithstanding. At the conclusion of the 
    consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 
    and report the same to the House with such amendments as may have 
    been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion, except two motions to recommit, with or without 
    instructions: Provided, however, That if the instructions in such 
    motions relate to the payment of World War adjusted-service 
    certificates, they shall be in order, any rule of the House to the 
    contrary notwithstanding.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 79 Cong. Rec. 3984, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 21, 1935, the bill was being considered pursuant to the 
special order in Committee of the Whole and all time for general debate 
had expired. Chairman Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, made a statement 
regarding the procedure under which the bill would be considered for 
amendment: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 4216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
    Vinson] has expired. All time has expired. The Chair will briefly 
    recapitulate the parliamentary situation.
        This is an unusual rule--but a very adequate one. The Chairman 
    of the Committee on Rules and his committee are to be congratulated 
    on the admirable manner in which they have met a difficult 
    situation.
        Under the special order, all amendments pertaining to the 
    payment of the adjusted-service certificates are in order, the 
    rules of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. At a time when 
    it is the vogue to term all special rules ``gag rules'', here is a 
    special order which liberalizes instead of restricts, the rules of 
    the House. As Chairman O'Connor well says, it is the antithesis of 
    a gag rule.
        Under the clause waiving the restrictions of the rules of the 
    House against any proposition to pay adjusted-service certificates, 
    it permits consideration of the Patman bill, the Cochran bill, the 
    McReynolds bill, the Andrew bill, and similar measures which 
    otherwise could not be considered because not germane. Accordingly, 
    after conference with the Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules, the majority leader, and the authors of the several bills, 
    the Chair will recognize Members who

[[Page 4219]]

    desire to offer major amendments in the following order:
        The first section of the pending bill, the Vinson bill, having 
    been read for amendment, the Chair will recognize the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Patman] to offer his bill as a substitute for the 
    Vinson bill. While it will be offered as a substitute, it will be, 
    technically speaking, an amendment. Then the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cochran] will be recognized to offer his bill as a 
    substitute for the Patman bill in the pending amendment to the 
    Vinson bill. If the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McReynolds] 
    desires, he will then be recognized to offer his bill as an 
    amendment to the Cochran bill or, if he prefers to await a vote on 
    the Cochran substitute and the Cochran substitute is disposed of 
    adversely, he may then offer his bill as a substitute for the 
    Patman bill in the amendment to the Vinson bill. We may have 
    pending at the same time an amendment, an amendment to the 
    amendment, a substitute for the amendment, and an amendment to the 
    substitute. All four forms of amendment may be pending 
    simultaneously. That is the limit, as any further proposal would be 
    an amendment in the third degree.
        Under the rules of the House, an amendment is perfected before 
    it is voted on. Any substitute is then perfected; and then, both 
    the amendment and the substitute for the amendment having been 
    perfected, the Committee takes its choice of the two. It should 
    also be borne in mind that the Committee, having chosen one of the 
    two, and having adopted either the amendment or the substitute for 
    the amendment, it is then too late to offer further perfecting 
    amendments.
        If the various bills are offered in the order indicated, the 
    Vinson bill comprises the text of the bill; the Patman bill is the 
    amendment to the text; the Cochran bill is the substitute for the 
    amendment to the text; and any further bill proposed is an 
    amendment to the substitute.
        The question will come first on perfecting amendments to the 
    Patman bill; second, on perfecting amendments to the Cochran bill. 
    The two bills having been perfected, the Committee will then vote 
    on substituting the Cochran bill--or the Cochran bill, as amended--
    for the Patman bill. The question will then recur on adopting the 
    prevailing bill as an amendment to the Vinson bill.

Sec. 23.16 Where a bill is being considered under the provisions of a 
    resolution which specifies that committee amendments shall be in 
    order ``any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding,'' 
    the issue of germaneness cannot be raised against a committee 
    amendment.

    On Mar. 8, 1960,(4) the House adopted House Resolution 
468, providing for the consideration of H.R. 5 and waiving points of 
order against certain amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 106 Cong. Rec. 4956, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It shall be in order to consider without the intervention 
    of any point of order the substitute amendment rec

[[Page 4220]]

    ommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now in the bill and 
    such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be considered 
    under the five-minute rule as an original bill. No other amendment 
    to the bill or committee substitute shall be in order except 
    amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
    and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the 
    contrary notwithstanding, but such amendments shall not be subject 
    to amendment. . . .

    While the bill was being considered on May 18, 1960,(5) 
Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, stated in response to an 
inquiry that a point of order of germaneness could not be raised 
against such a committee amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 10575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana] (during the reading of the 
    amendment): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
    the further reading of the amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Louisiana?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right 
    to object, I would like to address a parliamentary inquiry to the 
    Chairman. Would the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Louisiana be subject to a point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair desires to inform the gentleman from 
    Iowa that under the resolution which we are considering this bill, 
    House Resolution 468, committee amendments shall be in order, any 
    rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Louisiana?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 23.17 Where a resolution under which a bill is being considered 
    makes in order, without the intervention of any point of order, a 
    specified amendment, the amendment may be offered as a new title, 
    and the amendment need not be germane to the title which it 
    supplants or to the title which it follows.

    On Feb. 10, 1964,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963, where the special 
order (H. Res. 616) adopted by the House made in 1963, without the 
intervention of any point of order, the text of another bill, to 
provide an ``Operation Bootstrap'' for the American Indian. Chairman 
Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, overruled a point of order against the 
amendment when it was offered as a new title VIII of the bill (the bill 
already contained a title VIII):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 2738-40, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York] (interrupting reading of the 
    bill):

[[Page 4221]]

    Mr. Chairman, enough has been read of the amendment to indicate 
    that it is subject to a point of order, and I make the point of 
    order that we have not completed the reading of the bill, therefore 
    this is not the proper place to consider the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair reminds the gentleman from New York 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota has 
    been made in order by the resolution under which this bill is being 
    considered. The gentleman is offering the amendment at this time, 
    and the Chair would be impelled to hold that the amendment is in 
    order.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to offer this 
    amendment to title VII, or must there be a new title read?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from South Dakota is offering his 
    amendment as a new title VIII to the bill.

Waiving Points of Order Against Nongermane Amendments

Sec. 23.18 Form of resolution waiving points of order against a 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute on the grounds of 
    germaneness (Rule XVI clause 7).

    The following resolution was under consideration on Oct. 13, 1970: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 36592, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See Rule XVI clause 7, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 794 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1251

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 17849) to provide financial assistance for and 
    establishment of improved rail passenger service in the United 
    States, to provide for the upgrading of rail roadbed and the 
    modernization of rail passenger equipment, to encourage the 
    development of new modes of high speed ground transportation, to 
    authorize the prescribing of minimum standards for railroad 
    passenger service, to amend section 13(a) of the Interstate 
    Commerce Act, and for other purposes, and all points of order 
    against said bill for failure to comply with the provisions of 
    clause 3, Rule XIII are hereby waived. After general debate, which 
    shall continue not to exceed three hours, two hours to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and one hour 
    to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall 
    be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
    order to consider without the intervention of any point of order, 
    under clause 7, Rule XVI, the

[[Page 4222]]

    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now printed in the 
    bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
    five-minute rule, and said committee substitute shall be read by 
    titles instead of by sections. At the conclusion of the 
    consideration of title VIII of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for amendment, title IX of said substitute shall be 
    considered as having been read for amendment. No amendments shall 
    be in order to title IX of said substitute except amendments 
    offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and said 
    amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, but shall not be subject to amendment. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a 
    separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
    Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 
    with or without instructions.

Sec. 23.19 In ruling on the germaneness of an amendment, the Chair 
    considers the purpose of the amendment with relation to the bill 
    under consideration, and is not bound by the fact that the 
    Committee on Rules, in reporting the resolution providing for the 
    consideration of the bill, specifically waived points of order 
    against the consideration of a similar amendment.

    On Mar. 15, 1960,(8) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
made a point of order, on the grounds of germaneness, against an 
amendment offered by Mr. William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, to H.R. 8601, 
to enforce constitutional rights and for other purposes. In argument on 
the point of order, Mr. Smith argued, in support of his contention that 
the amendment was not germane, that the Committee on Rules had reported 
a resolution for the consideration of the bill which resolution waived 
points of order against a specified amendment containing similar 
language (H. Res. 359). Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, and Mr. 
Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, argued that the action of the Committee 
on Rules in resolving any doubts about the nongermaneness of an 
amendment by waiving points of order should not indicate whether the 
amendment was in fact germane. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 106 Cong. Rec. 5655-57, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule.

[[Page 4223]]

        It is quite true that the rule, House Resolution 359, under 
    which H.R. 8601 is being considered, contains the language that the 
    gentleman from Virginia mentioned a moment ago, concerning putting 
    in order H.R. 10035 in order to eliminate any question of 
    germaneness of that particular proposal.
        The Chair dislikes to substitute the judgment of the Chair for 
    that of the distinguished Committee on Rules, but, frankly, the 
    Chair does not believe that including this language necessarily 
    binds the present occupant of the chair.
        It is quite true that the measure, H.R. 8601, deals with 
    Federal election records, and the Chair is quite certain that the 
    membership agrees with the Chair that the scope is rather narrow. 
    However, the Chair feels that the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio has to do with the basic purpose of title 3 of 
    the bill H.R. 8601.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 23.20 Where a resolution providing for the consideration of a bill 
    makes in order (notwthstanding the rule of germaneness) the text of 
    a specific bill as an amendment, points of order are considered as 
    waived only against the complete text of the proposed bill and not 
    against portions thereof; and if parts of the text are offered as 
    independent amendments they must meet the test of germaneness under 
    Rule XVI clause 7.

    On Dec. 10, 1969, the House had under consideration a special order 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules by Mr. Ray J. Madden, 
of Indiana; the resolution made in order as an amendment to the bill 
the text of another bill, and waived points of order against the 
consideration of such amendment: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 714, 115 Cong. Rec. 38123, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 4249) to extend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 
    with respect to the discriminatory use of tests and devices. After 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
    continue not to exceed three hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee of the Judiciary, the bill shall be read for amendment 
    under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider, 
    without the intervention of any point of order, the text of the 
    bill H.R. 12695 as an amendment to the bill. At the conclusion of 
    the consideration of H.R. 4249 for amendment, the Committee shall 
    rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
    have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
    instructions.

[[Page 4224]]

    Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on whether portions of the bill made in order as 
an amendment could be offered to the bill: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 38130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, under the resolution (H. Res. 714), 
    if adopted, should the bill, H.R. 12695, be considered and 
    rejected, would it then be in order, following rejection of H.R. 
    12695, should that occur, to offer a portion or portions of H.R. 
    12695 as amendments to H.R. 4249?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that would be in 
    order subject to the rule of germaneness, if germane to the bill 
    H.R. 4249.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, should a portion of H.R. 12695 be 
    offered under the conditions set forth in my previous inquiry and 
    should it not be germane, a motion to that effect, to rule it out 
    of order, would be then in order and be sustained, I gather?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That, of course, would be a matter for 
    the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to consider when it is 
    before him.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, I have one additional parliamentary 
    inquiry. Under House Resolution 714, if adopted, would it be in 
    order to include in the motion to recommit a portion or portions of 
    H.R. 12695 which might otherwise be subject to a point of order on 
    the point of germaneness?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would not want to pass upon 
    that hypothetically. At the time the occasion arises the Chair 
    would pass upon it.

Sec. 23.21 The issue of germaneness cannot be raised against an 
    amendment when all points of order against it have been waived.

    On Feb. 10, 1964, the Committee of the Whole was considering for 
amendment H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963, pursuant to the 
provisions of House Resolution 616, a special order providing for the 
consideration of the bill, providing that the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute thereto be read as an original bill for 
amendment, and providing that ``it shall also be in order to consider, 
without the intervention of any point of order, the text of the bill 
H.R. 980, 88th Congress, as an amendment to the said committee 
substitute amendment.'' When title VII of the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute was pending, Mr. Ellis Y. Berry, of South 
Dakota, offered an amendment adding a new title VIII, con

[[Page 4225]]

sisting of the text of the bill H.R. 980 (which dealt with equal 
employment opportunity for Indians through industrial development); his 
amendment was related to the subject matter of neither title VII nor 
title VIII of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, overruled a point of order 
against the consideration of the amendment, since all points of order 
had been waived against its consideration and it was not required to be 
germane to either title VII or title VIII of the committee amendment: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 2738, 2739, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Manuel] Celler [of New York] (interrupting reading of the 
    bill): Mr. Chairman, enough has been read of the amendment to 
    indicate that it is subject to a point of order, and I make the 
    point of order that we have not completed the reading of the bill, 
    therefore this is not the proper place to consider the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair reminds the gentleman from New York 
    that the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Dakota has 
    been made in order by the resolution under which this bill is being 
    considered. The gentleman is offering the amendment at this time, 
    and the Chair would be impelled to hold that the amendment is in 
    order.

Sec. 23.22 The House rejected the previous question on a resolution 
    reported from the Committee on Rules making the text of a bill in 
    order as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and then 
    adopted an amendment substituting another bill whose text would be 
    in order as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 
    amendment to the resolution also struck out provisions in the 
    resolution waiving points of order against nongermane committee 
    amendments.

    On Apr. 16, 1973, Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, called up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules the following resolution: 
(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 12501, 93d Cong. Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 6168) to amend and extend the Economic 
    Stabilization Act of 1970. After general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Banking and Currency, the bill 
    shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. Immediately 
    after the reading of the first section of H.R. 6168 under the five-
    minute rule, it shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of

[[Page 4226]]

    any point of order the text of H. R. 6879 as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the bill. If said amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is not agreed to in Committee of the Whole, 
    it shall then be in order to consider the amendments recommended by 
    the Committee on Banking and Currency now printed in the bill 
    notwithstanding the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of H.R. 6168 for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
    to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit with or without instructions. After the passage of H.R. 
    6168, the Committee on Banking and Currency shall be discharged 
    from the further consideration of the bill S. 398, and it shall 
    then be in order in the House to move to strike out all after the 
    enacting clause of the said Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof 
    the provisions contained in H.R. 6168 as passed by the House.

    The House rejected the previous question on the resolution and 
adopted an amendment offered by the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Rules, Mr. David T. Martin, of Nebraska: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 12509.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Martin of Nebraska: On page 2, 
        line 1, strike ``H.R. 6879,'' and insert in lieu thereof, 
        ``H.R. 2099.''
            On page 2, lines 2 through 7, strike the words: ``If said 
        amendment in the nature of a substitute is not agreed to in 
        Committee of the Whole, it shall then be in order to consider 
        the amendments recommended by the Committee on Banking and 
        Currency now printed in the bill notwithstanding the provisions 
        of clause 7. rule XVI.''

        Mr. Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain 
    this amendment to the Members. The amendment makes in order the 
    consideration of the committee bill, H.R. 6168. Then it makes in 
    order the offering of H.R. 2099 as a substitute. This strikes out 
    the Stephens bill and substitutes H.R. 2099, which is a bill which 
    was jointly introduced by the chairman of the Banking and Currency 
    Committee and the ranking minority member, and provides for a 
    simple 12 months' extension of the Economic Stabilization Act.
        Then in addition it strikes from the original resolution (H. 
    Res. 357) the waiving of points of order in regard to germaneness. 
    In other words, those are stricken from the resolution. That is all 
    this amendment does.
        Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling).
        Mr. Boiling: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska 
    for yielding, but I see no purpose in debating the matter further. 
    I thank the gentleman again.
        Mr. Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the 
    amendment, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on 
    the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.

[[Page 4227]]

        The Speaker: (14) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentle man from Nebraska (Mr. Martin).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As indicated in notes to Sec. Sec. 18.22 
and 18.30, supra, an amendment to a special order reported from the 
Committee on Rules, to make in order the consideration of an amendment 
or of another bill unrelated to the measure made in order by the 
special order, may not be germane.

Amending Nongermane Amend
    ments Permitted to Remain by Special Order

Sec. 23.23 Where a special rule providing for consideration of a bill 
    permits the committee reporting the bill to offer nongermane 
    amendments, such amendments when offered are subject to amendments 
    germane to the committee amendment.

    On Sept. 3, 1940, the House was considering a special order (H. 
Res. 586) from the Committee on Rules providing for consideration of a 
bill and waiving points of order against committee amendments as 
follows:

        . . . It shall be in order to consider without the intervention 
    of any point of order the substitute amendment recommended by the 
    Committee on Military Affairs now in the bill, and such substitutes 
    for the purpose of amendment shall be considered under the 5-minute 
    rule as an original bill. It shall also be in order to consider 
    without the intervention of any point of order any amendment 
    offered by the direction of the Committee on Military Affairs to 
    the bill or committee substitute.

    Speaker pro tempore Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on amendments which could be offered to such 
committee amendments:

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, the question 
    which I am trying to have clarified is this: It has been stated by 
    Members that the Committee on Military Affairs, as authorized to do 
    under the language of the pending rule, will offer substitute 
    language for what is commonly known as the Russell-Overton 
    amendment adopted in the Senate. No Member of the House could offer 
    a substitute, because it would not be relevant to the bill, and 
    under the rule an amendment not relevant to the bill could not be 
    offered by anyone except the Committee on Military Affairs. 
    Assuming that the Committee on Military Affairs does offer such 
    amendment, may Members of the House then offer amendments to the 
    committee amendment or substitutes for the committee amendment 
    which are relevant to the committee

[[Page 4228]]

    amendment but which would not be relevant to the bill without the 
    committee amendment?
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
    Tarver] and, earlier in the day, the gentleman from Mississippi 
    [Mr. Colmer], both of whom are interested in this subject, raised 
    the same point that the gentleman from Georgia now raises. Since 
    that time I have consulted with the Speaker and the 
    Parliamentarian, and I have made some investigation of the rules 
    and precedents of the House. Under the amendment that the committee 
    will offer in reference to this matter of drafting industry, it is 
    my opinion, and the opinion of those with whom I have consulted, 
    that relevant amendments to that would be in order. It is my 
    opinion that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole would in 
    all probability so hold.

        Mr. Tarver: I thank the gentleman from Texas, but I wonder if 
    that opinion of the gentleman from Texas may be confirmed by the 
    Chair?
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, of course, I cannot assure the 
    gentleman from Georgia what the Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the state of the Union will do, but I think the 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
    Union will in all probability consult with the same people I have 
    and will in all probability arrive at the same conclusion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In answer to the parliamentary inquiry 
    of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Tarver] the Chair may say that 
    while he does not feel it would be proper to undertake to make a 
    decision now which would bind the Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the state of the Union when such question is 
    presented, the present occupant of the chair is of the opinion that 
    amendments offered by authority of the Committee on Military 
    Affairs would be subject to germane amendments offered by Members 
    of the House.
        Mr. [Lyle H.] Boren [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Boren: I may put it in the form of a question. I want to 
    know if the statement the Chair has just made would apply to an 
    amendment which might be offered in the form of a substitute to the 
    committee amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: A substitute is an amendment. The 
    present occupant of the chair does not feel compelled to further 
    amplify or to further express an opinion on these questions that 
    may properly be raised in the Committee of the Whole and which will 
    be passed upon by the Chairman of that Committee.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 11358, 11360, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.24 Where the House has adopted a resolution waiving points of 
    order against committee amendments, no immunity is granted to 
    Members to offer amendments to the bill which are not germane.

[[Page 4229]]

    On June 17, 1948,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment H.R. 6401 (the Selective Service Act of 1948) 
pursuant to House Resolution 671, providing for consideration of the 
bill and waiving points of order against committee amendments reported 
by the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. James W. Wadsworth, Jr., of New 
York, made a point of order against an amendment offered by Mr. Leon H. 
Gavin, of Pennsylvania, to the bill, on the grounds it was not germane 
to the bill (the amendment proposed acceptance of aliens for enlistment 
and amended the naturalization laws). Mr. Gavin argued in support of 
his amendment that a similar amendment had been allowed in the Senate 
to a similar bill. Chairman Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, ruled as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 94 Cong. Rec. 8670, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Pennsylvania has suggested that in view of 
    the fact a similar amendment was adopted in another body it should 
    be permitted here. The Chair calls attention to the fact that the 
    House of Representatives has a rule on germaneness which does not 
    apply to a certain other body. The amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania includes a proviso which affects the 
    naturalization laws by establishing a new basis for eligibility to 
    citizenship. A bill proposing to amend the naturalization laws 
    would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Armed 
    Services. Under the rule which has been adopted no immunity was 
    granted to Members to offer amendments which are not germane; 
    consequently, the Chair is constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

    The Chairman delivered a similar ruling on the same bill on the 
same day: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 8686.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews] has made the point of 
    order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
    Rees] is not germane to the bill. Several of the Members who have 
    spoken have called attention to other provisions in the bill. The 
    Chair must remind the Committee that the provisions in the bill as 
    reported by the committee were made in order by a special rule 
    adopted by the House of Representatives. There may be provisions in 
    the bill which would not be germane if offered as an amendment by 
    individual Members, but are in order in the bill because they were 
    made in order by the rule adopted by the House.
        So every amendment offered must stand on its own bottom as to 
    whether or not it is germane.
        The Chair invites attention to the fact that the amendment 
    includes such language as ``It shall be unlawful to maintain 
    certain institutions,'' and further on says, ``Any person, 
    corporation, partnership, or association violating any of the 
    provisions of this subsection

[[Page 4230]]

    shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' and so forth. In that 
    respect it seems to the Chair that the amendment goes beyond the 
    provisions of the bill, imposing penalties and sanctions on persons 
    outside the armed forces.

Waiving Points of Order Against Appropriation Bills Generally

Sec. 23.25 Form of resolution waiving points of order against the 
    consideration of a general appropriation bill (where the report has 
    not been available for three calendar days as specified in Rule XXI 
    clause 6).

    The following resolution was under consideration on Dec. 9, 1969: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Res. 742, 115 Cong. Rec. 37948, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
            Rule XXI clause 6 has been renumbered and is now Rule XXI 
        clause 7, House Rules and Manual (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, 
    notwithstanding any rule of the House to the contrary, it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 15149) making appropriations for Foreign 
    Assistance and related programs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
    1970, and for other purposes, and all points of order against said 
    bill are hereby waived.

Sec. 23.26 A resolution reported from the Committee on Rules waiving 
    points of order against any provision in an appropriation bill in 
    violation of Rule XXI clause 2, was amended to restrict the waiver 
    to appropriations in the bill not authorized by law, where the 
    Committee on Rules had intended to recommend a waiver of points of 
    order against unauthorized items but not against legislative 
    language in the bill.

    On July 21, 1970, Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, of the Committee on 
Rules called up a resolution waiving points of order during the 
consideration of an appropriation bill, and indicated his intention to 
offer an amendment to the resolution: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 25240, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
    I call up House Resolution 1151 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows.

                                  H. Res. 1151

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        18515) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and 
        Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies, for the 
        fiscal year ending

[[Page 4231]]

        June 30, 1971, and for other purposes, all points of order 
        against said bill for failure to comply with the provisions of 
        clause 2, rule XXI are hereby waived.

        Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the distinguished 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Smith), pending which I yield myself 
    such time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1151 is a resolution waiving 
    points of order against certain provisions of H.R. 18515, the 
    Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare and related 
    agencies appropriation bill for fiscal year 1971.
        Legislative authorization for several activities, for which 
    funds are included in H.R. 18515, expired at the end of fiscal year 
    1970. These are all activities currently in progress; funds for all 
    are carried in the budget; legislation to extend them all is in the 
    legislative process. The activities involved are listed on page 42 
    of the report on the bill.
        Because the authorizations have not been enacted, points of 
    order are waived against the bill for failure to comply with the 
    first provision of clause 2, rule XXI. By mistake, the second 
    provision was covered by the rule-so I have an amendment at the 
    desk to correct the resolution.----
        Now, Mr. Speaker, as stated there is a clerical error in the 
    rule and at the proper time I shall send to the desk a committee 
    amendment to correct the clerical error. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I offer a committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Young: Strike out lines 5 through 
        7 of the resolution and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
        ``purposes, all points of order against appropriations carried 
        in the bill which are not yet authorized by law are hereby 
        waived.''

        The amendment was agreed to.

    The House adopted the amendment offered by Mr. 
Young.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 25241.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.27 On an occasion where the Committee on Rules failed to grant 
    a rule waiving points of order against provisions in an 
    appropriation bill, a member of the Committee on Appropriations 
    made points of order against practically every paragraph of the 
    bill as it was read for amendment, in order to show the House what 
    could occur if points of order are not waived in such cases.

    On July 14, 1955, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
the Whole for the consideration of H.R. 7278, making supplemental 
appropriations (Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, presiding). Mr. 
Louis C. Rabaut, of Michigan, a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, made the following remarks in relation to the bill and 
its susceptibility to points of order: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 101 Cong. Rec. 10572, 10573, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rabaut: Mr. Chairman, with malice toward nobody but with 
    deter

[[Page 4232]]

    mination to do my duty as I see it, I want to report to this House 
    that yesterday I appeared before the Committee on Rules, as was the 
    request of the full Committee on Appropriations. I told the 
    Committee on Rules that this bill was filled with paragraphs that 
    were subject to points of order; that the bill probably contained 
    very few pages where a ruling could be denied against points of 
    order, and the bill would be bad. I said there were so few pages 
    that I limited it to about four pages that would not be subject to 
    a point of order.
        I read to the committee a prepared statement and said the bill 
    contained many of the paragraphs that were in the final 
    supplemental bill as handled by the Committee on Appropriations 
    every year, and that a rule is usually granted.
        The gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber], the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Phillips], and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
    Davis], were present and opposed a rule. Mr. Davis lent his moral 
    support.
        Past history always allowed a rule. . . .
        Rather than to have a field day on points of order I intend to 
    ask unanimous consent to ask for deletion from the bill of all the 
    paragraphs subject to a point of order so the House may work its 
    will on that part of the bill on which the decision of the Rules 
    Committee permits us to function. This will represent a big saving 
    in time and much useless talk.

    Mr. Rabaut's request (to strike from the bill the portions thereof 
subject to points of order on the ground that they were unauthorized by 
law or constituted legislation) was objected to. When the bill was read 
for amendment, Mr. Rabaut made points of order against such portions of 
the bill; many of the points of order were conceded by the Chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations and sustained by the 
Chair.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. For the proceedings wherein such points of order were made, see 101 
        Cong. Rec. 10604-06, 10610, 10611, 10613-17, 10621, 10623-25, 
        84th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For a statement by Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
        Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, on the necessity 
        of resolutions from the Committee on Rules waiving points of 
        order against appropriation bills, see 91 Cong. Rec. 2671, 
        2672, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.28 On one occasion, the Chairman and members of the Committee 
    on Armed Services first opposed the adoption of a rule waiving 
    points of order against the Defense Department appropriation bill, 
    then agreed to support the rule after the Chairman of the Committee 
    on Appropriations announced that the appropriation bill would not 
    be called up pending final conference action on the authorization 
    measure.

    On July 26, 1968, Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, called

[[Page 4233]]

up by direction of the Committee on Rules and explained the purposes of 
a special order waiving points of order against the provisions of H.R. 
18707, making appropriations for the Department of Defense: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 23622, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 1273 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1273

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        18707) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
        the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, 
        all points of order against said bill are hereby waived.

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I yield the usual 30 minutes to the 
    minority, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Latta], and 
    pending that, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.
        Mr. Speaker, this is a rather simple resolution, but it does 
    encompass a rather controversial matter in that it waives points of 
    order.
        Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply makes in order the 
    consideration of the appropriation bill for the Department of 
    Defense for fiscal year 1969. Of course, as the membership is 
    aware, the Appropriations Committee reports and bills are 
    privileged. They do not require ordinarily a rule to bring them to 
    the floor. But in this case a rule was requested and granted simply 
    because the authorizing legislation which ordinarily precedes the 
    reporting and consideration of an appropriation bill has not been 
    finally enacted.
        The matter is now in conference, and the Committee on 
    Appropriations, I understand, with the concurrence of the 
    leadership, came to the Committee on Rules and requested a rule 
    waiving points of order.

    The Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, L. Mendel Rivers, 
of South Carolina, along with other members of that committee, opposed 
the special order under consideration: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 23623.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . We are now tied up in a conference with the other body. 
    Indeed, we have already acted on two procurement sections for which 
    this bill makes money available.
        Now I do not think the great Committee on Appropriations--since 
    the objective of adjourning at the end of August is not to be 
    attained and since time is not of the essence--will really be 
    saving any time. Nobody knows when we will get away from here now. 
    We are not going to finish this month. I doubt that we will finish 
    next month.
        So, we are not going to finish this week. And we are not going 
    to finish next week. This appropriations bill will not even be 
    considered by the other body until sometime in September. I am 
    hopeful that the great chairman, with whom I have never had a 
    disagreement and with whom I have cooperated to the extent of 
    forgoing our committee jurisdiction on

[[Page 4234]]

    supplementals bills for Southeast Asia, will not insist on this 
    bill now. It is a bad precedent. I do not want to have a 
    misunderstanding now.
        I think the sound and considerate thing to do is to consider 
    the jurisdiction of a committee which has broken its neck to 
    cooperate with the great Committee on Appropriations. I do not want 
    to get into any controversy with them, but this bill could end up 
    as the authorization for the appropriation and, as the gentleman 
    from New York has said, the appropriation would really repeal the 
    jurisdiction of our committee.

    Mr. Rivers then withdrew his opposition to the resolution when 
George H. Mahon, of Texas, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
announced his intention to refrain from calling up the appropriation 
bill until the conference report on the authorizing provisions was 
agreed to: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 23627.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, this discussion has been altogether 
    unanticipated. We have always worked together with the Armed 
    Services Committee, and we have undertaken to do so in this 
    instance. The imminent consideration of this bill has been well 
    known to the Members of the House, and the House leadership on both 
    sides of the aisle for many days. In view of the discussion which 
    has taken place and in order to resolve the problem I have just 
    conferred on the floor here with the gentleman from Mississippi 
    [Mr. Colmer], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the 
    gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Rivers], the chairman of the 
    Armed Services Committee, and it occurs to me that our purposes 
    might best be served if we agree to the rule and agree not to take 
    the bill up for consideration in the House until after the 
    conference report on the authorizing bill has passed both Houses. 
    This would seem to be agreeable to all concerned. . . .
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, of course, there has been cooperation. 
    This is perfectly satisfactory. All we want is the opportunity to 
    work out our conference with the other body. Then the legislative 
    will and the regular procedure will be accomplished. I think this 
    will be a good solution. I do not want to do anything to any 
    committee. I have had fine relations with both committees.
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina and 
    the gentleman from Texas agree that upon the adoption of the rule, 
    the bill will not be called up in the House by the Committee on 
    Appropriations until the conference report on the authorization 
    bill has been adopted by both bodies.
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable to me.

Sec. 23.29 A resolution waiving points of order against a certain 
    provision in a general appropriation bill was considered and agreed 
    to by the House after the general debate on the bill had been 
    concluded and reading for amendment had begun in Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On May 21, 1969, general debate had been concluded in Com

[[Page 4235]]

mittee of the Whole on H.R. 11400, the supplemental appropriations 
bill, and the first section of the bill had been read for amendment 
when the Committee rose.
    The House then adopted a special order from the Committee on Rules 
which waived points of order against one section of the bill:

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 414 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 414

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        11400) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
        ending June 30, 1969, and for other purposes, all points of 
        order against title IV of said bill are hereby waived.

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
    the minority, to the very able and distinguished gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Smith). Pending that I yield myself such time as I 
    may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, I shall not use all the time on this resolution. 
    This is a rather unusual situation that we find ourselves in, 
    parliamentarily speaking. We have debated the supplemental 
    appropriation bill at some length under the privileged status of 
    the Appropriations Committee. Now we come in with a resolution from 
    the Rules Committee for one purpose and one purpose alone; that is, 
    to waive points of order against a particular section of the 
    bill.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 13246-51, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver Against Appropriation Bill Does Not Apply to Floor Amendments

Sec. 23.30 Where the House had adopted a resolution providing that 
    ``during the consideration of'' a general appropriation bill ``the 
    provisions of clause 2, Rule XXI are hereby waived,'' the Chair 
    relied on the legislative history to rule that the waiver extended 
    only to provisions in the bill and not to amendments offered from 
    the floor.

    On June 22, 1973, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration H.R. 8825, making appropriations for Housing and Urban 
Development and independent agencies. Mr. Robert O. Tiernan, of Rhode 
Island, offered an amendment, to which Mr. Edward P. Boland, of 
Massachusetts, raised a point of order on the grounds that the 
amendment constituted legislation on an appropriation bill. Mr. Robert 
N. Giaimo, of Connecticut, argued that the point of order had no merit 
because the House had ear

[[Page 4236]]

lier adopted a special order waiving points of order: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 119 Cong. Rec. 20982, 20983, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) Does the gentleman from 
    Connecticut desire to be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Giaimo: I do, Mr. Chairman.
        If the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island is 
    not admissible, it is because of the fact that it violates these 
    rules, rule XXI, clause 2, which prohibits legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        It seems to me, however, that if we read the rule of the 
    committee, House Resolution 453, which made in order this 
    legislation before us in this appropriation bill, the resolution 
    which this House passed says:

                                  H. Res. 453

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        8825) making appropriations for the Department of Housing and 
        Urban Development; for space, science, veterans, and certain 
        other independent executive agencies, boards, commissions, and 
        corporations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and for 
        other purposes, the provisions of clause 2, Rule XXI are hereby 
        waived.

        That means on the face of it that the Committee on Rules waived 
    the prohibition of the Holman rule, and rule XXI, clause 2, making 
    in order taking up matters which otherwise would be prohibited.
        Of course, it has been stated here on the floor today earlier 
    that the reason why the committee had to go to the Committee on 
    Rules for a waiver of points of order was because of the fact that 
    there was some legislation that we are appropriating for in this 
    bill which was, in fact, not as yet authorized by law. If that is 
    so, I suggest that the Committee on Rules should have worded their 
    language a little differently, but they did not. They said the 
    provisions of clause 2, rule XXI, are hereby waived. If we are 
    going to go by the written wording of the resolution and interpret 
    what in fact the chairman had in mind when the gentleman asked for 
    the waiver of rule XXI, that puts many of we Members of Congress in 
    a very difficult position because of the time that the resolution 
    was up for adoption we would have had the right to vote down the 
    previous question against the resolution of the Committee on Rules 
    and try to make in order what the gentleman from Rhode Island is 
    trying to do now. We did not do that, and one of the reasons why, 
    undoubtedly is because Members of the Congress had the right to 
    rely on the written wording which was before us, and the written 
    wording clearly says that the provisions of clause 2, rule XXI are 
    hereby waived.

        I submit, Mr. Chairman, since that is the situation before us 
    we should not go beyond the written wording of the waiver of the 
    provisions of rule XXI, but in fact it should be instead that rule 
    XXI is in fact waived in all its respects and in all of its 
    aspects, and the amendments offered by the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island (Mr. Tiernan) should be made in order.

    Chairman O'Hara ruled that the legislative history of the special 
order clearly indicated that the waiver of points of order was

[[Page 4237]]

intended to apply only to provisions in the bill and not to amendments 
offered from the floor: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 119 Cong. Rec. 20983, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The Chair feels that it will be necessary first to speak on the 
    contention raised by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Tiernan) 
    and amplified upon by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) 
    with respect to the provisions of the resolution under which the 
    bill is being considered, and whether or not the provisions of that 
    resolution have an effect on the point of order made by the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland).
        The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) is correct in 
    asserting that if the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island (Mr. Tiernan) is out of order at all it is out of order 
    because of the second sentence of clause 2 of rule XXI, which 
    contains the provisions that ``nor shall any provision in any such 
    bill or amendment thereto changing existing law be in order,'' and 
    so forth, setting forth exceptions. But the gentleman from 
    Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) contends, and the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island (Mr. Tiernan) concurs, that the resolution providing for the 
    consideration of the bill waives the provisions of that rule. The 
    Chair has again read the rule. It says:

            Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
        8825) making appropriations for the Department of Housing and 
        Urban Development . . . the provisions of clause 2, rule XXI 
        are hereby waived.

        It does not say that points of order are waived only with 
    respect to matters contained in the bill. It says ``During the 
    consideration of the bill'' the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI 
    are waived.
        The Chair was troubled by that language and has examined the 
    statements made by the members of the Committee on Rules who 
    presented the rule to see if their statements in any way amplified 
    or explained or limited that language. The Chair has found that 
    both the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Long) and the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Latta) in their explanations of the resolution did, 
    indeed, indicate that it was their intention, and the intention of 
    the committee, that the waiver should apply only to matters 
    contained in the bill and that it was not a blanket waiver.
        Therefore whatever ambiguity there may have been in the rule as 
    reported, the Chair is going to hold, was cured by the remarks and 
    legislative history made during the presentation of the rule, which 
    were not disputed in any way by the gentleman from Connecticut or 
    anyone else. However, the Chair, recognizes that it is a rather 
    imprecise way of achieving that result and would hope that in the 
    future such resolutions would be more precise in their application.

Sec. 23.31 A resolution adopted by the House waiving points of order 
    against legislation contained in a general appropriation bill was 
    held not to apply to amendments offered to that bill from the 
    floor.

    On May 10, 1973, Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas, an

[[Page 4238]]

swered a parliamentary inquiry in Committee of the Whole as to the 
effect of a special order (H. Res. 389) which waived points of order 
against provisions in a general appropriations bill containing 
legislation and unauthorized appropriations in violation of Rule XXI 
clause 2: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 15320, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. See Rule XXI clause 2, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry, and I will make a point of order, if it is 
    in order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Collier: The parliamentary inquiry is this: Did we not 
    waive points of order by earlier action of this House? If we did, 
    how, then, is a point of order in order when points of order have 
    been waived?
        The Chairman: The rule only waived points of order against 
    provisions of the bill not against amendments offered from the 
    floor to that legislation.
        Mr. Collier: Mr. Chairman, would not the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long), be in and of itself under 
    that waiver, and, therefore, any subsequent point of order on an 
    amendment thereto would be equally out of order?
        The Chairman: Any amendment offered on the floor could be 
    subject to a point of order. No Member raised a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Long). A point of order was raised against an amendment to that 
    amendment. It was sustained. That is the situation existing at this 
    time.

Waiving Points of Order Against Amendments to Appropriation Bill

Sec. 23.32 Form of resolution waiving points of order against a general 
    appropriation bill and making in order a certain type of amendment 
    containing legislative language.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 17, 1947: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 248, 93 Cong. Rec. 7166, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3839) 
    making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry 
    independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, 
    for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, and for other purposes, 
    all points of order against the bill or any provisions contained 
    therein are hereby waived; and it shall also be in order to 
    consider without the intervention of any point of order any 
    amendment to said bill prohibiting the use of the funds 
    appropriated in such bill or any funds heretofore made available, 
    including contract authorizations, for the purchase of any 
    particular site or for the erection of any particular hospital.

Sec. 23.33 The House, by resolution, gave the Committee on

[[Page 4239]]

    Appropriations authority to incorporate in, or offer amendments to, 
    any general or special appropriation measure a limitation 
    prohibiting expenditures in the pending or any other act for salary 
    or compensation to certain persons found by them to be subversive, 
    notwithstanding Rule XXI clause 2.

    On May 17, 1943, Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas, overruled a 
point of order against an amendment offered by the Committee on 
Appropriations to the urgent deficiency appropriation bill. The Chair 
based his ruling on the language of a resolution from the Committee on 
Rules (H. Res. 105), previously passed by the House, which had 
authorized the Committee on Appropriations to undertake certain 
investigations and which had authorized the committee to include 
certain limitations, related to such investigations, in appropriation 
bills:

        Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, by 
    direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I offer the following 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kerr: On page 36, after line 23, 
        insert as a new section the following:
            ``Sec. 304. No part of any appropriation, allocation, or 
        fund (1) which is made available under or pursuant to this act, 
        or (2) which is now, or which is hereafter made available under 
        or pursuant to any other act, to any department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the United States, shall be used to pay any 
        part of the salary, or other compensation for the personal 
        services, of Goodwin B. Watson, William E. Dodd, Jr., and 
        Robert Morss Lovett: Provided, That this section shall not 
        operate to deprive any such person of payment for leaves of 
        absence or salary, or of any refund or reimbursement, which 
        have accrued prior to the date of the enactment of this act.''

