[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 22. Calendars]
[C. Private Calendar; Private Bills]
[Â§ 13. Consideration, Debate, and Amendment]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4499-4511]
 
                               CHAPTER 22
 
                               Calendars
 
                   C. PRIVATE CALENDAR; PRIVATE BILLS
 
Sec. 13. Consideration, Debate, and Amendment

    Private bills are considered in the House as in the Committee of 
the Whole,(9) and amendments are considered under the five-
minute rule.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1981).
10. See Sec. 13.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Provision for the consideration of omnibus bills (i.e., 
consolidation into one bill of numerous private bills of the same 
class) was added to the rules of the House in 1935.(11) The 
validity of this rule has been sustained, both as an internal House 
procedure and under principles of comity with the Senate. (See 
Sec. 13.1, infra.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 172, 79 Cong. Rec. 4480-89, 4538, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Mar. 26, 27, 1935.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration and Validity of Omnibus Bills

Sec. 13.1 The House may by rule provide for the consolidation into an 
    omnibus bill of private bills and direct the manner in which such 
    omnibus bills shall be considered, including the consolidation 
    therein of Senate bills passed by the Senate and referred to the 
    House.

    On July 16, 1935,(12) the Clerk called on the Private 
Calendar the bill (H.R. 8060) for the relief of sundry claimants [an 
omnibus bill].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 79 Cong. Rec. 11259, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, raised the point of order that 
Rule XXIV clause 6, authorizing omnibus bills, was inoperative and did 
not in fact authorize such omnibus bills.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Mr. Blanton gave advance notice of his point of order four days 
        previously along with a summary of his arguments against the 
        application of Rule XXIV clause 6, ``. . . so that,'' he said, 
        ``the Speaker in the meantime may examine the authorities which 
        may be presented by myself or by the Parliamentarian.'' 79 
        Cong. Rec. 11113, 11114, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., July 12, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Blanton argued that the omnibus bill provision in Rule

[[Page 4500]]

XXIV clause 6, adopted four months earlier,(14) contradicted 
Rule XX clause 1 which provides ``Any amendment of the Senate to any 
House bill shall be subject to the point of order that it shall first 
be considered in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, if, originating in the House, it would be subject to that 
point.'' Mr. Blanton said, ``. . . After we pass one of these omnibus 
bills, and it is unscrambled by resolving all of the House bills passed 
on it, into their original forms, and we send them to the Senate and 
the Senate should amend them by placing an entirely new amendment on a 
House bill carrying $100,000,000, under Rule XX, we would have to 
consider it in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, but under this new rule--clause 6 of Rule XXIV--we could 
consider it in the House in direct violation of Rule XX, which has 
neither been amended nor repealed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. H. Res. 172, 79 Cong. Rec. 4480-89, 4538, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Mar. 26, 27, 1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Blanton then cited Rule XXI clause 1 providing:

        Bills and joint resolutions on their passage shall be read the 
    first time by title and the second time in full, when, if the 
    previous question is ordered, the Speaker shall state the question 
    to be, Shall the bill be engrossed and read a third time? and, if 
    decided in the affirmative, it shall be read the third time by 
    title . . . and the question shall then be put upon its passage.

    Mr. Blanton said:

        . . . [I]ts provisions relating to the engrossment of a House 
    bill could not be followed out with regard to one of these omnibus 
    bills, because you do not engross a bill until just before its 
    final passage, and under clause 6 of rule XXIV these omnibus bills 
    may embrace a number of House bills, and also a number of Senate 
    bills, which have already been engrossed by the Senate, and under 
    rule XXI you could not properly engross such a bill.

    Mr. Blanton next cited Rule XXIII clause 3 providing:

        All motions or propositions involving a tax or charge upon the 
    people, all proceedings touching appropriations of money, or bills 
    making appropriations of money or property, or requiring such 
    appropriation to be made, or authorizing payments out of 
    appropriations already made, or releasing any liability to the 
    United States for money or property, or referring any claim to the 
    Court of Claims, shall be first considered in a Committee of the 
    Whole, and a point of order under this rule shall be good at any 
    time before the consideration of a bill has commenced.

