[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 24. Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials]
[A. Introductory; Various Types of Bills, Resolutions, and Other Mechanisms for Action]
[Â§ 8. Resolutions of Inquiry]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4865-4877]
 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
    A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER 
                         MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
 
Sec. 8. Resolutions of Inquiry

    The resolution of inquiry (10) is a simple resolution 
making a direct request or demand of the President or the head of an 
executive department to furnish the House of Representatives with 
specific factual information in the possession of the executive branch. 
The practice is nearly as old as the Republic,(11) and is 
based on principles of comity between the executive and legislative 
branches rather than on any specific provision of the Constitution that 
a federal court may be called upon to enforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also Ch. 15, Investigations and Inquiries, supra.
11. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1856 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution of inquiry is privileged, i.e. it may be considered 
at any time after it is properly reported or discharged from 
committee.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 8.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution must be directed to the President or the head of an 
executive department,(13) and it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1861-1864; and 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4866]]

must call for the reporting of facts within their knowledge or control. 
If it calls for an opinion (14) or an 
investigation,(15) the resolution does not enjoy a 
privileged status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 8.3, infra.
15. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1872-1874; and 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 422, 427, 429, 
        432.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Jurisdiction

Sec. 8.1 When introduced, resolutions of inquiry are referred to the 
    committee having jurisdiction over the type of information or 
    program at which the resolution is directed.

       Resolutions of inquiry directing the Secretary of State to 
    transmit information touching the ratification of certain trade 
    agreements come within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways 
    and Means.

    On June 3, 1935,(16) Mr. Harold Knutson, of Minnesota, 
introduced a resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 236) directing the 
Secretary of State to transmit to the House of Representatives 
information touching upon the failure of the Republics of Brazil and 
Columbia to ratify certain trade agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 8604, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

Scope of Inquiry; Soliciting Opinions

Sec. 8.2 A resolution of inquiry seeking an opinion rather than a 
    recital of facts from the head of an executive department is not 
    privileged and is therefore not subject to a motion to discharge.

    On July 7, 1971,(17) Ms. Bella S. Abzug, of New York, 
moved to discharge the Committee on Armed Services from further 
consideration of House Resolution 491, a privileged resolution of 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 117 Cong. Rec. 23810, 23811, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the President, the Secretary of State, Secretary 
    of Defense, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency be, 
    and they are hereby, directed to furnish the House of 
    Representatives within fifteen days after the adoption of this 
    resolution with full and complete information on the following--
        the history and rationale for United States involvement in 
    South Vietnam since the completion of the study entitled ``United 
    States--Vietnam Relationships, 1945-1967'', prepared by the Vietnam 
    Task Force, Office of the Secretary of Defense;

[[Page 4867]]

        the known existing plans for residual force of the United 
    States Armed Forces in South Vietnam;
        the nature and capacity of the government of the Republic of 
    Vietnam including but not limited to analyses of their past and 
    present military capabilities, their capacity for military and 
    economic self-sufficiency including but not limited to analyses of 
    the political base of the Republic, the scope, if any, of 
    governmental malfunction and corruption, the depth of popular 
    support and procedures for dealing with non-support; including but 
    not limited to known existing studies of the economy of the 
    Republic of South Vietnam and the internal workings of the 
    government of the Republic of South Vietnam;
        the plans and procedures, both on the part of the Republic of 
    South Vietnam and the United States Government for the November 
    1971 elections in the Republic of South Vietnam, including but not 
    limited to analyses of the United States involvement, covert or 
    not, in said elections.

    Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, raised a point of order:

        Mr. Speaker, the resolution calls for opinions and under the 
    rule the resolution of inquiry must seek facts, not opinions. The 
    resolution obviously requires an opinion when it asks for ``the 
    nature and capacity of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam.'' 
    It also asks for opinion when it seeks analyses of the past and 
    present military capabilities of the Republic of Vietnam. It 
    clearly asks for opinion when it seeks ``the depth of popular 
    support,'' of the South Vietnamese Government.
        Any resolution asking for a determination of ``capacity'' and 
    asking for ``analyses'' of past and present military capabilities 
    asks for opinions, and thus destroys the privileged nature of the 
    resolution. I refer to volume 3, Cannon's Precedents, section 1873.
        And finally, Mr. Speaker, there can be no question that a 
    resolution which asks for the ``rationale'' for U.S. involvement in 
    South Vietnam most assuredly seeks an opinion. Webster's Dictionary 
    defines the word rationale as:

            An explanation of controlling principles of opinion, 
        belief, practice or phenomena.

        I make the further point of order, Mr. Speaker, that the 
    resolution is not confined to heads of departments or the President 
    but also includes the head of an agency and, therefore, the 
    resolution is not privileged.
        Mr. Speaker, I press the point of order.
        The Speaker: (18) The Chair is prepared to rule. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It has been consistently held that to retain the privilege 
    under the rule, resolutions of inquiry must call for facts rather 
    than opinions--Cannon's precedents, volume VI page 413 and pages 
    418 to 432. Speaker Longworth, on February 11, 1926, held that a 
    resolution inquiring for such facts as would inevitably require the 
    statement of an opinion to answer such inquiry was not privileged--
    Record, page 3805.
        Among other requests, House Resolution 491 calls for the 
    furnishing of one, the ``rationale'' for U.S. involvement in South 
    Vietnam since the com

[[Page 4868]]

    pletion of the study; two, the nature and ``capacity'' of the 
    Government of the Republic of Vietnam, including ``analyses'' of 
    their military ``capabilities''; their capacity for self-
    sufficiency which would include analyses of the Government's 
    political base, the scope of malfunction and corruption, the depth 
    of popular support; and three, analyses of U.S. involvement in 1971 
    elections in South Vietnam.
        In at least these particulars, executive officials are called 
    upon--not for facts--but to furnish conclusions, which must be, 
    essentially, statements of opinion.
        The Chair therefore holds that House Resolution 491 is not a 
    privileged resolution within the meaning of clause 5, rule XXII, 
    and that the motion to discharge the Committee on Armed Services 
    from its further consideration is not in order.

Reporting Resolutions of Inquiry

Sec. 8.3 Resolutions of inquiry must be reported back to the House by 
    committee within the time period specified in the rule (Rule XXII 
    clause 5), and if the resolution is not reported by the committee 
    within the time limit, it may be called up in the House as a matter 
    of privilege.

    Parliamentarian's Note: From the inception of the rule in 1879, the 
time period for committee action was set at seven legislative days. In 
the 98th Congress, the period was set at 14 days.
    On Feb. 9, 1950,(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
reported unfavorably a resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 452) requesting 
certain information from the President regarding American foreign 
policy in the Far East. The committee had received responses to the 
resolution from the Department of State which it determined sufficient 
for purposes of the resolution. The Chairman of the committee, John 
Kee, of West Virginia, moved that the resolution be laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 96 Cong. Rec. 1755, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The replies of the Department of State were to be printed in the 
committee report accompanying the resolution, but the report had not 
yet been printed at the time the resolution was being considered in the 
House. Mr. John Phillips, of California, raised a question pending the 
motion to lay on the table as to why the committee report was not 
available:

        That is a proper question. When are the replies going to be 
    printed? Why were they not printed before the resolution was 
    brought up and, as the gentleman from Illinois said, why were they 
    not printed before the discussion of the Korea-Formosa aid?
        Mr. Kee: Under the rule, we have to report these resolutions to 
    the House, with the action of the committee on them, within 7 days. 
    It took quite some