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: I make a point of order against the language 
    in line 3 of the amendment just offered, as follows:

            Which is now, or which is hereafter made, available under 
        or pursuant to any other act, to any department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the United States--

        And so forth. This amendment seeks to limit an appropriation in 
    some other appropriation bill. It goes beyond this bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Missouri desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
    is made in order by House Resolution 105, authorizing the 
    investigation, providing--as shown on page 2 of the report, House 
    Report No. 448--as follows:

            Any legislation approved by the committee as a result of 
        this resolution may be incorporated in any gen

[[Page 4240]]

        eral or special appropriation measure emanating from such 
        committee or may be offered as a committee amendment to any 
        such measure notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 of rule 
        XXI.

        Under that provision, the amendment is in order.
        Mr. Marcantonio: May I say in reply, Mr. Chairman, that would 
    be true if the amendment offered were limited to this 
    appropriation, but the amendment offered extends to appropriations 
    not made by this bill.
        The Chairman: The language appears to be rather plain and 
    specific to the Chair, ``any legislation approved by the Committee 
    as a result of this resolution may be incorporated in any general 
    or special appropriation measure.''
        Therefore the point of order is overruled.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 4558, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The full text of House Resolution 105, Feb. 
9, 1943, 78th Congress, 1st Session, was as follows:

        Resolved, That the Committee on Appropriations, acting through 
    a special subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman of such 
    committee for the purposes of this resolution, is authorized and 
    directed to examine into any and all allegations or charges that 
    certain persons in the employ of the several executive departments 
    and other executive agencies are unfit to continue in such 
    employment by reason of their present association or membership or 
    past association or membership in or with organizations whose aims 
    or purposes are or have been subversive to the Government of the 
    United States. Such examination shall be pursued with the view of 
    obtaining all available evidence bearing upon each particular case 
    and reporting to the House the conclusions of the committee with 
    respect to each such case in the light of the factual evidence 
    obtained. The committee, for the purposes of this resolution, shall 
    have the right to report at any time by bill, amendment, or 
    otherwise, its findings and determination. Any legislation approved 
    by the committee as a result of this resolution may be incorporated 
    in any general or special appropriation measure emanating from such 
    committee or may be offered as a committee amendment to any such 
    measure notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXI.
        For the purposes of this resolution, such committee or any 
    subcommittee thereof is hereby authorized to sit and act during the 
    present Congress at such times and places within the United States, 
    whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, to 
    hold such hearings, to require the attendance of such witnesses, 
    and the production of such books or papers or documents or vouchers 
    by subpena or otherwise, and to take such testimony and records as 
    it deems necessary. Subpenas may be issued over the signature of 
    the chairman of the committee or subcommittee, or by any person 
    designated by him, and shall be served by such person or persons as 
    the chairman of the committee or subcommittee may designate. The 
    chairman of the committee or subcommittee, or any member thereof, 
    may administer oaths to witnesses.

Sec. 23.34 Where a section in a bill pending before the Com

[[Page 4241]]

    mittee of the Whole was struck out on a point of order (as 
    constituting an appropriation on a legislative bill), the Committee 
    rose, the House took a recess, and the Committee on Rules met and 
    reported to the House a resolution which the House adopted, making 
    in order an amendment to such bill in Committee of the Whole to 
    reinsert the section which had been stricken out.

    On Mar. 29, 1933, the Committee of the Whole was considering S. 598 
(reforestation and unemployment relief) pursuant to a unanimous consent 
request that the Senate bill be in order for consideration, instead of 
a similar House bill (H.R. 3905) which had previously been made a 
special order of business for that day (also by unanimous consent).
    Chairman Ralph F. Lozier, of Missouri, sustained a point of order 
against section 4 of the Senate bill, on the grounds that it 
constituted an appropriation on a legislative bill in violation of Rule 
XI clause 4 [Rule XXI clause 5 in the House Rules and Manual, 1979], 
and section 4 was thus stricken from the bill. Immediately following 
the Chair's ruling, the Committee rose and a motion for a recess was 
adopted (at 5:42 p.m.).(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 77 Cong. Rec. 988-990, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recess having expired at 5:52 p.m., Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, called the House to order and Mr. William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, reported and called up by direction of the Committee on Rules 
(which had met during the recess) a special order making in order an 
amendment to the Senate bill pending before the Committee of the Whole: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at P. 990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The recess having expired (at 5 o'clock and 52 minutes p.m.), 
    the House was called to order by the Speaker.
        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I report a privileged resolution, which I send to the desk 
    and ask for its immediate consideration.
        Mr. [Joseph B.] Shannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, does not 
    the rule have to lie over for a day?
        The Speaker: It does not.
        The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 85

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to offer as an amendment in Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union to the bill S. 598 the 
        following language:
            ``Sec. 4. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of 
        this act,

[[Page 4242]]

        there is hereby authorized to be expended, under the direction 
        of the President, out of any unobligated moneys heretofore 
        appropriated for public works (except for projects on which 
        actual construction has been commenced or may be commenced 
        within 90 days, and except maintenance funds for river and 
        harbor improvements already allocated), such sums as may be 
        necessary; and an amount equal to the amount so expended is 
        hereby authorized to be appropriated for the same purposes for 
        which such moneys were originally appropriated.''
            All points of order against said amendment shall be 
        considered as waived in the House and in the Committee of the 
        Whole House on the state of the Union. . . .

        The Speaker: It requires a two thirds vote to consider it. The 
    question is, Shall the House consider the resolution?
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Snell) there were-ayes 189, noes 71.
        So (two thirds having voted in favor thereof) the House 
    determined to consider the resolution.
        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    adoption of the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.

        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.

    The Committee of the Whole resumed its sitting and proceeded to 
consider the amendment: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: 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 
    (S. 598) for the relief of unemployment through the performance of 
    useful public work, and for other purposes.
        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 further 
    consideration of the bill S. 598, with Mr. Lozier in the chair. The 
    Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ramspeck: Page 3, after line 21, 
        insert the following:
            ``Sec. 4. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of 
        this act there is hereby authorized to be expended, under the 
        direction of the President, out of any unobligated moneys 
        heretofore appropriated for public works (except for projects 
        on which actual construction has been commenced or may be 
        commenced within 90 days, and except maintenance funds for 
        river and harbor improvements already allocated), such sums as 
        may be necessary; and an amount equal to the amount so expended 
        is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the same purposes 
        for which such moneys were originally appropriated.''

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Chairman, this simply puts back in the bill 
    section 4 exactly, which was ruled out on the point of order.
        I move that all debate on this section do now close.

[[Page 4243]]

Waiving Points of Order Against Unauthorized Appropriations

Sec. 23.35 Form of resolution waiving points of order against 
    unauthorized items of appropriation in a general appropriation bill 
    (but not against legislative language).

    The following resolution was under consideration on May 17, 1972: 
(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H. Res. 983, 118 Cong. Rec. 17760, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    14989) making appropriations for the Departments of State, Justice, 
    and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
    year ending June 30, 1973, and for other purposes, the provisions 
    of clause 2, rule XXI are hereby waived with respect to any 
    appropriation contained in such bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This form of resolution protects 
appropriations not authorized by law carried in the bill in violation 
of Rule XXI clause 2, but does not protect legislation in an 
appropriation bill, in violation of the same clause. Thus, a paragraph 
in the bill containing legislation as well as an unauthorized 
appropriation could be stricken on a point of order, and the 
unauthorized appropriation could not be reinserted (the special rule 
protecting provisions in the bill and not amendments). A special rule 
waiving all points of order under Rule XXI clause 2 protects both 
legislative language and unauthorized appropriations carried in the 
bill.

Sec. 23.36 Where an appropriation bill is considered under a rule 
    waiving points of order against the bill, such rule does not waive 
    points of order against amendments offered from the floor seeking 
    to appropriate funds for purposes not authorized by law.

    On June 5, 1942, the Committee of the Whole had under consideration 
an appropriation bill, where the House had adopted a special order from 
the Committee on Rules waiving points of order against unauthorzed 
appropriations in the bill (H. Res. 499). Chairman Howard W. Smith, of 
Virginia, sustained a point of order against an amendment containing an 
unauthorized appropriation, since the special order did not waive 
points of order against amendments: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 78 Cong. Rec. 4959, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.

[[Page 4244]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Keefe: Page 25, after paragraph 
        (2), insert a new paragraph, as follows: ``To assist students 
        (in such numbers as the chairman of the War Manpower Commission 
        shall determine) participating in accelerated programs in 
        degree-granting colleges and universities in engineering, 
        physics, chemistry, medicine (including veterinary), dentistry, 
        and pharmacy and such other technical and professional fields 
        as said chairman may determine to be necessary in connection 
        with the national war effort, by providing part-time 
        employment, $5,000,000.''

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment on the ground that it is not authorized 
    by law.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York makes a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    on the ground that it is not authorized by law.
        Does the gentleman from New York desire to be heard on the 
    point of order?
        Mr. Taber: Merely to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is an activity 
    for which there is no authority whatever. It adds $5,000,000 to 
    this bill. That is about the size of it.

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin desire to be 
    heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Keefe: I do not think it is necessary for me to be heard. 
    There is not any part of this appropriation that is authorized by 
    law, and points of order against them were waived, under the rule.
        The Chairman: Can the gentleman point out any authority in law 
    for this appropriation?
        Mr. Keefe: The authority in law is to be found in the Executive 
    order of the President of the United States creating the National 
    Youth Administration, which sets up a student-aid program and which 
    has been carried out under a student-aid program by the 
    N. Y. A. since its inception. This simply adds $5,000,000 to the 
    same student-aid program, $5,000,000 for which is already carried 
    in this bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        In the bill under consideration, which provides an 
    appropriation for the N. Y. A., there is no authority in law 
    setting up the N. Y. A.; and, therefore, in order that this 
    appropriation for that agency might not be thrown out on a point of 
    order it was necessary to have a special rule waiving points of 
    order against that particular appropriation. That rule waived 
    points of order on that clause in the bill.
        The gentleman's amendment undertakes to make another 
    appropriation which is to be administered under the Chairman of the 
    Manpower Commission. It is the opinion of the Chair that there is 
    no authority in law for the appropriation proposed in the amendment 
    and the Chair is therefore constrained to sustain the point of 
    order.

    On Oct. 18, 1966, Chairman James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, delivered 
a similar ruling: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 27417, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Texas has stated the content of the 
    resolution providing for the consideration of the bill

[[Page 4245]]

    before the Committee of the Whole correctly. The resolution waives 
    points of order against the bill but it does not waive points of 
    order against amendments to the bill.
        Inasmuch as there seems to be agreement between the gentleman 
    from Texas and the gentleman from California that the funds 
    contained in the amendment are not authorized by legislation 
    enacted into law, the point of order is sustained.

Sec. 23.37 Where a special rule in the House waives points of order 
    against portions of an appropriation bill which are unauthorized by 
    law, and the bill passes the House with those provisions included 
    therein and goes to conference, the conferees may report back their 
    agreement to those provisions (or modifications thereof, if amended 
    by the Senate) even though they remain unauthorized, since waiver 
    of points of order under Rule XXI clause 2, carries over to the 
    consideration of the same or perfected provisions when the 
    conference report is before the House.

    On Dec. 20, 1969, Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, called up 
conference report on H.R. 15149, making appropriations for foreign 
assistance. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled two 
points of order against the conference report, since the House had 
considered the bill originally pursuant to a special order (H. Res. 
742) waiving points of order against portions of the bill making 
appropriations not authorized by law: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 40445-48, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against that portion of the conference report which 
    provides funds for the purchase of planes for the Republic of China 
    on the ground that it is an appropriation that is not authorized by 
    law.
        I read from the conference report on the authorization bill 
    which appears in the Congressional Record of December 18 on page 
    39841 relating to the military assistance, section 504 of the act.
        The House bill authorized a total of $454,500,000 for military 
    assistance of which $350,000,000 was for worldwide allocation; 
    $50,000,000 for Korea; $54,500,000 for the Republic of China.
        The Senate amendment authorized a total of $325,000,000 without 
    any allocation to specified countries.
        The managers on the part of the House agreed to the 
    authorization of $350,000,000 without specifying any country 
    allocation. They found it impossible to obtain agreement to a 
    larger total for military assistance and believe that any specific 
    additional allocation for Korea or for the Republic of China would 
    result in a drastic curtailment of the worldwide authorization 
    which would be detrimental to our national security.

[[Page 4246]]

        So, in the basic law, in the authorization law there is no 
    allocation specifically of funds for any country and I suggest that 
    the appropriation of funds in a specific amount for military 
    assistance to a particular country is without authorization of law.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Passman) 
    desire to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Passman: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, first of all there is nothing in the military 
    assistance paragraph directing the purchasing of any type of 
    equipment. There is language appropriating a specific amount of 
    funds for China, but there is no language anywhere in the bill 
    stating the type of military equipment that will be provided to any 
    nation.
        Furthermore, the military assistance appropriation language is 
    within the jurisdiction of the conference committee because the 
    language was in the bill as it passed the House.
        As a matter of fact, everything in title I is not yet 
    authorized. . . .
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I rise 
    in support of the point of order and to express my strong 
    opposition to the conference report on foreign aid appropriations.
        This report contains a line item for foreign military 
    assistance of $404.5 million. That amount is $54.5 million more 
    than the amount which the House authorized yesterday by approving 
    the conference report on the foreign aid authorization bill.
        For that reason, I believe that this conference report is 
    completely and flagrantly out of order. Let me cite to this body 
    rule XXI, part 2, of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It 
    states:

            No appropriation shall be reported in any general 
        appropriations bill, or be in order as an amendment thereto, 
        for any expenditure not previously authorized by law.

        Let me also cite the interpretation which has been given to 
    this rule, an interpretation which may be found in paragraph 835 of 
    the rules:

            In the administration of the rule it is the practice that 
        those upholding the item of appropriation should have the 
        burden of showing the law authorizing it.

        I would be pleased to know where the House conferees find 
    anything in the law which would authorize an additional $54.5 
    million in military assistance.
        Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that this conference report 
    stands in violation of the rules of this body.
        Let me call to the attention of my colleagues the debate in the 
    other body on Thursday in which the Members of that body only 
    belatedly discovered that the Comptroller General will approve the 
    expenditure of funds from the Treasury which have been appropriated 
    but not authorized by the Congress without previous authorization.
        Many of us in this body of the Congress have been aware of that 
    situation for some time.
        It is, nonetheless, a violation of both the spirit and the 
    letter of the Rules of the House for the Appropriations Committee 
    to appropriate funds which have not been authorized--just as it is 
    a violation for authorizing committees to attempt to appropriate 
    funds.
        If the Appropriations Committee can appropriate funds in 
    complete disregard of what has been authorized--

[[Page 4247]]

    as it does in the conference report now before us--then why have 
    authorizing committees?
        Those of us who serve on authorizing committees might just as 
    well stay home. The hours and days we spend in committee hearings 
    and markup sessions are simply an exercise, when our actions can be 
    honored, ignored, or abrogated at the whim of an Appropriations 
    subcommittee.
        Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today goes beyond the 
    $54.5 million which exceeds the authorization for military 
    assistance. It goes beyond the issue of whether the United States 
    should be providing a down payment on jet planes for the Republic 
    of China.
        Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge that this conference report be 
    defeated in order that the appropriation conference conform to the 
    authority approved yesterday by the House.
        Mr. Passman: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point 
    of order?
        Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the lateness of the 
    so-called authorization bill, which does not exist in fact, as yet, 
    and the very fact that the majority leader of the other body said 
    there would be no authorization bill, and the chairman of the 
    Foreign Relations Committee said there would be no authorization 
    bill, made it necessary for us to move this bill through the 
    Appropriations Committee, the Rules Committee, and the Rules 
    Committee gave us a rule waiving points of order. We have moved the 
    bill, as I understand it, according to the rules of the House, and 
    this appropriation bill became an authorization bill also, in the 
    absence of any authorization act. Even at this late hour we still 
    do not have an authorization bill because the conference report on 
    the authorization bill was only adopted yesterday by both Houses 
    and has not yet reached the President for his signature. . . .
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Speaker, does the rule waiving points of 
    order under which the House appropriation bill was considered by 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union continue 
    through conference report consideration? Would not the rule apply 
    only for consideration of the appropriation bill waiving points of 
    order during the time it was considered by the Committee of the 
    Whole? Certainly the rule should not carry over to the conference 
    report? If it does the Members of the House abrogate their 
    legislative prerogatives. If this is the case, the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin for one shall never vote for a rule waiving points of 
    order in the future.
        It has been cited that the appropriation bill came to this 
    House under a rule waiving points of order and therefore this 
    conference report would be in order. The gentleman from Louisiana 
    claims this appropriation conference report carries its own 
    authorization under the rule waiving points of order granted in 
    earlier consideration.
        My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is: Does the rule under 
    which the appropriation bill came to the House carry over and 
    continue into the conference report?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that will have a bearing on 
    the point of order that is raised at the present time. . . .
        The gentleman from Illinois has raised a point of order against 
    the conference report on the bill H.R. 15149.

[[Page 4248]]

        The Chair is aware of the fact pointed out by the gentleman 
    from Illinois--that the authorization bill for fiscal 1970, while 
    passed by both Houses, has not yet become law. As pointed out in 
    the debate on this point of order, the conference report now before 
    the House does carry an amount for military assistance that is 
    $54,500,000 above the figure which would be authorized by H.R. 
    14580, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969.
        However, the Chair recalls that when this appropriation bill 
    passed the House, it was considered under a rule waiving points of 
    order. The House agreed to a total figure for military assistance 
    of $454,500,000. The Senate reduced this figure to $350 million. 
    The conferees have reached an agreement between these two amounts, 
    as they had the authority to do.

        The Chair holds that the conferees have not exceeded their 
    authority and overrules the point of order.
        The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Louisiana yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Passman: Mr. Speaker, I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a point of order 
    against consideration of the bill.
        Mr. Passman: Mr. Speaker, I yielded to the gentleman for a 
    parliamentary inquiry, not for a motion.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I made a point of order against 
    consideration of the conference report in toto.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against 
    consideration of the conference report on the basis that none of 
    the appropriations contained in the bill H.R. 15149 have been 
    authorized by law.
        Mr. Passman: May I be heard on that, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: Of course, the Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Passman: It is my understanding that the Chair just ruled 
    on that specific point a moment ago. I ask for a ruling, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that it overrules the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross), on the ground 
    that the special rule waived points of order against the provisions 
    of the House bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The only restriction against inclusion of 
an unauthorized appropriation or of legislation in a conference report 
on a general appropriation bill is contained in clause 2, Rule XX, 
which prohibits conferees on the part of the House from agreeing to a 
Senate amendment which would have violated clause 2, Rule XXI if it had 
originated in the House, unless the House by a separate vote authorizes 
the conferees to agree to such a Senate amendment. The conferees may, 
however, agree to a Senate amendment which modifies a provision in the 
House bill, and that modification if offered in the House would have 
been in order as a germane perfection to legisla

[[Page 4249]]

tion or unauthorized appropriations permitted to remain in the House 
bill by a special rule waiving points of order. For example, an 
unauthorized appropriation appearing in a House general appropriation 
bill, but protected by a waiver of points of order, maybe amended by 
increasing or decreasing the amount of the unauthorized sum, since that 
type of amendment adds no further unauthorized appropriations. A Senate 
amendment of the same character may be agreed to by the House conferees 
without violating the provisions of clause 2, Rule XX. If the Senate 
amendment added another unauthorized appropriation, or legislative 
language, it would be subject to the restriction contained in that 
clause.
    If a conference report contains language not adopted by either 
House (whether or not constituting legislation or unauthorized 
appropriations on a general appropriation bill), the report would 
violate an entirely different provision of the House rules, prohibiting 
the inclusion by House conferees of matter not committed to conference 
(clause 3, Rule XXVIII).

Waiving Points of Order Against Legislation in Appropriation Bill

Sec. 23.38 Form of resolution waiving points of order against 
    legislative language in an appropriation bill and providing that 
    during the remainder of the session no amendment shall be in order 
    to any other general appropriation bill which conflicts with the 
    provisions of the language made in order by the special rule.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Jan. 11, 1934: 
(~2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Res. 217, 78 Cong. Rec. 479, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the consideration of H.R. 6663, a bill 
    making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry 
    independent bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1935, and for other purposes, all 
    points of order against title II or any provisions contained 
    therein are hereby waived; and no amendments or motions to strike 
    out shall be in order to such title except amendments or motions to 
    strike out offered by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, 
    and said amendments or motions shall be in order, any rule of the 
    House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments shall not be in 
    order to any other section of the bill H.R. 6663 or to any section 
    of any general appropriation bill of the Seventy-third Congress 
    which would be in conflict with the provisions of title II of the 
    bill H.R. 6663 as reported to the House, except amendments offered 
    by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, and said

[[Page 4250]]

    amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Title II of the bill, entitled ``Economy 
Provisions,'' was entirely legislative in nature, amending a number of 
statutes relative to the salaries of public officials, pensions, and 
other allowances.

Sec. 23.39 Form of resolution waiving points of order against one 
    section of an appropriation bill which contained legislative 
    provisions in violation of Rule XXI clause 2.

    The following resolution was under consideration on May 27, 1969: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 424, 115 Cong. Rec. 14055, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. Rule XXI 
        clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 834 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    11582) making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
    Departments, the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
    independent agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and 
    for other purposes, all points of order against section 502 of said 
    bill are hereby waived.

Sec. 23.40 Form of resolution waiving all points of order against 
    consideration of a general appropriation bill not reported for 
    three days, and further waiving points of order against the bill 
    (except one section thereof containing legislation).

    The following resolution was under consideration on Sept. 13, 1972: 
(~4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Res. 1114, 118 Cong. Rec. 30524, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move, clause of 6 rule XXI to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, 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. 16593) making appropriations for the Department 
    of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and for other 
    purposes, and all points of order against said bill except against 
    section 743 are hereby waived.

Sec. 23.41 A resolution adopted by the House waiving points of order 
    against legislation contained in a general appropriation bill does 
    not apply to amendments offered to that bill, or to amendments 
    thereto, from the floor; and amendments adding further legislation 
    to that permitted to remain in the bill by the special rule, or 
    amendments adding further legislation to pending amendments, are 
    subject to a point of order under clause 2, Rule XXI.

[[Page 4251]]

    On May 10, 1973,(~5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering for amendment H.R. 7447 (supplemental appropriations for 
fiscal year 1973), where the House had adopted a special order (House 
Resolution 389) waiving points of order against said bill containing 
legislation and unauthorized appropriations in violation of clause 2, 
Rule XXI, and reappropriations in violation of clause 5 (now clause 6), 
Rule XXI. Mr. Clarence D. Long, of Maryland, offered the following 
amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 119 Cong. Rec. 15318-20, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Long of Maryland: on page 6, 
    immediately after line 12, insert the following paragraph:
        ``None of the funds herein appropriated to the Department of 
    Defense under this Act shall be expended to support directly or 
    indirectly combat activities in, over or from off the shores of 
    Cambodia by United States Forces.''

    Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New York, then offered an amendment to 
the amendment offered by Mr. Long, and Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of 
Texas, ruled that the amendment offered by Mr. Stratton was legislation 
and out of order:

        Amendment offered by Mr. Stratton to the amendment offered by 
    Mr. Long of Maryland: At the end of the amendment, strike out the 
    period, insert a semicolon, and add the following words:
        ``Except that no such limitation shall take effect until after 
    the projected meeting between Dr. Kissinger and Le Duc Tho looking 
    toward improved cease-fire compliance has been held and a full 
    report on its results made to the Congress; or if such a meeting is 
    not held, until the President has reported fully to the Congress 
    the reasons therefore; but in no event shall such delay continue 
    for more than 3 months''.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland is a 
    limitation on expenditures. The amendment to the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from New York is a time limitation, but it is also 
    legislation, in that it would require additional responsibilities 
    and duties. It would require individuals to report, and finally the 
    President to report. It would be legislation.
        Therefore, the Chair sustains the point of order.

    Chairman Brooks subsequently responded to a parliamentary inquiry 
on the effect of a special rule, waiving points of order against a 
general appropriation bill, on amendments offered to that bill or to 
amendments thereto:

        Mr. [Harold R.] Collier [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry, and I will make a point of order, if it is 
    in order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 4252]]

        Mr. Collier: The parliamentary inquiry is this: Did we not 
    waive points of order by earlier action of this House? If we did, 
    how, then, is a point of order in order when points of order have 
    been waived?
        The Chairman: The rule only waived points of order against 
    provisions of the bill not against amendments offered from the 
    floor to that legislation.
        Mr. Collier: Mr. Chairman, would not the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long), be in and of itself under 
    that waiver, and, therefore, any subsequent point of order on an 
    amendment thereto would be equally out of order?
        The Chairman: Any amendment offered on the floor could be 
    subject to a point of order. No Member raised a point of order 
    against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Long). A point of order was raised against an amendment to that 
    amendment. It was sustained. That is the situation existing at this 
    time.

Sec. 23.42 Where the House is considering a general appropriation bill 
    under a resolution waiving all points of order against the bill, a 
    paragraph enacting the provisions of several House-passed 
    resolutions as permanent law, though concededly legislative in 
    character, is not subject to a point of order.

    On Dec. 10, 1970,(~6) Chairman Claude D. Pepper, of 
Florida, overruled a point of order against a provision in a 
supplemental appropriation bill, where the House had adopted a special 
order (H. Res. 1303) providing that during the consideration of the 
bill all points of order against said bill were waived:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 40941, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                           Administrative Provisions

            The provisions of House Resolutions 1270 and 1276, relating 
        to certain official allowances; House Resolution 1241, relating 
        to compensation of the clerks to the Official Reporters of 
        Debates; and House Resolution 1264, relating to the limitation 
        on the number of employees who may be paid from clerk hire 
        allowances, all of the Ninety-first Congress, shall be the 
        permanent law with respect thereto.

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a 
    point of order against the language beginning on line 23 of page 12 
    and running through line 4 of page 13 as being legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and not a retrenchment.
        Mr. [George H.] Mahton [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman's point of order would be appropriate except, of course, 
    for the fact that we do have a rule waiving points of order against 
    the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule. Does the gentleman 
    from Iowa care to be heard further?
        Mr. Gross: No, sir.
        The Chairman: Under the resolution the House adopted, points of 
    order against the bill are waived. The point of order is not 
    sustained.

[[Page 4253]]

Amending Legislation Permitted to Remain in Appropriation Bill by 
    Special Order

Sec. 23.43 A proposition in an appropriation bill proposing to change 
    existing law but permitted to remain by special order may be 
    perfected by germane amendments, provided they do not add 
    legislation.

    On Aug. 20, 1951, the Committee of the Whole was considering an 
appropriation bill, where the House had adopted a special order (H. 
Res. 394) from the Committee on Rules waiving points of order against 
the bill (including unauthorized appropriations and legislative 
language). Pending was a section of the bill, containing legislation, 
to authorize the Secretary of the Army to direct the preparation of 
planning reports for public works projects. Chairman Edward J. Hart, of 
New Jersey, sustained a point of order against an amendment adding 
further legislation to that contained in the bill (by giving such 
authority to the Secretary of the Interior as well): (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 10408, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald R.] Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    perfecting amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ford:
            Page 42, line 6, strike out the word ``is'' and insert 
        ``and the Secretary of the Interior are.''
            Page 42, line 7, after the word ``engineers'' insert the 
        following ``and the Commissioner of Reclamation.''
            Page 42, line 13, after the word ``Army'' insert the 
        following, ``and the Secretary of the Interior.''
            Page 43, line 23, after the word ``engineers'' insert the 
        following ``and the Commissioner of Reclamation.''
            Page 44, line 1, strike out the word ``him'' and insert the 
        word ``them.''
            Page 44, line 3, strike out the word ``is'' and insert 
        ``and the Commissioner of Reclamation are.''

        Mr. [John J.] Dempsey [of New Mexico]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dempsey: The amendment is not germane to this section, and 
    in addition to that, it is purely legislation on an appropriation 
    bill.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Michigan desire to 
    address himself to the point of order?
        Mr. Ford: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the point of order made by 
    the gentleman from New Mexico, I would like to say first that under 
    the rule adopted at the time this legislation came to the floor all 
    points of order were waived. Secondly, I think that the amendment 
    is germane because it does apply to engineering and construction of 
    Federal projects, and section 1313 in itself applies to engineering 
    and construction of Federal projects.
        Mr. Dempsey: Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Rules, waived 
    points of

[[Page 4254]]

    order to the bill, but they certainly cannot waive points of order 
    to an amendment which might be offered, which the gentleman is 
    proposing to do.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        With respect to the question of waiving all points of order, 
    that runs only to the provisions of the bill and not to amendments 
    offered to the bill. A proposition in an appropriation bill 
    proposing to change existing law but permitted to remain, may be 
    perfected by germane amendments, provided they do not add further 
    legislation. The Chair is of the opinion that this amendment does 
    add further legislation, and, therefore, sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 23.44 A proposition in a general appropriation bill proposing a 
    change in existing law, which was made in order by a special rule, 
    may not be amended by inserting additional legislation even though 
    such additional legislation be germane.

    On June 21, 1935, the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration the second deficiency appropriation bill. The House had 
adopted a special order (H. Res. 266) waiving all points of order 
against said bill during its consideration. Chairman Franklin W. 
Hancock, Jr., of North Carolina, ruled out of order an amendment 
offered to the bill because, although germane to the bill, it added 
additional legislation to that contained in the bill: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 79 Cong. Rec. 9853, 9854, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald H.] McLean [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McLean: On page 48, line 16, after 
        the figures ``1936'', insert the following:
            ``All moneys of the Corporation of whatsoever nature 
        hereafter re- ceived by or for the Corporation shall be 
        immediately and without diminution deposited and covered into 
        the Treasury of the United States, and such portion thereof as 
        is authorized by the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as 
        amended, or other law, to be used by said Corporation in 
        carrying out the provisions of said act, as amended, shall be 
        transferred to an appropriate appropriation account, 
        withdrawable only on warrant as are other appropriated public 
        moneys, and subject to authority specifically granted by the 
        Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, and as amended, all 
        laws regulating the obligating or expenditure of other public 
        moneys shall be applicable thereto: Provided, That the 
        provisions of section 3709, Revised Statutes, shall be 
        applicable to purchases of supplies and equipment necessary for 
        dam construction. Accounts of all transactions involving 
        receipts or disbursements of the Corporation shall be duly 
        rendered to the General Accounting Offlce at such times and in 
        such substance and form as may be prescribed by the Comptroller 
        General of the United States, and said accounts and such claims 
        as may arise shall be settled and adjusted by the General 
        Accounting Of

[[Page 4255]]

        fice under and pursuant to the provisions of title III of the 
        Budget and Accounting Act approved June 10, 1921: Provided, 
        That the expenses of such portion of the audit as the 
        Comptroller General may authorize to be done in the field shall 
        be paid from moneys advanced therefor by the Corporation, or 
        from any appropriation or appropriations for the General 
        Accounting Offlce, and appropriations so used shall be 
        reimbursed promptly by the Corporation as billed by the 
        Comptroller General. In such connection the Comptroller General 
        and his representatives shall have free and open access to all 
        papers, books, records, files, accounts, plants, warehouses, 
        offices. and all other things, property, and places belonging 
        to, under the control of, or used or employed by the 
        Corporation, and shall be afforded full facilities for counting 
        all cash and verifying transactions with the balances in 
        depositaries. The officers of the Corporation to whom moneys 
        may be advanced on accountable warrant shall each give a bond 
        to the United States for the faithful discharge of the duties 
        of his office according to law in such amount as shall be 
        directed by the Comptroller General. Should there be any 
        administrative delinquency in the rendering of the accounts as 
        directed, or any unsatisfactory condition of the accounts, 
        requisitions for funds shall be disapproved by the Comptroller 
        General unless, for good cause shown, he shall elect to 
        withhold such disapproval.''

        Mr. [James P.] Buchanan [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill and changes existing law. . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: This amendment is not only a 
    limitation upon the funds carried in this bill which are in effect 
    reappropriated, but it is also germane to the language of the bill 
    covering the full appropriations that have been made for this 
    purpose into one fund. It is, also, a direction as to how and in 
    what manner the funds shall be accounted for.
        By the rule under which we are proceeding in the consideration 
    of this bill, anything germane to the language of the bill is made 
    in order, and I believe the gentleman's amendment in its entirety 
    is in order. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is of the opinion that the point of 
    order is well taken. The Chair bases this conclusion upon a ruling 
    handed down by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Tilson], while 
    presiding over a Committee of the Whole. At that time and in a 
    similar case it was held that although the amendment then offered 
    was germane it contained additional legislation beyond the 
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations.
        The Chair believes that this amendment is germane but that it 
    proposes additional legislation which is a subject matter 
    ordinarily coming within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
    Military Affairs.
        The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 23.45 A legislative provision in a general appropriation bill, not 
    subject to a point of order under Rule XXI clause 2 because the 
    House has adopted a resolution waiving points of order against that 
    portion of the bill, may be perfected by germane amend. meet.

[[Page 4256]]

    On May 21, 1969, Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, overruled 
a point of order against an amendment to a supplemental appropriation 
bill, where the House had adopted a special order (H. Res. 414) waiving 
all points of order against title IV of said bill and where the 
amendment was offered to title IV of the bill: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 13270, 13271, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Title IV

               limitation on fiscal year 1970 budget outlays

        Sec. 401. (a) Expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) of 
    the Federal Government during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, 
    shall not exceed $192,900,000,000: Provided, That whenever action, 
    or inaction, by the Congress on requests for appropriations and 
    other budgetary proposals varies from the President's 
    recommendations thereon, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget 
    shall report to the President and to the Congress his estimate of 
    the effect of such action or inaction on expenditures and net 
    lending, and the limitation set forth herein shall be 
    correspondingly adjusted.
        (b) The Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall report 
    periodically to the President and to the Congress on the operation 
    of this section. The first such report shall be made at the end of 
    the Srst month which begins after the date of approval of this Act: 
    subsequent reports shall be made at the end of each calendar month 
    during the first session of the Ninety-first Congress, and at the 
    end of each calendar quarter thereafter. . . .
        Mr. [Jeffery] Cohelan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Cohelan of California: On page 62, 
        line 3, add the following as a new section:
             ``(c) The limitation set forth in subsection (a), as 
        adjusted in accordance with the proviso to that subsection, 
        shall be increased by an amount equal to the aggregate amount 
        by which expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) for the 
        fiscal year 1970 on account of items designated as ``Open-ended 
        programs and fixed costs'' in the table appearing on page 16 of 
        the Budget for the fiscal year 1970 may be in excess of the 
        aggregate expenditures and net lending (budget outlays) 
        estimated for those items in the April review of the 1970 
        budget.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point 
    of order against the amendment in that it is legislation on an 
    appropriation bill.
        Mr. Chairman, the rule pertaining to title IV only protects 
    what is in the bill, not amendments to the bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair has examined title IV. This is a new subparagraph to 
    title IV. Title IV is legislation in a general appropriation bill, 
    and all points of order have been waived in title IV, as a result 
    of it being legislation. Therefore the Chair holds that the 
    amendment is germane to the provisions contained in title IV and 
    overrules the point of order.

Sec. 23.46 A legislative provision in a general appropriation

[[Page 4257]]

    bill, not subject to a point of order under Rule XXI clause 2 
    because the House had adopted a resolution waiving points of order 
    against the bill, may be perfected by germane amendment; but such 
    amendment may not add additional legislation. Thus to a provision 
    in the foreign aid appropriation bill, prohibiting assistance under 
    the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to any nation which sells to 
    North Vietnam, an amendment broadening this prohibition to 
    foreclose aid under any act, was held to be additional legislation 
    and not in order.

    On Nov. 17, 1967, Chairman Charles M. Price, of Illinois, sustained 
a point of order against an amendment offered to the foreign aid 
appropriation bill, where the House had adopted a special order (H. 
Res. 978) waiving all points of order against the bill during its 
consideration, but where the amendment, offered by Mr. H. R. Gross, of 
Iowa, sought to attach additional legislation to the bill: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. 113 Cong. Rec. 32966, 32967, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. For the ruling 
        referred to by Mr. Gross in his remarks on the point of order, 
        see 113 Cong. Rec. 32887, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Sec. 116. No assistance shall be furnished under the 
        Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, to any country that 
        sells, furnishes, or permits any ships under its registry to 
        carry to North Vietnam any of the items mentioned in subsection 
        107(a) of this Act.

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Gross: On page 13, strike all of 
        lines 4 through 8, and insert the following:
            ``Sec. 116. No loans, credits, guaranties, or grants or 
        other assistance shall be furnished under this or any other 
        Act, including the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
        to any country which sells or furnishes to North Vietnam, or 
        which permits ships or aircraft under its registry to transport 
        to or from North Vietnam, any equipment, materials, or 
        commodities, so long as North Vietnam is governed by a 
        Communist regime.
            ``Notwithstanding section 640 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961, as amended, no defense articles or defense services 
        shall be acquired from, or provided to, any such country by any 
        means under this or any other Act. Nothing in this or any other 
        Act shall be construed to authorize the President to waive 
        these provisions.'' . . .

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I insist 
    upon my point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Louisiana will state his point 
    of order.
        Mr. Passman: Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes further than the 
    provision in the bill, and refers to funds provided in this or any 
    other act presently on the statute books.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa desire to be heard 
    on the point of order?

[[Page 4258]]

        Mr. Gross: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Gross Mr. Chairman, on yesterday the present Chairman of 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union ruled as 
    follows:

            The section of the bill to which the amendment is offered 
        is legislation which has been permitted to remain by waiver of 
        points of order. Such legislative provisions can be perfected 
        by germane amendments.

        The Chair then ruled:

            The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment of the 
        gentleman from Missouri is germane and therefore overrules the 
        point of order.

        I would say to the Chairman, this is an amendment providing a 
    limitation to a provision of this bill which has been made in order 
    by a rule waiving points of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Iowa correctly states the ruling of the 
    Chair on yesterday. That ruling indicated that the Chair held in 
    order an amendment which was ruled to be a perfecting amendment to 
    a paragraph in the bill that was conceded to be legislation on an 
    appropriation bill but on which points of order had been waived in 
    a rule adopted by the House.
        The Chair holds that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Iowa is additional legislation on this bill not covered by the 
    points of order that were waived.
        The Chair holds that the amendment adds additional legislation 
    on an appropriation bill; and therefore sustains the point of 
    order.

Sec. 23.47 A legislative provision in a general appropriation bill, not 
    subject to a point of order under Rule XXI clause 2, because the 
    House had adopted a resolution waiving points of order against the 
    bill, may be perfected by germane amendment.

    On Nov. 16, 1967, Chairman Charles M. Price, of Illinois, overruled 
a point of order against an amendment offered to the foreign aid 
appropriation bill, where the House had adopted a special order (H. 
Res. 978) waiving all points of order against the bill during its 
consideration: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 32886, 32887, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            International organizations and programs: For expenses 
        authorized by section 302(a), $125,000,000: Provided, That the 
        President shall seek to assure that no contribution to the 
        United Nations Development Program authorized by the Foreign 
        Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, shall be used for projects 
        for economic or technical assistance to the Government of Cuba, 
        so long as Cuba is governed by the Castro regime: Provided 
        further, That no part of this appropriation shall be used to 
        initiate any project, activity, or program which has not been 
        justified to the Congress.

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Missouri: On page 3, line 
        5, delete

[[Page 4259]]

        the words ``That the President shall seek to assure that''; and 
        further, on line 10, after the word ``regime'' add a comma and 
        the words ``or to any country which has severed diplomatic 
        relations with the United States.''. . .