    Mr. Blanton continued:

        That is a standing rule of this House. It has been a rule of 
    this House for many years. It has never been amended. It has never 
    been repealed. It has never been changed by one

[[Page 4501]]

    word, I submit to the Speaker. Yet, if you proceed under it, you 
    certainly could not proceed under this new clause 6 of rule XXIV.
        We all know that in the Committee of the Whole there is 
    generous general debate allowed, while under clause 6 of Rule XXIV 
    there is no general debate and only a few minutes allowed for 
    amendments.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 11259, 11260, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Blanton next cited Rule XXIII clause 5 providing:

        When general debate is closed by order of the House, any Member 
    shall be allowed 5 minutes to explain any amendment he may offer, 
    after which the Member who shall first obtain the floor shall be 
    allowed to speak 5 minutes in opposition to it, and there shall be 
    no further debate thereon, but the same privilege of debate shall 
    be allowed in favor of and against any amendment that may be 
    offered to an amendment; and neither an amendment nor an amendment 
    to an amendment shall be withdrawn by the mover thereof unless by 
    the unanimous consent of the committee.

    Mr. Blanton said:

        This is a standing rule of the House and has been a rule of the 
    House for many years. It has not been changed, it has not been 
    repealed, it has not been amended; and it is in conflict with this 
    so-called ``change of one rule, clause 6 of rule XXIV.'' The rights 
    which it safeguards to Members are curtailed and to a large extent 
    wiped out by this new clause 6 of rule XXIV. Under which are we to 
    operate?
        I want to call attention to just a few of the Senate rules 
    relative to Senate bills. This so-called ``change of clause 6 of 
    rule XXIV'', just one clause of one rule, not only affects House 
    bills, Mr. Speaker, but it materially affects Senate bills that are 
    properly passed by the Senate of the United States and messaged 
    over to the House and properly referred to committees by the 
    Speaker under the rules of this House, and the comity that exists 
    between the House and the Senate, which comity has existed ever 
    since the beginning of the Congress. . . .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at pp. 11260, 11261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The omnibus bill] comes back into the House with a new number 
    on the House Private Calendar, with the Senate identity lost and 
    the Senate number lost, so far as the bill number is concerned. . . 
    .
        Mr. Speaker, you cannot pass legislation in that way, that 
    takes money out of the Public Treasury. You cannot pass legislation 
    under the rules of the House that have been in vogue for 140 years, 
    since Congress was first created, by a simple House resolution. 
    That is against the Senate rules and against the rules of the 
    House. The law provides that when a bill takes money out of the 
    Public Treasury it must go into the Committee of the Whole House, 
    whether it is a House bill or a Senate bill. If it is a House bill, 
    if it takes money out of the Public Treasury, it must be debated in 
    the Committee of the Whole. If it is a Senate bill and takes money 
    out of the Public Treasury, it must be debated in Committee of the 
    Whole. That is the protection placed by Congress around the 
    taxpayers' money. . . .

[[Page 4502]]

        I do not know what the Speaker's ruling is . . . if the 
    Comptroller General rules against any of these bills after they are 
    passed, or if any taxpayer of the United States, and there will be 
    some, ever brings such a bill before the Supreme Court of the 
    United States for revision and contests the legality of its 
    passage, the legality of taking the people's money out of the 
    Treasury in this haphazard way by a simple House resolution, then 
    there will be a chance for the Supreme Court to render a proper 
    decision upon it.
        I submit the matter to the Speaker.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Id. at pp. 11262, 11263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair responded:

        The Speaker: (18) . . . The gentleman from Texas, in 
    his argument today, has contended that this rule conflicts with a 
    number of rules to which he has referred. Without passing upon the 
    question of whether or not there is a conflict, the Chair will 
    state that if there is a conflict the rule last adopted would 
    control. The Chair assumes that if this rule should be found to 
    conflict with previous rules, that the House intended, at least by 
    implication, to repeal that portion of the previous rule with which 
    it is in conflict. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman contends that the House may not, in the exercise 
    of the power conferred upon it by the Constitution ``to determine 
    the rules of its proceedings,'' (19) adopt a rule which 
    has the effect of permitting an omnibus bill to contain one or more 
    separate Senate bills as well as sundry House bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5, para. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair, in passing upon points of order, is limited by the 
    terms of the rule which is applicable to the determination of the 
    point of order. . . . Although it is not necessary for the 
    determination of the point of order for the Chair to pass upon the 
    question as to whether the House had the power to make such a rule, 
    the Chair will refer but briefly to two decisions heretofore made--
    one by an eminent Speaker and one by the Supreme Court of the 
    United States.
        Mr. Speaker Blaine, in the Forty-third Congress, in passing 
    upon a question involving the right of the House to formulate 
    rules, said:

            He (the Chair) has several times ruled that the right of 
        each House to determine what shall be its rules is an organic 
        right expressly given by the Constitution of the United States. 
        . . . The House is incapable, by any form of rules, of 
        divesting itself of its inherent constitutional power to 
        exercise its function to determine its own rules.

        The Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brewer in U.S. 
    v. Ballin (144 U.S. 1), said:

            Neither do the advantages or disadvantages, the wisdom or 
        folly, of . . . a rule present any matters for judicial 
        consideration. With the courts the question is only one of 
        power. The Constitution empowers each House to determine its 
        rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore 
        constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and 
        there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or 
        method of proceeding established by the rule and the result 
        which is sought to be attained. But within these limitations 
        all matters of method are open to the determination of the 
        House, and it is no impeachment of the rule to say that some 
        other way would be better, more accurate, or even more just. . 
        . .

[[Page 4503]]

        There has been some concern expressed as to whether it is 
    possible to identify the Senate bills incorporated in an omnibus 
    House bill. This concern may be removed by merely glancing at an 
    omnibus bill. We find there that the Senate bills carry their own 
    number and title in a paragraph set off by itself. Inasmuch as the 
    omnibus bill carries each individual bill included therein by its 
    number and title, it does not seem as though too great a difficulty 
    would be encountered for the clerks after the passage of the 
    omnibus bill to resolve the portions thereof into their original 
    form. That is merely a clerical undertaking which does not present 
    any undue difficulty. The Chair would think that after the passage 
    of an omnibus bill the Journal would show the specific action on 
    each individual bill which had been embodied in it. A message would 
    be sent to the Senate stating that the House had passed such and 
    such a bill, if it be a House bill, and requesting the concurrence 
    of the Senate therein. If it be a Senate bill, the message would 
    merely state that the House had passed it with the attestation of 
    the Clerk of the House, which would not be questioned by the 
    Senate.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at pp. 11264, 11265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Amendments Under Five-minute Rule

Sec. 13.2 Amendments to measures on the Private Calendar are debatable 
    under the five-minute rule. Debate is limited to five minutes in 
    favor of and five minutes in opposition to an amendment.

    On Dec. 14, 1967,(1) during consideration of a committee 
amendment to a resolution (H. Res. 981) expressing the disapproval of 
the House with respect to the granting of permanent residence in the 
United States to certain aliens, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, rose in 
opposition to the amendment and was granted five minutes to express his 
opposition. At the end of that five minutes Mr. Gross asked permission 
to proceed an additional two minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 36535-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker (2) ruled that an extension of time was not 
in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Michael A. Feighan, of Ohio, sought recognition to speak in 
favor of the same amendment. The Chair ruled that a member of the 
committee reporting the resolution was entitled to recognition. Mr. 
Feighan proceeded for five minutes to debate the committee amendment.

Requests to Address the House

Sec. 13.3 In considering bills on the Private Calendar the Chair 
    refuses to recognize Members for unanimous-consent requests to 
    address the House.