[[Page 4869]]

    time for us to get the answers back from the Department. We 
    reported them at the earliest possible time. They would have been 
    reported on yesterday had that day not been Calendar Wednesday.
        Mr. Phillips of California: That does not reply to my question, 
    or, rather, it is a reply, but it is not, perhaps, a satisfactory 
    reply because the committee did not have to bring up this 
    resolution until after they were printed.
        The Speaker: (2) A parliamentary question is 
    involved there with which the gentleman is perhaps not familiar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. 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.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 8.12-8.14, infra, regarding the applicability of Rule 
        XI clause 27(d)(4) (the three-day availability rule, which is 
        found in Rule XI clause 2(l)(6) Sec. 715 in the 1981 House 
        Rules and Manual) to committee reports on resolutions of 
        inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension of Reporting Date

Sec. 8.4 The House has by unanimous consent extended the time in which 
    a resolution of inquiry must be reported to the House.

    On Feb. 11, 1952,(4) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that notwithstanding the 
provisions of Rule XXII clause 5, requiring a report within one week on 
a resolution of inquiry, the Committee on Foreign Affairs may have 
until Wednesday, Feb. 20, 1952, to file a report on House Resolution 
514.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 98 Cong. Rec. 960, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Privileged Status

Sec. 8.5 Parliamentarian's Note: A resolution of inquiry reported from 
    a committee is called up as a privileged matter and is debatable 
    under the hour rule.

    On Sept. 16, 1965,(5) Mr. James H. Morrison, of 
Louisiana, offered a privileged resolution (H. Res.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 24030, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4870]]

574) reported from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service 
directing the Postmaster General to furnish the House of 
Representatives with the names of all persons employed by the Post 
Office Department as temporary employees at any time during the period 
beginning on May 23, 1965, and ending on Sept. 6, 1965. Mr. Morrison 
asked for the immediate consideration of the resolution, and the Chair 
recognized him for one hour.

    The House subsequently agreed to a motion offered by Mr. Morrison 
to lay this resolution on the table.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Id. at p. 24033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calendars

Sec. 8.6 Resolutions of inquiry, when reported from committee, may be 
    referred to the appropriate calendar rather than be considered 
    immediately.

    On July 1, 1971,(7) four resolutions of inquiry (H. Res. 
492, 493, 494, and 495) directing the Secretary of State to furnish the 
House with information regarding American activity in Southeast Asia 
were reported adversely from the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 23211, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXII clause 5 provides that 
        resolutions of inquiry shall be reported to the House within 
        one week after presentation. If the committee does not report 
        within that time, a motion to discharge the committee from 
        further consideration of the resolution becomes privileged. 
        Once the committee reports, however, the committee chairman is 
        recognized over all other members to call up the resolution 
        even though the committee has reported adversely in order to 
        prevent a motion to discharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.7 Consideration of a resolution of inquiry does not take 
    precedence over the call of the Private Calendar.

    On Aug. 3, 1971,(9) F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, raised the following 
parliamentary inquiry shortly after the convening of the House on that 
day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 117 Cong. Rec. 29060, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is my intention to send to the desk a privileged resolution, 
    and I intend to make a motion to table the resolution, which has an 
    adverse report from the Committee on Armed Services. The 
    parliamentary inquiry that I desire to make is, am I permitted, 
    after sending the privileged resolution to the desk for 
    consideration, to allow its introducer to speak without losing my 
    privilege to move immediately to table?

[[Page 4871]]

        The Speaker: (10) The gentleman will be recognized 
    on the resolution. The gentleman will be privileged to yield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hebert: I shall be able to yield without losing my right?
        The Speaker. The gentleman can yield for debate purposes.
        Mr. Hebert: At any time after I yield I can move to table?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Hebert: Then, Mr. Speaker, I shall send to the desk a 
    privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman withhold that request inasmuch 
    as the Private Calendar must be called ahead of legislative 
    business?
        Mr. Hebert: Certainly, sir.

Sec. 8.8 A motion to lay on the table a resolution of inquiry is not 
    debatable, and if such motion, when offered by the Member in 
    charge, is decided adversely, the right to prior recognition passes 
    to the Member leading the opposition to the motion.