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the amendment is not in order.
        If I may speak on it briefly?
        The Chairman: The gentleman may be heard on his point of order.
        Mr. Fraser: Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not serve just to 
    perfect a legislative provision that might be protected by the rule 
    adopted earlier, but it seeks to expand into a whole new area not 
    contemplated in the present legislative provision and purports to 
    deal with countries with which we have broken diplomatic relations. 
    We would be adding a whole new section since the amendment is not 
    limited to funds appropriated under this Act. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman offered an amendment to line 5 which would strike 
    out the words ``that the President shall seek to assure that'' and 
    on line 10 strike out the colon and insert a comma after the word 
    ``regime'' and after the comma add the words ``or to any country 
    which has severed diplomatic relations with the United States.''
        The section of the bill to which the amendment is offered is 
    legislation which has been permitted to remain by waiver of points 
    of order. Such legislative provisions can be perfected by germane 
    amendments.
        The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment of the gentleman 
    from Missouri is germane and therefore overrules the point of 
    order.

Waiving Points of Order Against Appropriation in a Legislative Bill

Sec. 23.48 The Committee on Rules may report a resolution waiving 
    points of order against provisions in a bill in violation of Rule 
    XXI clause 4, and it is not in order to make such points of order 
    when the resolution and not the bill is before the House.

    On Aug. 1, 1939,(12) there was pending before the House, 
House Resolution 286 reported from the Committee on Rules providing for 
the consideration of a bill reported from the Committee on Banking and 
Currency and waiving points of order against the bill (certain sections 
of the bill contained appropriations in a legislative bill). Speaker 
William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, overruled a point of order against the 
resolution where the point of order was directed against those sections 
of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 10710, 10711, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against certain sections of the bill referred to in the rule.

[[Page 4260]]

        The Speaker: Does the gentleman desire to make a point of order 
    against the resolution?
        Mr. Taber: Against certain sections of the bill referred to in 
    the resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair will not entertain that point of order, 
    because the matter now pending before the House is whether or not 
    it should agree to the resolution making a certain bill in order. . 
    . .
        The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order.
        The Chair has no disposition to limit the argument of the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber], but the Chair is very clearly 
    of the opinion that the points of order the gentleman seeks to 
    raise against certain provisions of the bill are not in order at 
    this time. The House is now considering a resolution providing for 
    the consideration of the bill against which the gentleman desires 
    to raise certain points of order. The resolution which is now being 
    considered itself provides, if adopted, that all points of order 
    against the bill are waived. This is no innovation or new matter. 
    Time after time the Committee on Rules has brought to the House 
    resolutions waiving points of order against bills. Under the 
    general rules of the House, the Chair will say to the gentleman, 
    aside from the consideration which the Chair has mentioned, points 
    of order cannot be raised against the bill until the section is 
    reached in the bill which attempts to make appropriations and 
    against which the point of order is desired to be made.
        For those reasons the Chair does not feel like recognizing the 
    gentleman at this juncture to state points of order against the 
    proposed bill.
        Mr. Taber: May I call the attention of the Chair to the last 
    sentence in clause 4 of rule XXI:

            A question of order on an appropriation in any such bill, 
        joint resolution, or amendment thereto may be raised at any 
        time.

        There have been decisions holding that the point of order would 
    not lie to the bill or to its consideration, but I have cited to 
    the Chair cases where such points of order have been made and have 
    been sustained when the bill itself was not under consideration.
        The Speaker: The Chair has undertaken to make it plain that the 
    Chair's decision is based very largely upon the proposition that 
    the resolution now being considered specifically waives all points 
    of order that may be made against the bill, and includes those 
    matters evidently against which the gentleman has in mind in making 
    points of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The provision in Rule XXI and clause 5 
(clause 4 at the time of this precedent) House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 846, 1979, allowing a point of order at any time has been 
interpreted to require the point of order to be raised when the section 
of the bill has been read, or the amendment is pending, under the five-
minute rule.

Sec. 23.49 Form of resolution waiving points of order against a 
    legislative bill and committee amendments (containing 
    appropriations in violation of Rule XXI clause

[[Page 4261]]

    4) insofar as they pertain to a prior public law.

    The following resolution reported from the Committee on Rules was 
under consideration on June 19, 1962: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Res. 678, 108 Cong. Rec. 10950, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. See also H. 
        Res. 727, 108 Cong. Rec. 14142, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 19, 
        1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 11222) to improve and protect farm income, to 
    reduce costs of farm programs to the Federal Government, to reduce 
    the Federal Government's excessive stocks of agricultural 
    commodities, to maintain reasonable and stable prices of 
    agricultural commodities and products to consumers, to provide 
    adequate supplies of agricultural commodities for domestic and 
    foreign needs, to conserve natural resources, and for other 
    purposes, and points of order against said bill as they pertain to 
    Public Law 480, Eighty-third Congress, are hereby waived. After 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue 
    not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and controlled by 
    the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
    Agriculture, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
    minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the amendments recommended by 
    the Committee on Agriculture now printed in the bill as they 
    pertain to Public Law 480, Eighty-third Congress. At the conclusion 
    of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
    rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
    have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit. After the passage 
    of the bill H.R. 11222, it shall be in order in the House to take 
    from the Speaker's table the bill S. 3225 and to move to strike out 
    all after the enacting clause of said Senate bill and to insert in 
    lieu thereof the provisions contained in H.R. 11222 as passed by 
    the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Public Law No. 83-480 was the Agricultural 
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954; H.R. 11222 allowed the 
use of funds already appropriated under that act for new purposes, 
which would be construed as a violation of Rule XXI clause 5, House 
Rules and Manual, 1979.

Designated Points of Order Permitted

Sec. 23.50 Form of a resolution making in order and waiving points of 
    order against a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
    to be read as an original bill for the purpose of amendment,

[[Page 4262]]

    and allowing points of order (on the grounds of committee 
    jurisdiction) to be raised against any portion of said amendment.

    On Oct. 27, 1971,(14) the House adopted House Resolution 
661, providing for the consideration of H.R. 7248 (to amend the Higher 
Education Act and for other purposes). The resolution contained a 
provision allowing points of order to be raised against the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 37765, 37766, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education 
    and Labor now printed in the bill as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, said substitute 
    shall be read for amendment by titles instead of by sections, and 
    all points of order against said substitute for failure to comply 
    with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 4, rule XXI 
    are hereby waived, and further, all titles, parts, or sections of 
    the said substitute, the subject matter of which is properly within 
    the jurisdiction of any other standing committee of the House of 
    Representatives, shall be subject to a point of order for such 
    reason if such point of order is properly raised during the 
    consideration of H.R. 7248.


 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       D. TYPES OF SPECIAL ORDERS
 
Sec. 24. As to Control, Distribution, and Duration of Debate

    In providing for the consideration of bills, special orders from 
the Committee on Rules usually state that it shall be in order to 
resolve into the Committee of the Whole, that general debate continue 
not to exceed a certain number of hours, to be equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the reporting 
committee, and that the bill be read for amendment under the five-
minute rule. Upon the report of the Committee of the Whole to the 
House, the previous question is considered as ordered by the special 
order, and no further debate in the House will be in order except on a 
motion to recommit with instructions.
    The special order may divide the time and control of general debate 
among several committees, and may provide that general debate continue 
not for hours but for days.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Generally, the term one day as so used means one legislative day. 
        See Sec. 24.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Debate under the five-minute rule may be limited to a time 
certain,(16) and ``closed'' rules, or special orders 
allowing no amend
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 24.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4263]]

ments, or only certain amendments, such amendments not to be subject to 
amendment, have the effect of restricting five-minute debate to 10 
minutes (five for and five against) on each amendment specifically made 
in order (unless ``pro forma'' amendments are expressly made in 
order).(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 24.11-24.15, infra. But see Sec. 22.19, supra (pro 
        forma amendments made in order by ``closed'' rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Rules may also recommend by special order that the 
normal operation of the hour rule in the House (as opposed to the 
Committee of the Whole) be altered, as by fixing the time and control 
of debate in the House or in the House as in the Committee of the 
Whole.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 24.16-24.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
As to debate in Committee of the Whole generally, see Ch. 19, supra.
As to debate and consideration generally, see Ch. 29, infra.
As to debate on and consideration of reports from Committee on Rules, 
    see Sec. 18, supra.
As to debate on and consideration of Senate bills and amendments and 
    conference reports, see Sec. 27, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Designated Member Controlling Portion of Debate

Sec. 24.1 Form of resolution dividing general debate among the chairman 
    and ranking minority member of a committee and another designated 
    member.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Dec. 10, 1973:

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 10710) to promote the development of an open, 
    nondiscriminatory, and fair world economic system, to stimulate the 
    economic growth of the United States, and for other purposes, and 
    all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
    continue not to exceed seven hours, six hours to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, and one hour to be controlled by 
    Representative John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, the bill shall be 
    considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be 
    in order to said bill except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, an amendment offered to section 402 of 
    said bill containing the text printed on page 34311 of the 
    Congressional Record of October 16, 1973, an amendment proposing to 
    strike out title IV of said bill and an amendment proposing to 
    strike out title V of said bill, and said amendments shall be in 
    order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, but 
    shall not be subject to amendment.

[[Page 4264]]

    At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, 
    the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
    to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Res. 657, 119 Cong. Rec. 40489, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 24.2 Where a resolution provided the time for debate and the 
    control thereof, the Members in control obtained unanimous consent 
    in the House that a part of the time be controlled by a third 
    Member.

    On May 14, 1948, the House adopted a resolution (H. Res. 582) 
providing for five hours of debate on a bill, to be divided and 
controlled by the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Un-American Activities.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 94 Cong. Rec. 5838, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By unanimous consent in the House (prior to resolving into 
Committee of the Whole) the Members in control then transferred part of 
the time to be controlled by other Members: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at pp. 5847, 5848.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, after 
    consultation with the members of the Committee on Un-American 
    Activities, I ask unanimous consent that of the 2\1/2\ hours to be 
    allocated on this side of the aisle, a total of 45 minutes may be 
    allocated by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Marcantonio] with the 
    last 30 minutes of the over-all time reserved to the committee.
        The Speaker: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Indiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Joseph W. Martin (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [John S.] Wood [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to yield 45 minutes of the time allotted to me to the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Marcantonio] in behalf of the 
    opposition to this measure, reserving the last 20 minutes of the 
    time allotted to me.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Georgia?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Karl E.] Mundt [of South Dakota]: 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 bill (H.R. 
    5852) to combat un-American activities by requiring the 
    registration of Communist-front organizations and for other 
    purposes.
        The motion was agreed to.

Two or More Committees in Control

Sec. 24.3 Forms of special orders designating more than one committee 
    to control time for

[[Page 4265]]

    general debate in Committee of the Whole.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 4, 1940:

        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 H.R. 9195, a bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act, and 
    all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. That after 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue 
    not to exceed 4 hours, 1 hour to be controlled by the chairman of 
    the Committee on Labor, 1 hour to be controlled by the ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Labor, and 2 hours to be 
    controlled by the chairman of the Special Committee to Investigate 
    the National Labor Relations Board, the bill shall be read, and 
    after the reading of the first section of such bill it shall be in 
    order to move to strike out all after the enacting clause and 
    insert as a substitute the text of the bill H.R. 8813 and all 
    points of order against such substitute are hereby waived. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill H.R. 9195 the Committee 
    shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and the previous auestion shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit, 
    with or without instructions.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Res. 465, 86 Cong. Rec. 7506, 7507, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a further example, the following resolution was considered on 
Apr. 26, 1956:

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 10660) to amend and supplement the Federal-Aid 
    Road Act approved July 11, 1916, to authorize appropriations for 
    continuing the construction of highways; to amend the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954 to provide additional revenue from the taxes 
    on motor fuel, tires, and trucks and buses; and for other purposes. 
    After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and 
    shall continue not to exceed 5 hours, 3 hours to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Public Works, and 2 hours to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be read for amendment 
    under the 5-minute rule. No amendments shall be in order to title 
    II of the bill except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means which shall be in 4. H. Res. 465, 86 
    Cong. Rec. 7506, 7507, 76th Cong. 3d Sess. order notwithstanding 
    any rule of the House to the contrary, but shall not be subject to 
    amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
    to final passage without

[[Page 4266]]

    intervening motion except one motion to recommit.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H. Res. 485, 102 Cong. Rec. 7110, 84th Cong., 2d Sess.
            See also H. Res. 275, 107 Cong. Rec. 7378, 87th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., May 4, 1961, providing for consideration of a bill for 
        federal aid to highways (Committee on Public Works and 
        Committee on Ways and Means); H. Res. 610, 115 Cong. Rec. 
        33260, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 6, 1969, providing for 
        consideration of the Federal Aviation Facilities Expansion and 
        Improvement Act of 1969 (Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
        Commerce and Committee on Ways and Means); H. Res. 1216, 116 
        Cong. Rec. 33296, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 23, 1970, 
        providing for consideration of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse 
        Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Committee on Interstate and 
        Foreign Commerce and Committee on Way and Means).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 24.4 A special rule may provide for the consideration of a bill 
    where general debate is to be divided between two committees, and 
    where part of the committee substitute in the bill is open to 
    amendment and part is closed.

    On Sept. 23, 1970,(6) the House adopted a special order 
offered by Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, at the direction of the 
Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 33296-98, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1216

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 18583) to amend the Public Health Service Act and 
    other laws to provide increased research into, and prevention of, 
    drug abuse and drug dependence; to provide for treatment and 
    rehabilitation of drug abusers and drug dependent persons; and to 
    strengthen existing law enforcement authority in the field of drug 
    abuse. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and shall continue not to exceed four hours, three hours to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and one 
    hour to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
    bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
    shall be in order to consider without the inter vention of any 
    point of order the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now 
    printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of 
    amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the 
    consideration of title II of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for amendment, title III of said substitute shall be 
    considered as having been read for amendment. No amendments shall 
    be in order to title III of said substitute except amendments 
    offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and said 
    amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, but shall not be subject to amendment. At the con

[[Page 4267]]

    clusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a 
    separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
    Committee of the Whole to the bill or committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered 
    as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
    without instructions.

    When the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of the bill the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole made a statement relative to general debate on the bill:

        The Chairman: (7) Pursuant to the rule, general 
    debate shall continue not to exceed 4 hours-3 hours to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and 1 hour to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

    At the conclusion of general debate, the Chairman announced the 
procedure to be followed during the amendment process.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. William S. Moorhead (Pa.).
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 33318, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 23, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, we have no 
    further requests for time.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, titles I and II of the committee 
    substitute amendment printed in the bill will be read for amendment 
    as an original bill under the rule.
        The rule also provides title III shall be considered as having 
    been read for amendment and no amendments are in order to title III 
    of the substitute except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means.
        The Clerk will read.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For a similar statement by the Chairman of the Committee of the 
        Whole on a bill considered under the same procedure, see 115 
        Cong. Rec. 33308, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 6, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The bill provided for in the special order 
had been reported by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
but the hearings and markup on title III of the bill, as well as 
certain recommendations as to the provisions of title II, were the work 
product of the Committee on Ways and Means. The procedure for 
considering the bill, with general debate divided between the two 
committees, was determined after consultation with the two committees 
involved.

General Debate Fixed by Days

Sec. 24.5 The Committee on Rules has the right to report out a special 
    rule fixing time for debate on a bill to a certain

[[Page 4268]]

    number of days instead of hours

    On Sept. 3, 1940, (10) Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of 
Illinois, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House 
Resolution 686, providing for the consideration of H.R. 10132, to 
provide for a system of selective compulsory military training and 
service. The resolution provided for general debate to ``continue not 
to exceed 2 days,'' and Speaker pro tempore Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, 
overruled a point of order against the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. 86 Cong. Rec. 11359, 11360, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that 
    the resolution is contrary to the unwritten law of the House. It 
    has been the universal practice, custom, and tradition of the House 
    to have debate fixed by hours. This resolution fixes general debate 
    by days. This is entirely meaningless, because a day may be 
    terminated by a motion that the Committee rise or by adjournment, 
    and for that reason I press my point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule. The 
    gentleman from New York makes the point of order that the 
    resolution is contrary to the unwritten rules of the House in that 
    general debate is fixed by days instead of hours.
        In the first place, the point of order comes too late.
        In the second place, this is a resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules to change the rules of the House, which is 
    permissible on anything except that which is prohibited by the 
    Constitution.
        The point of order is overruled.
        The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] is recognized for 5 
    minutes.

Sec. 24.6 Form of resolution providing for consideration of a bill and 
    fixing the time for debate at one day.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Aug. 17, 1949: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 11. H. Res. 327, 95 Cong. Rec. 11658, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. The term 
        ``one day'' means one legislative day as terminated by 
        adjournment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 5895) to promote the foreign policy 
    and provide for the defense and general welfare of the United 
    States by furnishing military assistance to foreign nations, and 
    all points of order against the said bill are hereby waived. That 
    after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and 
    continue not to exceed 1 day, to be equally divided and controlled 
    by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-

[[Page 4269]]

    minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for 
    amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 24.7 Form of resolution providing that general debate on a bill 
    end by a certain time on a certain day.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 20, 1951:

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 4473) to provide revenue, and for 
    other purposes, and all points of order against the bill are hereby 
    waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill and continue not to exceed 2 days, such general debate to end 
    not later than 4 o'clock p.m., on the second day of debate, and 
    which shall be confined to the bill, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be considered as having 
    been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to said 
    bill except amendments offered by the direction of the Committee on 
    Ways and Means, and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of 
    the House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments offered by 
    direction of the Committee on Ways and Means may be offered to any 
    section of the bill at the conclusion of the general debate, but 
    said amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto 
    to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Res. 262, 97 Cong. Rec. 6380, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 24.8 Where debate on a bill is fixed by resolution at one day the 
    term one day means one legislative day as terminated by 
    adjournment.

    On Aug. 17, 1949,(13) Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, answered an inquiry as to length of 
debate on a bill, where the House had adopted a resolution providing 
for general debate to ``continue not to exceed 1 day'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 95 Cong. Rec. 11666, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Under the rule general debate will be equally 
    divided and will not exceed one day.
        Mr. [Joseph P.] O'hara of Minnesota: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 4270]]

        Mr. O'Hara of Minnesota: What is meant by the term ``one day''?
        The Chairman: The term means one legislative day as terminated 
    by adjournment, from now until the time the House adjourns.

Debate Under Five-minute Rule

Sec. 24.9 Form of resolution closing general debate on a bill in 
    Committee of the Whole, providing that the bill be considered as 
    having been read for amendment, and limiting the duration of the 
    five-minute debate to an hour and a half.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Apr. 17, 1936: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 cong. Rec. 5634, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 489

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union for the consideration of H.R. 
    11563, a bill declaring an emergency in the housing condition in 
    the District of Columbia; creating a Rent Commission for the 
    District of Columbia; prescribing powers and duties of the 
    commission, and for other purposes; and all points of order against 
    said bill are hereby waived. General debate on said bill shall be 
    considered as closed, and the bill shall be considered as having 
    been read the second time. Amendments may be offered to any section 
    of the bill, but debate under the 5-minute rule shall be closed 
    within one hour and a half. At the conclusion of the consideration 
    of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the 
    bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, 
    and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
    bill and the amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion, except one motion to recommit with or without 
    instructions.

Sec. 24.10 Where a special rule provided for the reading of a bill in 
    its entirety it was held in order following that reading (and 
    following debate under the five minute rule) to move to close 
    debate on the bill and all amendments thereto.

    On Aug. 22, 1935, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 
8455, a bill providing public works on rivers and harbors, etc., 
pursuant to a special order (H. Res. 349) which provided in part as 
follows:

        That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Flood Control, the bill in its entirety shall be read 
    for amendment, following which amendments shall be in order to any 
    para

[[Page 4271]]

    graph of the bill, and such amendments shall be considered under 
    the 5-minute rule.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 14151, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following some debate in Committee of the Whole under the five-
minute rule, a motion to close debate was offered:

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on this bill and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.
        The Chairman: (16). The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
    Nichols] moves that all debate on the bill and all amendments 
    thereto close in 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Claude A. Fuller (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against that motion.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, such a motion is only in order when a 
    bill is being read by sections and after an amendment has been 
    offered. The motion is not in order at this stage.
        The Chairman: The rule provided for the reading of the entire 
    bill, and the Chair holds that the motion of the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma is in order.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 79 Cong. Rec. 14192, 14193, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five-minute Debate Under Closed Rule

Sec. 24.11 Where a rule under which a bill is considered permits only 
    specified amendments and prohibits amendments to such amendments, 
    no pro forma amendments are in order and only two five-minute 
    speeches are permitted on each of the specified amendments.

    On Apr. 20, 1955,(18) the Speaker pro tempore answered a 
parliamentary inquiry while there was pending a special order (H. Res. 
211) to limit amendments to a bill to specified amendments which 
themselves would not be subject to amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 101 Cong. Rec. 4829, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) Does the gentleman 
    yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Let me say to the gentleman 
    that from a strictly parliamentary standpoint there would only be 
    10 minutes, 5 on one side and 5 on the other. Whether you can get 
    unanimous consent or not I do not know.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman from 
    Virginia has expired.
        Mr. [Leo E.] Allen of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 
    such time as I might reqture.
        Mr. Corbett: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 4272]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) Does the gentleman 
    from Illinois yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Allen of Illinois: I yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise the question, 
    if this rule is adopted, and when the amendments are presented, 
    whether or not the amendments will be open to discussion under the 
    5-minute rule or we will be limited to one 5-minute speech for and 
    one 5-minute speech against the amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rules, there will be one 5-
    minute for and one 5-minute against. No pro forma amendments will 
    be in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A ``closed'' rule may specifically make in 
order pro forma amendments.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 22.19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 24.12 The House may agree by unanimous consent to extend debate in 
    the Committee of the Whole on specified amendments to a bill being 
    considered under a rule prohibiting pro forma amendments (and 
    therefore allowing only 10 minutes on each amendment).

    On Apr. 20, 1955, the House had under debate a resolution reported 
from the Committee on Rules, providing for the consideration of a bill 
and allowing only specified amendments to be offered, such amendments 
not to be subject to amendment (H. Res. 211). After the Chair had 
stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that under the rule pro 
forma amendments would not be in order and that amendments would be 
debatable for only 10 minutes (five minutes for and five against), a 
unanimous consent request to extend time for debate on a specified 
amendment was agreed to: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 101 Cong. Rec. 4834, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I desire to 
    submit a unaninnous-consent request. The point has been raised that 
    there will be only 10 minutes of debate on this very controversial 
    amendment on the pay question, which is to be found at page 82 of 
    the bill. I should like to state frankly that I did not notice 
    that. I believe that we should provide time for pro forma 
    amendments, to any amendment that is offered. It was not my purpose 
    to restrict the debate in this way. This was not called to my 
    attention until this morning.
        After consultation with the minority I ask unanimous consent 
    that debate under the 5-minute rule on the amendment which will be 
    offered at page 82 of the bill relating to the pay schedule, be 
    extended for 30 additional minutes, which will provide 40 minutes 
    of debate.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Virginia?

[[Page 4273]]

        Mr. [Antoni N.] Sadlak [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, does that mean that we will have the usual 5 
    minutes for and 5 minutes against, on the other two amendments that 
    may be offered?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I am sorry, I did not hear the 
    gentleman.
        Mr. Sadlak: The significance of the gentleman's request that 
    the rule as originally introduced would provide only 5 minutes of 
    debate on each amendment to each side.

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: As to the other two amendments, that is 
    correct.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Virginia that the time for debate on the amendment which the 
    gentleman identified be extended 30 minutes?
        Mr. [Leo E.] Allen of Illinois: Reserving the right to object, 
    Mr. Speaker, who will have control of the time under that 
    procedure?
        The Speaker: It will be up to the Chairman of the Committee of 
    the Whole to recognize Members under the 5-minute rule.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin Jr., [of Massachusetts]: Reserving the 
    right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I am not going to object, I think 
    we can have assurance that both sides will be equally recognized in 
    the 30 minutes.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I assume everybody will be fair.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Virginia?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 24.13 Where a bill is being considered under a rule permitting 
    only committee amendments and prohibiting amendments thereto, a 
    second Member rising to support the committee amendment cannot be 
    recognized, since he would necessarily be speaking to a pro forma 
    amendment.

    On Sept. 3, 1959, the Committee of the Whole was considering a bill 
pursuant to a special order providing that only amendments offered by 
direction of the Committee on Ways and Means were in order, such 
amendments not to be subject to amendment (H. Res. 372). Chairman 
William Pat Jennings, of Virginia, advised that pro forma amendments 
were not in order. After a committee amendment was offered, Mr. Frank 
J. Becker, of New York, spoke in favor thereof for five minutes and the 
Chairman ruled that another Member could not be recognized in favor of 
the amendment:

        Mr. [Toby] Morris of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
    of the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that only 5 
    minutes is permitted in support of the amendment and 5 minutes in 
    opposition. Five minutes has been consumed in support of the 
    amendment. Therefore, the Chair cannot recognize the gentleman at 
    this time.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 17988, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4274]]

Sec. 24.14 When an amendment, offered by direction of a committee, is 
    being considered under a closed rule, only two five-minute speeches 
    are in order and a third Member is not entitled to recognition 
    notwithstanding the fact that the second Member, recognized in 
    opposition, spoke in favor of the amendment.

    On May 18, 1960, the Committee of the Whole was considering a bill 
under a closed rule, permitting only committee amendments and providing 
that such amendments not be subject to amendment (H. Res. 468). Mr. 
George Meader, of Michigan, had been recognized by Chairman William H. 
Natcher, of Kentucky, to speak for five minutes in opposition to the 
pending committee amendment. The Chair then answered a parliamentary 
inquiry: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 106 Cong. Rec. 10579, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Dent [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Meader: I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Dent: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dent: Did the gentleman from Michigan get up and ask for 
    time to speak in opposition and would that include any of us who 
    are opposed to the bill, since he is speaking in favor of the bill?
        The Chairman: Under the rule, no one else can be recognized.
        Mr. Meader: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    wants me to yield to him to make a statement, I will be glad to do 
    so.
        Mr. Dent: I do not think that is it. I just want to know if the 
    rules of the House allow the time to be usurped by those in favor 
    of the bill when some time is supposed, under the rules of the 
    House, to be allocated to those who are opposed to the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair wishes to inform the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania that the gentleman from Michigan stated that he rose 
    in opposition to the amendment, and the Chair recognized the 
    gentleman from Michigan.

Sec. 24.15 When a bill is being considered under a closed rule, which 
    provides that amendments may be offered only at the direction of 
    the committee reporting the bill, only two five-minute speeches are 
    in order, one in support of the committee amendment and one in 
    opposition to the amendment and the Chair gives preference in 
    recognition to members of the committee reporting the bill.

    On May 18, 1960, the Committee of the Whole was considering a bill 
under a rule providing

[[Page 4275]]

that only committee amendments could be offered, such amendments not to 
be subject to amendment (H. Res. 468). Chairman William H. Natcher, of 
Kentucky, answered an inquiry on debate under the five-minute rule:

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, 
    will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: I yield to the gentleman from 
    West Virginia.

        Mr. Bailey: I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I oppose 
    the legislation in genera].
        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bailey: On what ground may I get recognition for the 
    purpose of opposing the legislation?
        The Chairman: The Chair recognized the gentleman from Louisiana 
    [Mr. Boggs] for 5 minutes in support of the committee amendment, so 
    the gentleman from Louisiana would have to yield to the 
    distinguished gentleman from West Virginia.
        Mr. Bailey: At the expiration of the 5 minutes allowed the 
    gentleman from Louisiana, may I be recognized to discuss the 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: If no other member of the committee rises in 
    opposition to the amendment, the Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 106 Cong. Rec. 10576, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate in the House

Sec. 24.16 Form of special order limiting and fixing the control of 
    time for debate on another special order.

    The following resolution reported from the Committee on Rules was 
under consideration on May 2, 1933: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H. Res. 125, 77 Cong. Rec. 2693, 73d Cong. 1st Sess. The special 
        order provided for in the resolution (H. Res. 124), also 
        reported from the Committee on Rules, provided for the 
        disposition of a House bill with Senate amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 
    124, and all points of order against said resolution shall be 
    waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    resolution and shall continue not to exceed 5 hours, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Rules, the previous question shall be 
    considered on the resolution to its adoption or rejection.

Sec. 24.17 Form of special rule providing for the consideration of a 
    Union Calendar bill in the House, waiving all points of order, 
    fixing time for debate, and ordering the previous question at the 
    conclusion of such debate (with the effect of precluding 
    amendments).

    The following resolution was under consideration on Mar. 11, 1933: 
(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 77 Cong. Rec. 198, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 4276]]

                            House Resolution 32

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2820, a bill 
    to maintain the credit of the United States Government, and all 
    points of order against said bill shall be considered as waived; 
    that, after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and 
    shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Economy, the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill to final passage.

Sec. 24.18 Form of resolution providing that the time for debate on a 
    motion to suspend the rules and pass a concurrent resolution shall 
    be extended to four hours, such time to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Foreign Affairs and such motion shall be the 
    continuing order of business of the House until finally disposed 
    of.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Sept. 20, 1943: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Res. 302, 89 Cong. Rec. 7646, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend 
        the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be 
        extended to 4 hours, such time to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Foreign Affairs; and said motion to suspend the 
        rules shall be the continuing order of business of the House 
        until finally disposed of.

    This resolution was itself passed under a motion to suspend the 
rules. Following its adoption Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that 
a demand for a second on the motion to suspend the rules, to gain 
control of time in opposition to the motion provided for, was not 
necessary, the House already having fixed control of debate on the 
motion by the adoption of the special order.

Sec. 24.19 Form of resolution authorizing a standing committee to call 
    up a list of enumerated bills and providing for their consideration 
    in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

    The following resolution reported from the Committee on Rules was 
under consideration on June 2, 1936: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. H. Res. 528, 80 Cong. Rec. 8746, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. See a]so H. 
        Res. 529, 80 Cong. Rec. 9966, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., June 18, 
        1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order for the Committee on the Judiciary to call

[[Page 4277]]

    up for consideration, without the intervention of any point of 
    order, the following bills:
        S. 3389. An act to provide for the appointment of two 
    additional judges for the southern district of New York.
        S. 2075. An act to provide for the appointment of additional 
    district judges for the eastern and western districts of Missouri.

        S. 2137. An act to provide for the appointment of one 
    additional district judge for the eastern, northern, and western 
    districts of Oklahoma.
        S. 2456. An act to provide for the appointment of an additional 
    district judge for the northern and southern districts of West 
    Virginia.
        H.R. 11072. A bill authorizing the appointment of an additional 
    district judge for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.
        H.R. 3043. A bill to provide for the appointment of an 
    additional district judge for the northern district of Georgia.
        Each such bill when called up shall be considered in the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole. After general debate on each such 
    bill, which shall continue not to exceed 20 minutes, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on the Judiciary, the bill shall be read for 
    amendment under the 5-minute rule.

Sec. 24.20 The House adopted a resolution reported from the Committee 
    on Rules fixing the time and control of debate in the House on 
    another resolution reported from that committee.

    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): 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 176, 119 Cong. Rec. 2804, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideiation 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.



 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       D. TYPES OF SPECIAL ORDERS
 
Sec. 25. As to Reading for Amendment

    An order of business resolution reported from the Committee on 
Rules may vary the method by which a bill is read for amendment in 
Committee of the Whole. For example, the resolution may

[[Page 4278]]

specify that the bill is to be read for amendment by titles instead of 
by sections, or that the bill shall be considered as having been 
read.(10) Where a bill is considered pursuant to a 
``closed'' rule, the resolution typically provides that the bill shall 
be considered as having been read and that no amendments except 
committee amendments may be offered. Under such a rule, if no 
amendments are in fact offered in Committee of the Whole, the stage of 
amendment is passed.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. Sec. 25.1-25.7, infra.
11. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 22.17, 22.18, supra; Sec. 25.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Special orders are often used to provide that a committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute (a committee amendment printed in the 
reported bill, in italics, which substitutes an entirely new text for 
the bill) be read as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The 
effect of such a resolution is to allow the committee amendment to be 
read section by section (or title by title, etc., as the rule 
specifies) and to be open to the four stages of amendment (an 
amendment, a substitute, and perfecting amendments to both the 
amendment and the substitute).(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. Sec. 25.12, 25.15, infra. A special order may further 
        provide that a designated amendment be in order if offered as 
        an amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
        substitute (see Sec. 25.16, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the special order provides for reading the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for 
amendment, the resolution will usually also provide that when the bill 
is reported from the Committee of the Whole to the House, any Member 
may demand a separate vote on any amendment adopted in Committee of the 
Whole to the committee amendment. Without such a provision, only the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as perfected, would 
be reported to the House for a vote, under the practice of the 
House.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 336, 337 [notes] (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a bill consists of only one section, and is reported from 
committee with a single-section amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, it is not necessary to provide, in the special order, for 
reading the amendment as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. 
In the absence of such a provision, the bill will be read in its 
entirety and the amendment reported following general debate in 
Committee of the Whole, whereupon both the

[[Page 4279]]

bill and the amendment will be pending and open to 
amendment.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 25.13, infra. See also Sec. 25.17, infra, for procedures 
        where the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
        not read as original text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
As to reading appropriation bills for amendment, see Ch. 25, infra.
As to reading for amendment under five-minute rule in Committee of the 
    Whole, see Sec. 19, supra.
As to resolutions read for amendment in Committee of the Whole under 
    special rule, see Sec. 20, supra.
As to designated amendment made in order by special rule, see Sec. 21, 
    supra.
As to closed rules restricting amendments and providing bills to be 
    considered as read, see Sec. 22, supra.
As to amendments and reading for amendment generally, see Ch. 27, 
    infra.
As to Senate bills read for amendment under special rule, see Sec. 27, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Varying Method of Reading Bill or Amendment in Nature of Substitute

Sec. 25.1 Form of resolution providing for reading an appropriation 
    bill for amendment by ``appropriation titles.''

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Oct. 18, 1945.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Res. 375, 91 Cong. Rec. 9813, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 4407) reducing certain appropriations and 
    contract authorizations available for the fiscal year 1946, and for 
    other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are 
    hereby waived; that after general debate, which shall be confined 
    to the bill and continue not to exceed 3 hours, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Appropriations, the bill shall be read 
    by appropriation titles for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At 
    the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted and the previous question shall be considered 
    as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Appropriation bills are usually read for 
amendment by paragraph.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 872 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 25.2 Form of resolution providing that a bill be read for 
    amendment by title instead of by sections.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on July 30, 1970: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 26253, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 4280]]

                                H. Res. 1168

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 17880) to amend the Defense Production Act of 
    1950, and for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Banking and Currency, the bill 
    shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule by titles 
    instead of by sections. At the conclusion of the consideration of 
    the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, 
    and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
    bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
    motion except one motion to recommit. After the passage of H.R. 
    17880, the Committee on Banking and Currency shall be discharged 
    from the further consideration of the bill S. 3302, and it shall 
    then be in order in the House to move to strike out all after the 
    enacting clause of the said Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof 
    the provisions contained in H.R. 17880 as passed by the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Bills other than appropriation bills are 
usually read for amendment by section.
    Where a bill is being read for amendment by titles, an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute may be offered after title I of the original 
text has been read for amendment, after the first section preceding 
title I (if there is such a preliminary section), or at the conclusion 
of the consideration of the final title of the bill.

Sec. 25.3 Form of resolution providing that a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute be read as an original bill by titles 
    rather than by sections.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Jan. 31, 1964: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Res. 616, 110 Cong. Rec. 1511, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 7152) to enforce the constitutional right to 
    vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United 
    States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in 
    public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to 
    institute suits to protect constitutional rights in education, to 
    establish a Community Relations Service, to extend for four years 
    the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in 
    federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal 
    Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes, and all

[[Page 4281]]

    points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue not 
    to exceed ten hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
    minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any points of order the substitute amendment 
    recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the 
    bill, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be 
    considered under the five-minute rule as an original bill, and 
    shall be read by titles instead of by sections. It shall also be in 
    order to consider, without the intervention of any point of order, 
    the text of the bill H.R. 980, 88th Congress, as an amendment to 
    the said committee substitute amendment. At the conclusion of such 
    consideration the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member 
    may demand a separate vote in the House on any of the amendments 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or committee 
    substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
    the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with or without 
    instructions.

Reading of Bill Waived

Sec. 25.4 Form of ``closed rule'' resolution waiving the reading of a 
    bill for amendment and permitting committee amendments only to be 
    offered to any part of the bill.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Feb. 14, 1934: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Res. 266, 78 Cong. Rec. 2503, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of H.R. 7835, a bill to provide revenue, equalize taxation, and for 
    other purposes, and all points of order against said bill are 
    hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined 
    to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 16 hours, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be 
    considered as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be 
    in order to said bill except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, and said amendments shall be in order, 
    any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments 
    offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means may be 
    offered to any section of the bill at the conclusion of the general 
    debate, but said amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At 
    the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question 
    shall be consid

[[Page 4282]]

    ered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with or 
    without instructions.

Sec. 25.5 Form of resolution providing for consideration of a bill in 
    Committee of the Whole, providing that the bill shall be considered 
    as having been read for amendment, and providing that no amendments 
    be in order.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on June 26, 1947: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. H. Res. 262, 93 Cong Rec. 7723, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
    the bill (H.R. 3961) to provide increases in the rates of pension 
    payable to Spanish-American War and Civil War veterans and their 
    dependents, and all points of order against said bill are hereby 
    waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill and continue not to exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the bill shall be considered as 
    having been read. No amendment shall be in order to the said bill. 
    At the conclusion of the general debate, the Committee shall rise 
    and report the bill to the House and the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
    intervening motion, except one motion to recommit.

Sec. 25.6 Form of resolution closing general debate on a bill in 
    Committee of the Whole, providing that the bill be considered as 
    having been read for amendment, and limiting the duration of the 
    five-minute debate to an hour and a half.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Apr. 17, 1936: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 80 Cong. Rec. 5634, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 489

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the consideration of H.R. 
    11563, a bill declaring an emergency in the housing condition in 
    the District of Columbia; creating a Rent Commission for the 
    District of Columbia; prescribing powers and duties of the 
    commission, and for other purposes; and all points of order against 
    said bill are hereby waived. General debate on said bill shall be 
    considered as closed, and the bill shall be considered as having 
    been read the second time. Amendments may be offered to any section 
    of the bill, but debate under the 5-minute

[[Page 4283]]

    rule shall be closed within one hour and a half. At the conclusion 
    of the consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall 
    rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
    have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit with or 
    without instructions.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The intent of the provision in this special 
order for waiving the ``second reading'' of the bill was to consider 
the bill as having been read and open to amendment at any point under 
the five-minute rule.

Sec. 25.7 Form of resolution providing that the bill and committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as read and 
    permitting only committee amendments to the bill or amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Mar. 4, 1964: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 643, 110 Cong. Rec. 4307, 4308 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 8000) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 
    to impose a tax on acquisitions of certain foreign securities in 
    order to equalize costs of longer term financing in the United 
    States and in markets abroad, and for other purposes, and all 
    points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not 
    to exceed three hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, the bill shall be considered as having been read for 
    amendment. It shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the substitute amendment 
    recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now in the bill and 
    such substitute shall be considered as having been read for 
    amendment and shall be considered as an original bill for purposes 
    of amendment under the fiveminute rule. No other amendment to the 
    bill or committee substitute shall be in order except amendments 
    offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and said 
    amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, but such amendments shall not be subject to 
    amendment. At the conclusion of such consideration, the Committee 
    shall rise and report the bill to the House, with such amendments 
    as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion, except one motion to recommit 
    with or without instructions.