    On May 7, 1935,(3) at the call on the Private Calendar 
of the bill (S.

[[Page 4504]]

41) for relief of the Germania Catering Company, Inc., the Speaker pro 
tempore (4) asked whether there was objection to the 
consideration of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 79 Cong. Rec. 7100, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Charles V. Truax, of Ohio, asked unanimous consent to proceed 
for five minutes. The Chair responded that he would not be recognized 
for that purpose.

Extending Time for Debate

Sec. 13.4 In the consideration of omnibus private bills under the five-
    minute rule the Chair does not recognize Members for the purpose of 
    extending time for debate in support of an amendment.

     On Apr. 22, 1936,(5) during consideration of the 
omnibus bill (S. 267) for the relief of certain officers and employees 
of the foreign service, Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, offered an 
amendment. After speaking five minutes in support of his amendment Mr. 
Bloom asked unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. 
The Chair responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 80 Cong. Rec. 5900, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (6) The Chair cannot recognize the 
    gentleman for that purpose under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.5 During the consideration of an omnibus private bill the Chair 
    has refused to recognize Members for unanimous-consent requests to 
    extend the time for debate in opposition to an amendment.

    On July 20, 1937,(7) during consideration of the omnibus 
private bill (H.R. 6336) for the relief of sundry claimants, Mr. 
Clarence E. Hancock, of New York, offered an amendment to strike out 
all of title I (H.R. 886) of the omnibus bill. After speaking five 
minutes in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Alfred F. Beiter, of New 
York, asked unanimous consent to proceed for one additional minute in 
order to answer a question. The Chair (8) ruled that under 
the rule covering the consideration of these bills, five minutes on 
each side is the limit for debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 7293-95, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hour Rule for Debate of Bill

Sec. 13.6 When consideration of a private bill in the House is granted 
    by unanimous consent the Member making the request is recognized 
    for one hour.

    On Mar. 12, 1963,(9) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
asked

[[Page 4505]]

 unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of the 
bill (H.R. 4374) to proclaim Sir Winston Churchill an honorary citizen 
of the United States. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 109 Cong. Rec. 3993, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, under what circumstances will this 
    resolution be considered? Will there be any time for discussion of 
    the resolution, if unanimous consent is given?
        The Speaker: (10) In response to the parliamentary 
    inquiry of the gentleman from Iowa, if consent is granted for the 
    present consideration of the bill, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Celler] will be recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from New 
    York may yield to such Members as he desires to yield to before 
    moving the previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nongermane Amendments

Sec. 13.7 A committee amendment to a private bill adding language that 
    is general or public in character is not germane.

    On June 20, 1950,(11) the House considered the private 
bill (S. 2309) granting permanent residence to certain aliens. As 
reported to the floor the bill contained a committee amendment 
authorizing 3,200 passport visas in any fiscal year to be issued to 
eligible foreign specialists as nonimmigrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 8914, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Wesley A. D'Ewart, of Montana, raised the point of order 
against the amendment on the grounds that it was a general amendment to 
a private bill and therefore not germane. The Speaker (12) 
sustained the point of order citing section 3292 of 4 Hinds' 
Precedents:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is not in order to amend a private bill by adding provisions 
    general or public in character.

Sec. 13.8 It is not in order to amend a private bill with a proposition 
    that is in the nature of general legislation.

    On June 13, 1940,(13) Mr. Warren G. Magnuson, of 
Washington, offered an amendment to the pending private bill ordering 
the Secretary of Labor to take into custody and deport Harry Bridges. 
The amendment was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 86 Cong. Rec. 8213, 8214, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Strike out all after enacting clause and insert ``That 
    any alien who, at any time after entering the United States, is 
    found to have been at the time of entry, or to have become 
    thereafter, a member of the Nazi, Fascist, or Communist Party, or 
    who advises, advocates, or teaches the doctrines of nazi-ism, 
    fascism, or communism, or

[[Page 4506]]

    who is a member of, or affiliated with, any organization, 
    association, society, or group, that advises, advocates, or teaches 
    the doctrines of nazi-ism, fascism, or communism, shall, upon the 
    warrant of the Secretary of Labor, be taken into custody and 
    deported in the manner provided in the Immigration Act of February 
    5, 1917.''