    On Feb. 20, 1952,(11) Mr. James P. Richards, of South 
Carolina, by direction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, called up a 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 514) directing the Secretary of State to 
transmit to the House information relating to any agreements made by 
the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great 
Britain during their recent conversations. Mr. Richards then moved that 
the resolution be laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 98 Cong. Rec. 1205-16, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, raised a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of very considerable importance. 
    Does the making of this motion at this time preclude all debate, or 
    may we expect that the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
    will yield time to those who may want to discuss this matter?
        The Speaker: (12) The motion to lay on the table is 
    not debatable. The gentleman from South Carolina cannot yield time 
    after he has made a motion to lay on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to lay on the table was defeated.
    Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, having voted against the motion to lay 
on the table on a yea and nay vote, then asked recognition to speak in 
opposition. The Chair recognized him for one hour. Mr. Richards then 
raised a parliamentary inquiry:

        Would the Speaker explain the parliamentary situation as to who 
    is in charge of the time?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio is in charge of the time, 
    the gentleman being with the majority in this

[[Page 4872]]

    instance, and on that side of the issue which received the most 
    votes. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.

Application of 40-minute Rule for Debate

Sec. 8.9 When a motion to discharge a committee from further 
    consideration of a resolution of inquiry has been agreed to and the 
    previous question has been ordered on the resolution without 
    intervening debate, the 40-minute rule may be invoked, allotting 20 
    minutes each to those supporting and opposing the resolution.

    On Aug. 2, 1971,(13) the House voted to discharge the 
Committee on Education and Labor from further consideration of a 
resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 539) directing the Secretary of Health, 
Education, and Welfare to provide the House with documents listing the 
public school systems in the United States that receive federal money 
and that would be engaged in busing to achieve racial balance during 
the school year 1971-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 117 Cong. Rec. 28863, 28864, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon the adoption of the motion to discharge, Mr. James M. Collins, 
of Texas, moved the previous question on the resolution, and the 
previous question was ordered. Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, then raised a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Speaker, a parlimentary inquiry: In view of the fact that 
    there was no debate on this, is a Member entitled to 20 minutes if 
    he asks for time?
        The Speaker: (14) He is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I am asking for the 20 minutes. I 
    have some questions I would like to ask on this and have the 
    chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor explain it.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, has not the 
    previous question been moved and accepted?
        The Speaker: Yes, it has.
        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet seeking recognition.
        Mr. Hall: Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Inasmuch as there has been no debate on the 
    resolution, the 40-minute rule applies, 20 minutes to each side. 
    The gentleman from Texas is entitled to 20 minutes and the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts is entitled to 20 minutes.

Publication of Answers to Inquiries

Sec. 8.10 When a resolution of inquiry is referred to a committee, the 
    committee may proceed immediately to direct the inquiries contained 
    therein to the President or to

[[Page 4873]]

    the head of the executive agency named in the resolution, and when 
    the committee receives a reply that satisfies the terms of the 
    resolution, it may report the resolution unfavorably to the House 
    and publish the unclassified responses obtained according to the 
    terms of the resolution in the committee report accompanying the 
    resolution and permit Members access to classified responses in 
    possession of the committee.

    On Feb. 9, 1950,(15) John Kee, of West Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported from the 
committee and was granted immediate consideration of a privileged 
resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 452) requesting of the President, ``if 
not incompatible with the public interest,'' information on American 
foreign policy in the Far East.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 1753-55, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Kee made the following remarks regarding the resolution:

        Mr. Speaker, when this resolution was referred to the Committee 
    on Foreign Affairs we immediately put it into proper channels in 
    order that the various inquiries made in the resolution might be 
    answered. We have received through the Department of State a full 
    and complete answer to all the questions in the resolution. These 
    answers will all be published in the report which the committee has 
    brought in with the resolution, with the exception of two 
    supplemental answers which it is deemed to be incompatible with the 
    public interest to publish. But the two supplemental answers will 
    be kept on file with the committee and be available for the 
    information of members of the committee.
        Accompanying the resolution is an adverse report by the 
    committee.
        Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
    Lodge], a member of our committee and the author of the resolution, 
    5 minutes in which he desires to make a statement.