Reading Bill in Entirety

Sec. 25.8 Form of special rule providing for the consideration

[[Page 4284]]

    of a bill in the Committee of the Whole and directing that in the 
    consideration of the bill under the five-minute rule the bill 
    should be read in its entirety, following which amendments should 
    be in order to any paragraph.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Aug. 22, 1935:

        Resolved, That immediately 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 H.R. 8455, a bill authorizing the construction of 
    certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and 
    for other purposes. That after general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Flood Control, the bill in its entirety 
    shall be read for amendment, following which amendments shall be in 
    order to any paragraph of the bill, and such amendments shall be 
    considered under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the 
    consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise 
    and report the same to the House with such amendments as may have 
    been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit, with or without 
    instructions.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Res. 349, 79 Cong. Rec. 14151, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 25.9 Where a special rule provided for the reading of a bill in 
    its entirety, it was held in order following debate under the five-
    minute rule to move to close debate on the bill and all amendments 
    thereto.

    On Aug. 22, 1935, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 
8455, a bill providing public works on rivers and harbors, pursuant to 
a special order (H. Res. 349) which provided in part as follows:

        . . . That after general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Flood Control, the bill in its entirety shall be read 
    for amendment, following which amendments shall be in order to any 
    paragraph of the bill, and such amendments shall be considered 
    under the 5-minute rule.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 79 Cong. Rec. 14151, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following some debate in Committee of the Whole under the five-
minute rule, a motion to close debate was offered:

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate

[[Page 4285]]

    on this bill and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.
        The Chairman: (6) The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
    Nichols] moves that all debate on the bill and all amendments 
    thereto close in 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Claude A. Fuller (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against that motion.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Chairman, such a motion is only in order when a 
    bill is being read by sections and after an amendment has been 
    offered. The motion is not in order at this stage.
        The Chairman: The rule provided for the reading of the entire 
    bill, and the Chair holds that the motion of the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma is in order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 14192, 14193, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading Committee Amendment in Nature of Substitute as Original Bill or 
    Resolution for Amendment

Sec. 25.10 Form of resolution providing that, during consideration of a 
    House resolution on the House Calendar, a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute be read as an original resolution for 
    amendment.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Dec. 3, 1970: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 39846, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1272

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the resolution (H. Res. 1147) relating to certain allowances of 
    Members, officers, and standing committees of the House of 
    Representatives, and for other purposes. 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 House 
    Administration, the resolution shall be read for amendment under 
    the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
    Committee on House Administration as an original resolution for the 
    purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, and all points of 
    order against sections 2(a) and 3(a) of said substitute are hereby 
    waived. At the conclusion of such consideration, the Committee 
    shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a 
    separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
    Committee of the Whole to the resolution or to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and amendments 
    thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
    motion to recommit [with] or without instructions.

Sec. 25.11 Form of resolution providing, on a bill managed by

[[Page 4286]]

    two committees, that one committee's amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute be read as an original bill for amendment (part 
    ``open'', part ``closed'').

    The following resolution was under consideration on Sept. 23, 1970: 
(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 33296, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1216

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 18583) to amend the Public Health Service Act and 
    other laws to provide increased research into, and prevention of, 
    drug abuse and drug dependence; to provide for treatment and 
    rehabilitation of drug abusers and drug dependent persons; and to 
    strengthen existing law enforcement authority in the field of drug 
    abuse. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and shall continue not to exceed four hours, three hours to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and one 
    hour to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
    bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
    shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point 
    of order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now printed in the 
    bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
    five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of title 
    II of the amendment in the nature of a substitute for amendment, 
    title III of said substitute shall be considered as having been 
    read for amendment. No amendments shall be in order to title III of 
    said substitute except amendments offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Ways and Means, and said amendments shall be in order, 
    any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, but shall 
    not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration 
    of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, 
    and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
    amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
    question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
    thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one 
    motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 25.12 Where a bill is being considered under a rule providing that 
    a committee substitute shall be read as an original bill for 
    amendment, the Clerk reads the substitute by sections as the text 
    to be perfected by amendment; and if said substitute,

[[Page 4287]]

    as amended, is rejected in Committee of the Whole, the original 
    bill is read by section for amendment.

    On July 10, 1941, the Committee of the Whole concluded general 
debate on S. 1524 (deferment under Selective Training and Service Act), 
where the bill was being considered pursuant to a special order 
providing that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be 
read as an original bill for amendment (H. Res. 243). Chairman Schuyler 
Otis Bland, of Virginia, answered parliamentary inquiries on reading 
for amendment: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 5962, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: All time has expired. The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted, etc., That section 5(e) of the Selective 
        Training and Service Act of 1940 is amended by adding at the 
        end thereof the following:
            ``Anything in this act to the contrary notwithstanding, the 
        President is authorized, under such rules and regulations as he 
        may prescribe, to provide for the deferment from training and 
        service under this act in the land and naval forces of the 
        United States of the men who, on the 1st day of July 1941, or 
        on the 1st day of July of any subsequent year, (1) are liable 
        for such training and service, (2) have not been inducted into 
        the land or naval forces for such training and service, and (3) 
        have attained the twenty-eighth anniversary of the day of their 
        birth.''

        The Chairman: Pursuant to the resolution, the Clerk will now 
    read the House substitute as an original bill, reading it by 
    sections for amendment.
        Mr. [William P.] Cole [Jr. of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cole of Maryland: I understand that at the conclusion of 
    the reading of each section of the committee substitute that 
    particular section will be subject to amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. [R. Ewing] Thomason [of Texas]: A parliamentary inquiry, 
    Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Thomason: Am I correct in understanding that the substitute 
    offered by the House committee to the Senate bill will now be read 
    and will be subject to amendment by sections?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Thomason: Further, that after the committee substitute has 
    been read and amended, if it should be amended, the question will 
    then recur upon the adoption of the committee substitute as 
    amended.
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Thomason: Assuming that after the committee substitute has 
    been amended and is submitted to the Committee for a vote, the 
    committee substitute is voted down, would the Senate bill then be 
    read for amendment?
        The Chairman: Then the Senate bill would be considered section 
    by section, subject to amendment.
        Mr. Thomason: If we went back to the Senate bill.

[[Page 4288]]

        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: In the event that the House bill is agreed to 
    by the Committee, then will the House have an opportunity to vote 
    on the House bill as a separate amendment after the Committee 
    rises?
        The Chairman: If it is agreed to by the Committee, it will be 
    reported back to the House as an amendment, and a vote in the House 
    may be had on that amendment.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Chair directed the Clerk to 
read the first paragraph of the original bill before reading the first 
section of the substitute, that is no longer the practice when an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute is read as an original bill.

Sec. 25.13 Where a bill consists of only one section, and is reported 
    from committee with a single section amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, it is unnecessary to specify, in a resolution providing 
    for the consideration of the bill, for reading the amendment as an 
    original bill, for in the absence of such a provision, the bill is 
    read by the Clerk when general debate is concluded and the 
    committee amendment is then reported; both the bill and the 
    amendment are thus pending and open for amendment when 
    consideration under the five-minute rule begins (although the 
    committee amendment is not considered as original text for the 
    purpose of offering amendments).

    On July 17, 1969,(11) the House adopted the following 
special order, where the bill therein provided for, and the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, consisted of only one section:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 19905, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 476

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill ( H. R. 7491) to clarify the liability of national 
    banks for certain taxes. After general debate which shall be 
    confined to the bill 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 Banking and Currency, the bill 
    shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and

[[Page 4289]]

    any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or Committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill. 
    The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
    and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit with or without instruction.

    At the conclusion of general debate in Committee of the Whole, the 
reading for amendment proceeded as follows (Chairman Richard H. Ichord, 
of Missouri, presiding):(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at p. 19913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: There being no further requests for time, the 
    Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,
            Section 1. A national bank has no immunity from any sales 
        tax, use tax, or personal property tax which it would be 
        required to pay if it were a bank chartered under the laws of 
        the State or other jurisdiction within which its principal 
        offlce is located.

        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: Strike out all after the enacting 
        clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``Sec. 1. Amendment of section 5219 of the Revised 
        Statutes.
            `` `(a) Section 5219 of the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 
        548) is amended to read:
            `` `Sec. 5219. For the purposes of any tax law enacted 
        under authority of the United States or any State, a national 
        bank shall be deemed to be a bank organized and existing under 
        the laws of the State or other jurisdiction within which its 
        principal office is located.'
            ``(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) becomes 
        effective on the first day of the first calendar year which 
        begins after the date of enactment.''

        Mr. [Garry E.] Brown of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.

Sec. 25.14 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    was being considered as an original bill under a special procedure 
    permitting points of order to be ``properly raised against any 
    title, part or section . . . within the jurisdiction of any other 
    standing committee,'' the Chair indicated, in response to a 
    parliamentary inquiry, that if the pending title of the substitute 
    were considered as read and the Committee then rose, points of 
    order could be made prior to amendments being offered to that title 
    or debate thereon when the committee resumed consideration of the 
    bill.

[[Page 4290]]

    On Oct. 27, 1971,(13) the House adopted House Resolution 
661, providing for the consideration of H.R. 7248 (to amend the Higher 
Education Act and for other purposes). The resolution contained a 
provision allowing points of order to be raised against the committee 
substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 37765, 37766, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education 
    and Labor now printed in the bill as an original bill for the 
    purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, said substitute 
    shall be read for amendment by titles instead of by sections, and 
    all points of order against said substitute for failure to comply 
    with the provisions of clause 7, rule XVI and clause 4, rule XXI 
    are hereby waived, and further, all titles, parts, or sections of 
    the said substitute, the subject matter of which is properly within 
    the jurisdiction of any other standing committee of the House of 
    Representatives, shall be subject to a point of order for such 
    reason if such point of order is properly raised during the 
    consideration of H.R. 7248. s

    While the bill was being considered for amendment in Committee of 
the Whole, Chairman James C. Wright, Jr., of Texas, answered an inquiry 
on raising such points of order if the committee should rise after 
agreement that a pending title be considered as read and open to 
amendment: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 38079, 38080, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 28 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title VIII be considered as 
    read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentlewoman from Oregon?
        There was no objection.
    Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do 
now rise.

        Mr. [Durwood G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, will points of order lie against the 
    title if we now rise, when we resume consideration next week?
        The Chairman: Points of order will be in order against matter 
    contained in title VIII if they are timely offered and made prior 
    to any further action of the committee on the pending title.
        Mr. Hall: I thank the Chair.

Offering Amendments to Committee Amendment in Nature of Substitute.

Sec. 25.15 Where, pursuant to a special rule, a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, printed in the bill, is being read as 
    original text for the purpose of amendment, there may be pending to 
    that text (1) an amendment in the nature of a substitute, (2) a 
    substitute

[[Page 4291]]

    therefor, and (3) amendments to both the amendment and the 
    substitute; and the portion of the original text (of the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute) which was pending, when 
    the amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered thereto, is 
    also open to amendment.

    On Apr. 23, 1969, title I of a committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute had been read for amendment pursuant to the provisions of 
a special order adopted by the House, providing that said committee 
amendment be read by titles as an original bill for amendment (H. Res. 
366). There were pending to the committee amendment an amendment (in 
the nature of a substitute) and a substitute amendment therefor. 
Chairman Charles M. Price, of Illinois, answered parliamentary 
inquiries on possible pending amendments: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 10066, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Erlenborn) rise?
        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn: To make a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Mr. Chairman, is the Perkins substitute 
    amendment open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: It is.
        Mr. Erlenborn: And is the Green of Oregon amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: It is.
        Mr. Erlenborn: So both are open to amendment at this point?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Erlenborn: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Should the Perkins substitute amendment be voted 
    upon and adopted, would it then be subject to amendment?
        The Chairman: No, it would not.
        Mr. Erlenborn: If the Perkins substitute amendment is voted 
    upon and rejected, would the Green of Oregon amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute then be open to amendment?
        The Chairman: It would be.
        Mr. Erlenborn: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Is title I of H.R. 514 subject to amendment at 
    this time?
        The Chairman: It is.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where, pursuant to a special resolution 
providing for its consideration, a bill (or committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute) is being read for amendment by ti

[[Page 4292]]

tles, an amendment in the nature of a substitute for the whole bill is 
properly offered after title I of the original text (or a section 1 
preceding title I, if there is one) has been read for amendment.
    In this case, the Green amendment in the nature of a substitute had 
been properly offered after title I of the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute had been read. As indicated by the Chair, title 
I of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was also 
open to amendment (to an amendment, a substitute thereor, and a 
perfecting amendment to each of those). In such a situation, eight 
amendments may conceivably be pending simultaneously, and perfecting 
amendments to the pending original text (title I of the committee 
amendment) take precedence.

Sec. 25.16 Where the Committee on Rules had reported a resolution 
    making in order consideration of a committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute as an original bill for amendment, and 
    making in order the text of another bill as an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute therefor, the Speaker pro tempore indicated, 
    in response to a series of parliamentary inquiries, that (1) 
    amendments would be in order to such substitute at any point and 
    would not be in the third degree; (2) if the substitute text were 
    offered when only section 1 of the committee amendment had been 
    read, only that section of the committee amendment would be open to 
    perfecting amendment while the substitute was pending; and (3) if 
    the substitute were defeated in Committee of the Whole, the 
    committee amendment would be read by sections for amendment.

    On June 16, 1970, there was pending before the House House 
Resolution 1077 providing for the consideration of H.R. 17070, the 
Postal Reform Act of 1970:

                                H. Res. 1077

        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 con-sideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 17070) to improve and modernize the postal 
    service, to reorganize the Post Office Department and for other 
    purposes, and all points of order against said bill are hereby 
    waived. After general debate which shall be confined to the bill 
    and shall continue not to exceed four hours, to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking

[[Page 4293]]

    minority member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 
    the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
    shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point 
    of order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service now printed in the 
    bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
    five-minute rule. It shall also be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the text of the bill H.R. 17966 
    as a substitute for the said committee amendment. At the conclusion 
    of the consideration of H.R. 17070 for amendment, the Committee 
    shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in 
    the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to 
    the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
    the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
    instructions.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 19837, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered 
parliamentary inquiries on offering amendments under the provisions of 
the special order:

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: Mr. Speaker, may I present 
    a parliamentary inquiry at this time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Smith of California: In connection with H.R. 17070, which 
    the Rules Committee has made in order as a committee substitute for 
    the original committee bill, which was stricken out, and against 
    which bill points of order are to be waived, and in addition in 
    connection with H.R. 17966, which has been made in order as a 
    substitute, waiving points of order, my understanding of the 
    parliamentary situation is, if we do not get into the third degree 
    where we are stopped, that when H.R. 17966 is offered as a 
    substitute it will be open to amendment as we go through the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It will be open to amendment at any 
    point.
        Mr. Smith of California: It is my understanding if we have an 
    amendment pending on that bill, which is one amendment, we can also 
    have an amendment pending on the original bill if it applies to the 
    same section or same part of the bill. In other words, we are not 
    precluded from amending H.R. 17070 until we completely take care of 
    H.R. 17966 and the Committee rises and you vote on that. We can 
    amend in the Committee of the Whole H.R. 17070.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the Chair correctly understands the 
    gentleman, the answer to it is that the Udall substitute can be 
    offered as an amendment to section 1. Other amendments can be 
    offered to section 1 of the committee amendment, but no other 
    amendments can be offered beyond section 1 to the committee 
    amendment.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Smith of California: I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 4294]]

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Is it not accurate to say, however, that if 
    the Udall-Derwinski substitute, H.R. 17966, is defeated in the 
    Committee of the Whole, then any other part of H.R. 17070 is open 
    for amendment at any point?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In that event, the Committee of the 
    Whole would go back and read the committee amendment as an original 
    bill, in which case each section would be open for amendment as it 
    was read.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at p. 19838.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 25.17 Where a bill was being considered in Committee of the Whole 
    under a special procedure making in order the text of another bill 
    as an amendment in the nature of a substitute immediately after the 
    reading of the enacting clause (but not providing for reading of 
    said substitute as an original bill for amendment), the Chair 
    indicated: (1) that the entire amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute would be read and then open to amendment at any point; 
    (2) that the Chair would first recognize members of the committee 
    reporting the bill in order of seniority thereon, alternating 
    between majority and minority sides, to offer amendments; (3) that 
    the Chair would not, in his discretion, entertain a unanimous-
    consent request that said substitute be read for amendment by 
    sections where the special order adopted by the House did not so 
    provide; (4) that recognition to offer an amendment specifically 
    made in order to said substitute would be governed by precedents 
    relating to recognition where the special order did not attach a 
    priority to that amendment; and (5) that amendments changing 
    amendments already adopted to said substitute might not be in 
    order, although adoption of an amendment to a section of said 
    substitute would not necessarily preclude the offering of further 
    amendments to that section.

    On Dec. 12, 1973,(18) Mr. Gillis W. Long, of Louisiana, 
offered, by direction of the Committee on Rules, and the House adopted 
a special order providing for the consideration of the ``Energy 
Emergency Act.'' The resolution made in order the text of another bill 
as an amendment in the nature of a substitute but did not provide that 
it be read as an original bill for the purpose of amend
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 41105-14, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4295]]

ment. The resolution also made in order the text of another bill as an 
amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute:

                                H. Res. 744

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move, clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, 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. 11450) to direct the President to take action to 
    assure, through energy conservation, rationing, and other means, 
    that the essential energy needs of the United States are met, and 
    for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined 
    to the bill and shall continue not to exceed three hours, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the 
    bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
    shall be in order immediately after the enacting clause is read to 
    consider without the intervention of any point of order the text of 
    the bill H.R. 11882 if offered as an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for the bill H.R. 11450. It shall also be in order to 
    consider without the intervention of any point of order the text of 
    the bill H.R. 11891 if offered as an amendment to said amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute. At the conclusion of the consideration 
    of H.R. 11450 for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report 
    the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted 
    and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
    bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
    motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

    At the conclusion of general debate in Committee of the Whole, 
Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce which had reported the bill, offered 
the text of H.R. 11882 as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
as provided in the special order. When he asked unanimous consent that 
the amendment be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point, and the request was objected to, Chairman 
Richard Bolling, of Missouri, answered a series of parliamentary 
inquiries on the procedure for offering amendments under the provisions 
of the special order. The Chair first answered an inquiry as to when 
amendments could be offered to the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute:

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is this: Does that mean that after the entire 
    text of the bill has been read that amendments referring to any 
    place in the bill would be in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that that is correct.
        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 4296]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, does that mean 
    that amendments to sections as they are read may not be offered at 
    that time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the whole of the text 
    of the amendment in the nature of a substitute will be read before 
    any amendments are in order. It is one amendment. When that is 
    done, when the entire amendment in the nature of a substitute has 
    been read, that is, the entire text of H.R. 11882 has been read, 
    then amendments will be in order to all of the text.
        The Chair will further state that the Chair will attempt to 
    deal with the problem of amendments when that time arrives, and 
    will attempt to do so in an orderly fashion.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 41153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair then answered an inquiry as to recognition to offer 
amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute:

        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry, or perhaps this is not a parliamentary 
    inquiry, but I would ask the Chairman if there is any way in which 
    we can have an orderly procedure for the offering of amendments, 
    starting at the first part of the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, and going through the bill, rather than jumping over 
    the whole bill for amendment purposes?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair, with the 
    cooperation of the Members, will attempt to achieve that purpose. 
    The Chair will say that if permitted by the Membership to do so, 
    that the Chair proposes to bring order into the situation by 
    following the usual custom of recognizing the members of the 
    committee alternately, from one side to the other, more or less in 
    their order on the committee.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at pp. 41153, 41154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair then indicated that he did not consider it appropriate to 
entertain a unanimous-consent request, that the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute be read for amendment by section, where the special 
order did not so provide:

        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, would it be in order to read the first title and 
    then open the first title to amendment and complete that before 
    going on?

        The Chairman: Not under the rule adopted by the House under 
    which the Committee is now operating. The rule adopted by the House 
    is clear. The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
    that being the bill H.R. 11882, has to be read in full. . . .
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: I would ask the Chairman whether 
    there could be some understanding that those who offer amendments 
    will be recognized as we go along, rather than to recognize members 
    of the committee exclusively? So that we can go through this bill 
    in some kind of an orderly fashion, instead of going to section 
    103, and then to the Lord knows what the last section of the bill 
    may be? Could there be

[[Page 4297]]

    some understanding that they could be recognized in that fashion?
        Mr. Staggers: Of course, it is within the power of the Chairman 
    who is presiding, but I would ask unanimous consent that we amend 
    the bill section by section as we go along, saying that each 
    section is open for amendment at any point.
        The Chairman: The Chair would have to state that he is afraid 
    that that is not a proper request at this time. The rule that was 
    adopted by the House provides for a procedure, and while most 
    Members feel that any unanimous consent request will do anything, 
    the Chair has a charge from the House, simply by being the Chair, 
    to protect the Rules of the House. The Chair has stated the way in 
    which he will try to provide for an orderly procedure, but the rule 
    provides for a procedure, and brineine order out of that procedure 
    will have to be within the rule.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at p. 41154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Priority of recognition to offer amendments to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute was discussed:

        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, would it 
    be in order for the Chairman to recognize Members offering 
    amendments in the order in which those amendments appear in the 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute. If he is advised, for 
    example, that an amendment is to be offered to section 3 by the 
    gentleman from North Carolina, will he give priority to that 
    gentleman, and to the extent that the Chair is advised as to which 
    sections amendments apply, will he follow the order of the sections 
    in recognizing Members? Would that be in order?
        The Chairman: The Chairman can say that there is a solution 
    that might achieve that result. A great many of the amendments 
    already at the desk are from those who would be recognized first--
    members of the committee. If the members of the committee will 
    proceed by self-discipline in that fashion, the situation will then 
    work out. The only solution that the Chair can see is for the 
    members of the committee who have amendments to the first part of 
    the first title to rise first, and the rest not rise, and proceed 
    in that fashion.
        The Chair recognizes the situation.
        Mr. Bingham: Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary 
    inquiry. If the Chair is advised that nonmembers of the committee 
    have amendments to early sections, would he be free to recognize 
    nonmembers of the committee before recognizing other members of the 
    committee for amendments to a later section?
        The Chairman: The custom of the House, and the almost unfailing 
    custom of the House, is to recognize members of the committee, 
    alternating sides from the majority to the minority. The Chair does 
    not propose to discuss the philosophy of that custom, but that is 
    the custom.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In relation to the amendment made in order to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute by the special order, the Chair indicated the 
priority of recognition to offer that amendment:

[[Page 4298]]

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I should like to inquire, if the request of the 
    gentleman is accepted and there is no objection to it, when it 
    would be timely for the amendment made in order by the rule to the 
    text of the substitute to be offered, that amendment being H.R. 
    11891, which would be the amendment, as the rule prescribes, to 
    H.R. 11882?
        The Chairman: The Chair would repeat what the Chair has already 
    said. The Chair would recognize Members to offer amendments as they 
    are reached in the customary procedure of the House.
        There is no particular priority, there is no special priority 
    given to that amendment but the gentleman is a member of the 
    committee and he ranks on the committee and the Chair would seek to 
    reach him in an orderly fashion.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair also responded to inquiries as to the possibility of 
offering amendments to sections which had already been changed by 
amendment:

        Mr. [John T.] Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, under the rule 
    we are operating on now, later tonight when there is consideration 
    of the amendment to the later sections of the bill, would it still 
    be in order to recognize somebody for amendment of an earlier 
    section which had been already passed over?
        The Chairman: We could not amend text that had been amended but 
    an unamended portion would still be open to amendment.
        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, would that mean 
    another amendment to another part of that section would not be in 
    order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is getting the Chair into a 
    position where he cannot answer a theoretical question because 
    there are so many different variations. If under the rules of the 
    House a particular section would still be in an amendable 
    condition, the Chair would have to recognize a Member to offer a 
    proper amendment. It might be a situation where the amendment would 
    have been amended and it would not be in order to further amend it. 
    The Chair cannot project all the different variations and 
    possibilities and must meet them as they arise. . . .
        There is no special treatment involved here. The general rules 
    provide for certain procedures. For example, one rule is that if a 
    section is amended by a complete substitute, it is not subject to 
    further amendment. But we are operating under the rules of the 
    House and if there is a section that is amendable it will continue 
    to be amendable until the final process is over, but there are 
    certain circumstances under which a section having been amended is 
    no longer amendable. That would be the general limitation, but we 
    are going to operate under the general rules of the House in as 
    orderly a fashion as the Chairman and the Members of the House are 
    capable of producing.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at pp. 41154, 41155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4299]]


                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       D. TYPES OF SPECIAL ORDERS
 
Sec. 26. As to Voting and Motions

    One motion which a special order may affect in Committee of the 
Whole is the motion that the Committee rise and report the bill back to 
the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken. 
As long as the stage of amendment is still pending, the motion is in 
order. But in the event a ``closed'' rule has been adopted, and no 
(committee) amendments are offered in Committee of the Whole, the stage 
of amendment has passed and the motion is not in order.(6) 
Motions to strike out a portion of a bill, which are in effect 
amendments, may also depend on the provisions of a special order, 
particularly if the resolution specifically makes in order such an 
amendment.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 26.1, 26.2, infra. For an occasion where the motion 
        that the Committee rise and report the bill back to the House 
        with the recommendation that it be recommitted was held out of 
        order, see Sec. 26.3, infra.
 7. Motions to strike out portions of a bill are sometimes made in 
        order in conjunction with a ``closed'' rule, allowing only 
        committee amendments or specified amendments to be offered. See 
        Sec. 22, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Special orders usually provide that following the report of the 
Committee of the Whole to the House on a bill which has been debated 
and amended, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage (without intervening 
motion except one motion to recommit). The effect of such a provision 
is to preclude further debate or amendments in the House on the bill, 
except on a motion to recommit with instructions.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 26.4, infra. If a special order provides for consideration 
        of a measure in the House, and orders the previous question 
        after a certain amount of debate, further debate or amendments 
        are similarly precluded. See Sec. 26.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to recommit may not be denied by the provisions of a 
resolution from the Committee on Rules, pursuant to the provisions of 
Rule XI.(9) But a special order may alter the permissible 
form and scope of the motion to recommit. A resolution from the 
Committee on Rules may, for example, allow two motions to recommit on 
the same measure.(10) Usually, a ``closed'' rule specifies 
that during the consideration of a bill in Committee of the Whole, no 
amendments, or only certain amendments, may be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Rule XI clause 4(b) in the House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) 1979. 
        See Sec. Sec. 26.8, 26.11, infra.
10. See Sec. Sec. 26.13, 26.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4300]]

Under the provisions of such a rule, a motion to recommit with 
instructions could be offered in the House to recommit with 
instructions to incorporate an amendment which would not have been in 
order in Committee of the Whole only because of the resolution. But the 
Committee on Rules may report and the House may adopt a resolution 
restricting amendments to a certain title of a bill both in the House 
and in the Committee of the Whole, thus prohibiting such a motion to 
recommit with instructions.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 26.11, 26.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a special order provides that a committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute may be offered, or may be read as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment, the resolution usually provides that 
there may be offered a motion to recommit ``with or without 
instructions.'' The purpose of that language is to allow a motion to 
recommit with instructions to report back with amendments, despite 
previous adoption by the House of a committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute reported from Committee of the Whole (it is not in 
order, without the provisions of such a resolution, to amend an 
amendment already adopted by the House).(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 26.10, infra; and House Rules and Manual Sec. 788 [note] 
        (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member may demand a separate vote in the House on an amendment to 
a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the 
Committee of the Whole, where the bill is being considered under a 
special rule permitting separate votes in the House on any of the 
amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the 
committee amendment. Special rules permitting such separate votes 
generally provide that at the conclusion of consideration of the bill 
in Committee of the Whole, ``the Committee shall rise and report the 
bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and 
any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment 
adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
amendments in the nature of a substitute.'' (13) Thus, where 
a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is read as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment, or where a single-section 
bill with a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is under 
consideration, all amendments adopted to it in Committee of the Whole 
are subject to a demand for a separate vote in the House pursuant to a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 26. 15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4301]]

special order so providing, regardless of the consistency of such 
amendments.(14) Without a special order permitting such 
separate votes, the House would, upon the report of the Committee of 
the Whole, have only the choice between the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as perfected (since only one amendment in its 
perfected form is reported back from Committee of the Whole), and the 
original bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 26.20, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
As to motions in Committee of the Whole, see Ch. 19, supra.
As to motions generally, see Ch. 23, infra.
As to voting generally, see Ch. 30, infra.
As to motions to strike out portion of bill made in order, see Sec. 22, 
    supra.
As to voting on amendments between the Houses and conference reports 
    under special rules. see Sec. 27 
    infra.                          -------------------

Motion That Committee Rise and Report Bill to House With Recommendation 
    That Enacting Clause Be Stricken

Sec. 26.1 Where a bill is being considered under a rule permitting only 
    committee amendments and no amendments thereto, a motion that the 
    Committee rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out is in order 
    until the stage of amendment has passed.

    On Sept. 3, 1959,(15) a preferential motion was offered 
in the Committee of the Whole while H.R. 8678 (Federal-Aid Highway Act) 
was under consideration for amendment under the five-minute rule (where 
only committee amendments were permitted under the special rule, and 
there remained other committee amendments besides the one pending):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 17988, 17989, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (l6) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman that only 5 minutes is permitted in support of the 
    amendment and 5 minutes in opposition. Five minutes has been 
    consumed in support of the amendment. Therefore, the Chair cannot 
    recognize the gentleman at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William Pat Jennings (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hays moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken out.

[[Page 4302]]

    Mr. Hays was recognized for five minutes in favor of the motion, 
and another Member was recognized for five minutes in opposition.

    The bill was being considered under a special order providing as 
follows: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Res. 372, 105 Cong. Rec. 17946, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill, and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Public Works, the bill shall be considered as 
    having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in order to 
    said bill except amendments offered by direction of the Committee 
    on Public Works. Amendments offered by direction of the Committee 
    on Public Works may be offered to any section of the bill at the 
    conclusion of the general debate, but said amendments shall not be 
    subject to amendment.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 12720-25, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 15, 
        1960; and 106 Cong. Rec. 10577-79, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 18, 
        1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.2 Where a bill is being considered under a ``closed'' rule 
    permitting only committee amendments and no amendments thereto, a 
    motion that the Committee rise and report the bill back to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    out is not in order where no committee amendments are offered, 
    since the stage of amendment has been passed.

    On Apr. 6, 1970, the Committee of the Whole concluded general 
debate on H.R. 16311 (the Family Assistance Act of 1970) where the 
House had adopted a ``closed'' rule for the consideration of the bill, 
allowing only committee amendments to the bill, such amendments not to 
be subject to amendment (H. Res. 916). Chairman John D. Dingell, of 
Michigan, indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that since 
no committee amendments were offered, the stage of amendment was passed 
and a preferential motion was not in order: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, I have no 
    further requests for time. I had some time to reserve for myself, 
    but I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the bill is considered as having 
    been read for amendment. No amendments are in order to the bill 
    except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means.
        Are there any committee amendments?
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Chairman, there are no committee amendments.

[[Page 4303]]

        Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I have a preferential 
    motion. Is it in order to offer a preferential motion at this time?
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman advise the Chair what sort of 
    preferential motion he has in mind?
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: To strike the enacting clause.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas 
    that that motion is not in order unless amendments are in order, 
    and are offered. There being no committee amendments, that motion 
    will not be in order at this time.
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, if there 
    are no committee amendments to be offered, if the bill is 
    perfected?
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas 
    that the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman 
    from Arkansas (Mr. Mills), has just advised the Chair that there 
    are no committee amendments. That being so, the motion is not in 
    order at this time.

Motion That Committee of the Whole Rise and Report Bill to House With 
    Recommendation That It Be Recommitted

Sec. 26.3 A motion that the Committee of the Whole do now rise and 
    report a bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
    recommitted to the committee from which reported is not in order 
    where the Committee of the Whole is considering the bill under a 
    resolution setting out the conditions under which the bill is to be 
    considered.

    On Aug. 10, 1950, there was pending before the Committee of the 
Whole a bill being considered pursuant to a special order adopted on 
July 31: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. H. Res. 740, 96 Cong. Rec. 11432, 11433, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 9176) to establish a system of 
    priorities and allocations for materials and facilities, authorize 
    the requisitioning thereof, provide financial assistance for 
    expansion of productive capacity and supply, strengthen controls 
    over credit, regulate speculation on commodity exchanges, and by 
    these measures facilitate the production of goods and services 
    necessary for the national security, and for other purposes, and 
    all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. That after 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continued 
    not to exceed 1 day, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking 
    and Currency, the bill shall be read for

[[Page 4304]]

    amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
    without the intervention of any point of order the substitute 
    committee amendment recommended by the Committee on Banking and 
    Currency now in the bill, and such substitute for the purpose of 
    amendment shall be considered under the 5-minute rule as an 
    original bill. At the conclusion of such consideration the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a 
    separate vote in the House on any of the amendments adopted in the 
    Committee of the Whole to the bill or committee substitute. The 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

    In Committee of the Whole, Chairman Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
ruled that it was not in order to move that the Committee rise and 
report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the bill 
be recommitted to the committee which had reported it: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Id. at p. 12219.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rankin moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
        recommitted to the Committee on Banking and Currency for 
        further hearings and study.

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this 
    being a straight motion to recommit, without instructions, it is 
    not permissible under the rule under which we are considering the 
    bill in Committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
    That motion is not in order in Committee of the Whole, and the 
Chair sustains the point of order.

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, it is in order to make a motion that 
    the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House 
    with the recommendation that it be recommitted to the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency for further study and hearing.
        The Chairman: In the consideration of this bill the Committee 
    of the Whole is operating under a special rule which lays down the 
    conditions under which the bill is to be considered. The motion of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi is not in order at this time.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the earlier precedents indicate 
that a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill to 
the House with the recommendation it be recommitted is privileged in 
Committee of the Whole (see, i.e., 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2329), 
that motion is not in the current practice admissible when inconsistent 
with a

[[Page 4305]]

special rule providing for consideration (as opposed to consideration 
under the general rules of the House). Since a typical special rule 
provides for a motion to recommit pending the vote on passage in the 
House (the previous question having been ordered by the rule), 
recommittal should be in order only at that time (or after the 
Committee rises with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken, under Rule XXIII, clause 7).

Previous Question Considered as Ordered by Special Order

Sec. 26.4 When the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports a 
    bill back to the House pursuant to a resolution providing that the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered, further debate or 
    amendments in the House are thereby precluded; and the Speaker does 
    not entertain unanimous-consent requests that further amendments be 
    in order.

    On Aug. 31, 1960,(2) the Committee of the Whole reported 
a bill back to the House, where the special order under which the bill 
was being considered provided that the previous question be considered 
as ordered. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry on the possibility for further debate and amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 106 Cong. Rec. 18748, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Under the rule the previous question is ordered.
        The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
        The bill was read a third time.
        Mr. [H. Carl] Andersen of Minnesota: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: Would it be possible by unanimous 
    consent to return to the amendment stage?
        The Speaker: It would not. The previous question has already 
    been ordered. All amendments and all debate are exhausted.
        The question is on the passage of the bill.

Sec. 26.5 The right to offer amendments does not exist where a special 
    rule, in providing for the consideration of a bill in the House, 
    orders the previous question after a fixed time for general debate.

    On Mar. 11, 1933, Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, offered an 
original resolution from the floor before committees were elected but 
after rules were adopted:

                            House Resolution 32

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House

[[Page 4306]]

    shall proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2820, a bill to maintain 
    the credit of the United States Government, and all points of order 
    against said bill shall be considered as waived; that, after 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall 
    continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Economy, the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill to final passage.

    Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry as to the right to offer amendments under the provisions of the 
resolution:

        Mr. [Gordon] Browning [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Browning: If this resolution is adopted, there will not be 
    any privilege of amendment given to the House, under any 
    consideration?
        The Speaker: There will not be.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 77 Cong. Rec. 198, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Record does not so indicate, 
the resolution was considered without objection; since not reported 
from the Committee on Rules, the resolution was not privileged for 
consideration.

Motion to Recommit

Sec. 26.6 Form of special rule providing that a certain bill shall be 
    considered as having been engrossed and read a third time, and that 
    the House shall immediately proceed to vote on the passage of the 
    bill without any intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 20, 1936: 
(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 10611, 74th Cong. 2d Sess. The bill had been brought 
        up under a motion to suspend the rules on the same day, and had 
        been defeated both times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 559

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the bill H.R. 12455, entitled ``A bill to provide for the 
    administration and maintenance of the Blue Ridge Parkway, in the 
    States of Virginia and North Carolina, by the Secretary of the 
    Interior, and for other purposes'', shall be considered as having 
    been engrossed and read a third time, and the House shall 
    immediately proceed to vote upon the passage of said bill without 
    any intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
    without instructions

    Parliamentarian's Note: The form of this resolution predates the 
deletion in the 89th Congress of the provision in Rule XXI clause 1, 
which allowed a Member to demand the reading in full of the engrossed 
copy of a bill.

Sec. 26.7 Form of resolution allowing a motion to recommit

[[Page 4307]]

    containing instructions germane to the bill or committee 
    substitute.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Aug. 22, 1950: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H. Res. 812, 96 Cong. Rec. 13039, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill (S. 2317) to authorize grants to the 
    States for surveying their need for elementary- and secondary-
    school facilities and for planning State-wide programs of school 
    construction; and to authorize grants for emergency school 
    construction to school districts overburdened with enrollments 
    resulting from defense and other Federal activities, and for other 
    purposes, and all points of order against said bill are hereby 
    waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Education and Labor, the bill shall be read for 
    amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
    without intervention of any point of order the substitute committee 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now 
    in the bill, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall 
    be considered under the 5-minute rule as an original bill. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the same to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted and any member may demand a 
    separate vote in the House on any amendments adopted in the 
    Committee of the Whole to the bill or committee substitute. The 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit, and such motion to recommit may 
    contain instructions germane to the bill or committee substitute.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Motions to recommit with instructions 
normally must be germane to the bill in its perfected form, not to the 
introduced bill or committee substitute.

Sec. 26.8 Where a special order by its terms orders the previous 
    question at a certain time on a bill to final passage, it was held 
    that the right to offer a motion to recommit was reserved by the 
    rules notwithstanding the provisions of the special rule.

    On Mar. 11, 1933, before any committees were elected, Mr. Joseph W. 
Byrns, of Tennessee, offered (without objection) the following 
resolution:

                            House Resolution 32

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of

[[Page 4308]]

    H.R. 2820, a bill to maintain the credit of the United States 
    Government, and all points of order against said bill shall be 
    considered as waived; that, after general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed two hours, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Economy, the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage.

    Despite the provisions of the resolution, Speaker Henry T. Rainey, 
of Illinois, indicated that a motion to recommit would be in order:

        Mr. [Gordon] Browning [of Tennessee]: Would a motion to 
    recommit be in order following the third reading of the bill?
        The Speaker: It would; yes.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 77 Cong. Rec. 198, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.9 Where a special rule providing for the consideration of a 
    bill provides for ``one motion to recommit,'' it is interpreted to 
    mean ``one valid motion to recommit;'' and if a point of order is 
    sustained against a motion to recommit with instructions because it 
    is not germane to the bill, another motion to recommit may be 
    entertained by the Chair.

    On Mar. 2, 1967, H.R. 4515, supplemental military authorizations, 
was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time in the House and was 
read the third time. Mr. Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin, offered a motion 
to recommit with instructions and Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South 
Carolina, made a point of order against the motion on the grounds that 
it was not germane to the bill. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, sustained the point of order.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 5155, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then entertained another motion to recommit and 
answered an inquiry relative thereto (where the special order, H. Res. 
347, provided for one motion to recommit on the bill): (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 5166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George E:.] Brown [Jr.] of California: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to recommit the bill H.R. 4515, to the Committee on Armed Services, 
    with instructions to report it back forthwith with an amendment 
    which is at the Clerk's desk.
        The Speaker: The Chair will ask if the gentleman is opposed to 
    the bill?
        Mr. Brown of California: I am opposed to the bill in its 
    present form, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion to recommit.