    Mr. John Lesinski, of Michigan, raised the point of order that this 
amendment was general legislation and not germane to a private bill. 
The Chair sustained the point of order.

Withdrawal of Committee Amendment

Sec. 13.9 During the consideration of a bill on the Private Calendar, a 
    Member obtained unanimous consent to vacate and withdraw a 
    committee amendment which had been agreed to.

    On May 18, 1965,(14) the private bill (H.R. 2351) for 
the relief of Teresita Centeno Valdez was read along with committee 
amendments, which were agreed to. Mr. Frank L. Chelf, of Kentucky, 
asked unanimous consent to withdraw the committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 10874, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Motion to Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 13.10 A motion to strike out the enacting clause is in order 
    during the consideration of an omnibus private bill.

    On May 18, 1937,(15) during consideration of the omnibus 
private bill (H.R. 5897) for the relief of sundry aliens, Mr. Joe 
Starnes, of Alabama, made a motion to strike out the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 4727, 4728, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, made a point of order against 
the motion:

        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, under the Private 
    Calendar rule, the only motion in order during the consideration of 
    an omnibus bill is a motion, as each bill is called, either to 
    strike out the paragraph or to reduce the amount or to add 
    limitations.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. ``Omnibus bills shall be read for amendment by paragraph, and no 
        amendment shall be in order except to strike out or to reduce 
        amounts of money stated or to provide limitations. . . .'' Rule 
        XXIV clause 6, para. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        May I say further, Mr. Speaker, that in considering this rule 
    providing for consideration of the Private Calendar, either the 
    individual bills or the omnibus bills, it was deliberately provided 
    that there would be a limitation on

[[Page 4507]]

    motions. It was discussed in the [Rules] committee that such bills 
    would not be handled as other bills, with a motion to strike out 
    the enacting clause, which would go to the entire omnibus bill, 
    which in this instance includes 15 individual bills. Such a motion 
    does not come within the intent of the rule with respect to the 
    handling of omnibus bills, because if you strike out the enacting 
    clause of the omnibus bill, by one stroke you defeat the 
    consideration of 15 individual bills, and it was intended that each 
    of the 15 bills would be considered in the House as in Committee of 
    the Whole, and that only those three motions mentioned would lie, 
    and only against the individual paragraphs.
        There is no question in the mind of myself, who has sometimes 
    been called the author of the rule for the consideration of the 
    Private Calendar, which was brought out from the Rules Committee, 
    as to the intent with reference to this rule.
        The Speaker: (17) . . . [Rule XXIV, clause 6, para. 
    3] imposes restrictions only on the kind of amendments that may be 
    offered during the consideration of an omnibus bill. The Chair has 
    been unable to find any provision of the rule which would prohibit 
    the offering of any other motion provided in the general rules of 
    the House. Certainly the Private Calendar rule does not by specific 
    language deprive a Member of the right to offer a motion to strike 
    out the enacting clause as provided in clause 7, rule XXIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair cited a similar ruling by the late Speaker Byrns on Mar. 
17, 1936. At that time he held:

        A motion to strike out the enacting clause is in order during 
    the consideration of omnibus private bills and is debatable under 
    the 5-minute 
    rule. . . .
        And this is the portion of the rule

            Mr. Speaker Byrns read:
            A motion to strike out the enacting words of a bill shall 
        have precedence of a motion to amend; and if carried, shall be 
        equivalent to its rejection. . . .

        Based upon that direct decision upon the question and the 
    reasons heretofore stated, the Chair feels impelled to overrule the 
    point of order.