[[Page 4309]]

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: I respectfully ask the Speaker if the rule which 
    made this bill in order provided for only one motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state it applies to one valid 
    motion to recommit. The other motion was ruled out of order.
        The question is on the motion to recommit.

Sec. 26.10 Where the rule under which a bill is being considered 
    provides for ``a motion to recommit with or without instructions,'' 
    the motion to recommit may contain instructions to report back 
    forthwith amendments notwithstanding the fact that the House has 
    just agreed to the amendment in the nature of a substitute reported 
    from the Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 29, 1965, the Committee of the Whole reported a bill back 
to the House, where the Committee had adopted an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute for the original bill, and where the bill was 
being considered under a special order providing for a motion to 
recommit with or without instructions (H. Res. 515). Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated in response to parliamentary 
inquiries that in the event the amendment was agreed to by the House, a 
motion to recommit could still be offered instructing that the standing 
committee report the bill back with amendments: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 25438, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
        The question is on the amendment.
        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Multer: I am about to ask for the yeas and nays on the 
    Multer amendment, as amended by the Sisk amendment. If that 
    amendment is rejected on the rollcall vote, which I will ask for, 
    will the pending business before the House then be H.R. 4644?
        The Speaker: As introduced.
        Mr. Mutter: Mr. Speaker, on the amendment I demand the yeas and 
    nays.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: If the Multer amendment as amended is 
    defeated, we then go back to H.R. 4644. Is there an opportunity 
    after that to amend or to further consider?
        The Speaker: The response to that would be in the negative, 
    because the previous question has been ordered.

[[Page 4310]]

        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, just to get 
    this matter clarified, as I understand the rule, if the Sisk 
    amendment is defeated on the rollcall which is approaching, then we 
    go back to the original first Multer bill, the bill for which the 
    discharge petition was signed. That is the original first bill and 
    there cannot be any vote on any compromise bill. The original 
    Multer bill will then not be subject to further amendment or to any 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: It would not be because the previous question has 
    been ordered.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, may I make this 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Albert: Is not what the distinguished gentleman from 
    Virginia said subject to the right of the minority to offer a 
    motion to recommit containing appropriate amendments with or 
    without instructions?
        The Speaker: The rule provides for one motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hays: That one motion to recommit, depending on who decides 
    to offer it, may be a straight motion to recommit without any 
    instructions, may it not?
        The Speaker: It could be.

Motion to Recommit Under Closed Rule

Sec. 26.11 The Committee on Rules may not report any order or rule 
    which shall operate to prevent the offering of a motion to 
    recommit, but such restriction does not apply to a special rule 
    which may prevent a motion to recommit with instructions to 
    incorporate an amendment in a title where the special rule closes 
    that title to amendment both in the House and in the Committee of 
    the Whole. A special rule prohibiting the offering of amendments to 
    a certain title ``during consideration of'' the bill (in the House 
    and in Committee of the Whole), thus precluding a motion to 
    recommit with instructions insofar as such title was concerned, was 
    held not to violate the provisions of Rule XI clause 45 (Rule XI 
    clause 4(b) in the 1979 House Rules and Manual).

    On Jan. 11, 1934, Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, called up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules the following special order:

                            House Resolution 217

        Resolved, That during the consideration of H.R. 6663, a bill 
    making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry 
    independent bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1935,

[[Page 4311]]

    and for other purposes, all points of order against title II or any 
    provisions contained therein are hereby waived; and no amendments 
    or motions to strike out shall be in order to such title except 
    amendments or motions to strike out offered by direction of the 
    Committee on Appropriations, and said amendments or motions shall 
    be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. 
    Amendments shall not be in order to any other section of bill H.R. 
    6663 or to any section of any general appropriation bill of the 
    Seventy-third Congress which would be in conflict with the 
    provisions of title II of the bill H.R. 6663 as reported to the 
    House, except amendments offered by direction of the Committee on 
    Appropriations, and said amendments shall be in order, any rule of 
    the House to the contrary notwithstanding.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 78 Cong. Rec. 479, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
            See Sec. 26.12, infra, for further discussion of the effect 
        of this special order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, made a point of order against 
the resolution on the ground that the Committee on Rules had no right 
to report a rule denying the right to offer any motion to recommit:

        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    rule that it is not a privileged report from the Committee on 
    Rules, on the ground that it violates the general rules of the 
    House by denying the right to the minority to make the usual and 
    regular motion to recommit.

    After Mr. Snell delivered arguments in support of the point of 
order, and Mr. Bankhead delivered arguments in opposition to the point 
of order, Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, ruled as follows and 
discussed the provisions of the special order:

        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York makes the point of order that the Committee on Rules has 
    reported out a resolution which violates the provisions of clause 
    45, rule XI, which are as follows:

            The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or order . 
        . . which shall operate to prevent the motion to recommit being 
        made as provided in clause 4, rule XVI.

        The pertinent language of clause 4, rule XVI is as follows:

            After the previous question shall have been ordered on the 
        passage of a bill or joint resolution one motion to recommit 
        shall be in order and the Speaker shall give preference in 
        recognition for such purpose to a Member who is opposed to the 
        bill or resolution.

        The special rule, House Resolution 217, now before the House, 
    does not mention the motion to recommit. Therefore, any motion to 
    recommit would be made under the general rules of the House. The 
    contention of the gentleman from New York that this special rule 
    deprives the minority of the right to make a motion to recommit is, 
    therefore, obviously not well taken. The right to offer a motion to 
    recommit is provided for in the general rules of the House, and 
    since no men

[[Page 4312]]

    tion is made in the special rule now before the House it naturally 
    follows that the motion would be in order.
        A question may present itself later when a motion to recommit 
    with instructions is made on the bill H.R. 6663 that the special 
    rule which is now before the House may prevent a motion to recommit 
    with instructions which would be in conflict with the provisions of 
    the special rule. It has been held on numerous occasions that a 
    motion to recommit with instructions may not propose as 
    instructions anything that might not be proposed directly as an 
    amendment. Of course, inasmuch as the special rule prohibits 
    amendments to title II of the bill H.R. 6663 it would not be in 
    order after the adoption of the special rule to move to recommit 
    the bill with instructions to incorporate an amendment to title II 
    of the bill. The Chair, therefore, holds that the motion to 
    recommit, as provided in clause 4, rule XVI, has been reserved to 
    the minority and that insofar as such rule is concerned the special 
    rule before the House does not deprive the minority of the right to 
    make a simple motion to recommit. The Chair thinks, however, that a 
    motion to recommit with instructions to incorporate a provision 
    which would be in violation of the special rule, House Resolution 
    217, would not be in order. For the reasons stated, the Chair 
    overrules the point of order.

    The Speaker further stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
that a simple motion to recommit would be in order. Mr. Snell appealed 
from the decision of the Chair, and the Chair's decision was upheld, 
260 yeas to 112 nays.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at pp. 470-483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.12 A special order prohibiting the offering of amendments to a 
    certain title of a bill during its consideration (in both the House 
    and Committee of the Whole) was held to preclude the right of 
    offering a motion to recommit with instructions to incorporate an 
    amendment in the restricted title.

    On Jan. 11, 1934, Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, called up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules the following special order:

                            House Resolution 217

        Resolved, That during the consideration of H.R. 6663, a bill 
    making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry 
    independent bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1935, and for other purposes, all 
    points of order against title II or any provisions contained 
    therein are hereby waived; and no amendments or motions to strike 
    out shall be in order to such title except amendments or motions to 
    strike out offered by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, 
    and said amendments or motions shall be in order, any rule of the 
    House to the contrary notwithstanding. Amendments shall not be in 
    order to any other section of the bill H.R. 6663 or to any sec

[[Page 4313]]

    tion of any general appropriation bill of the Seventy-third 
    Congress which would be in conflict with the provisions of title II 
    of the bill H.R. 6663 as reported to the House, except amendments 
    offered by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, and said 
    amendments shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.

    Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, made a point of order against 
the resolution, on the grounds that it would deny the right to offer a 
motion to recommit with instructions, to include an amendment within 
the title of the bill closed to amendment. Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of 
Illinois, overruled the point of order, since the resolution did not 
deny the right to offer a motion to recommit. He indicated, however, 
that a certain motion to recommit with instructions would not be in 
order:

        The Speaker: . . . A question may present itself later when a 
    motion to recommit with instructions is made on the bill H.R. 6663 
    that the special rule which is now before the House may prevent a 
    motion to recommit with instructions which would be in conflict 
    with the provisions of the special rule. It has been held on 
    numerous occasions that a motion to recommit with instructions may 
    not propose as instructions anything that might not be proposed 
    directly as an amendment. Of course, inasmuch as the special rule 
    prohibits amendments to title II of the bill H.R. 6663 it would not 
    be in order after the adoption of the special rule to move to 
    recommit the bill with instructions to incorporate an amendment to 
    title II of the bill. The Chair, therefore, holds that the motion 
    to recommit, as provided in clause 4, rule XVI, has been reserved 
    to the minority and that insofar as such rule is concerned the 
    special rule before the House does not deprive the minority of the 
    right to make a simple motion to recommit. The Chair thinks, 
    however, that a motion to recommit with instructions to incorporate 
    a provision which would be in violation of the special rule, House 
    Resolution 217, would not be in order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 78 Cong. Rec. 479, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule was then adopted and the bill considered in Committee of 
the Whole. On Jan. 12, the bill was reported back to the House and the 
previous question was ordered thereon. Mr. Richard B. Wigglesworth, of 
Massachusetts, offered a motion to recommit with instructions, to 
incorporate an amendment in title II of the bill, which had been closed 
to amendment. Speaker Rainey held that the motion to recommit was not 
in order under the provisions of House Resolution 217:

        Mr. Wigglesworth moves that the bill be recommitted to the 
    Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the same 
    back forthwith with an amendment as follows: ``Strike out all of 
    paragraph (d) on pages 32 and 33.''

[[Page 4314]]

        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Woodrum: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    motion is in violation of the rule adopted by the House prohibiting 
    amendments to title II of the bill.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Massachusetts desire to be 
    heard on the point of order? If not, the Chair is ready to rule.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Wigglesworth] offers a 
    motion to recommit with instructions to strike out a portion of 
    title II of the pending bill. The gentleman from Virginia makes the 
    point of order that the motion to recommit with instructions 
    violates the provisions of the special rule (H. Res. 217) under 
    which the House is considering this appropriation bill.
        The contention of the gentleman from Virginia is that since, 
    under the special rule it is not in order to offer an amendment by 
    a motion to strike out any part of title II it, therefore, is not 
    in order in a motion to recommit with instructions to effectuate 
    what may not be done directly in the House, to wit, move to strike 
    out any part of title II.
        It has been held on a number of occasions that it is not in 
    order to do indirectly by a motion to recommit with instructions 
    that which may not be done directly by way of amendment.

        Mr. Speaker Cannon, on March 24, 1910 (Cannon's Precedents, 
    sec. 9597), in deciding a question involving the right to recommit 
    with instructions to incorporate in a general appropriation bill an 
    amendment proposing legislation said:

            This is a motion to recommit with instructions. If the 
        motion had been made in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
        State of the Union as an amendment, or if it had been a 
        provision in the original bill reported by the Committee on 
        Appropriations, it would have been out of order under the rule 
        which has just been read, and which has been a rule of the 
        House for almost 50 years, if not more than 50 years; and under 
        the rules that cannot be done indirectly, by a motion to 
        recommit, which cannot be done directly.
            The Chair is not alone in this construction of the rule. 
        There is a uniform line of decisions by every Speaker since the 
        Chair has been a Member of this House, almost 40 years, 
        beginning with Mr. Speaker Blaine, followed by Mr. Speaker 
        Kerr, Mr. Speaker Randall, Mr. Speaker Keifer, Mr. Speaker 
        Carlisle, Mr. Speaker Reed, Mr. Speaker Crisp, Mr. Speaker Reed 
        again, Mr. Speaker Henderson, and the present Speaker. All, 
        without exception, have made the same ruling; so that the Chair 
        not only has the letter of the rule but an unbroken line of 
        decisions, and these precedents, as well as the letter of the 
        rule, compel the Chair to sustain the point of order. The point 
        of order is sustained. The motion is not in order.

        On May 11, 1911, during the consideration of a tariff bill, Mr. 
    James R. Mann, of Illinois, moved to recommit the bill with 
    instructions to insert as a new section certain provisions. Mr. 
    Oscar W. Underwood, of Alabama, made the point of order that the 
    amendment incorporated in the motion to recommit was not germane 
    and therefore not in order. Mr. Speaker Clark, in ruling on the 
    point of order, said:

[[Page 4315]]

            It is not necessary for the Chair to pass any opinion on 
        the wisdom of this new rule; it is his duty to decide according 
        to the rules. It is clear that the amendment offered by way of 
        matter contained in the motion to recommit under this rule 
        would not have been in order if offered as an amendment; and on 
        the high authority of Mr. Speaker Reed and Mr. Speaker Cannon, 
        I sustain the point of order made by the gentleman from 
        Alabama.

        The Chair could quote many other decisions similar to these he 
    has just read--made by Speaker Clark, Gillett, Longworth, and 
    Garner.
        The Chair believes that, inasmuch as the special rule, House 
    Resolution 217, did not permit amendments or motions to strike out 
    any part of title II of the bill either in the Committee of the 
    Whole or in the House during the consideration of this bill, that 
    it would not be in order to do indirectly by way of a motion to 
    recommit that which could not have been done directly in the House.
        The Chair on yesterday, in his decision on the point of order 
    raised by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell], intimated to the 
    House the construction which he placed on the special rule, insofar 
    as the motion to recommit with instructions is concerned. The Chair 
    on that occasion said:

            A question may present itself later when a motion to 
        recommit with instructions is made on the bill, H.R. 6663, that 
        the special rule which is now before the House may prevent a 
        motion to recommit with instructions, which would be in 
        conflict with the provisions of the special rule. It has been 
        held on numerous occasions that a motion to recommit with 
        instructions may not propose as instructions anything that 
        might not be proposed directly as an amendment. Of course, 
        inasmuch as the special rule prohibits amendments to title II 
        of the bill, H.R. 6663, it would not be in order, after the 
        adoption of the special rule, to move to recommit the bill with 
        instructions to incorporate an amendment in title II of the 
        bill.

        The Chair is particularly anxious to refer to the language used 
    by him yesterday, because the opinion expressed there was given 
    before the House took action upon the special rule. All Members 
    were, therefore, advised as to the construction that the Chair 
    would place upon any motion to recommit with instructions which 
    would be in conflict with title II of the pending bill. Inasmuch as 
    the House sustained the interpretation of the rule as expressed by 
    the Chair on yesterday by a vote on the appeal taken by the 
    gentleman from New York, the Chair is constrained to sustain the 
    point of order made by the gentleman from Virginia.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 595, 596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The special rule in this case related to 
the consideration of a general appropriations bill which was privileged 
for consideration under the general rules of the House. By prohibiting 
certain amendments ``during consideration of'' the bill the rule 
precluded such amendments during all proceedings thereon, in the House 
and in Committee of the Whole.
    Where a special rule makes in order a motion to resolve into

[[Page 4316]]

Committee of the Whole for consideration of a (nonprivileged) bill, 
provides for the consideration of the bill for amendment under the 
five-minute rule, and prohibits amendments, that restriction only 
applies to consideration in Committee of the Whole, and does not 
prohibit instructions with a motion to recommit in the House to 
effectuate such amendments, unless the special rule specifically 
prohibits such amendments ``in the House and in the Committee of the 
Whole.''

Two Motions to Recommit

Sec. 26.13 Under the peculiar circumstances wherein a special rule 
    provided for two motions to recommit, the Chair held that the usual 
    practice with respect to recognition for motions to recommit need 
    not necessarily be followed and in the instant case recognized a 
    member of the majority party to offer the first motion.

    On May 3, 1932, the Committee of the Whole reported to the House a 
bill which was ordered engrossed and read the third time. The special 
order under which the bill was being considered provided for two 
motions to recommit. Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, ruled as follows 
on recognition for the first motion to recommit: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 75 Cong. Rec. 9512-18, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr.  [John] McDuffie [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Alabama offers a motion to 
    recommit, which the Clerk will report.
        Mr. [C. William] Ramseyer [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I was on my 
    feet seeking recognition. Under the practice of the House, is not 
    the minority entitled to first recognition? I demand such 
    recognition.
        The Speaker: This is a special rule giving the right to make 
    two motions to recommit. In the opinion of the Chair those in 
    control of the bill should have the right to submit the first 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, when was 
    any decision ever made that those in control of a bill would have 
    the right to submit the first motion to recommit? Generally those 
    in control of a bill do not submit a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: They certainly have that right under this rule.
        Mr. Snell: But the motion to recommit is an entirely different 
    proposition, and the ruling of the Speaker would foreclose the 
    minority from having its rights with respect to such a motion.

        The Speaker: The Chair does not think the minority has that 
    right at all. The rule of the House of Representatives since the 
    present occupant of the chair has been a Member of it has been that 
    in case a motion to recommit is desired to be made the

[[Page 4317]]

    Members in charge of the bill, if the bill has been amended so they 
    can not support it, in the order of their seniority are recognized 
    to submit a motion to recommit.
        Mr. Snell: I am very sorry I have to disagree with the 
    distinguished Speaker. That is not my understanding of the rule.
        The Speaker: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from 
    Alabama to offer a motion to recommit.
        Mr. [William B.] Oliver [of Alabama]: If the Chair will permit, 
    the Speaker made that announcement when this rule was first offered 
    and there was no objection to it.
        The Speaker: Undoubtedly that is the spirit of the rule.
        Mr. Snell: I do not agree with the ruling of the Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: As I understand, the rule permits two motions to 
    recommit.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Michener: If the motion which has been offered by the 
    gentleman from Alabama [Mr. McDuffie] fixing the exemption at 
    $2,000, should fail, then would it be in order to offer the 
    staggering plan or the furlough plan with a $2,000 exemption?
        The Speaker: It does not make any difference whether the motion 
    fails or not, they have the right to submit two motions to 
    recommit.
        Mr. Michener: And recommit the bill twice?
        The Speaker: Certainly; that is what the rule provides. As the 
    Chair construes this rule, if the motion of the gentleman from 
    Alabama [Mr. McDuffie] is carried, there would still be opportunity 
    for another motion to recommit.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, if that is true and if the McDuffie 
    motion carries, the bill is then recommitted forthwith to the 
    committee, there is nothing before the House, and what in the world 
    are we are going to recommit after that has been done?
        The Speaker: It may be the House will want to strike out 
    something else.
        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: If the Chair will permit, 
    if the McDuffie motion prevails, the bill will be immediately 
    reported back to the House with the amendment.
        The Speaker: Certainly; and another motion to recommit, with 
    respect to some other part of the bill would be in order.
        The question is on the motion to recommit.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 167, nays 225, not 
    voting 39, as follows: . . .
        Mr. Ramseyer: Mr. Speaker, I present the following motion to 
    recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Speaker, I move to recommit the bill, H.R. 11267, to 
        the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to that 
        committee to report it back forthwith with the following 
        amendments:

        1. Strike out sections 101 to 104, both inclusive, of the 
    Economy Committee amendment and insert in lieu thereof the 
    following: . . .

[[Page 4318]]

        Mr. Ramseyer: On that, Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Iowa to recommit.
        Mr. Ramseyer: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 146, nays 250, not 
    voting 35, as follows: . . .

    The special rule under which the House was operating was House 
Resolution 203, reported from the Committee on Rules and adopted on 
April 27, 1932:

                            House Resolution 203

        Resolved, That after the adoption of this resolution it shall 
    be in order in the consideration of H.R. 11267, the legislative 
    appropriation bill, for the chairman of the Economy Committee or 
    any member of the Economy Committee acting for him, by direction of 
    that committee, to offer an amendment to said bill, any rule of the 
    House to the contrary notwithstanding. On said amendment there 
    shall be two hours of general debate, one-half to be controlled by 
    the chairman of the Economy Committee and one-half by the ranking 
    minority member of that committee. At the termination of such 
    debate the amendment shall be considered under the 5-minute rule as 
    an original bill and shall be considered by titles. Each title as 
    it is read shall be open to four amendments, said amendments not 
    being subject to amendment, and no further amendments shall be 
    entertained by the Chair. The provisions of clause 7, Rule XVI, or 
    clause 2, Rule XXI, shall not apply to the substitute amendment 
    offered to Title I of the Economy Committee amendment. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill in the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the state of the Union the committee shall rise and 
    report the bill to the House with the amendments, including the 
    amendment offered by the Economy Committee as amended, and any 
    Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any of the 
    amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the Economy 
    Committee amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and Economy Committee amendment, including the 
    amendments to the Economy Committee amendment to final passage 
    without intervening motion except two motions to recommit, and such 
    motions to recommit shall be in order, any rule of the House to the 
    contrary notwithstanding.
        Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bankhead: Page 2, line 4, after 
        the word ``chair'', strike out the period, insert a colon, and 
        add the following:
            ``Provided, That this limitation on the right to offer 
        amendments shall not apply to amendments that may be offered by 
        direction of the Economy Committee.''

Waiving Points of Order Against Motion to Recommit

Sec. 26.14 Where a special rule permits two motions to re

[[Page 4319]]

    commit and makes such motions in order, any rule of the House to 
    the contrary notwithstanding, it was held that instructions in a 
    motion to recommit might propose the striking out of an amendment 
    therein before agreed to by the House.

    On Mar. 19, 1935, the House agreed to a special order reported from 
the Committee on Rules, allowing two motions to recommit on the same 
bill: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Res. 165, 79 Cong. Rec. 3984, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately 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 H.R. 3896, ``a bill to provide for the immediate 
    payment of World War adjusted-service certificates, to extend the 
    time for filing applications for benefits under the World War 
    Adjusted Compensation Act, and for other purposes''; and all points 
    of order against said bill are hereby waived; that after general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to 
    exceed 10 hours, to be evenly divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority members of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute 
    rule. It shall be in order to consider as substitute amendments for 
    the bill any such amendments that relate to the payment of World 
    War adjusted-service certificates, and such substitute amendments 
    shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill 
    for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the same to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion, 
    except two motions to recommit, with or without instructions: 
    Provided, however, That if the instructions in such motions relate 
    to the payment of World War adjusted-service certificates, they 
    shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding.

    On Mar. 22, 1935, the bill so provided for was reported back to the 
House from the Committee of the Whole and was ordered engrossed and 
read the third time. Mr. Fred M. Vinson, of Kentucky (a Democrat and 
member of the majority), was recognized to offer a motion to 
recommit.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 4309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vinson of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I move to recommit the 
    bill (H.R. 3896) to the Committee on Ways and Means with 
    instructions to report the same back forthwith with the following 
    amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause in the said 
    bill and insert the following amendment, which I send to the 
    Clerk's desk.
        Mr. Blanton and Mr. Rankin reserved all points of order against 
    the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 4320]]

            Mr. Vinson of Kentucky moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
        3896, to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to 
        report the same back forthwith with the following amendment: 
        Strike out all after the enacting clause in said bill and 
        insert the following:
            ``That notwithstanding the provisions of the World War 
        Adjusted Compensation Act, as amended (U.S.C., title 38, ch. 
        11; U.S.C., Supp. VII, title 38, ch. 11), the adjusted-service 
        certificates issued under the authority of such act are hereby 
        declared to be immediately payable.''

    Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, made a point of order against the 
motion to recommit and argued in part as follows: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 4309, 4310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In this connection I want to call the attention of the Chair to 
    the fact that the Patman amendment was submitted in the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union as a substitute for 
    the Vinson bill under the proper rules of the House, by moving to 
    strike out the first paragraph of the Vinson bill and offering the 
    Patman bill as an amendment in the way of a substitute, and then 
    giving notice that in case the amendment were adopted the balance 
    of the Vinson bill would be stricken out on motion.
        This procedure was followed under the rules of the House. The 
    notice was given, the Patman bill was adopted as a substitute for 
    the Vinson bill in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
    Union by a teller vote, following which the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Patman] moved and by unanimous consent had all the balance of 
    the Vinson bill stricken out.
        This action was reported to the House itself as soon as the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union rose. Then 
    there was a direct vote in the House itself on the Patman 
    amendment, on substituting it for the Vinson bill. The House voted 
    by roll call, and the vote was 202 for the Patman substitute as 
    against 191 for the Vinson bill. And thus the House substituted the 
    Patman bill for the Vinson bill.
        Now a motion to recommit, seeking to turn around and switch 
    back the Vinson bill for the Patman bill would undo exactly what 
    the House has already voted. My point of order is this: If the 
    special rule provides to do away with all the rules respecting 
    motions to recommit and if we may have two votes in the House on 
    the identical proposition which has already been decided by the 
    House, then we would be placed in the ridiculous position that 
    after we now vote on the Vinson motion to recommit, to substitute 
    the Vinson bill, which will be the second time the House has voted 
    on it, and if the House should vote against that, which would be 
    the second time the House had voted it down, then somebody else 
    could again offer a motion to recommit, the second such motion 
    under the special rule, to substitute the Vinson bill, and then we 
    would have the ridiculous situation of the House of Representatives 
    voting three different times in the House on the same proposition.

    Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, overruled the point of 
order.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 4310, 4311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule. The pending bill is being 
    considered under

[[Page 4321]]

    a special rule which was unanimously adopted by the House before 
    the bill was taken up for consideration.
        It is true, as the gentleman from Texas suggests, that under 
    the ordinary rules of the House only one motion to recommit would 
    be in order. However, the Committee on Rules, after a very long and 
    thorough consideration of the question before the House, and after 
    what the Chair understands to be a general understanding among 
    those for and against either one of the bills decided in the 
    interest of fairness to propose a rule which permitted two motions 
    to recommit.
        While it has no bearing upon the ruling of the Chair, the Chair 
    feels that every Member of the House, without regard to his 
    position on this or any other bill pending, understood at the time 
    the rule was proposed by the Committee on Rules, that it would 
    enable the House to express its will with reference to these two 
    bills. The rule was adopted unanimously, and it provided, ``That if 
    the instructions in such motion relate to the payment of World War 
    adjusted-service certificates, they shall be in order, any rule of 
    the House to the contrary notwithstanding.''
        Now, in view of the action of the House in adopting the rule, 
    the Chair thinks, notwithstanding the fact that a vote was taken 
    yesterday on the so called ``Patman bill'' and a motion to 
    reconsider laid on the table, it is in order to recognize a Member 
    to offer the Vinson bill in a motion to recommit, even though it 
    may involve a vote for the second time on the Patman bill.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

    The motion to recommit offered by Mr. Vinson was rejected. The 
Speaker then recognized Mr. Allen T. Treadway, of Massachusetts (a 
Republican and member of the minority), to offer a second motion to 
recommit with instructions, which was likewise rejected.

Separate Votes in House on Amendments Reported From Committee of the 
    Whole

Sec. 26.15 Form of resolution permitting a demand in the House for a 
    separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in Committee of 
    the Whole to the bill or committee substitute, where the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute has been read as an 
    original bill for the purpose of amendment.

    The following resolution was under consideration on June 24, 1964: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. H. Res. 732, 110 Cong. Rec. 14897, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 3881) to authorize the Housing and Home Finance 
    Administrator to provide additional assistance for the development 
    of com

[[Page 4322]]

    prehensive and coordinated mass transportation systems in 
    metropolitan and other urban areas, and for other purposes, and all 
    points of order against said bill are hereby waived. After general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not 
    to exceed four hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking 
    and Currency, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
    minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the substitute amendment 
    recommended by the Committee on Banking and Currency now in the 
    bill and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be 
    considered under the five minute rule as an original bill. At the 
    conclusion of such consideration the Committee shall rise and 
    report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on 
    any of the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
    bill or committee substitute. The previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, 
    with or without instructions. After the passage of the bill H.R. 
    3881, it shall be in order in the House to take from the Speaker's 
    table the bill S. 6 and to move to strike out all after the 
    enacting clause of said Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof 
    the provisions contained in H.R. 3881 as passed by the House.

Sec. 26.16 Form of resolution allowing separate vote in House on single 
    section committee amendment in nature of substitute (not read for 
    amendment as original bill).

    The following resolution was under consideration on Sept. 13, 1973: 
(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 119 Cong. Rec. 29713, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 544

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move, clause 27(d)(4) of Rule XI to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on that State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 9553) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 for 
    one year with regard to the broadcasting of certain professional 
    home games. After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill 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 Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall 
    be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion 
    of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
    rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may 
    have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in the 
    House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
    bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce

[[Page 4323]]

    now printed in the bill. The previous question shall be considered 
    as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
    without instructions. After the passage of H.R. 9553, the Committee 
    on Interstate and Foreign Commerce shall be discharged from the 
    further consideration of the bill S. 1841, and it shall then be in 
    order in the House to move to strike out all after the enacting 
    clause of the said Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof the 
    provisions contained in H.R. 9553 as passed by the House.

Sec. 26.17 Under a special procedure permitting a demand in the House 
    for a separate vote on an amendment adopted to an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for a bill reported from Committee of the 
    Whole, the Speaker inquires whether a separate vote is demanded 
    before putting the question on the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

    On Mar. 8, 1973, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, proceeded as 
follows where a bill had been reported back from the Committee of the 
Whole and where the rule governing the consideration of the bill (H. 
Res. 274) permitted separate votes on amendments adopted in Committee 
of the Whole to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 7138, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the Committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of 
    the Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 26.18 Where a special rule permits a separate vote in the House on 
    an amendment to a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    adopted in Committee of the Whole, a Member must make a timely 
    demand for a separate vote before the question is taken on the 
    committee substitute.

    On Sept. 20, 1972, H.R. 15003 (to protect consumers) was reported 
back to the House from the Committee of the Whole, wherein an amendment 
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute had been 
agreed to. The bill was being considered under a special order (H. Res. 
1116) permitting a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
in Committee of the Whole. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled that 
a demand for a separate vote on an amendment came too late: 
(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 31409, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4324]]

        The Speaker: Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of 
    the Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Indiana (Mr. Dennis).
        The Speaker: Without objection, the action by which the 
    amendment was agreed to is rescinded.
        Mr. [David W.] Dennis: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to 
    object, my understanding is that the amendment was agreed to and 
    that the gentleman's request comes too late.
        The Speaker: The Chair was under the impression that no 
    separate vote was demanded and put the question on adoption of the 
    amendment.
        The Chair put as a unanimous consent request, that the action 
    by which the amendment was agreed be rescinded.
        Mr. Dennis: I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Dennis: I object because the amendment has been adopted.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.

Sec. 26.19 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    amended in Committee of the Whole by the adoption of a substitute 
    and is reported to the House under a special procedure permitting a 
    separate vote in the House on any amendment to the committee 
    amendment, the House is faced with three possible versions of the 
    bill (the substitute, the committee amendment, or the text of the 
    bill as introduced), but amendments reported from Committee of the 
    Whole are not subject to amendment in the House where, pursuant to 
    the resolution under which the bill is being considered, the 
    previous question has been ordered.

    On June 16, 1970, the House was considering House Resolution 1077, 
a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules and called up by Mr. 
William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, providing for the consideration of a 
bill:

                                H. Res. 1077

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H. R. 17070) to improve and modernize the postal 
    service, to reorganize the Post Office Department, and for other 
    purposes, and all points of order against said bill are hereby 
    waived. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and shall continue not to exceed four hours,

[[Page 4325]]

    to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 
    the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It 
    shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point 
    of order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
    the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service now printed in the 
    bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
    five-minute rule. It shall also be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the text of the bill H.R. 17966 
    as a substitute for the said committee amendment. At the conclusion 
    of the consideration of H.R. 17070 for amendment, the Committee 
    shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in 
    the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to 
    the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
    the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
    instructions.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 19837, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered 
parliamentary inquiries on procedures for voting in the House on 
amendments reported from Committee of the Whole pursuant to the 
provisions of the special order, which made in order the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute and also made in order a 
substitute amendment to such amendment

        Mr. [Arnold] Olsen [of Montana]: Mr. Speaker, I should like to 
    have attention while I make a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Olsen: The parliamentary inquiry is: If the Udall bill is 
    passed by the Committee of the Whole and we go into the House and 
    then the Udall bill is voted down in the House, is it correct that 
    the only thing left we would have would be the original Blount 
    bill, the original H.R. 17070?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In response to the inquiry, the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute would immediately 
    be under consideration. Of course, it would not be subject to 
    amendment.
        Mr. Olsen: That is something I wanted to get straight, that the 
    committee bill as amended would not be subject to amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The previous question having been 
    ordered, it would not be subject to amendment.
        Mr. Olsen: So, Mr. Speaker, Members who have amendments to the 
    committee bill, who want to amend H.R. 17070, should give attention 
    to the fact that they will not have an opportunity to amend it if 
    the Udall substitute is defeated in the House.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 19842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.20 Normally, if the Committee of the Whole perfects

[[Page 4326]]

    a proposition by amendments and then adopts an amendment striking 
    out all after section one of the proposition and inserting a new 
    text [in effect, a substitute for the whole proposition], only the 
    proposition, as amended by the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, is reported to the House: but when the bill is being 
    considered under a special rule permitting a separate vote in the 
    House on any of the amendments adopted in the Committee of the 
    Whole to the bill or the committee substitute, all amendments 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole are reported to the House, 
    regardless of their inconsistency, and the House may vote on an 
    amendment which will be eliminated if the House agrees to the 
    substitute finally adopted in the Committee of the Whole.

    On May 26, 1960, the Committee of the Whole reported to the House a 
bill, where the special order (H. Res. 536) governing the consideration 
of the bill provided that separate votes could be demanded in the House 
on any amendment adopted in Committee of the Whole to the bill or to 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, answered parliamentary inquiries on the procedure of 
demanding and putting separate votes: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 106 Cong. Rec. 11302, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stewart L.] Udall [of Arizona]: I believe that under the 
    rule this is the proper time to demand separate votes on 
    amendments. There are three amendments on which I desire a separate 
    vote.
        The Speaker: It is. The gentleman will state the amendments on 
    which he desires a separate vote.
        Mr. Udall: The Elliott amendment, the Powell amendment, and the 
    Bow amendment.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the first amendment on which 
    a separate vote is demanded.
        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bow: The so-called Bow amendment struck out the entire 
    bill. I am wondering whether that would not have the effect of 
    taking out the Elliott amendment and the Powell amendment so that 
    the only vote would be on the Bow amendment.
        The Speaker: That depends.
        Mr. [John James] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Flynt: I would like advice as to whether it would not be 
    proper for the

[[Page 4327]]

    Clerk at this time to read the Bow substitute as adopted by the 
    Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: It will be at the proper time. The other 
    amendments will be voted upon first.
        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bailey: The so-called Bow amendment was brought into the 
    picture irregularly in that it was a substitute for another 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: It was an amendment to the committee amendment.
        Mr. Bailey: It was subject to a point of order.
        The Speaker: It is not now.
        The Clerk will report the so-called Elliott amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, does not 
    the first vote occur upon a substitute or the Bow amendment?
        The Speaker: It does not. It was an amendment to an amendment.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, what is the first order?
        The Speaker: The first order is the vote on the amendment that 
    the Clerk has just reported.
        Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    believe it would be of great interest to the Members of the House 
    to clarify the first amendment, the second amendment, and the third 
    amendment in the order in which they will be taken up.
        The Speaker: Each amendment will be reported when the proper 
    time comes. The first on the list is the Elliott amendment.
        Mr. Barden: Mr. Speaker, what effect will the Bow amendment 
    have on the other amendments that will be voted on?
        The Speaker: If the Bow amendment is agreed to it will strike 
    out the other two amendments.
        Mr. Barden: It strikes out the Elliott amendment and the Powell 
    amendment?
        The Speaker: That is correct.

    Parliamentarian's Note: For further discussion of the three 
amendments, their relation to one another, and the order in which voted 
on in the House. see Sec. 26.22, infra.

Sec. 26.21 Where a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
    reported from the Committee of the Whole with various amendments 
    thereto, and, under a rule permitting such procedure, separate 
    votes are demanded in the House on several of the amendments to the 
    substitute amendment, the Chair puts the question first on those 
    amendments on which a separate vote is demanded, then on the 
    amendment, as amended; the Chair does not put the question on the 
    remaining amendments to the amendment but proceeds immediately to 
    the vote on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

[[Page 4328]]

    On Oct. 6, 1966, the Committee of the Whole reported back to the 
House a bill, where the special order (H. Res. 1025) under which the 
bill was being considered permitted separate votes in the House on any 
amendment adopted to the bill or to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The Committee of the Whole had adopted the 
committee amendment with amendments. The following procedure took place 
in the House when separate votes were demanded: (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 25585-87, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (8) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the Fountain amendment which appears on page 63 of 
    the bill, after line 9.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Paul A.] Fino [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the O'Hara amendment, the antibusing amendment. . 
    . .
        The Speaker: It is the Chair's recollection that the gentleman 
    from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara] offered one amendment covering four 
    sections of the bill. Later he offered another, intended to cover 
    the fifth section. . . .
        Does the gentleman from New York demand a separate vote on both 
    of the amendments?
        Mr. Fino: Mr. Speaker, I do, to eliminate any confusion.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
    amendment?
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
    that the two amendments on which the gentleman from New York has 
    asked for a separate vote be voted en bloc.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Michigan?

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
    amendment?
        If not, the Clerk will report the first amendment on which a 
    separate vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read [the Fountain amendment] as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
        Mr. O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
    and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 221, nays 116, not 
    voting 95, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the so-called O'Hara 
    amendments on which a separate vote has been demanded.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendments.
        Mr. Fino: Mr. Speaker, on this vote I demand the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: Members in favor of taking this vote by the yeas 
    and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. [After 
    counting.] Fifty-six Members have arisen, not a sufficient number.

[[Page 4329]]

        The yeas and nays were refused.
        Mr. Fino: Mr. Speaker, I ask for tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Speaker appointed Mr. O'Hara of 
    Michigan and Mr. Fino as tellers.
        The House divided, and the tellers reported that there were--
    ayes 263, noes 5.
        So the amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment as amended.
        The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.

Sec. 26.22 Where the Committee of the Whole had agreed to (1) an 
    amendment to section 4 of an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, (2) then an amendment to section 6, (3) then an 
    amendment striking out all after section 1 and inserting new text, 
    and (4) then to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, as amended, the amendments were voted on in the House, 
    under a special rule permitting separate votes on any, amendments 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole to either the bill or the 
    committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, in the order in 
    which adopted thus following the rule that an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is always perfected before a vote is taken 
    on a substitute amendment therefor.

    On May 26, 1960, the Committee of the Whole was considering H.R. 
10128 (to authorize assistance for school construction) pursuant to a 
special order (H. Res. 536) providing that the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute be read as an original bill for amendment, 
and allowing a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in 
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute. In Committee of the Whole, four amendments were adopted 
in the following order: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 106 Cong. Rec. 11282-302, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [To Sec. 4 of the committee amendments]

        Mr. [Carl A.] Elliott of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment, which is at the desk.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Elliott of Alabama: Page 13, 
        strike out lines 5 through 12, and insert the following: . . .

        Mr. Elliott of Alabama: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

[[Page 4330]]

        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Elliott of Alabama and Mr. Kearns.
        The Committee again divided and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 130, noes 112.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

    [To Sec. 6 of the committee amendment]

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Powell: Page 18, line 4, after 
        section 6(a) insert:
            ``7. The school facilities constructed with the assistance 
        of payments received under this act shall be available to 
        students without regard to race, creed, color, national origin, 
        or religion, in accordance with the decisions of the United 
        States Supreme Court.''. . .

        The Chairman: (10) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Powell) there were--ayes 126, noes 108.
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I 
    demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Powell and Mr. Thompson of New Jersey.
        The Committee again divided, and the tellers reported that 
    there were--ayes 151, noes 103.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

    [Substitute striking all after title of committee amendment]

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bow of Ohio: On page 11, line 20, 
        after ``Sec. 2.'' strike out all after section 1 and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            ``(a) The Congress hereby finds and declares that 
        responsibility for and control over education is one of the 
        powers not delegated to the United States but reserved to the 
        States or to the people under the tenth amendment to the 
        Constitution.
            ``(b) The Congress hereby reaffirms and reenacts a portion 
        of Article III of the Ordinance of 1787, adopted by the 
        Confederation Congress, July 13, 1787, as follows: `Religion, 
        morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and 
        the happiness of mankind schools and the means of education 
        shall forever be encouraged.'
            ``(c) The Congress further finds that continued 
        encouragement of the means of education requires the 
        strengthening of State governments.
            ``Sec. 3. (a) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated 
        out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
        for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1960, and for each fiscal 
        year thereafter, to each State, to be used by such State for 
        construction of public schools, an amount equal to 25 per 
        centum of the Federal tax on cigarettes (computed as provided 
        in this Act) collected on cigarettes sold within such State 
        during the preceding fiscal year.
            ``(b) For the purpose of determining the amount authorized 
        to be appropriated for payments under the provisions of this 
        section, the Secretary of the Treasury shall estimate the 
        number of cigarettes sold in each State in each fiscal year on 
        the basis of such statistics as may be available.

[[Page 4331]]

            ``(c) For the purposes of this section the term `State' 
        includes the District of Columbia.''. . .

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman being in doubt, the 
    Committee divided.
        The Chairman: On this vote by a division the ayes are 121, and 
    the noes 121. The Chair votes no, so the noes are 122.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. 
    Bow and Mr. Roosevelt.
        The Committee again divided and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 154, noes 129.
        So the amendment was agreed to.

    [Committee amendment as amended]

        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment as 
    amended.
        The committee amendment as amended was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule the Committee rises.

    When the Committee rose and reported the bill back to the House 
with amendments adopted in Committee of the Whole, Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, answered parliamentary inquiries on the procedure for voting 
on amendments adopted to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 11302, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stewart L.] Udall [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Udall: I believe that under the rule this is the proper 
    time to demand separate votes on amendments. There are three 
    amendments on which I desire a separate vote.
        The Speaker: It is. The gentleman will state the amendments on 
    which he desires a separate vote.
        Mr. Udall: The Elliott amendment, the Powell amendment, and the 
    Bow amendment.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the first amendment on which 
    a separate vote is demanded.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bow: The so-called Bow amendment struck out the entire 
    bill. I am wondering whether that would not have the effect of 
    taking out the Elliott amendment and the Powell amendment so that 
    the only vote would be on the Bow amendment.
        The Speaker: That depends.
        Mr. [John James] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Flynt: I would like advice as to whether it would not be 
    proper for the Clerk at this time to read the Bow substitute as 
    adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
        The Speaker: It will be at the proper time. The other 
    amendments will be voted upon first.

[[Page 4332]]

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bailey: The so-called Bow amendment was brought into the 
    picture irregularly in that it was a substitute for another 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: It was an amendment to the committee amendment.
        Mr. Bailey: It was subject to a point of order.
        The Speaker: It is not now.
        The Clerk will report the so-called Elliott amendment. . . .
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, does not the first vote occur upon a 
    substitute or the Bow amendment?
        The Speaker: It does not. It was an amendment to an amendment.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, what is the first order?
        The Speaker: The first order is the vote on the amendment that 
    the Clerk has just reported.
        Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    believe it would be of great interest to the Members of the House 
    to clarify the first amendment, the second amendment, and the third 
    amendment in the order in which they will be taken up.
        The Speaker: Each amendment will be reported when the proper 
    time comes. The first on the list is the Elliott amendment.
        Mr. Barden: Mr. Speaker, what effect will the Bow amendment 
    have on the other amendments that will be voted on?
        The Speaker: If the Bow amendment is agreed to it will strike 
    out the other two amendments.
        Mr. Barden: It strikes out the Elliott amendment and the Powell 
    amendment?
        The Speaker: That is correct.

    The House rejected the Elliott amendment, adopted the Powell 
amendment, and rejected the Bow amendment.(12)



 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                       D. TYPES OF SPECIAL ORDERS

Sec. 27. Senate Bills and Amendments; Conference Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id. at pp. 11302, 11303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Order of business resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules 
and pertaining to Senate bills, amendments between the Houses, and 
conferences, may take a number of different forms, because of the 
possible variations in the parliamentary situation. Where it is desired 
to take up and consider a Senate-passed bill, without first considering 
and passing a similar bill introduced in the House, the Committee on 
Rules may report a resolution making in order the consideration of the 
Senate bill and providing procedures for its consideration. Such a 
resolution may provide for the consideration of a Senate bill

[[Page 4333]]

on the Speaker's table, or a Senate bill referred to and reported by a 
House committee and on the Calendar, or a Senate bill referred to 
committee and not yet reported.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For example, see Sec. Sec. 27.1-27.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On most occasions, however, the House first considers and passes a 
bill introduced in the House, and then substitutes the text of the 
House-passed bill for the text of a similar Senate bill if previously 
messaged to the House. The language of the special order, providing for 
such a procedure, will depend on whether the Senate measure is on the 
Speaker's table or must be discharged from the House 
committee,(14) and whether the Senate bill is identical, or 
merely similar, to the House reported bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 27.8-27.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain measures, such as general appropriation bills, should 
originate in the House (see Ch. 13, supra, for the prerogatives of the 
House).
    Senate amendments to a House bill usually require consideration in 
Committee of the Whole,(15) and are thus not privileged for 
consideration in the House unless the stage of disagreement has been 
reached. Likewise, House amendments to Senate bills, after passage of 
the Senate bill as amended, are not subject to disposition in the House 
by privileged motion until the stage of disagreement is reached. Such 
measures may be brought up and disposed of by unanimous consent, by 
suspension of the rules, by a resolution reported from the Committee on 
Rules, by a privileged motion sending the bill to conference by 
direction of the committee with jurisdiction,(16) or, with 
respect to Senate amendments, by the Speaker's action in referring the 
bill to a standing committee.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 and Rule 
        XXIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 865 (1979).
16. See Rule XX clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 827 (1979).
17. See Cannon's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, p. 117 
        (1959). The Speaker rarely makes such a reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Resolutions from the Committee on Rules may take from the Speaker's 
table House bills with Senate amendments or Senate bills with House 
amendments and direct any disposition which is desired, including 
agreeing to or requesting a conference with the Senate.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For taking House bill with Senate amendment from the table, see 
        Sec. Sec. 27.12-27.14, infra; for concurring in Senate 
        amendments to a House bill, see Sec. Sec. 27.15-27.20, infra; 
        for concurring with amendments, see Sec. Sec. 27.21, 27.22, 
        infra; for disagreeing to Senate amendments to House bill and 
        going to conference, see Sec. Sec. 27.23-27.26, infra; for 
        disagreeing in part, concurring in part and going to 
        conference, see Sec. 27.27, infra; for insisting upon House 
        amendment to Senate bill, see Sec. Sec. 27.28-27.30, infra; for 
        sending to conference generally, see Sec. 27.31, infra.
            For a resolution sending a bill to conference and allowing 
        the House conferees to agree to any Senate amendment, 
        notwithstanding Rule XX clause 2, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 829 (1979), see Sec. 27.24, infra.

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

[[Page 4334]]

    Under Rule XXVIII,(19) conference reports themselves are 
privileged for consideration, after a three-day layover, but a 
resolution from the Committee on Rules may make in order the 
consideration of a conference report on the same day on which reported 
or any day thereafter, or may alter the method of 
consideration.(20) And defects in a conference report which 
would subject the report to a point of order in the House, or motions 
to be proposed on amendments reported in disagreement, which motions 
would be subject to points of order, may be cured by the provisions of 
a special order waiving points of order.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 909, 912, (1979).
20. See Sec. Sec. 27.32-27.35, 27.37, 27.38, infra.
 1. See Sec. Sec. 27.40-27.45. A conference report which has been 
        called up and held out of order may be brought up again under 
        the provisions of a special rule waiving points of order. See 
        Sec. 27.43, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By analogy to the principle that the Committee on Rules may 
recommend making in order the consideration of a bill which has not 
even been introduced, the committee may recommend making in order a 
conference report where the conference committee has not yet met or 
reported.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 27.34, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In certain situations, a conference report may be protected from a 
point of order because of the provisions of the special order which 
governed the consideration of the bill in the House. For example, 
waiving points of order against unauthorized appropriations in a bill 
being considered in the House carries over to the conference report on 
the bill, since conferees under Rule XX clause 2 are only prohibited 
from agreeing to provisions which would have been subject to a point of 
order in the House under Rule XXI clause 2 during original 
consideration of the bill. Thus, conference reports may contain the 
unauthorized provisions (or modifications thereof) originally protected 
by the waiver of points of order.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. 27.36, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
As to bill passage procedure generally, see Ch. 24, infra.

[[Page 4335]]

As to amendments between the Houses, see Ch. 32, infra.
As to conferences and conference reports, see Ch. 33, infra.
As to suspension of the rules in relation to amendments between the 
    Houses and conference reports, see Sec. 9, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Making in Order and Providing for Consideration of Senate Bill

Sec. 27.1 Form of resolution providing for consideration in Committee 
    of the Whole of a Senate bill at the Speaker's desk (the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946) and making in order as an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute the provisions contained in 
    a committee print previously inserted in the Congressional Record.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on July 25, 1946: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Res. 717, 92 Cong. Rec. 10037, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (S. 2177) to provide for increased efficiency in the 
    legislative branch of the Government, and all points of order 
    against said bill are hereby waived. That after general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed two 
    hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma, Mr. Monroney, and the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
    Michener, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
    minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order as a substitute for the bill the 
    provisions contained in the committee print of July 20, 1946, and 
    printed in the Congressional Record of July 19, 1946, page 9496, 
    and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be 
    considered under the five-minute rule as an original bill. At the 
    conclusion of such consideration, the Committee shall rise and 
    report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on 
    any of the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
    bill or committee substitute. The previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The committee print of July 20, 1946, was 
the product of an informal special committee on the reorganization of 
Congress, without legislative jurisdiction.

Sec. 27.2 Form of special rule providing for the consideration of a 
    Senate bill, waiving points of order against said

[[Page 4336]]

    bill and directing that a committee substitute amendment for said 
    bill shall be considered under the five-minute rule as an original 
    bill without intervention of any point of order.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Aug. 18, 1937: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 81 Cong. Rec. 9234, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 320

        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. 1685, an act to provide financial assistance to the States 
    and political subdivisions thereof for the elimination of unsafe 
    and insanitary housing conditions, for the eradication of slums, 
    for the provision of decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for 
    families of low income, and for the reduction of unemployment and 
    the stimulation of business activity, to create a United States 
    Housing Authority, and for other purposes, and all points of order 
    against said bill are hereby waived. That after general debate, 
    which shall be confined to the bill, and continue not to exceed 3 
    hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking and Currency, 
    the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It 
    shall be in order to consider without the intervention of any point 
    of order the substitute committee amendment recommended by the 
    Committee on Banking and Currency now in the bill, and such 
    substitute for the purpose of amendment shall be considered under 
    the 5-minute rule as an original bill. At the conclusion of such 
    consideration the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
    House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    the amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Sec. 27.3 Form of resolution providing for the consideration of a 
    Senate joint resolution in the House as in the Committee of the 
    Whole and authorizing general debate prior to reading for amendment 
    under the five-minute rule.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Jan. 6, 1937: (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H. Res. 44, 81 Cong. Rec. 90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. The Senate joint 
        resolution, prohibiting the exportation of arms and ammunition 
        to Spain during the Spanish Civil War, had been reported from 
        committee and referred to the Union Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the House 
    as in the Committee of the Whole House on the

[[Page 4337]]

    State of the Union shall consider the joint resolution, Senate 
    Joint Resolution 3; that there shall be not to exceed 1 hour of 
    general debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
    and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
    whereupon the joint resolution shall be read for amendment under 
    the 5-minute rule.

Sec. 27.4 By unanimous consent, the House considered a Senate bill 
    under the terms of a resolution adopted for consideration of a 
    House bill.

    On Mar. 12, 1959,(7) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request that it be in order to consider a Senate bill (to 
provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union) under 
the provisions of a special order adopted on a previous day, for the 
consideration of a House bill on the same subject:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 4005, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    renew my unanimous-consent request, heretofore made, that it may be 
    in order for the House to consider the bill S. 50, in lieu of the 
    bill H.R. 4221, under the terms and provisions of House Resolution 
    205 adopted yesterday by the House in relation to the Hawaiian 
    statehood bill.

        The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John R.] Pillion [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I do not 
    renew my previous objection.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 27.5 Instance where, since a private Senate bill resulting in the 
    expenditure of public funds [and thus requiring consideration in 
    the Committee of the Whole House] is not privileged and cannot be 
    taken from the Speaker's table for direct action by the House, the 
    House adopted a resolution taking the bill from the table and 
    providing for its consideration in Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union.

    On Mar. 14, 1961, the House agreed to a resolution reported from 
the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a private 
Senate bill on the Speaker's table: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 224, 107 Cong. Rec. 3911, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (S. 1173) to authorize the appointment of Dwight David 
    Eisenhower to the active list of the Regular Army, and for other 
    purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    bill, and shall continue not to exceed one hour to be equally di

[[Page 4338]]

    vided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
    the Committee on Armed Services, the bill--shall be read for 
    amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the 
    consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise 
    and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
    been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A private Senate bill requiring 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole House, engrossed and sent 
to the House after a similar House bill has been reported and referred 
to the Private Calendar, is not privileged. A similar private House 
bill (H.R. 5174) had been reported to the House.

Sec. 27.6 The House adopted a special order taking two Senate bills 
    from the Speaker's table (where such bills required consideration 
    in Committee of the Whole); amending each bill by identical 
    amendments in the nature of a substitute; providing that each 
    Senate bill be considered as read a third time and passed; amending 
    titles of both Senate bills; providing that the House insist on 
    each amendment, request conferences with the Senate on each bill, 
    and that the Speaker appoint conferees on the part of the House to 
    attend each such conference.

    On Nov. 18, 1971, a special order was called up by direction of the 
Committee on Rules for the consideration of two Senate bills:

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 710 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                H. Res. 710

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of its resolution 
    and without the intervention of any point of order the bills of the 
    Senate S. 2819 and S. 2820 are hereby taken from the Speaker's 
    table; that said Senate bills are hereby amended by striking out 
    all after the enacting clause of each such Senate bill and 
    inserting in lieu thereof the text of the bill H.R. 9910 as passed 
    by the House on August 3, 1971; that the said Senate bills as so 
    amended shall be considered as read a third time and passed; that 
    the title of each such Senate bill shall be amended by striking out 
    such title and inserting in lieu thereof the title of H.R. 9910; 
    that the House insists upon its amendments to each Senate bill and 
    requests conferences with the Senate, and that the Speaker appoint 
    managers on the part of the House to attend each such 
    conference.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 117 Cong. Rec. 42046, 42047, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4339]]

Mr. Bolling explained the purpose and unprecedented nature of the 
special order:

        Mr. Speaker, some say that this rule is without precedent. I 
    have not searched the precedents. I do not know. But I do know it 
    is a very unusual rule, and I think it deserves explanation so that 
    the Members who are interested will know what the rule does and 
    what its significance is. Those who listened to the rule will know 
    that, if the resolution is adopted by the House, the House action 
    will be as follows: The House will take two Senate bills on foreign 
    aid, one on foreign economic assistance and one on foreign military 
    assistance, from the Speaker's table. It will amend each of those 
    bills by striking out all after the enacting clause and putting in 
    each of them the text of the bill that the House debated, amended, 
    and passed on the 3rd of August 1971, and it will then send the 
    matters, the two bills, to conference.
        The resolution provides that the Speaker can appoint conferees.
        What this does, in very frank terms, is to get before a 
    conference the two Senate bills and the House-passed bill. Most of 
    you will remember that the bill passed the House, went to the 
    Senate, it was debated at length, amended and defeated. Then the 
    Senate came back with two separate bills, which were passed by very 
    substantial majorities.

    The House adopted the resolution.

Discharging Committee From Consideration of Senate Bill

Sec. 27.7 Form of resolution providing for the discharge of a House 
    committee from further consideration of a Senate bill [similar to a 
    House bill pending on the Union Calendar] and for its immediate 
    consideration under an ``open'' rule.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Mar. 17, 1970: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 874, 116 Cong. Rec. 7691, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
    (S. 858) to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 with 
    respect to wheat. After general debate, which shall be confined to 
    the bill 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 Agriculture, the bill shall be read for 
    amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the 
    consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise 
    and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
    been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
    intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Substituting Text of House-passed Bill for Text of Senate-passed Bill

Sec. 27.8 Form of resolution providing for consideration of a

[[Page 4340]]

    House bill, and after passage discharging a House committee from 
    further consideration of a Senate bill, and making in order a 
    motion to strike out all after the enacting clause of the Senate 
    bill and inserting in lieu thereof the provisions of the House bill 
    as passed by the House.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Sept. 3, 1969: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Res. 516, 115 Cong. Rec. 24004, 24005, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 7621) to amend the Federal Hazardous Substances 
    Act to protect children from toys and other articles intended for 
    use by children which are hazardous due to the presence of 
    electrical, mechanical, or thermal hazards, and for other purposes. 
    After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 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 Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the bill shall be 
    read for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order 
    to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
    by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce now printed in 
    the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
    five-minute rule. At the conclusion of such consideration, the 
    committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand a 
    separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
    Committee of the Whole to the bill or committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered 
    as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
    without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
    without instructions. After passage of H.R. 7621, the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce shall be discharged from the 
    further consideration of the bill S. 1689, and it shall then be in 
    order in the House to move to strike out all after the enacting 
    clause of said Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof the 
    provisions contained in H.R. 7621 as passed by the House.

    As a further example, the following resolution, reported from the 
Committee on Rules, was considered on Sept. 24, 1969:

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 850) to designate the 
        Desolation Wilderness, Eldorado National Forest, in the State 
        of California. After general debate, which shall be confined to 
        the bill 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 Interior and Insular 
        Affairs, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-
        minute

[[Page 4341]]

        rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for 
        amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
        House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
        previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
        and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
        motion except one motion to recommit. After the passage of H.R. 
        850, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs shall be 
        discharged from the further consideration of the bill S. 713, 
        and it shall then be in order in the House to move to strike 
        out all after the enacting clause of the said Senate bill and 
        insert in lieu thereof the provisions contained in H.R. 850 as 
        passed by the House.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 13. H. Res. 543, 115 Cong. Rec. 26898, 26899, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 27.9 Form of resolution providing for consideration of a bill; 
    providing that after passage of the House bill, the legislative 
    committee be discharged from consideration of a similar Senate bill 
    and the House-passed language substituted as an amendment for all 
    after the enacting clause therein; and making in order a motion 
    that the House insist on its amendments to the Senate bill and a 
    request for a conference, and authorizing the Speaker to appoint 
    conferees on the part of the House.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Aug. 11, 1959: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 338, 105 Cong. Rec. 15512, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill, H.R. 8342, a bill to provide for the reporting and 
    disclosure of certain financial transactions and administrative 
    practices of labor organizations and employers, to prevent abuses 
    in the administration of trusteeships by labor organizations, to 
    provide standards with respect to the election of officers of labor 
    organizations, and for other purposes, and all points of order 
    against said bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which 
    shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed six 
    hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, 
    the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At 
    the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
    amendments as may have been adopted and the previous question shall 
    be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
    final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit, with or without instructions.
        That after the passage of H.R. 8342, the Committee on Education 
    and Labor shall be discharged from the further consideration of the 
    bill, S. 1555;

[[Page 4342]]

    that it shall then be in order in the House to move to strike out 
    all after the enacting clause of said Senate bill and insert in 
    lieu thereof the provisions contained in H.R. 8342 as passed; that 
    it shall then be in order to move that the House insist upon its 
    amendment to said Senate bill S. 1555 and request a conference with 
    the Senate; and that the Speaker shall thereupon appoint the 
    conferees on the part of the House.

Sec. 27.10 The House agreed to a resolution providing for the 
    consideration of a bill reported from the Committee on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries, making it in order, after passage, to take 
    from the Speaker's table a similar Senate bill which, under the 
    precedents, would have fallen within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs had it been referred to 
    committee, and to insert the House language as an amendment.

    On Sept. 23, 1969, the House agreed to a special order, called up 
by Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, which resolution made in order the consideration of a bill 
reported by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries; the 
resolution also provided for the disposition of a Senate bill after 
passage of the House bill: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 26569, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 544

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 12549) to amend the Fish and Wildlife 
    Coordination Act to provide for the establishment of a Council on 
    Environmental Quality, and for other purposes. After general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the bill 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 Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries, the bill shall be read for amendment under 
    the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the 
    bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit. After the passage of H.R. 12549, it 
    shall be in order in the House to take from the Speaker's table the 
    bill S. 1075 and to move to strike out all after the enacting 
    clause of said Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof of provisions 
    contained in H.R. 12549 as passed by the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate bill (S. 1075) which the

[[Page 4343]]

resolution provided for taking from the Speaker's table was properly 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs in the House. Accommodation had been reached in the House, 
however, in order that certain amendments would be offered to the House 
bill on behalf of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

Sec. 27.11 A resolution making in order the disposition of a Senate 
    bill on the Speaker's table after passage of a House bill reported 
    by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, was amended to 
    delete all reference to the Senate bill, and the Senate bill was 
    then referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

    On Sept. 9, 1970,(16) Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, 
offered by direction of the Committee on Rules a special order 
providing for the consideration of a House bill and providing for the 
disposition of a similar Senate bill on the Speaker's table. He offered 
an amendment recommended (but not reported) by the Committee on Rules 
deleting the provision for disposition of the Senate bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 30873, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 1046 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1046

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 16542) to amend title 39, 
        United States Code, to regulate the mailing of unsolicited 
        credit cards, and for other purposes. After general debate, 
        which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to 
        exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
        chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Post 
        Office and Civil Service, the bill shall be read for amendment 
        under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the 
        consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall 
        rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
        may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
        final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit. After the passage of H.R. 16542, it shall then be in 
        order in the House to take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 
        721 and to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the 
        said Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof the provisions 
        contained in H.R. 16542 as passed by the House.

        The Speaker: (17) The gentleman from Hawaii is 
    recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Matsunaga: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Matsunaga: On page 2, strike out 
        all of the

[[Page 4344]]

        last sentence, beginning with ``After the passage of'' in line 
        6 and ending with the period in line 11.

    Mr. Smith's remarks on the bill explained the purpose of the 
amendment to the special order: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 18. 116 Cong. Rec. 30874, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 
    such time as I may use.
        Mr. Speaker, in the interest of saving time I will say that the 
    gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Matsunaga) has adequately explained this 
    bill and I will extend my remarks on the rule.
        Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) for bringing to our attention a matter which I have been 
    more or less fussing about for the last year; that is, the language 
    which we have agreed to strike from the rule, which says that after 
    the passage of the bill, ``it shall then be in order in the House 
    to take from the Speaker's table the bil1 S. 721 and to move to 
    strike all after the enacting clause of the said Senate bill and 
    insert in lieu thereof the provisions contained in H.R. 16542 as 
    passed by the House.''
        If Members will read the second paragraph under clause 3, rule 
    XXVIII, the second paragraph has to do with precedents and they 
    will find that once this happens then the conferees can put most 
    anything in the bill they wish to, whether it is germane to 
    anything passed by the House or by the Senate, and it will come 
    back to us, and it is made in order. . . .
        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
    gentleman for yielding.
        I want to commend the gentleman from Hawaii for offering the 
    amendment which I intended to offer if the members of the Rules 
    Committee themselves did not.
        The gentleman from California (Mr. Smith) I believe has quite 
    thoroughly described the effect of the language which has been 
    stricken from the rule. If this language had been left in the rule 
    and the Senate bill were then amended by substituting the language 
    of the House bill and sent to conference, under the rules and under 
    the precedents, the conference committee would have been free to 
    put in this bill almost anything that would have been germane and 
    that could have been offered in either the House or the Senate. It 
    would not have been at all limited to the bill passed by the House 
    or passed by the Senate.
        I believe most of us have felt that the conference committee 
    had these restraints, that the conference committee could not write 
    new legislation in the conference. But in the past several years 
    there have been too many instances in which altogether new 
    legislation was written by the conference committee, and the House 
    and the Senate have had only two alternatives--to accept the new 
    legislation as written by the conference committee or to reject the 
    conference report and send the whole matter back to conference.
        I hope this will be a precedent of the House now, so that we 
    will not include this sort of language in the rules sent by the 
    Rules Committee to the House for the consideration of bills in the 
    future. Or, as suggested by the gentleman from California, that the 
    rules of the House themselves may be

[[Page 4345]]

    amended in the reorganization bill to see that the kinds of 
    restraints we all understand to be imposed upon the conference 
    committee will be imposed in the future to protect us in our 
    legislative function.

    The resolution as amended was adopted and the Senate bill was then 
referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency.
    Parliamentarian's Note: At the time of these proceedings, the 
precedents of the House indicated that where one House struck out of a 
bill of the other all after the enacting clause and inserted a new 
text, conferees could discard language occurring both in the bill and 
the substitute, and exercise broad discretion in incorporating new 
germane matter. Clause 3 of Rule XXVIII was amended Jan. 22, 1971 
(incorporating provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1970, 84 Stat. 1140), to prohibit House conferees from agreeing to 
language in a conference report presenting topics, questions, issues, 
or propositions not committed to conference.

Taking House Bill With Senate Amendments From Table

Sec. 27.12 Form of resolution taking a House bill with the Senate 
    amendments thereto from the Speaker's table and making it in order 
    to consider the amendments in the House.

    The following resolution was under consideration on July 2, 1960: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 19. H. Res. 596, 106 Cong. Rec. 15775, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
    resolution, the bill H.R. 12740 making supplemental appropriations 
    for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, and for other purposes, 
    with the Senate amendments thereto, shall be taken from the 
    Speaker's table and the Senate amendments considered in the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under this procedure, motions to dispose of 
each Senate amendment are then in order and subject to separate votes 
(as if the stage of disagreement had been reached).

Sec. 27.13 Any Member may request that the Chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules call a meeting of that committee to consider reporting a 
    resolution making in order disposition from the Speaker's table of 
    a House bill, with Senate amendments that require consideration in 
    the Committee of the Whole, notwithstanding Rule XXIV clause 2.

    On Aug. 13, 1957,(20) a unanimous-consent request, to 
take
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 20. 103 Cong. Rec. 14568, 85th Cong.1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4346]]

from the Speaker's table a House bill with Senate amendments, was 
objected to. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, then answered a 
parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Would the Speaker 
    recognize me to move to send the bill to the Rules Committee?
        The Speaker: The Chair would not. It is not necessary to do 
    that.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keating: Would the Speaker advise what action is necessary 
    now in order to get the bill to the Committee on Rules?

        THE SPEAKER: Anyone can make the request of the chairman of the 
    Committee on Rules to call a meeting of the committee to consider 
    the whole matter.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, if that were done, would the bill 
    which is now on the Speaker's desk be before the Rules Committee?
        The Speaker: It would not be before the Committee on Rules. The 
    Committee on Rules could consider the matter of what procedure to 
    recommend to the House for the disposition of this whole matter.

Sec. 27.14 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker pro 
    tempore stated that the Committee on Rules could report out a 
    resolution taking a House bill with Senate amendments (requiring 
    consideration in Committee of the Whole) from the Speaker's table 
    and sending it to the legislative committee of the House having 
    jurisdiction thereof.

    On the legislative day of Sept. 25, 1961, Mr. Albert Thomas, of 
Texas, asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table a House 
bill making appropriations with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to 
the Senate amendments and agree to the conference asked by the Senate. 
The Senate amendments required consideration in Committee of the Whole.
    Mr. Frank T. Bow, of Ohio, reserved the right to object to the 
request and propounded parliamentary inquiries which were answered by 
Speaker pro tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts:

        Mr. Bow: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as these amendments of the 
    Senate are in the nature of charges against the Treasury of the 
    United States, I ask this parliamentary inquiry:
        Is it not then necessary under the rules and procedures as 
    found in volume 5 of the Procedure of the House of Representatives 
    that the bill be sent to the committee and then considered in the 
    Committee of the Whole before sending it to conference?

[[Page 4347]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is the opinion of the Chair that 
    the answer which the Chair gave to the first part of the 
    gentleman's parliamentary inquiry also answers this inquiry: that 
    if objection is made, the Chair would feel constrained, insofar as 
    the Chair is capable of accomplishing it, to have the bill taken 
    from the Speaker's desk and sent to conference under the rules 
    without reference to the committee.
        Mr. Bow: I thank the Chair, and withdraw my reservation.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the 
    right to object, if the [matter] should go to the Rules Committee 
    for a rule, would it be possible for the Rules Committee to vote 
    out a rule sending the bill to a committee?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The answer is in the affirmative to 
    that parliamentary inquiry.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 107 Cong. Rec. 21476, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 26, 1961 
        (Calendar Day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concurring in Senate Amendment

Sec. 27.15 Form of resolution providing that the House shall proceed to 
    consideration of Senate amendments to a House joint resolution and 
    that the motion to concur be pending, fixing debate on the motion 
    to concur and ordering the previous question.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Nov. 12, 1941: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. H. Res. 334, 87 Cong. Rec. 8763, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to consider the Senate amendments to the 
    joint resolution (H.J. Res. 237) to repeal section 6 of the 
    Neutrality Act of 1939, and for other purposes; that the motion to 
    concur in the said Senate amendments shall be considered as pending 
    and that debate on said motion shall be limited to not to exceed 8 
    hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and 
    that at the conclusion of such debate the previous question shall 
    be considered as ordered on the motion to concur.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This special rule precluded a preferential 
motion (to concur with an amendment) from being first offered.

Sec. 27.16 Where a resolution provides for taking a House bill with 
    Senate amendments from the Speaker's table to the end that the 
    Senate amendments are agreed to, adoption of the resolution means 
    that the House concurs in the Senate amendments.

    On Mar. 24, 1948, a special order for the disposition of busi

[[Page 4348]]

ness on the Speaker's table was called up: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 94 Cong. Rec. 3399, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo E.] Allen of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I call up House 
    Resolution 510 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill (H.R. 4790) to reduce individual income tax 
        payments, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
        thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's 
        table to the end that all Senate amendments be, and the same 
        are hereby, agreed to.

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the effect of the resolution should it be 
adopted: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 3413.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rayburn: As I understand the parliamentary situation, Mr. 
    Speaker, there is to be one vote only; and if the resolution is 
    agreed to, it means that the House concurs in the Senate amendments 
    to the so-called Knutson bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has stated the situation correctly.

Sec. 27.17 Where the House has before it a resolution providing for 
    concurrence in a Senate amendment, such Senate amendment may be 
    read by unanimous consent.

    On Mar. 31, 1950, the House had under consideration House 
Resolution 531 reported from the Committee on Rules, taking from the 
Speaker's table a House bill with Senate amendment and concurring in 
the Senate amendment. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to whether the Senate amendment could be read: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 4553, 4554, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo E.] Allen of Illinois: I yield to the gentleman from 
    Illinois.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, under the 
    terms of this rule we are asked to approve an amendment which has 
    been added by the other body. Is it in order to request that that 
    amendment, which has not been read to the House, be read at this 
    time?
        The Speaker: It may be done by unanimous consent.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    amendment added by the other body be read to the House at this 
    time.
        The Speaker: That will come out of the time of the gentleman 
    from Illinois [Mr. Allen].
        Mr. Allen of Illinois: I yield for that purpose, Mr. Speaker.

Sec. 27.18 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the

[[Page 4349]]

    Speaker stated that if the previous question were voted down on a 
    resolution providing for agreeing to Senate amendments to a House 
    bill, the resolution would be open to amendment.

    On June 17, 1970,(6) the House had under consideration 
House Resolution 914 reported from the Committee on Rules, taking from 
the Speaker's table H.R. 4249 (to extend the Voting Rights Act) with 
Senate amendments, and concurring in the Senate amendments. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered an inquiry on the status 
of the resolution should the previous question be voted down:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 20198, 20199, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Is my understanding 
    correct that an ``aye'' vote on House Resolution 914 is a vote to 
    agree to the Senate amendments to H.R. 4249, the Voting Rights 
    Extension Act, so that the bill may then be sent to the President 
    for his signature before the existing act expires on August 6 of 
    this year?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Hawaii 
    that while that is not a parliamentary inquiry, the statement made 
    by the gentleman from Hawaii is accurate.
        Mr. Matsunaga: I thank the Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford Mr. Speaker, a ``no'' vote on the previous 
    question does give an opportunity for one of those who led the 
    fight against the resolution to amend the resolution now pending 
    before the House?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state in response to the 
    parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Michigan that if the 
    previous question is voted down, the resolution is open to 
    amendment. The Chair's response is the same response as given to 
    the gentleman from Hawaii.

Sec. 27.19 Where the House adopts a resolution which by its terms 
    provides for taking a House bill with Senate amendments from the 
    Speaker's table and agreeing to the Senate amendments, no further 
    action by the House is required.

    On Mar. 16, 1933, a special order reported from the Committee on 
Rules relating to the disposition from the Speaker's table of a House 
bill with Senate amendments was offered:

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the bill H.R. 2820, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and the 
    same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that all 
    Senate amendments be, and the same are hereby, agreed 
    to.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H. Res. 63, 77 Cong. Rec. 546, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4350]]

    Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry on the effect of the resolution should it be adopted:

        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that if we adopt 
    this resolution that ends the bill and there is no further vote on 
    the bill itself.
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Snell: I understood the gentleman from Alabama to say that 
    we would then vote for or against the bill.
        Mr. [John] McDuffie [of Alabama]: No; the gentleman from 
    Alabama was mistaken.
        Mr. Snell: If we adopt this resolution, we pass the bill.
        Mr. McDuffie: We have then concurred in the Senate amendment, 
    and, therefore, the bill is passed, so far as the House is 
    concerned.
        Mr. Snell: And there is no other vote on the bill.
        Mr. McDuffie: No other vote on the bill, as I understand it.
        The Speaker: That is correct.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 548.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 27.20 The Chair indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that should a resolution providing for concurring in Senate 
    amendments to a House bill be rejected, the bill and amendments 
    would remain on the Speaker's table for further action by the 
    House.

    On June 17, 1970, the House had under consideration a special order 
reported from the Committee on Rules taking from the Speaker's table a 
House bill with Senate amendments and concurring in the amendments (H. 
Res. 914). Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered an 
inquiry on the effect of rejecting the resolution: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 20199, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. [Albert W.] Watson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, if 
    this resolution is voted down then, further, it will mean we will 
    follow the orderly procedure and let this matter go to conference 
    and reconcile the differences?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that if the resolution is 
    voted down the matter will lie on the Speaker's desk until the 
    House determines what it wants to do with the matter.

Concurring in Senate Amendment With Amendment

Sec. 27.21 Form of resolution waiving points of order against a 
    conference report on a general appropriation bill and making in 
    order a motion to recede from disagreement to any Senate

[[Page 4351]]

    amendment reported in disagreement and concur therein with an 
    amendment inserting in the proper place in the bill any or all 
    parts of the provisions of another (legislative) bill and any 
    amendments thereto, as agreed upon by the House conferees on the 
    bill on which the conference was held.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Aug. 2, 1955: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 10. H. Res. 337, 101 Cong. Rec. 13051, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to consider the conference report on the bill H.R. 7117, 
    making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal 
    year ending June 30, 1956, and for other purposes, and all points 
    of order against the conference report are hereby waived; that 
    during the consideration of the amendments of the Senate to the 
    bill H.R. 7117 reported from the conference committee in 
    disagreement it shall be in order, notwithstanding any rule of the 
    House to the contrary, to move that the House recede from its 
    disagreement to any such amendment and concur therein with an 
    amendment inserting in the proper place in the bill any or all of 
    the parts of the provisions of the bill H.R. 7440 and any 
    amendments thereto as agreed upon by the House conferees on the 
    bill H.R. 7117.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 7440 was a bill reported by the 
Committee on House Administration, authorizing salary increases for 
House employees (the Senate had amended the House bill with legislative 
language authorizing salary increases for Senate employees). The 
various provisions of H.R. 7440 would not have been germane as 
amendments to the Senate amendments, and a waiver of points of order 
was therefore necessary.

Sec. 27.22 Form of special order taking from the Speaker's table a 
    House bill with Senate amendments before the stage of disagreement; 
    disagreeing to all Senate amendments except one; providing that the 
    House immediately proceed to the consideration of the remaining 
    amendment and that in the consideration of said amendment a motion 
    to concur with a specified amendment should be in order without any 
    intervening motion.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on June 10, 1933: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 11. 77 Cong. Rec. 5654, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 185

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the bill H.R.

[[Page 4352]]

    5389 with Senate amendments thereto be, and the same hereby is, 
    taken from the Speaker's table; that Senate amendments Nos. 1 to 
    46, inclusive, and Senate amendment No. 48 be, and the same are 
    hereby, disagreed to; that the House shall immediately proceed to 
    the consideration of Senate amendment No. 47, and that in the 
    consideration of said Senate amendment No. 47 the following motion 
    to concur with an amendment shall be in order, and no other 
    intervening motion shall be in order until said motion is fully 
    disposed of:
        In lieu of the matter inserted by said Senate amendment No. 47 
    insert the following:

            ``The President is hereby authorized under the provisions 
        of Public Law No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, to establish such 
        number of special boards (the majority of the members of which 
        were not in the employ of the Veterans' Administration at the 
        date of enactment of this act), as he may deem necessary to 
        review all claims (where the veteran entered service prior to 
        November 11, 1918, and whose disability is not the result of 
        his own misconduct), in which presumptive service connection 
        has heretofore been granted under the World War Veterans' Act, 
        1924, as amended, wherein payments were being made on March 20, 
        1933, and which are held not service connected under the 
        regulations issued pursuant to Public Law No. 2, Seventy-third 
        Congress. Members of such boards may be appointed without 
        regard to the Civil Service laws and regulations, and their 
        compensation fixed without regard to the Classification Act of 
        1923.''.

Disagreeing to Senate Amendments, Going to Conference

Sec. 27.23 Form of resolution taking from the Speaker's table an 
    appropriation bill with Senate amendments, disagreeing to the 
    amendments, agreeing to a conference, providing that the Speaker 
    appoint conferees without intervening motion (thus precluding a 
    motion to instruct conferees) and providing that it be in order to 
    consider the conference report when reported without regard to the 
    rule requiring printing in the Record.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on June 30, 1951: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 12. H. Res. 309, 97 Cong. Rec. 7538, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 277) making temporary 
    appropriations for the fiscal year 1952, and for other purposes, 
    with the Senate amendments thereto be, and the same hereby is, 
    taken from the Speaker's table; that the Senate amendments be, and 
    they are hereby, disagreed to by the House; that the conference 
    requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
    on the said joint resolution be, and hereby is, agreed to by the 
    House, and that the Speaker shall imme

[[Page 4353]]

    diately appoint conferees without intervening motion.
        Sec. 2. It shall be in order to consider the conference report 
    on the said joint resolution when reported notwithstanding the 
    provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII.

Sec. 27.24 Form of special order taking a House appropriations bill 
    with Senate amendments from the Speaker's table, disagreeing to the 
    amendments, agreeing to the conference requested by the Senate, 
    directing the Speaker to immediately appoint conferees without 
    intervening motion, and giving specific authority to the conferees 
    on the part of the House to agree or disagree to any Senate 
    amendment containing legislation or unauthorized appropriations.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Mar. 26, 1935: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 13. H. Res. 174, 79 Cong. Rec. 4465, 74th Cong. 1st Sess. H.J. Res. 
        117 was a bill making relief appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 117, with Senate 
    amendments thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the 
    Speaker's table; that the Senate amendments be, and they are 
    hereby, disagreed to by the House; that the conference requested by 
    the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the said 
    joint resolution be, and hereby is, agreed to by the House; that 
    the Speaker shall immediately appoint managers on the part of the 
    House without intervening motion; and that the managers on the part 
    of the House are hereby given specific authority to agree, with or 
    without amendment, or disagree to any amendment of the Senate to 
    the said joint resolution notwithstanding the provisions of clause 
    2 of rule XX.