Sec. 13.11 A motion to strike out the enacting clause of an omnibus 
    private bill takes precedence over an amendment to strike out a 
    title of the bill, and, if adopted, applies to the entire bill.

    On May 16, 1939,(18) during the consideration of an 
omnibus private bill (H.R. 6182) for the relief of sundry aliens, Mr. 
Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, offered an amendment to strike out all of 
title I (H.R. 658) of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 5614-18, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After debate but before a vote on that amendment, Mr. A. Leonard 
Allen, of Louisiana, offered a preferential motion that the enacting 
clause be striken out. After debate on the preferential motion Mr. 
Jenkins raised a parliamentary inquiry:

[[Page 4508]]

        Mr. Jenkins of Ohio: I notice this bill has four titles. Up to 
    this time we have only been dealing with one title, but I take it 
    the motion to strike out the enacting clause will strike out the 
    enacting clause for the entire bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) That is true.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jenkins of Ohio: As I understand it, that would not be in 
    opposition to my amendment, except that it would strike this whole 
    bill out, and then it could go back to the Committee on 
    Immigration, if necessary.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The adoption of the pending 
    preferential motion would strike out the enacting clause with 
    reference to the omnibus bill and the various individual bills 
    contained therein.
        Mr. [Samuel] Dickstein [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dickstein: If the motion of the gentleman from Ohio is 
    agreed to, then that kills this bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
    Allen] has offered a preferential motion to strike out the enacting 
    clause. If that motion is adopted, then there would be no further 
    consideration of the bill. It would apply to all titles enumerated 
    in the bill.
        Mr. Dickstein. If that motion is not adopted, then what will be 
    the procedure?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman's motion is not 
    adopted, the next procedure would be to vote upon the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jenkins] to strike out 
    title I of the bill. .

Sec. 13.12 A motion to strike out the enacting clause is in order 
    during the consideration of omnibus private bills and is debatable 
    under the five-minute rule, but a motion to strike out the last 
    word is not in order.

    On Mar. 17, 1936,(20) during consideration of the 
omnibus private bill (H.R. 8524) for the relief of sundry claimants, 
Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, moved to strike out the enacting 
clause:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 80 Cong. Rec. 3894, 3895, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [Mr. [Fred] Biermann (of Iowa)]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against that. I do not believe that motion is allowed under 
    the rule.
        The Speaker: (1) The motion to strike out the 
    enacting clause is not an amendment in the sense contemplated by 
    the rule. The Chair is of the opinion that the motion is in order 
    and the gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Biermann: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. Under the 
    rule we are working under I find these words:

            Omnibus bills shall be read for amendment by paragraph, and 
        no amendment shall be in order except to strike out or to 
        reduce amounts of money or to provide limitation.

        My inquiry is whether or not it is going to be in order for me 
    to move to strike out the last word?

[[Page 4509]]

        The Speaker: It will not.
        Mr. Biermann: Is the gentleman from Texas out of order?
        The Speaker: He is not. The gentleman from Texas moved to 
    strike out the enacting clause. He did not offer an amendment.

Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 13.13 Motions to strike out the last word are not in order during 
    the consideration of omnibus private bills.

    On July 20, 1937,(2) during consideration of an 
amendment to title I of the omnibus private bill (H.R. 6336), Mr. Fred 
L. Crawford, of Michigan, moved to strike out the last word. The 
Speaker (3) ruled that under the rule the Chair could not 
entertain that motion. The question at this time was the amendment 
offered to title I of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 7295, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.14 Pro forma amendments are not in order during the 
    consideration of an omnibus private bill.

    On July 20, 1937,(4) during consideration of an 
amendment offered to title III of an omnibus private bill (H.R. 6336), 
Mr. Walter M. Pierce, of Oregon, moved to strike out the last word. The 
Chair ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 81 Cong. Rec. 7299, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The Chair cannot 
    recognize the gentleman to make that motion. Under the rule for the 
    consideration of omnibus bills on the Private Calendar, the only 
    amendments in order are ``to strike out or reduce amounts of money 
    stated or to provide limitations.'' A pro forma amendment is 
    therefore not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John J. O'Conner (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion . . . to strike out the title.