Sec. 27.25 Form of special order discharging the Committee of the Whole 
    from the further consideration of an appropriation bill with Senate 
    amendments thereto; disagreeing to all Senate amendments; agreeing 
    to a conference asked by the Senate; authorizing the Speaker 
    without any intervening motion to appoint conferees; and empowering 
    the conferees on the part of the House to agree to any Senate 
    amendment containing legislation or unauthorized appropriations.

    The following resolution was under consideration on Mar. 14, 1934: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.  78 Cong. Rec. 4509, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 4354]]

                            House Resolution 299

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union be, and 
    it is hereby, discharged from the further consideration of the bill 
    H.R. 6663 and the Senate amendments thereto; that the said Senate 
    amendments be, and hereby are, disagreed to by the House; that the 
    conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the 
    two Houses on the said bill be, and hereby is, agreed to by the 
    House; that the Speaker shall immediately appoint the conferees 
    without intervening motion; and that the conferees on the part of 
    the House are hereby given specific authority to agree, with or 
    without amendment, or disagree to any amendment of the Senate to 
    the bill H.R. 6663 notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2 of 
    rule XX.

Sec. 27.26 To a resolution providing that the House disagree to Senate 
    amendments, including an amendment directing the Committee on Ways 
    and Means of the House and Finance Committee of the Senate to 
    conduct a study of excess-profits tax legislation, and sending the 
    bill to conference, an amendment providing that the House concur in 
    such amendment with an amendment enacting excess-profits 
    legislation was held to be not germane.

    On Sept. 14, 1950,(15) a special order was called up:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.  96 Cong. Rec. 14832, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    House Resolution 842 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill (H.R. 8920) to reduce excise taxes, and for 
        other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and the 
        same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table; that the Senate 
        amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to; that the 
        conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of 
        the two Houses on the said bill be, and hereby is, agreed to; 
        and that the Speaker shall immediately appoint conferees 
        without intervening motion.

    The previous question was rejected on the resolution, and Mr. 
Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, offered an amendment to the 
resolution:

        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Eberharter: Strike out all after 
        the word ``Resolved'' and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, 
        the bill H.R. 8920 with Senate amendments thereto be, and the 
        same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end--
            ``(1) That all Senate amendments other than amendment No. 
        191 be,

[[Page 4355]]

        and the same are hereby, disagreed to and the conference 
        requested thereon by the Senate is agreed to; and
            ``(2) That Senate amendment No. 191 be, and the same is 
        hereby, agreed to with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate insert the 
        following:
            `` `title vii--excess-profits tax
            `` `Sec. 701. Excess-profits tax applied to taxable years 
        ending after June 30, 1950.
            `` `Notwithstanding section 122(a) of the Revenue Act of 
        1945, the provisions of subchapter E of chapter 2 of the 
        Internal Revenue Code shall apply to taxable years ending after 
        June 30, 1950.
            `` `Sec. 702. Computation of tax in case of taxable year 
        beginning before July 1, 1950, and ending after June 30, 1950.' 
        ''

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, sustained a point of order against 
the amendment, on the grounds that it was not germane to the 
resolution:

        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order against the amendment on the ground that the 
    amendment is neither germane to the resolution sought to be 
    amended, nor to the Senate amendment No. 191. The language of the 
    Senate amendment would direct the Committee on Ways and Means of 
    the House and the Finance Committee of the Senate to conduct a 
    study of excess-profits-tax legislation during the Eighty-second 
    Congress, ostensibly to report back to the House and Senate for 
    passage with a retroactive date of July 1, 1950, or October 1, 
    1950.
        The provision of the bill does not in any way attempt to 
    legislate an excess-profits tax in connection with H.R. 8920. The 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania proposes an 
    excess-profits tax in connection with H.R. 8920. The amendment is a 
    specific provision for an excess-profits tax. Therefore, Mr. 
    Speaker, it seems to me that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania is not in order, that it is not germane either to 
    the resolution before the House or to the section of the bill on 
    which the instructions are sought to be given. . . .
        Mr. Eberharter: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, this amendment 
    seeks to amend the resolution reported out by the Committee on 
    Rules. This resolution waives points of order with respect to other 
    rules of the House. Under the rules of the House when a bill comes 
    from the other body with amendments containing matter which would 
    have been subject to a point of order in the House then the 
    amendments must be considered in the Committee of the Whole. The 
    resolution reported out by the Committee on Rules seeks to waive 
    that rule.
        If a resolution reported out by the Committee on Rules can 
    waive one rule of the House, why cannot the House by the adoption 
    of a substitute resolution, which this is, waive other rules? I 
    contend, Mr. Speaker, that this substitute for the resolution 
    reported out by the Committee on Rules is just as germane and just 
    as much in order as the actual resolution reported out by the 
    Committee on Rules; they are similar. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair agrees with a great deal that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania

[[Page 4356]]

    and the gentleman from Colorado say about history, but that is not 
    the question before the Chair to decide at this time.
        It is a rule long established that a resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill 
    relating to a certain subject may not be amended by a proposition 
    providing for the consideration of another and not germane subject 
    or matter.
        It is true that in Senate amendment No. 191 to the bill, which 
    came from the Senate, there is a caption ``Title VII,'' which 
    states ``Excess Profits Tax.'' But in the amendment which the 
    Senate adopted to the House bill there is no excess-profits tax.
        The Chair is compelled to hold under a long line of rulings 
    that this matter, not being germane if offered to the Senate 
    amendment it is not germane here. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  Id. at pp. 14841-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disagreeing in Part, Concurring in Part. Going to Conference

Sec. 27.27 Form of special order taking a House bill with Senate 
    amendments from the Speaker's table, waiving all points of order 
    against the bill and any Senate amendment, disagreeing to a number 
    of Senate amendments, concurring in others, and agreeing to a 
    conference requested by the Senate on the amendments in 
    disagreement.

    The following resolution was under consideration on May 2, 1933: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 77 Cong. Rec. 2693, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            House Resolution 124

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the bill H.R. 3835 with Senate amendments thereto be, and the same 
    is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table; that all points of order 
    against said bill or Senate amendments thereto shall be considered 
    as waived; that Senate amendments nos. l to 84, inclusive, be, and 
    the same are hereby, disagreed to; that Senate amendment no. 85 be, 
    and the same is hereby, concurred in; that the conference requested 
    by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses be, and 
    the same is hereby, agreed to.

Insisting Upon House Amendment, Going to Conference

Sec. 27.28 Form of resolution providing that the House insist upon its 
    amendment to a Senate bill, ask a conference with the Senate on the 
    disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Speaker 
    immediately appoint conferees.

    The following resolution was called up under a motion to suspend 
the rules on June 18, 1948: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.  H. Res. 690, 94 Cong. Rec. 8829, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 4357]]

        Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendment to S. 2655, 
    ask a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes, and that 
    the Speaker immediately appoint conferees.

Sec. 27.29 Form of resolution taking Senate bill with House amendments 
    from Speaker's table; insisting on House amendments, and agreeing 
    to further conference.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Aug. 12, 1964: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19.  H. Res. 818, 110 Cong. Rec. 19194, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the bill (S. 1007) to guarantee electric consumers in the Pacific 
    Northwest first call on electric energy generated at Federal 
    hydroelectric plants in that region and to guarantee electric 
    consumers in other regions reciprocal priority, and for other 
    purposes, with House amendments thereto, be, and the same is 
    hereby, taken from the Speaker's table; that the House insists on 
    its amendments to said bill and agrees to the further conference 
    requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes thereon.

Sec. 27.30 Form of resolution taking two Senate bills from Speaker's 
    table, amending and passing such bills, insisting on such 
    amendments, and requesting a conference with the Senate.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Nov. 18, 1971: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 42046, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 710

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of its resolution 
    and without the intervention of any point of order the bills of the 
    Senate S. 2819 and S. 2820 are hereby taken from the Speaker's 
    table; that said Senate bills are hereby amended by striking out 
    all after the enacting clause of each such Senate bill and 
    inserting in lieu thereof the text of the bill H.R. 9910 as passed 
    by the House on August 3, 1971; that the said Senate bills as so 
    amended shall be considered as read a third time and passed; that 
    the title of each such Senate bill shall be amended by striking out 
    such title and inserting in lieu thereof the title of H.R. 9910; 
    that the House insists upon its amendments to each Senate bill and 
    requests conferences with the Senate, and that the Speaker appoint 
    managers on the part of the House to attend each such conference.

Sending Bill to Conference

Sec. 27.31 In answer to a series of parliamentary inquiries, the 
    Speaker explained that: (1) where objection is raised to a 
    unanimous-consent request to send a bill to conference, the bill 
    does not automatically ``go to the Rules Com

[[Page 4358]]

    mittee'' but remains on the Speaker's table and may be sent to 
    conference by motion authorized by the standing committee under 
    Rule XX clause 1; (2) the Committee on Rules has jurisdiction over 
    resolutions providing for the disposition of Senate amendments; and 
    (3) if conferees have failed to file a report within 20 days of 
    their appointment, a motion to instruct the conferees, or discharge 
    them and appoint new ones, would be in order.

    On May 29, 1968,(1) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's tab]e H.R. 5037 (Law 
Enforcement and Criminal Justice Assistance Act of 1967) with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment and request a 
conference with the Senate. Under a reservation of the right to object, 
Mr. Richard H. Poff, of Virginia, propounded a series of parliamentary 
inquiries to Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 114 Cong. Rec. 15499, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poff: If no objection is registered to the unanimous-
    consent request, will the effect be to send the bill either to the 
    Committee on Rules or to the Committee on the Judiciary for a 
    resolution instructing the chairman of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary to make a motion that the bill go to conference?
        The Speaker: In response the Chair will say if objection is 
    made to the unanimous-consent request the bill will remain on the 
    Speaker's desk. The Committee on the Judiciary could take action to 
    authorize the chairman or any Member to make a motion to take the 
    bill from the Speaker's desk for the purpose of sending it to 
    conference. . . .
        Mr. Poff: If the motion to go to conference is not adopted by 
    the House, in such case would it be in order for the Committee on 
    Rules to report a resolution making it in order to move to recede 
    and concur?
        The Speaker: Under the rules of the House it is within the 
    authority and jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules to report a 
    resolution providing for the disposition of the Senate amendments. 
    . . .
        Mr. Poff: If the conference is appointed and has not agreed 
    within a 21-day period, will it then be in order to move to 
    discharge the House conferees?
        The Speaker: Under rule XXVIII, it would be in order to move 
    either to discharge or to instruct the managers on the part of the 
    House after 20 days.

Making in Order Consideration of Conference Reports When Reported

Sec. 27.32 Form of resolution agreeing to a conference with the Senate, 
    providing that the Speaker imme

[[Page 4359]]

    diately appoint conferees, and making in order the consideration of 
    the conference report when reported.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on June 30, 1951: (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.  H. Res. 667, 97 Cong. Rec. 7538, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 277) making temporary 
    appropriations for the fiscal year 1952, and for other purposes, 
    with the Senate amendments thereto be, and the same hereby is, 
    taken from the Speaker's table; that the Senate amendments be, and 
    they are hereby, disagreed to by the House; that the conference 
    requested by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
    on the said joint resolution be, and hereby is, agreed to by the 
    House, and that the Speaker shall immediately appoint conferees 
    without intervening motion.
        Sec. 2. It shall be in order to consider the conference report 
    on the said joint resolution when reported notwithstanding the 
    provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII.

Sec. 27.33 Form of resolution providing that during the remainder of 
    the week it shall be in order to consider conference reports the 
    same day reported, and authorizing the Speaker to entertain the 
    motions to suspend the rules.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on July 25, 1956: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 630, 102 Cong. Rec. 14456, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the remainder of this week it shall be in 
    order to consider conference reports the same day reported 
    notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII; that it 
    shall also be in order during the remainder of this week for the 
    Speaker at any time to entertain motions to suspend the rules, 
    notwithstanding the provisions of clause 1 rule XXVII.

Sec. 27.34 The Committee on Rules may report to the House a resolution 
    making in order the consideration of a conference report which has 
    not yet been submitted to the House.

    On many occasions, the Committee on Rules has reported resolutions 
making in order the consideration of conference reports on the same day 
reported. For example, on July 25, 1956, the House adopted a resolution 
from the Committee on Rules providing as follows:

        Resolved, That during the remainder of this week it shall be in 
    order to consider conference reports the same day reported 
    notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule XXVIII; that it 
    shall also be in order during the re

[[Page 4360]]

    mainder of this week for the Speaker at any time to entertain 
    motions to suspend the rules, notwithstanding the provisions of 
    clause 1, rule XXVII.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H. Res. 630, 102 Cong. Rec. 14456, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 1951, the House adopted a resolution from the Committee 
on Rules which not only provided for a conference on an appropriation 
bil1 but also provided for the consideration of the conference report 
when reported:

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules I submit a privileged report (H. Res. 
    309, Rept. No. 667) and ask for its immediate consideration.

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 277) making 
        temporary appropriations for the fiscal year 1952, and for 
        other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto be, and the 
        same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table; that the Senate 
        amendments be, and they are hereby, disagreed to by the House; 
        that the conference requested by the Senate on the disagreeing 
        votes of the two Houses on the said joint resolution be, and 
        hereby is, agreed to by the House, and that the Speaker shall 
        immediately appoint conferees without intervening motion.
            Sec. 2. It shall be in order to consider the conference 
        report on the said joint resolution when reported 
        notwithstanding the provisions of clause 2, rule 
        XXVIII.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 97 Cong. Rec. 7538, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 27.35 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 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,(6) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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

[[Page 4361]]

    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 has 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 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.

Unauthorized Appropriations in Conference Report Protected by Special 
    Order Waiving Points of Order Against House Bill

Sec. 27.36 Where an appropriation bill is considered in the House under 
    a rule waiving points of order against a provision therein which is 
    unauthorized by law, and the Senate then amends the unau

[[Page 4362]]

    thorized provision, reducing the sum of money involved and striking 
    out a portion of the language, conferees may (without violating the 
    provisions of Rule XX clause 2) agree to a sum between the two and 
    restore the House language.

    On Dec. 20, 1969, Mr. Otto E. Passman, of Louisiana, called up a 
conference report on H.R. 15149, making appropriations for foreign 
assistance for fiscal 1970. The House had originally considered the 
bill on Dec. 9, 1969, pursuant to a special order from the Committee on 
Rules (H. Res. 742) which waived all points of order against the bill. 
The resolution had been reported and adopted since many items in the 
Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act were unauthorized by law (the 
authorization not having been enacted into law) and therefore in 
violation of Rule XXI clause 2.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. For the special order and its adoption, see 115 Cong. Rec. 37948, 
        91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 9, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where a special rule in the House waives 
points of order against portions of an appropriation bill which are 
unauthorized by law, and the bill passes the House with those 
provisions included therein and goes to conference, the conferees may 
report back their agreement to those provisions (and Senate 
modifications thereof) even though they remain unauthorized, since 
waiver of points of order under Rule XXI clause 2, carries over to the 
consideration of the same provisions when the conference report is 
before the House.
    When the conference report was called up on Dec. 20, Speaker John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled two points of order against 
the conference report, since the waiver of points of order during the 
original consideration of the bill carried over to provisions in the 
conference report protected by the resolution: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at pp. 40445-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Passman: Mr. Speaker, 1 can up the conference report on the 
    bill (H.R. 15149) making appropriations for foreign assistance and 
    related programs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for 
    other purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers on the part of the House be read in lieu of the report. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against that portion of the conference report which 
    provides funds for the purchase of planes for the Republic of China 
    on the ground that it is an appropriation that is not authorized by 
    law.
        I read from the conference report on the authorization bill 
    which appears in

[[Page 4363]]

    the Congressional Record of December 18 on page 39841 relating to 
    the military assistance, section 504 of the act.

        The House bill authorized a total of $454,500,000 for military 
    assistance of which $350,000,000 was for worldwide allocation; 
    $50,000,000 for Korea; $54,500,000 for the Republic of China.
        The Senate amendment authorized a total of $325,000,000 without 
    any allocation to specified countries.
        The managers on the part of the House agreed to the 
    authorization of $350,000,000 without specifying any country 
    allocation. They found it impossible to obtain agreement to a 
    larger total for military assistance and believe that any specific 
    additional allocation for Korea or for the Republic of China would 
    result in a drastic curtailment of the worldwide authorization 
    which would be detrimental to our national security.
        So in the basic law, in the authorization law there is no 
    allocation specifically of funds for any country and I suggest that 
    the appropriation of funds in a specific amount for military 
    assistance to a particular country is without authorization of law. 
    . . .
        Mr. Passman: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard further on the point 
    of order?
        Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the lateness of the 
    so-called authorization bill, which does not exist in fact, as yet, 
    and the very fact that the majority leader of the other body said 
    there would be no authorization bill, and the chairman of the 
    Foreign Relations Committee said there would be no authorization 
    bill, made it necessary for us to move this bill through the 
    Appropriations Committee, the Rules Committee, and the Rules 
    Committee gave us a rule waiving points of order. We have moved the 
    bill, as I understand it, according to the rules of the House, and 
    this appropriation bill became an authorization bill also, in the 
    absence of any authorization act. Even at this late hour we still 
    do not have an authorization bill because the conference report on 
    the authorization bill was only adopted yesterday by both Houses 
    and has not yet reached the President for his signature. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair can only rule upon the point of order 
    which is made, and the Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Illinois has raised a point of order against 
    the conference report on the bill H. R. 15149.
        The Chair is aware of the fact pointed out by the gentleman 
    from Illinois--that the authorization bill for fiscal 1970, while 
    passed by both Houses, has not yet become law. As pointed out in 
    the debate on this point of order, the conference report now before 
    the House does carry an amount for military assistance that is 
    $54,500,000 above the figure which would be authorized by H.R. 
    14580, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1969.
        However, the Chair recalls that when this appropriation bill 
    passed the House, it was considered under a rule waiving points of 
    order. The House agreed to a total figure for military assistance 
    of $454,500,000. The Senate reduced this figure to $350 million. 
    The conferees have reached an agreement between these two amounts, 
    as they had the authority to do.
        The Chair holds that the conferees have not exceeded their 
    authority and overrules the point of order. . . .

[[Page 4364]]

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against consideration of the conference report in toto.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against 
    consideration of the conference report on the basis that none of 
    the appropriations contained in the bill H.R. 15149 have been 
    authorized by law.
        Mr. Passman: May I be heard on that, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: Of course, the Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Passman: It is my understanding that the Chair just ruled 
    on that specific point a moment ago. I ask for a ruling, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that it overrules the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross), on the ground 
    that the special rule waived points of order against the provisions 
    of the House bill.

Consideration of Conference Reports

Sec. 27.37 Form of resolution providing for consideration of a 
    conference report, fixing debate thereon at four hours, and 
    providing that the previous question be considered as ordered at 
    expiration of debate.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Feb. 8, 1938: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. H. Res. 416, 83 Cong. Rec. 1645, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of the conference 
    report on the bill H.R. 8505, an act to provide for the 
    conservation of national soil resources and to provide an adequate 
    and balanced flow of agricultural commodities in interstate and 
    foreign commerce, and for other purposes; that all points of order 
    against said conference report are hereby waived; and that after 
    debate on said conference report, which may continue not to exceed 
    4 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on agreeing to the 
    conference report.

Sec. 27.38 Form of special order providing for the consideration of two 
    conference reports on the same bill together, for the purposes of 
    debate and vote.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on June 14, 1930: (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H. Res. 253, 72 Cong. Rec. 10694, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That for the purpose of the vote and debate the two 
    conference reports on the bill H.R. 2667 shall be considered as one 
    report. The reading of the two reports shall be waived, and the 
    statements of the managers on the part of the House shall be read 
    in lieu thereof. There shall be three hours of debate, which shall 
    be confined to the

[[Page 4365]]

    reports, to equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. In the 
    consideration of the reports all points of order shall be waived. 
    At the conclusion of debate the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the adoption of the reports.

Sec. 27.39 Adoption of a special order providing for the consideration 
    of two conference reports together for the purposes of debate and 
    vote suspends the rule providing for the division of the question.

    On June 14, 1930, the House adopted House Resolution 253, reported 
from the Committee on Rules, providing that two conference reports on 
the same bill be considered together. The rule provided for three hours 
of debate on the reports and provided that at the conclusion of debate 
the previous question be considered as ordered on the adoption of the 
reports. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry as to the effect of the special order on voting on the reports:

        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: The rule as reported 
    provides that for the purpose of vote and debate the two conference 
    reports on the bill shall be considered as one report. Section 774 
    of the rules of the House provides:

            On the demand of any Member, before the question is put, a 
        question shall be divided if it include propositions so 
        distinct in substance that one being taken away a substantive 
        proposition shall remain.

        This rule provides that the two conference reports, each one 
    distinct and substantive, shall be considered as one report. Now, 
    my inquiry is: Does that take away the right of any Member to ask 
    for a division and a separate vote on the two conference reports?
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks that if the resolution is adopted 
    by a majority, that suspends the rule quoted by the gentleman for 
    today in connection with this bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 72 Cong. Rec. 10694, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Conferees filed two conference reports on 
this bill on June 13, 1930 (H. Rept. 1892 and H. Rept. 1893). One 
report dealt with certain of the many numbered Senate amendments, and 
the second dealt with the others. In current practice, only one 
conference report is filed per conference, to dispose of, or to report 
in disagreement on, all the amendments in disagreement.

Waiving Points of Order Against Conference Reports and Motions on 
    Amendments in Disagreement

Sec. 27.40 Form of resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, 
    waiving points of

[[Page 4366]]

    order against a conference report where House conferees had: (1) 
    included provisions beyond the scope of the differences between the 
    House bill and Senate amendment in the nature of a substitute; (2) 
    agreed to an appropriation in the Senate amendment; and (3) agreed 
    to certain nongermane provisions therein.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on July 27, 1972: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. H. Res. 1057, 118 Cong. Rec. 25822, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to consider the conference report on the bill (H.R. 12931) 
    to provide for improving the economy and living conditions in rural 
    America, and all points of order against the conference report for 
    failure to comply with the provisions of clauses 2 and 3, rule XX 
    and clause 3, rule XXVIII are hereby waived.

Sec. 27.41 Form of resolution waiving all points of order against a 
    conference report.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on July 31, 1963: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.  H. Res. 453, 109 Cong. Rec. 13816, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to consider the conference report on the bill, H.R. 5207, 
    to amend the Foreign Service Buildings Act, 1926, to authorize 
    additional appropriations, and for other purposes, and all points 
    of order against the conference report are hereby waived.

Sec. 27.42 Form of resolution waiving all points of order against the 
    consideration of a conference report (where conferees had exceeded 
    the scope of their authority in violation of Rule XXVIII clause 3).

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Aug. 3, 1973: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 517, 119 Cong. Rec. 28089, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to consider the conference report on the bill (S. 502) to 
    authorize appropriations for the construction of certain highways 
    in accordance with title 23 of the United States Code, and for 
    other purposes, and all points of order against said conference 
    report are hereby waived.

Sec. 27.43 Form of special order making in order the consideration of, 
    and waiving points of order against, a conference report previously 
    ruled out on a point of order.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on

[[Page 4367]]

Rules, was under consideration on May 9, 1933: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Res. 136, 77 Cong. Rec. 3060, 73d Cong. 1st Sess. The conference 
        report had been previously held out of order because the 
        conferees had agreed to certain matter not committed to 
        conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That notwithstanding the previous action of the House 
    relative to the conference report on the disagreeing votes of the 
    two Houses on the bill H.R. 3835, immediately upon the adoption of 
    this resolution the House shall consider said conference report 
    without the intervention of points of order against the same.

Sec. 27.44 Form of resolution making in order a conference report and 
    making in order and waiving points of order against a motion to 
    recede and concur in a designated Senate amendment, reported in 
    disagreement, with an amendment (constituting legislation on 
    approriation bill).

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Dec. 23, 1963: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. H. Res. 600, 109 Cong. Rec. 25495, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to consider without the intervention of any point of order 
    the conference report on the bill (H.R. 9499) making appropriations 
    for foreign aid and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
    June 30, 1964, and for other purposes, and that during the 
    consideration of the amendment of the Senate numbered 20 to the 
    bill, it shall be in order to consider, without the intervention of 
    any point of order, a motion by the Chairman of the Managers on the 
    part of the House to recede and concur in said Senate amendment 
    numbered 20 with an amendment.

Sec. 27.45 Form of resolution waiving points of order against a 
    conference report and making in order a motion to recede from 
    disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur therein with an 
    amendment inserting in the proper place in the bill any or all 
    parts of the provisions of another bill and any amendments thereto, 
    as agreed upon by the House conferees on the bill on which the 
    conference was had.

    The following resolution, reported from the Committee on Rules, was 
under consideration on Aug. 2, 1955: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Res. 337, 101 Cong. Rec. 13051, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. The bill 
        H.R. 7440 was a bill reported from the Committee on House 
        Administration, providing for increased salaries of certain 
        employees of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to

[[Page 4368]]

    consider the conference report on the bill H.R. 7117, making 
    appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year 
    ending June 30, 1956, and for other purposes, and all points of 
    order against the conference report are hereby waived; that during 
    the consideration of the amendments of the Senate to the bill H.R. 
    7117 reported from the conference committee in disagreement it 
    shall be in order, notwithstanding any rule of the House to the 
    contrary, to move that the House recede from its disagreement to 
    any such amendment and concur therein with an amendment inserting 
    in the proper place in the bill any or all of the parts of the 
    provisions of the bill H.R. 7440 and any amendments thereto as 
    agreed upon by the House conferees on the bill H.R. 7117.


 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         E. PRIVILEGED BUSINESS
 
Sec. 28. Authority and Scope Under Constitution, Statutes, and Rules

    As discussed in the preceding sections of this chapter, the regular 
order of business in the House of Representatives is governed by those 
provisions of the rules of the House establishing the order of business 
and making in order, at certain times, specific methods for bringing 
measures before the House. It has been noted that the regular order of 
business may be varied by unanimous consent, by suspension of the 
rules, and by special orders reported from the Committee on Rules and 
called up as privileged propositions.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 8, supra (varying order of business generally), Sec. 9, 
        supra (use of motions to suspend rules), Sec. 20, supra 
        (varying order of business by resolutions from Committee on 
        Rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By rule and by practice, the House has also determined that a 
variety of matters of immediate importance should have precedence over 
the regular order of business, to the extent of interrupting or 
superseding the consideration of other business. Because of the power 
of privileged questions to interrupt the regular order of business, 
only such propositions as fall strictly within the scope and definition 
of preferential matters may be raised as privileged.
    The grant of precedence to certain questions arises from three 
sources: the United States Constitution, the rules of the House, and 
statutes enacted pursuant to the rulemaking power of the House (and of 
the Senate).
    Under contemporary practice, only two types of propositions are 
privileged for consideration solely

[[Page 4369]]

because of constitutional provisions: veto messages and resolutions 
relating to the impeachment power. A veto message is privileged for 
consideration when received by the House and on a day certain to which 
postponed, and both the report of a committee on a vetoed bill referred 
to the committee, and a motion to discharge a committee from the 
further consideration of a vetoed bill, are highly privileged. The 
privilege of a veto message arises from article I, section 7, clause 2 
of the Constitution:

        Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives 
    and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the 
    President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but 
    if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in 
    which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at 
    large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider 
    it.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 28.2-28.8, infra, for the privilege of veto messages. 
        For further discussion of the relative priority of veto 
        messages and other business, see Sec. 31, infra. A distinction 
        may be drawn between the receipt of a Presidential message, 
        returning a vetoed bill, and the consideration of such message. 
        For example, a question of privilege may supersede the 
        disposition of the message but not its receipt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The constitutional power of the House in the impeachment of civil 
officers under the United States government arises from article I, 
section 2, clause 5 of the Constitution:

        . . . and [the House of Representatives] shall have the sole 
    power of impeachment.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See also U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 3, clauses 6, 7 and U.S. Const. 
        art. II, Sec. 4.

The House has determined that propositions to impeach, and reports from 
the committee investigating charges of impeachment, are highly 
privileged for consideration in the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 1. See Sec. Sec. 28.9-28.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two other duties of the House arising specifically under the United 
States Constitution take precedence over other matters but their 
privilege does not stem from constitutional provisions alone. Article 
I, section 5, clause 1 provides that the House shall be the sole judge 
of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its Members. Reports 
and resolutions on contested-election cases are privileged, pursuant to 
provisions of the House rules giving the Committee on House 
Administration the power to report at any time on the right of a Member 
to his seat.(2) Contested-election
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule X.1 clause 22, House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1973). [Now 
        Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1979).]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4370]]

cases were formerly brought up as questions of constitutional 
privilege, and were held to take precedence over other highly 
privileged questions, such as veto messages and questions of the 
privileges of the House.(3) But in the later practice, 
reports and resolutions relating to contested elections are called up 
by the Committee on House Administration as privileged under Rule XI, 
as cited above.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See, for example, 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 6641, 6642; and 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2276.
 4. See Ch. 17, supra, for privileged committee reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Article VI, clause 3 provides that Representatives shall take an 
oath. The administration of the oath to Members is highly privileged, 
as a question of the privileges of the House. The oath is administered 
to Members-elect en masse at the convening of Congress. But a Member-
elect appearing during a session may be administered the oath as a 
matter of the highest privilege which may interrupt other 
business.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 28.20, 28.21, infra. See also Sec. 31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain other actions which the House may take under the 
Constitution are privileged for consideration, but do not represent 
``business'' within the context of this discussion. Examples are 
concurrent resolutions for adjournment sine die or to a day 
certain,(6) concurrent resolutions for joint sessions to 
hear the President and to conduct the electoral count,(7) 
and motions incident to establishing a quorum.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 29.17, 29.18, infra, for concurrent resolutions on 
        adjournment.
 7. See Sec. 29.19, infra.
 8. See Ch. 20, supra, on quorums.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some other prerogatives of the House, arising from constitutional 
provisions, may be presented as questions of the privileges of the 
House. For example, the arrest or subpena of a Member may involve the 
privilege from arrest specified in the Constitution, and a subpena for 
records of the House may involve the principle of separation of powers. 
In both situations, the subpena is laid before the House as a question 
of the privileges of the House, and a resolution asserting the 
privileges of the House is offered from the floor as a question of the 
privileges of the House.
    But in order to constitute a question of the privileges of the 
House, the matter asserted and the resolution offered must fall within 
the definition specified in Rule IX (9) and within the scope 
of the past rulings of the Chair on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 661 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4371]]

whether such a question has been properly presented.

    It is not sufficient that a question arises from the Constitution 
or that a question contemplates action by the House or is one committed 
to the House under the United States Constitution. For example, a 
resolution to confirm the nomination of the Vice President, a duty 
commited to the House under the 25th amendment to the Constitution, is 
not privileged for consideration. In earlier precedents, it was held 
that actions directed by the Constitution were privileged for 
consideration, such as taking the census (under article I, section 2, 
clause 3). But under later decisions and under the current practice of 
the House, matters arising and powers conferred under the Constitution 
are not privileged for consideration (except those enumerated above) 
unless also constituting a question of the privileges of the House 
under Rule IX or a privileged matter under other House 
rules.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 28.1, infra. See generally Ch. 11, supra, for the nature 
        and scope of questions of the privileges of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules of the House (11) enumerate a variety of 
bills, reports, resolutions, and motions (relating to the order of 
business) which are privileged for consideration. For example, certain 
committees are given the power to report to the House at any time on 
certain subjects. The Committee on Rules may submit privileged reports 
to the House on the order of business and may obtain consideration of 
such reports as privileged matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See, for example, Rule XI clauses 4(a), 4(b), House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. Sec. 726, 729 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain kinds of reports are privileged for consideration when 
reported by any committee, such as reports on resolutions of inquiry, 
on the contempt of witnesses, and on vetoed bills.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 29, infra, for reports on resolutions of inquiry. For 
        reports on contempt of witnesses, see Sec. Sec. 28.15-28.18, 
        infra. For reports on vetoed bills, see Sec. 28.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conference reports are highly privileged for consideration under 
the rules.(13) A very few resolutions may be immediately 
considered as privileged when offered as original propositions and 
without reference to committee, such as concurrent resolutions for 
adjournment for more than three days or sine die, and resolutions 
brought up under a question of the privileges of the 
House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For conference reports and their privilege, see Sec. 29, infra; Ch. 
        33, infra.
14. For examples of such resolutions and concurrent resolutions, see 
        Sec. 29, infra.

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

[[Page 4372]]

    It should be noted that all propositions given precedence for 
immediate consideration under the rules of the House must fall strictly 
within the penumbra of the privilege. Nonprivileged provisions included 
in a measure otherwise privileged, may destroy the precedence of the 
entire proposition.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain resolutions are privileged for consideration pursuant to 
statute. Congress has passed a number of laws containing so-called 
``legislative veto'' provisions, which allow the House (and/or the 
Senate) to prevent the implementation of a specific project or plan by 
the President, or executive agency, by adopting a resolution of 
disapproval. Sometimes such statutes contain provisions, enacted under 
the rulemaking power of the House and Senate, giving a certain 
precedence to resolutions of disapproval when reported from committee 
or if not reported from committee within a certain time 
period.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For the relevant texts of various statutes providing privileged 
        procedures for congressional disapproval powers, see House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 1013 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the adoption (since 1936) of certain requirements in the 
rules as to the time period before reports of committees could be 
considered in the House, privileged reports could be considered as soon 
as reported to the House. Now, however, with certain exceptions, 
reported measures may not be considered until the third calendar day, 
exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, on which the 
report has been available [as provided under Rule XI of the House rules 
(1979). For further discussion, see Sec. 29, infra]. A similar 
requirement is placed on the consideration of general appropriation 
bills [see Sec. 29, infra]. The requirement does not apply to: 
privileged reports from the Committee on Rules [as discussed in 
Sec. 17, supra]; committee expense resolutions from the Committee on 
House Administration, which must be available for one day before 
consideration under Rule XI clause 5 [see Sec. 29, infra]; declarations 
of war or of national emergencies; disapproval of executive decisions 
where compliance with the layover rule would prevent congressional 
disapproval; matters brought to the floor without committee reports; or 
certain reported measures called up as questions of privilege of the 
House or of constitutional privilege.(17) [Prior to

[[Page 4373]]

the 94th Congress, all privileged reports from the Committees on House 
Administration and Standards of Official Conduct were also exempted 
from the rule.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For a detailed discussion of time requirements before considering 
        committee reports, see Ch. 17, supra.
            For the ruling of the Chair that a report and resolution 
        offered from the floor and constituting a question of the 
        privileges of the House was not required to lay over under Rule 
        XI, see Sec. 28.19. infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conference reports are not privileged for consideration until the 
third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) 
after being filed and printed in the Congressional 
Record.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
As to privileged matters at the convening of Congress, see Chs. 1, 2, 
    supra.
As to the administration of the oath at the convening of Congress, see 
    Ch. 2, supra.
As to election contests and privileged propositions related thereto, 
    see Ch. 9, supra.
As to questions of privilege, their nature and precedence, see Ch. 11, 
    supra.
As to questions of privilege arising from powers and prerogatives of 
    the House, see Ch. 13, supra.
As to impeachment and privileged matters relating thereto, see Ch. 14, 
    supra.
As to the call of the House in relation to privileged matters, see Ch. 
    20, supra.
As to motions and their privilege, see Ch. 23, infra.
As to motions and resolutions for adjournment and their privilege, see 
    Ch. 40, infra.
As to the privilege of reports from the Committee on Rules, see 
    Sec. 17, supra.
As to the effect of resolutions from the Committee on Rules relating to 
    precedence, see Sec. 20, supra.

Scope of Constitutional Privilege

Sec. 28.1 The Committee on Rules reported a resolution making in order 
    and providing for the consideration of a nonprivileged resolution 
    reported from the Committee on the Judiciary confirming the 
    nomination of the Vice President, pursuant to the 25th amendment to 
    the U.S. Constitution.

    On Dec. 6, 1973, there was called up by the direction of the 
Committee on Rules the following resolution, which was adopted by the 
House: (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 119 Cong. Rec. 39807, 39813, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 738

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move, clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI to the contrary 
    notwithstanding, 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. 735) confirming the nomination of Gerald 
    R. Ford, of the State of Michigan, to be Vice President of the 
    United States. After general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    resolution and shall continue not to exceed six hours, to be

[[Page 4374]]

    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee shall rise 
    and report the resolution to the House, and the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final passage.

    House Resolution 735 whose consideration was made in order by the 
special order was reported as a nonprivileged resolution by the 
Committee on the Judiciary on Dec. 4 and read as follows: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 39419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the House of Representatives confirm the 
    nomination of Gerald R. Ford, of the State of Michigan, to be Vice 
    President of the United States.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution confirming the nomination of 
the Vice President was not construed as being privileged. Under 
contemporary practice and rulings, only vetoed bills and impeachment 
proposals are privileged business directly under the Constitution, 
because of their unique nature and the language of the relevant 
constitutional provisions. Other functions committed to the House under 
the United States Constitution have no inherent precedence over other 
business.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For earlier practice, where duties entrusted to the House under the 
        Constitution were held privileged for consideration, see 1 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 305-308 (census and apportionment 
        privileged, overruled in 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 48). See 
        Ch. 8, Sec. 1.2, supra, for another occasion where 
        reapportionment legislation was held by the House to have no 
        inherent privilege for consideration.
            Contested-election cases were formerly brought up as 
        questions of constitutional privilege but are now considered as 
        privileged reports of the Committee on House Administration 
        under Rule XI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a question arising from the express or implied prerogatives of 
the House under the Constitution constitutes a question of the 
privileges of the House, under Rule IX, it may be raised in that manner 
by presenting a resolution for immediate consideration in the 
House.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 28.12-28.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain types of concurrent resolutions relating to the procedures 
of the House and Senate, such as adjournment and joint sessions to hear 
the President and to conduct the electoral count, are also privileged 
under the Constitution.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 29.17, 29.18, infra (adjournment); Sec. 29.19, infra 
        (joint sessions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vetoed Bills Privileged Under Constitution

Sec. 28.2 The motion to postpone further consideration of a veto 
    message to a day certain

[[Page 4375]]

    is privileged and takes precedence over the question of passing the 
    bill notwithstanding the objections of the President.

    On Jan. 27, 1970, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
laid before the House a veto message from the President on H.R. 13111, 
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, 
and Welfare, and related agencies. George H. Mahon, of Texas, Chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, was recognized for a preferential 
motion: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 1365-68, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The objections of the President will 
    be spread at large upon the Journal, and the message and bill will 
    be printed as a House document.
        The question is: Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the 
    bill H.R. 13111, the objections of the President to the contrary 
    notwithstanding?
        The Speaker: (5) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I move that further consideration of 
    the veto message from the President be postponed until tomorrow.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) 
    is recognized on his motion.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Veto messages are not considered before the 
approval of the Journal but take precedence over all other business 
except questions of the privileges of the House, the administration of 
the oath to Members, contested election cases, impeachment 
propositions, and unfinished business from a previous day on which the 
previous question has been ordered.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 31, infra, for the relative precedence of privileged 
        questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.3 The consideration of a veto message is in order on Calendar 
    Wednesday.

    On May 11, 1932,(7) the House agreed to the motion to 
dispense with Calendar Wednesday business on that day, a veto message 
having been laid before the House. Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
indicated that the motion was not necessary, due to the constitutional 
privilege of a veto message:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 75 Cong. Rec. 10035 40, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair lays before the House the following 
    message from the President of the United States.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, this 
    being Calendar Wednesday, ought not further business be dispensed 
    with before we consider any other business?
        The Speaker: Not necessarily.
        Mr. Stafford: This is holy Wednesday.