Sec. 13.15 Under the earlier practice, it was in order during the 
    consideration of individual bills (but not omnibus bills) on the 
    Private Calendar to strike out the last word.

     On Apr. 7, 1936,(6) during the call on the Private 
Calendar of the bill (S. 2682) for the relief of Chief Carpenter 
William F. Twitchell, U.S. Navy, Mr. Marion A Zioncheck, of Washington, 
moved to strike out the last word. Mr. Clarence E. Hancock, of New 
York, made the point of order that under the rule amendments of this 
kind cannot be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 80 Cong. Rec. 5075, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair responded:

        The Speaker: (7) . . . The Chair, after examination 
    of the rule, thinks

[[Page 4510]]

    that the restriction with reference to the offering of amendments 
    applies only to omnibus bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.16 Under the modern practice, pro forma amendments to bills on 
    the Private Calendar, whether omnibus or individual bills, are not 
    permitted.

    On Feb. 16, 1954,(8) during consideration of the private 
bill (H.R. 7460), Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, moved to strike 
out the last word and asked unanimous consent to revise and extend his 
remarks and to proceed out of order. After passage of the bill, the 
Speaker (9) said, ``The Chair wishes to make a statement in 
order to clarify the rules of procedure during the call of the Private 
Calendar. Inadvertently, the Chair recognized the gentleman from 
Michigan to strike out the last word. Under the rules of the House, of 
course, that may be done on bills on the Consent Calendar, but not on 
the Private Calendar.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 100 Cong. Rec. 1826, 1827, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 30, 1960,(10) during consideration of the 
private bill (S. 3439) authorizing the President to present a gold 
medal to the poet Robert Frost, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
moved to strike out the last word.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 106 Cong. Rec. 18389, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker pro tempore, Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, replied, 
``An amendment to strike out or reduce an amount would be in order, but 
not a pro forma amendment.''
    On Dec. 14, 1967,(11) during consideration of a 
committee amendment to a resolution (H. Res. 981) expressing the 
disapproval of the House to the granting of permanent residence in the 
United States to certain aliens, Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, 
moved to strike out the requisite number of words. The Speaker 
(12) ruled that the motion was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 36537, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.17 An amendment proposing a minimal reduction of the amount of 
    money in an omnibus private bill is a pro forma amendment and 
    therefore not in order.

    On July 20, 1937,(13) Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of 
Illinois, offered an amendment to an omnibus private bill (H.R. 6336) 
to reduce the amount stated from $5,000 to $4,999.99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 7299, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair ruled:

[[Page 4511]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The Chair must hold 
    that under the spirit of the rule for the consideration of omnibus 
    private bills, such an amendment, which is in effect a pro forma 
    amendment, is not in order, and in addition thereto, the amendment 
    offered is an amendment to an amendment already adopted, and 
    therefore not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Striking Part of Omnibus Bill

Sec. 13.18 Where an omnibus private bill contains an individual private 
    bill that has been laid on the table, the Chair upon the 
    presentation of a point of order has ordered the individual bill 
    stricken from the omnibus bill.

    On Apr. 22, 1936,(15) during the call on the Private 
Calendar of the omnibus bill H.R. 852, Mr. John J. Cochran, of 
Missouri, raised the point of order that title IX of such bill (H.R. 
3075) was laid on the table in August of 1935:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 5894, 5895, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cochran: . . . Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that 
    the committee had no right or authority to include this bill in an 
    omnibus bill, because it has already been tabled and was not 
    rereferred to the committee.
        The Speaker: (16) . . . The Chair holds that this 
    bill, having been laid on the table by action of the House, is not 
    a proper bill to be included in the pending omnibus bill. The only 
    way to get it up would be by submitting a unanimous-consent request 
    to take it from the table and consider it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair therefore sustains the point of order.