[[Page 4376]]

        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Is there any other 
    business under Calendar Wednesday?
        Mr. Stafford: No.
        Mr. Crisp: Mr. Speaker, to save any question, I move that 
    further business under Calendar Wednesday be dispensed with.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: Let the Chair say, however, in connection with 
    this Calendar Wednesday rule, that it does not suspend the 
    Constitution of the United States, which provides that a veto 
    message of the President shall have immediate consideration. The 
    Clerk will read the message.

Sec. 28.4 Consideration of a veto message on the day to which postponed 
    is highly privileged and becomes the unfinished business.

    On Jan. 27, 1970, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
laid before the House a message from the President, returning without 
his approval a bill (H.R. 13111) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and related 
agencies. The Speaker pro tempore then recognized George H. Mahon, of 
Texas, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who moved to 
postpone the further consideration of the veto message until the 
following day. The Speaker pro tempore answered a parliamentary inquiry 
on the status of the message in the order of business on the following 
day: (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 1365-68, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Mahon: I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Speaking for our side of the aisle, the 
    gentleman is accurate. We are in full concurrence with the motion 
    made by the gentleman from Texas.
        I should like to ask this: Is our understanding correct that 
    this will be the first order of business tomorrow?
        Mr. Mahon: That is my understanding.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state, this is highly 
    privileged business and it will be the first order of legislative 
    business tomorrow.

    On the following day, Jan. 28, the Journal was approved, a quorum 
call was had, and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
announced the unfinished business: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 1483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The unfinished business is: Will the House, on 
    reconsideration, pass the bill, H.R. 13111, an act making 
    appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, 
    and Welfare, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending June 
    30, 1970, and for other purposes, the objections of the President 
    to the contrary notwithstanding?
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) for 1 
    hour.

[[Page 4377]]

Sec. 28.5 Consideration of a veto message on the day to which it has 
    been postponed is highly privileged and becomes the unfinished 
    business following the approval of the Journal.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 14, 1948; 116 Cong. 
        Rec. 1483, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 28, 1970; and 119 Cong. 
        Rec. 36202, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 7, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.6 Where the House had postponed to a day certain a veto message 
    and for the same day created a special order for the reading of 
    Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, the veto message was 
    first considered.

    On Apr. 14, 1948, Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
stated, following the approval of the Journal, the order of business: 
(1) the unfinished business, a veto message postponed to that day by 
motion; (2) the reading of Jefferson's First Inaugural Address by a 
Member designated by the Speaker pursuant to a special order for that 
day; and (3) unanimous-consent requests and one-minute 
speeches.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.7 A report from a committee, to which a vetoed bill has been 
    referred, recommending the passage of such bill over a veto is 
    privileged for consideration.

    On Aug. 17, 1951, a privileged report was filed by a committee to 
which a vetoed bill had been referred: (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 97 Cong. Rec. 10197, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I submit a 
    privileged report from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on the 
    bill (H.R. 3193) to establish a rate of pension for aid and 
    attendance under part III of Veterans' Regulation No. 1 (a), as 
    amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Your Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to whom was referred 
        the bill, H.R. 3193, entitled ``A bill to establish a rate of 
        pension for aid and attendance under part III of Veterans' 
        Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended,'' together with the 
        objections of the President thereto, having reconsidered said 
        bill and the objections of the President thereto, reports the 
        same back to the House with the unanimous recommendation that 
        said bill do pass, the objections of the President to the 
        contrary notwithstanding.

    The vetoed bill was immediately considered and, after debate, the 
veto was overridden by the House.

Sec. 28.8 A motion to discharge a committee from further consideration 
    of a vetoed bill presents a question of the highest privilege.

[[Page 4378]]

    On Sept. 7, 1965, Speaker pro tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized for a privileged motion to discharge a committee from the 
further consideration of a vetoed bill (referred to the committee on 
Aug. 23): (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 22958, 22959, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hale [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the highest privilege of the House, based directly on 
    the Constitution and precedents, and offer a motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Motion by Mr. Hall:
            Resolved, That the Committee on Armed Services be 
        discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 8439, 
        for military construction, with the President's veto thereon, 
        and that the same be now considered.

    In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker pro tempore 
stated that a motion was in order to table the motion to discharge. The 
House agreed to a motion to table offered by Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of 
South Carolina.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee on Armed Services, to which 
had been referred the vetoed bill, had reported, previous to the motion 
to discharge, a similar bill (H.R. 10775) containing a revision of the 
language to which the President had objected in his veto message.

Impeachment Propositions Privileged Under Constitution

Sec. 28.9 Charges of impeachment presented on the floor by a Member 
    constitute a question of high constitutional privilege.

    On Jan. 14, 1936, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, recognized 
for one hour a Member who rose to state a question of constitutional 
privilege: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 80 Cong. Rec. 404, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Green [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I realize that 
    the time of adjournment has almost arrived, and I dislike to ask 
    the indulgence of my colleagues for a few minutes, but I shall be 
    just as brief as possible. I rise to a question of constitutional 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of constitutional 
    privilege. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, on my own 
    responsibility, as a Member of this House, I impeach Halsted L. 
    Ritter, a United States district judge for the southern district of 
    Florida, for high crimes and misdemeanors. In substantiation of 
    this impeachment I specify the following charges: . . .

    By motion, the charges were referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
    Similarly on Jan. 24, 1939, Mr. J. Parnell Thomas, of New Jersey,

[[Page 4379]]

rose to a question of constitutional privilege and offered a resolution 
impeaching the Secretary of Labor and various other officials of the 
federal government. The House referred the resolution by motion to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 702-11, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: An impeachment proposition which is 
constitutionally privileged under the precedents may even supersede 
election cases and the approval of the Journal.(16) A direct 
proposition to impeach a federal civil officer is a question of high 
privilege in the House, but a resolution proposing an investigation of 
charges, with the view towards impeachment, is not a privileged matter 
under the precedents.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See the discussion at Sec. 31, infra; 3 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 2045-2048; and 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 468, 
        469.
17. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 2050, 2546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.10 A committee to which has been referred privileged 
    resolutions for the impeachment of a federal civil officer may 
    report and call up as privileged resolutions of impeachment and 
    resolutions incidental to the impeachment question.

    On Mar. 2, 1936, Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, called up for immediate consideration as a 
privileged matter House Resolution 422, impeaching U.S. District Court 
Judge Halsted Ritter. Charges of impeachment had been referred to the 
committee in the 74th Congress.(18) The House adopted the 
resolution impeaching Judge Ritter, who was later convicted of the 
impeachment charges by the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 80 Cong. Rec. 3066, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: A committee to which has been referred 
privileged resolutions for the impeachment of a federal civil officer 
may report and call up as privileged resolutions incidental to 
consideration of the impeachment question, such as resolutions 
authorizing the taking of testimony and the defrayment of investigatory 
expenses from the contingent fund of the House,(19) and 
resolutions providing for the selection of managers to prosecute the 
impeachment before the Senate.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 549.
20. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The report of the committee, to which charges have been referred, 
recommending against impeachment or recommending that the impeachment 
trial be abated, are also privileged.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 514; 84 Cong. Rec. 3273, 76th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4380]]

Sec. 28.11 The consideration of a conference report may be interrupted 
    by a question of constitutional privilege involving the impeachment 
    of a federal civil officer.

    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: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 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. Chiindblom: 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.
        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.

[[Page 4381]]

Questions of Privilege of the House

Sec. 28.12 A question of the privileges of the House arising under the 
    Constitution, relating to the sole power of the House to originate 
    revenue measures and alleging that the Senate, by its amendment to 
    a House bill, has violated article I, section 7 of the United 
    States Constitution, may be raised at any time when the House is in 
    possession of the papers, and the question may even be presented 
    pending the motion to call up the conference report on the bill.

    On June 20, 1968, Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, called up a 
conference report on H.R. 15415, the Revenue and Expenditure Act of 
1968. Pending his request that the statement of the managers be read in 
lieu of the report, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, rose to a question of the 
privileges of the House and was recognized by Speaker pro tempore 
Charles M. Price, of Illinois: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 114 Cong. Rec. 17970, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege of 
    the House and offer a resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1222

            Resolved, That Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 15414, 
        in the opinion of the House, contravene the first clause of the 
        seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the 
        United States, and are an infringement of the privileges of 
        this House, and that the said bill, with amendments, be 
        respectfully returned to the Senate with a message 
        communicating this resolution.
            The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
        Gross] is recognized for 1 hour.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A question of the privileges of the House 
has the highest privilege for consideration in the House, superseding 
the approval of the Journal, although it has been held in the past that 
the consideration of a contested election case (considered at that time 
as a question of constitutional privilege) took precedence over such a 
question.(3) In presenting a question of the privileges of 
the House, however, the Member raising the question must present a 
resolution before being recognized, and must satisfy the Chair that the 
resolution properly constitutes a question of privilege under Rule IX 
and the precedents relating thereto.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 31, infra.
 5. See Ch. 11, supra, for a complete discussion of questions of the 
        privileges of the House ( and of the Member).

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

[[Page 4382]]

Sec. 28.13 A question involving a question of the privileges of the 
    House under Rule IX takes precedence over District of Columbia 
    business under Rule XXIV clause 8.

    On Dec. 14, 1970, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri, to present a resolution 
under a question of the privileges of the House (asserting the 
privileges of the House with respect to the printing and publishing of 
a committee report which had been enjoined by a federal court) before 
recognizing the Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia 
for business reported from that committee. Under Rule XXIV clause 8, 
the regular order of business was the consideration of District of 
Columbia business.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 41355-74, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.14 A subpena duces tecum served upon the Clerk of the House and 
    transmitted by the Clerk to the Speaker was held to be a matter of 
    the highest privilege (as a question of the privileges of the 
    House) and to supersede the continuation of the call of committees 
    under the Calendar Wednesday rule.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
overruled a point of order against the consideration of highly 
privileged business on Calendar Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 1695, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Resolutions and Reports on Contempt of Witnesses (Privilege of House)

Sec. 28.15 It is in order to call up at any time, as a question of the 
    privileges of the House, a resolution directing the Speaker to 
    certify an indi

[[Page 4383]]

    vidual in contempt of the House or its committees.

    On Aug. 2, 1946, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicated in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry that calling up a resolution, 
directing the Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the 
refusal of a witness to testify, was a matter of the highest privilege: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 10746, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Proceeding Against Richard Morford

        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi rise?
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I send to 
    the Clerk's desk a privileged resolution and ask that it be read.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the resolution.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, has not the Speaker the power to 
    determine the order of business by recognizing or not recognizing 
    gentlemen requesting the consideration of various pieces of 
    legislation? I make that parliamentary inquiry because there is 
    very important business pending before the House--social security, 
    appropriations for terminal-leave pay, and for automobiles for 
    amputees--and I see no reason why this resolution should be given 
    preference.
        The Speaker: It would not be given preference if it were an 
    ordinary resolution, but this is a resolution of high privilege.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A Member may make a point of order that a 
quorum is not present during the reading of a privileged report 
relating to the refusal of a witness to testify before a 
committee.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 92 Cong. Rec. 10592, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 31, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the power to deal directly with the contempts of witnesses 
is implied in the United States Constitution, Congress has provided by 
statute for a criminal penalty and for a procedure whereby contempts 
are certified to the United States Attorney.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. For the power of the House to punish for contempt, see Ch. 13, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.16 Reports from a committee on testimony which has purged a 
    witness of contempt based upon his previous refusal to testify, and 
    resolutions providing that the Speaker certify such reports to the 
    United States Attorney, are privileged.

    On July 23, 1954, a privileged report and resolution were submitted 
and immediately considered in the House: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 100 Cong. Rec. 11650, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 4384]]

        Mr. [Harold H.] Velde [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Un-American Activities, I submit a privileged 
    report (Rept. No. 2472).
        The Clerk read as follows:

                   In the Matter of Francis X. T. Crowley

        Mr. Velde, from the Committee on Un-American Activities, 
    submitted the following report: . . .
        Mr. Velde: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 681) and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
        certify the report of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
        of the House of Representatives concerning the action of 
        Francis X. T. Crowley in purging himself of contempt of the 
        House of Representatives of the United States, together with 
        all the facts in connection therewith, under seal of the House 
        of Representatives, to the United States Attorney for the 
        District of Columbia, to the end that legal proceedings based 
        upon the matter certified by the Speaker pursuant to H. Res. 
        541, 83d Congress, second session, against the said Francis X. 
        T. Crowley may be withdrawn and dropped in the manner and form 
        provided by law.

        Mr. Velde: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may desire to 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Jackson].

Sec. 28.17 Reports from committees on the refusal of witnesses to 
    testify, and resolutions providing that the Speaker certify a 
    report on the refusal of a witness to testify to a United States 
    Attorney are privileged for consideration.

    On Apr. 9, 1952,(12) the Committee on Ways and Means 
submitted a privileged report which was immediately considered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 98 Cong. Rec. 3853, 3854, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Doughton [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Ways and Means, I submit a privileged 
    report (H. Rept. No. 1748).
        The Speaker: (13) The Clerk will read the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the report.
        (For House Report No. 1748, see proceedings of the House of 
    Tuesday, April 8, 1952, pp. 3756-3773.)
        Mr. Doughton: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 602) and ask for it immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
        certify the report of the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
        House of Representatives as to the willful and deliberate 
        refusals of Henry W. Grunewald to answer questions and his 
        willful and deliberate failures to produce books, records, and 
        documents before the said Committee on Ways and Means, together 
        with all of the facts in connection therewith, under seal of 
        the House of Representatives, to the United States Attorney for 
        the District of Columbia, to the end that the said Henry

[[Page 4385]]

        W. Grunewald may be proceeded against in the manner and form 
        provided by law.

        Mr. Doughton: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may care to 
    use to the gentleman from California [Mr. King], chairman of the 
    subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means on the 
    Administration of the Internal Revenue Laws.

Sec. 28.18 A report of the Committee on Un-American Activities dealing 
    with the contempt of a witness was considered on a Calendar 
    Wednesday.

    On June 26, 1946,(14) which was Calendar Wednesday under 
the rule, Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, called up a privileged report 
from the Committee on Un-American Activities, dealing with the contempt 
of a witness before the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 92 Cong. Rec. 7589-91, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.19 A report relating to the refusal of a witness to respond to 
    a subpena duces tecum issued by a committee gives rise to a 
    question of the privileges of the House and, under Rule IX, may be 
    considered on the same day reported notwithstanding the requirement 
    of Rule XI clause 27(d)(4) [Rule XI clause 2(l)(6) in the 1979 
    House Rules and Manual] that reports from committees be available 
    to Members for at least three calendar days prior to their 
    consideration.

    A resolution directing the Speaker to verify to the U.S. Attorney 
the refusal of a witness to respond to a subpena issued by a House 
committee may be offered from the floor as privileged, and a committee 
report to accompany the resolution may therefore be presented to the 
House without regard to the three-day availability requirement for 
other reports.
    On July 13, 1971, Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, the 
Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, rose to a 
question of the privileges of the House (relating to the refusal of a 
witness to respond to a subpena issued by said committee) and submitted 
a privileged report from the committee (H. Rept. No. 92-349). Mr. Sam 
M. Gibbons, of Florida, made a point of order against the consideration 
of the report and the accompanying resolution (H. Res. 534, directing 
the Speaker to certify to the United States Attorney the refusal of the 
witness to comply with the subpena). Mr. Gibbons' point of order was 
based on Rule XI clause 27(d)(4), which requires

[[Page 4386]]

committee reports to be available for at least three calendar days 
before being considered in the House. After hearing extensive argument 
on the point of order, Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, overruled the 
point of order as follows: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 117 Cong. Rec. 24720-23, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is ready to rule.
        The Chair appreciates the fact that the gentleman from Florida 
    has furnished him with a copy of the point of order which he has 
    raised and has given the Chair an opportunity to consider it.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) makes a point of order 
    against the consideration of the report from the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce on the grounds that it has not been 
    available to Members for at least 3 days as required by clause 
    27(d) (4) of rule XI. The Chair had been advised that such a point 
    of order might be raised and has examined the problems involved.
        The Chair has studied clause 27(d) (4) of rule XI and the 
    legislative history in connection with its inclusion in the 
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. That clause provides that 
    ``a matter shall not be considered in the House unless the report 
    has been available for at least 3 calendar days.''
        The Chair has also examined rule IX, which provides that:

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
        integrity of its proceedings . . . and shall have precedence of 
        all other questions, except motions to adjourn.

        Under the precedents, a resolution raising a question of the 
    privileges of the House does not necessarily require a report from 
    a committee. Immediate consideration of a question of privilege of 
    the House is inherent in the whole concept of privilege. When a 
    resolution is presented, the House may then make a determination 
    regarding its disposition.
        When a question is raised that a witness before a House 
    committee has been contemptuous, it has always been recognized that 
    the House has the implied power under the Constitution to deal 
    directly with such conduct so far as is necessary to preserve and 
    exercise its legislative authority. However, punishment for 
    contemptuous conduct involving the refusal of a witness to testify 
    or produce documents is now generally governed by law--Title II, 
    United States Code, sections 192-194--which provides that whenever 
    a witness fails or refuses to appear in response to a committee 
    subpena, or fails or refuses to testify or produce documents in 
    response thereto, such fact may be reported to the House. Those 
    reports are of high privilege.
        When a resolution raising a question of privilege of the House 
    is submitted by a Member and called up as privileged, that 
    resolution is also subject to immediate disposition as the House 
    shall determine.
        The implied power under the Constitution for the House to deal 
    directly with matters necessary to preserve and exercise its 
    legislative authority; the provision in rule IX that questions of

[[Page 4387]]

    privilege of the House shall have precedence of all other 
    questions; and the fact that the report of the committee has been 
    filed by the gentleman from West Virginia as privileged--all refute 
    the argument that the 3-day layover requirement of clause 27(d)(4) 
    applies in this situation.
        The Chair holds that the report is of such high privilege under 
    the inherent constitutional powers of the House and under rule IX 
    that the provisions of clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI are not 
    applicable .
        Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.
        The Clerk will continue to read the resort.

Administration of Oath (Question of Privileges of House)

Sec. 28.20 Administration of the oath to a Member-elect is a matter of 
    high privilege and is in order after the previous question is 
    ordered on the pending question (a bill reported back from the 
    Committee of the Whole to the House).

    On Oct. 3, 1969, the Committee of the Whole rose and reported back 
to the House, with sundry amendments, a bill (H. R. 14000) authorizing 
appropriations for military procurement. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated that under the rule the previous question was 
ordered. Further proceedings were interrupted for the administration of 
the oath to a Member-elect: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 28487, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Michael J. 
    Harrington, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His 
    certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest, 
    and no question has been raised with regard to his election.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Harrington appeared at the bar of the House and took the 
    oath of office.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The oath was administered at such time as 
to allow the new Member to vote on the pending bill. (The 
administration of the oath to Members arises under the United States 
Constitution [art. VI, clause 3] but is presented as a question of the 
privileges of the House, which takes precedence over even the approval 
of the Journal.) (17)
    It should be noted that most of the Members-elect are sworn in on 
the day on which the House convenes for a new Congress, and that the 
administration of the oath at that time has, by tradition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4388]]

and statute, a place in the order of business on opening day. For 
example, the election of the Speaker precedes the administration of the 
oath to Members.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 212, 214. For business and 
        procedure at the convening of the House generally, see Chs. 1, 
        2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.21 Debate on a privileged resolution reported from the 
    Committee on Rules was interrupted to allow a new Member to take 
    the oath of office.

    On Dec. 24, 1963, there was under consideration in the House a 
resolution from the Committee on Rules making a special order of 
business (H. Res. 600, waiving points of order against a conference 
report). Debate on the resolution was interrupted for the privileged 
question of the administration of the oath to a new Member: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 109 Cong. Rec. 25526, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the gentleman from Texas, Mr. James Jarrel Pickle, be 
    permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of 
    election has not arrived, but there is no contest and no question 
    has been raised with regard to this election.
        The Speaker: (20) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, and I am not going to object, I just wanted to 
    observe that I have checked with our Texas people on this side and 
    they tell me there is no contest about the gentleman's election.
        Mr. Speaker, I do not know how he is going to vote today. I 
    rather assume he will vote against us. But I hope, with the 
    indulgence of the Members on our side, if he has come up here from 
    Texas to be here the day before Christmas, I think we ought to let 
    him vote.
        Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, may I observe that the charity of our 
    beloved minority leader becomes not only himself but the season.
        Mr. Pickle appeared at the bar of the House and took the oath 
    of office.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The request for unanimous consent that the 
oath be administered was necessary not to bring up the question of oath 
administration (which is highly privileged) but to actually allow the 
administration of the oath, the Member's-elect certificate of election 
not having arrived.

Question of Personal Privilege

Sec. 28.22 A question of personal privilege (as opposed to a question 
    of the privileges of the House) cannot be raised before the 
    approval of the Journal.

[[Page 4389]]

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(1) before the reading and approval of 
the Journal, on a day when the House had ordered locked the doors to 
the Chamber (various calls of the House and privileged motions having 
interrupted the reading of the Journal) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, declined to recognize a Member on a question of personal 
privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214-16, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Taft [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio 
    rise?
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: A point of order, Mr. 
    Speaker. That is not in order until the reading of the Journal has 
    been completed.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state his privileged 
    motion?
        Mr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, my motion is on a point of personal 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman from Ohio state whether it is a 
    point of personal privilege or a privileged motion?
        Mr. Taft: It is a privileged motion, and a motion of personal 
    privilege.
        Under rule IX questions of personal privilege are privileged 
    motions, ahead of the reading of the Journal.
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that a 
    question of personal privilege should be made later after the 
    Journal has been disposed of.
        If the gentleman has a matter of privilege of the House, that 
    is an entirely different situation.

    When Mr. Taft again sought recognition and sought to raise a 
question of the privileges of the House, the Speaker heard the question 
and ruled that no question of the privileges of the House was stated. 
An appeal from the Speaker's ruling was laid on the table.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Questions of personal privilege may not be 
raised in Committee of the Whole.
    In presenting a question of personal privilege the Member does not 
submit a resolution but is recognized to discuss the issue presented, 
if the Chair finds that a question of personal privilege has been 
properly stated under Rule IX.(2) Questions of personal 
privilege take precedence over other business except contested electian 
cases, impeachment propositions, questions of the privileges of the 
House, and approval of the Journal, but may not be presented while 
another Member has the floor.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Ch. 11, supra, for a discussion of questions of personal 
        privilege.
 3. See Sec. 31, infra. A question of personal privilege may supersede 
        the consideration (or disposition) but not the presentation of 
        a message from the President or the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 28.23 While a question of privileges of the House is pending, the 
    Chair does not recognize a Member to present a question of personal 
    privilege.

[[Page 4390]]

    On Apr. 20, 1936, Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled that 
a question of personal privilege could not be raised while another 
question of privilege (of the House) was pending: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 80 Cong. Rec. 5704, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the privilege of the whole House and offer a privileged 
    resolution, which I ask the Clerk to read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 490

            Whereas during the House proceedings on April 17, 1936, the 
        gentleman from Washington [Mr. Zioncheck] attempted to speak 
        out of order and to indulge in personalities, when he was 
        admonished by the Chair, as follows--

        Mr. [Marion A.] Zioncheck [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I rise 
    to a point of personal privilege.
        The Speaker: The gentleman cannot do that while another 
    question of privilege is pending.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although highly privileged, a question of 
privilege may not be presented while another Member has the 
floor.(6) And a point of order, such as a point of order 
that a quorum is not present, or a point of order that the Member 
rising to a question of privilege has not presented a question of 
privilege, may interrupt a Member stating a question of 
privilege.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 80 Cong. Rec. 3720, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 13, 1936; 91 
        Cong. Rec. 7221-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., July 5, 1945; 92 
        Cong. Rec. 5216, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., May 17, 1946.
 6. See 84 Cong. Rec. 8468, 8469, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A question of privilege is not entertained pending a vote on a 
motion to adjourn.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 11940, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 15, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               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.



 
                               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.


                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                         E. PRIVILEGED BUSINESS
 
Sec. 31. Relative Precedence Among Privileged Matters

    Following the precedents in this section there appears a table 
summarizing decisions of the Chair with respect to the relative 
precedence among privileged questions. The information given in the 
table is intended merely as a guide, since the principles of relative 
precedence stated herein are subject to the right of the House to 
change its order of business at any time. The priority of matters of 
equal or near-equal privilege may be determined by the Chair within his 
power of recognition. And the decisions cited should be consulted to 
determine whether they reflect the current practices of the House and 
whether they are precisely applicable to the parliamentary situation in 
question.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See also, for the relative precedence of privileged questions, 
        Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives 252, H. Doc. 
        No. 86-122 (1959); House Rules and Manual Sec. 880 [note] 
        (1979).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair's Power of Recognition (Matters of Equal Privilege)

Sec. 31.1 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated 
    that where matters of equal privilege are pending, the order of 
    their consideration is subject to the Speaker's recognition.

    On Sept. 22, 1966,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following statement on recognition, in response 
to a parliamentary inquiry related to the order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: . . . Of course, the question of recognition is 
    with the Chair, where there are two similar preferential matters, 
    but the gentleman's understanding is correct that after 7 
    legislative days a member of the Rules Committee could call it up.
        If it were a question of recognition, if the same preferential 
    status existed at the same time, recognition rests with the Chair.

Sec. 31.2 If a resolution providing a special order of business and 
    reported by the Committee on Rules is not called up for 
    consideration by the Member reporting the resolu

[[Page 4448]]

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

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

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

Sec. 31.3 While the call of the Consent Calendar is, under Rule XIII 
    clause 4, mandatory on the first and third Mondays of the month 
    immediately after the approval of the Journal, the Speaker may 
    recognize a Member to call up a conference report under Rule XXVIII 
    clause 1, before directing the Clerk to call the Consent Calendar.

    On May 4, 1970,(3) which was Consent Calendar Day under 
Rule XIII clause 4, requiring that the Consent Calendar be called 
immediately after the approval of the Journal, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recog
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 14021-33, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4449]]

nized Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, to call up a conference report 
on H.R. 515 (to amend the National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition 
Act), as a privileged matter under Rule XXVIII clause 1, before 
directing the call of the Consent Calendar.

Sec. 31.4 On a District Day, the Speaker recognized a member of the 
    Committee on Rules to call up a privileged resolution relating to 
    the order of business, and later recognized the chairman of another 
    committee to call up the business made in order thereby, prior to 
    recognizing the Chairman of the Committee on the District of 
    Columbia to call up District business under Rule XXIV clause 8.

    On Sept. 24, 1962,(4) which was District of Columbia Day 
under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
first recognized Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, to call up by 
direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 804, making in 
order and providing for the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 
224, authorizing the President to call up armed forces reservists. The 
House having agreed to the resolution, the Speaker recognized Carl 
Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and 
manager of the joint resolution, to move that the House resolve itself 
into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the joint 
resolution, which was, after debate, agreed to by the House.
    The Speaker then stated that it was District of Columbia Day and 
recognized Chairman John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, of the 
Committee on the District of Columbia for District 
business.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 20489-94, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Id. at p. 20521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.5 When a Member seeks recognition to call up District of 
    Columbia business on the fourth Monday (privileged under Rule XXIV 
    clause 8) and another Member seeks recognition to move to suspend 
    the rules and agree to a Senate joint resolution amending the 
    Constitution (privileged pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement 
    making it in order on the fourth Monday for the Speaker to 
    recognize Members to move suspension and passage of bills), it is 
    within the discretion of the Speaker as to which of the

[[Page 4450]]

    two Members he shall recognize.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(6) which was the fourth Monday of the 
month and therefore a day eligible for District of Columbia business, 
under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, to move to suspend the 
rules and pass a joint resolution (to amend the Constitution to 
prohibit the use of a poll tax as a qualification for voting) pursuant 
to a previous unanimous consent request making in order on that day 
motions to suspend the rules. The Speaker overruled a point of order 
against prior recognition for the motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654-70, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
    Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to the 
    Constitution of the United States relating to qualifications of 
    electors.
        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that this 
    is District Day, that there are District bills on the calendar, and 
    as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia I 
    respectfully demand recognition so that these bills may be 
    considered.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on 
    the point of order?
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule, but the gentleman 
    may be heard.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, suspensions were 
    transferred to this day, and under the rules the Speaker has power 
    of recognition at his own discretion.
        Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully call the attention 
    of the chairman to clause 8, rule XXIV, page 432 of the House 
    Manual. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I submit that rule is clear that when the time is 
    claimed and the opportunity is claimed the Chair shall permit those 
    bills to be considered.
        Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit my point of order 
    is well taken, and that I should be permitted to call up bills 
    which are now pending on the calendar from the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker. I should like 
    to be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House on 
    some things are very clear, and the rules of the House either mean 
    something or they do not mean anything.
        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Abernethy], 
    has just called to the Chair's attention clause 8 of rule XXIV. 
    Nothing could be clearer; nothing could be more mandatory. I

[[Page 4451]]

    want to repeat it because I hope the Chair will not fall into an 
    error on this proposition:

            The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the 
        disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the 
        disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires 
        reference only--

        And that is all; that is all that you can consider--disposition 
    of motions to discharge committees--
        and after the disposal of such business on the Speaker's table 
        as requires reference only--

        That is all that the Chair is permitted to consider.
        Mr. Speaker, after that is done the day--
        shall when claimed by the Committee on the District of 
        Columbia, be set apart for the consideration of such business 
        as may be presented by said committee.

        Mr. Speaker, I know that the majority leader bases his defense 
    upon the theory that the House having given unanimous consent to 
    hear suspensions on this Monday instead of last Monday when they 
    should have been heard--and I doubt if very many Members were here 
    when that consent order was made and I am quite sure that a great 
    number of them had no notice that it was going to be made, and 
    certainly I did not--now the majority leader undertakes to say that 
    having gotten unanimous consent to consider this motion on this day 
    to suspend the rules, therefore, it gives the Speaker carte blanche 
    authority to do away with the rule which gives first consideration 
    to District of Columbia matters.
        Mr. Speaker, there was no waiver of the rule on the District of 
    Columbia. That consent did not dispose or dispense with the 
    business on the District of Columbia day. The rule is completely 
    mandatory. The rule says that on the second and fourth Mondays, if 
    the District of Columbia claims the time, that the Speaker shall 
    recognize them for such dispositions as they desire to call.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
        Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to 
    transfer the consideration of business under suspension of the 
    rules on Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the 
    consideration of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the 
    rules today is a privileged motion. The matter is within the 
    discretion of the Chair as to the matter of recognition.

Sec. 31.6 The consideration of 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

[[Page 4452]]

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 appropriation 
bill.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 75 Cong. Rec. 2656-60, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

House May Determine Order of Business

Sec. 31.7 The regular order of business, such as the relative 
    precedence of a motion to discharge on discharge days over 
    unfinished business, may be varied by unanimous consent.

    On May 8, 1936,(8) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the order of business 
and the power of the House to change such order by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 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, 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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The House may refuse to consider privileged 
business brought up (except reports from the Committee on Rules not 
called up on the same day reported), and

[[Page 4453]]

thereby reach business or legislation of lesser 
precedence.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. Sec. 30.16-30.19, supra, for the question of consideration 
        and preventing consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 31.8 Where two propositions of equal privilege are pending, it is 
    for the Chair to determine whom he will recognize to call up one of 
    the propositions, but the House may by unanimous consent determine 
    such precedence.

    On Sept. 11, 1945,(10) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
entertained a unanimous-consent request relating to the order of 
business and responded to a parliamentary inquiry as to its effect:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 8510, 8511, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North 
    Carolina.
        Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on tomorrow, 
    immediately after the meeting of the House for business, to 
    consider the bill (H.R. 3974) to repeal war time; that general 
    debate be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled 
    by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], chairman of the 
    subcommittee, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Holmes].
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, and I shall not because I want to 
    congratulate the committee on bringing in the legislation at this 
    early date, as I understand it, that will be the first order of 
    business tomorrow?
        Mr. Bulwinkle: Yes; that is my understanding.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, I was under the impression that H.R. 3660 was 
    to be the next order of business.
        The Speaker: That is a question for the Chair, as to whether 
    the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Illinois to call up the 
    rule or recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma to call up the bill 
    repealing war time. The request being made at this time is for the 
    war time repeal bill to take precedence.

[[Page 4455]]


               Relative Precedence of Privileged Questions
   (References are to sections in this chapter or in volumes I-VIII of
                     Hinds' and Cannon's Precedents)

            Item of business                  Takes precedence over

Appropriation bill.....................  District of Columbia business
                                          (VI, Sec. Sec.  716-718; VII,
                                          Sec. Sec.  876, 1123) (also
                                          held equal with, Sec.  29.10,
                                          supra).
                                         Private Calendar business (IV
                                          Sec. Sec.  3082-3085).
Approval of Journal....................  Business on Speaker's table
                                          (Sec.  2.17 supra).
                                         Conference report (V, Sec.
                                          6443).
                                         Executive communications (Sec.
                                          2.17, supra).
                                         Motion to dispense with
                                          Calendar Wednesday (Sec.
                                          4.42, supra).
                                         Question of personal privilege
                                          (Sec.  2.13, supra; VI, Sec.
                                          637).
                                         Rules Committee report (Sec.
                                          2.12, supra).
                                         Veto message postponed to day
                                          certain (Sec.  3.36, supra).
Calendar Wednesday business............  Appropriation bill (VII, Sec.
                                          904).
                                         Bill privileged under rules
                                          (VIII, Sec.  2289).
                                          Conference report (VII, Sec.
                                          Sec.  899-901).
                                         Motion to discharge resolution
                                          of inquiry (VII, Sec. Sec.
                                          896, 897).
                                         Motion to rerefer (VII, Sec.
                                          Sec.  883, 884, 2117, 2118).
                                         Privileged report from
                                          Committee on House
                                          Administration (Sec.  4.3,
                                          supra).
                                         Resolution of inquiry (VII,
                                          Sec.  898).
                                         Rules Committee report (Sec.
                                          4.7, supra).
                                         Senate bill similar to reported
                                          House Calendar bill (VII, Sec.
                                           906).
                                         Special order, business under
                                          (VII Sec. Sec.  773, 789).
                                         Unfinished business from
                                          previous day with previous
                                          question ordered (VII, Sec.
                                          Sec.  890-894).
Calendar Wednesday, motion to dispense   District of Columbia business
 with.                                    (Sec.  4.33, supra).
Conference report......................  Appropriation bill (VIII, Sec.
                                          3291).
                                         Consent Calendar business (Sec.
                                           29.25, supra).

[[Page 4456]]


                                         District of Columbia business
                                          (VIII, Sec.  3292).
                                         Operation of previous question
                                          (Sec.  29.26, supra).
                                         Private Calendar business (Sec.
                                           29.27, supra).
                                         Rules Committee report (V, Sec.
                                           6449).
                                         Special order, business under
                                          (V, Sec. Sec.  6454; VII Sec.
                                          789).
                                         Senate amendment in
                                          disagreement (V, Sec.  6523).
Consent Calendar business..............  Appropriation bill (VII, Sec.
                                          Sec.  986, 987).
                                         Contested election case (VII,
                                          Sec. Sec.  988, 989).
                                         Unfinished business from
                                          previous day with previous
                                          question ordered (VII, Sec.
                                          990).
Contested election case (if brought up   Calendar Wednesday business
 as question of constitutional            (VIII, Sec.  2276).
 privilege, which is not the present     Question of privileges of House
 practice).                               (VI, Sec.  572).
                                         Rules Committee report (III,
                                          Sec.  2554).
                                         Suspension of rules (V, Sec.
                                          6825).
                                         Veto message (V, Sec. Sec.
                                          6641, 6642) .
Election of House committee............  Appropriation or revenue bill
                                          (VI, Sec.  3).
Election of Speaker....................  Oath of Members (I, Sec. Sec.
                                          212, 214).
Impeachment............................  Approval of Journal (VI, Sec.
                                          469).
                                         Conference report (Sec.  28.11,
                                          supra).
                                         Contested election case (III,
                                          Sec.  2581).
Message from President.................  Unfinished business (Sec. Sec.
                                          3.6, 3.7, supra).
                                         Question of privilege, message
                                          may be received pending (V,
                                          Sec. Sec.  6640-6642).
Message from Senate....................  Operation of previous question
                                          (Sec.  2.24, supra).
Motion to discharge committee..........  Appropriation bill (VII, Sec.
                                          Sec.  1016, 1017).
                                         Special order, business under
                                          (Sec.  30.11, supra).
                                         Suspension of rules (VII, Sec.
                                          1018).
                                         Unfinished business (Sec.  3.8,
                                          supra).

[[Page 4457]]


                                         Unfinished business from
                                          previous day with previous
                                          question ordered (Sec.  3.23,
                                          supra).
Motion to rerefer after reading of       Appropriation bill (VII, Sec.
 Journal.                                 2124) .
                                         Conference report (VII, Sec.
                                          2124).
                                         Private Calendar business (VII,
                                          Sec.  2128).
Oath of Members (question of privileges  Approval of Journal (I, Sec.
 of House).                               172).
                                         Calendar Wednesday business
                                          (VI, Sec.  22).
                                         Operation of previous question
                                          (Sec.  28.20, supra).
                                         Point of order of no quorum
                                          (VI, Sec.  21).
                                         Rules Committee report (Sec.
                                          28.21, supra).
                                         Suspension of rules (V, Sec.
                                          6826).
Question of personal privilege.........  Bill privileged under rules
                                          (VI, Sec.  557).
                                         Bill privileged under special
                                          order (III, Sec.  2524; VI,
                                          Sec.  555).
                                         Calendar Wednesday business
                                          (VII, Sec. Sec.  908-911; VI,
                                          Sec.  613).
                                         Consent Calendar business (VI,
                                          Sec.  553).
                                         Motion to discharge committee
                                          (VI, Sec.  553).
                                         Operation of previous question
                                          (VI, Sec.  561; VIII, Sec.
                                          2688).
                                         Rules Committee report (III,
                                          Sec.  2530).
                                         Senate amendment in
                                          disagreement (III, Sec.
                                          2531).
                                         Suspension of rules (VI, 553).
Question of privileges of House........  Appropriation bill (VIII, Sec.
                                          3461).
                                         Approval of Journal (II, Sec.
                                          1630; VI, Sec.  637).
                                         Bill privileged under special
                                          order (VI, Sec. Sec.  560,
                                          395).
                                         Calendar Wednesday business
                                          (VII, Sec.  911; VI, Sec.
                                          394; Sec. Sec.  4.4, 4.5,
                                          supra).
                                         Conference report (VI, Sec.
                                          Sec.  559, 403).
                                         Consent Calendar business (VI,
                                          Sec.  553).
                                         Disposition of message from
                                          President (V, Sec.  6640).
                                         District of Columbia business
                                          (Sec.  5.3, supra).

[[Page 4458]]


                                         Motion to discharge committee
                                          (VI, Sec.  553).
                                         Operation of previous question
                                          (III, Sec.  2532).
                                         Rules Committee report (III,
                                          Sec.  2530; VIII, Sec.  3491).
                                         Suspension of rules (VI, Sec.
                                          553).
Resolution of inquiry..................  Consent Calendar business (VI,
                                          Sec.  409).
Rules Committee report.................  Consent Calendar business (Sec.
                                           17.12, supra).
                                         District of Columbia business
                                          (Sec.  5.4, supra).
                                         Motion to discharge resolution
                                          of inquiry (Sec.  17.7,
                                          supra).
Suspension of rules....................  Contested election case (VII,
                                          Sec.  988).
                                         District of Columbia business
                                          (held equal with, Sec.  5.1,
                                          supra).
                                         Unfinished business from
                                          previous day with previous
                                          question ordered (V, Sec. Sec.
                                           6827, 6831-6833).
Unfinished business from previous day    Special order, business under
 with previous question ordered.          (V, Sec.  5520; VIII, Sec.
                                          2674).
                                         Veto message (disposition of,
                                          VIII, Sec.  2693).
Veto message...........................  Calendar Wednesday business
                                          (Sec.  4.6, supra; VII, Sec.
                                          912).
                                         Special order (Sec.  3.5,
                                          supra).