    Mr. John Davis Lodge, of Connecticut, then proceeded to summarize 
his recollections of the contents of the response to the resolution 
received by the committee from the Department of State.
    At the conclusion of Mr. Lodge's remarks, Mr. Kee made the 
following statement and motion:

        Mr. Speaker, a few words only in reply to the gentleman from 
    Connecticut. The resolution together with the reply of the 
    Department of State, was submitted to the committee, read to the 
    committee, was passed upon by the committee, deemed satisfactory, 
    and the committee reported out the resolution adversely.
        I therefore move that the resolution be laid on the table.

    The motion was agreed to.

Referral of Executive Responses to Committee

Sec. 8.11 Communications from heads of executive depart

[[Page 4874]]

    ments in reply to resolutions of inquiry adopted in the House are 
    laid before the House, and referred to the committee having 
    jurisdiction.

    On Mar. 5, 1952,(16) the Speaker (17) laid 
before the House the following communication from the Secretary of 
State in response to a resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 514) adopted by 
the House directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House 
information relating to any agreement made by the President of the 
United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain during their 
recent conversations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 98 Cong. Rec. 1892, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

                                          Department of State,    
                                  Washington, D.C., March 4, 1952.
    The Honorable Sam Rayburn,
    Speaker of the House of
      Representatives.

        My Dear Mr. Speaker: I have been directed by the President to 
    acknowledge receipt of House Resolution 514, and to call attention 
    to his statement of February 20, when, at his press conference, he 
    responded to the question ``Have any commitments been made to Great 
    Britain on sending troops anywhere?'' by a categorical ``No.''
        Sincerely yours,
                                                   Dean Acheson.

    The letter was read and referred to the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs and ordered to be printed.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For other examples, (1) report from Department of State on effect 
        on domestic fisheries of increased imports in response to H. 
        Res. 147, referred to the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
        Fisheries, 95 Cong. Rec. 6372, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 17, 
        1949; (2) report from the Department of the Interior on 
        national energy supplies and suggested government conservation 
        programs in response to H. Res. 385, referred to the Committee 
        on Public Lands, 94 Cong. Rec. 5163, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 
        30, 1948; and (3) report from the Department of Commerce on 
        total U.S. exports in reponse to H. Res. 366, referred to the 
        Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 94 Cong. Rec. 39, 
        80th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 8, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discharge by Committee

Sec. 8.12 Where a resolution of inquiry had been pending before a 
    committee for more than seven legislative days and that committee 
    had then ordered the resolution adversely reported but had not 
    filed a written report thereon, the committee was ``discharged'' 
    from consideration of the resolution upon its presentation to the 
    House as privileged when no point of order was raised.

[[Page 4875]]

    On Aug. 3, 1971,(19) F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services sent to the desk from that 
committee a resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 557) directing the Secretary 
of Defense to furnish to the House ``. . . any documents regarding all 
forms of United States military aid extended to the so-called Forward-
Defense . . .'' nations. No written report was filed with the 
resolution. Mr. Hebert's subsequent motion to table the resolution was 
agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 117 Cong. Rec. 29060, 29063, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Journal (H. Jour. 960 [1971]) correctly 
indicates the discharge of the Committee on Armed Services from 
consideration of House Resolution 557, there being no written report 
thereon. The provisions of Rule XI clause 2(l)(6), House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 715 (1981) requiring the availability of committee reports 
for three calendar days are applicable to reported resolutions of 
inquiry. It is apparent, since this resolution was not technically 
reported, that a committee can maintain control over a resolution of 
inquiry after seven legislative days, even though it does not meet to 
consider the resolution, by its chairman offering a privileged motion 
to discharge and then, if the motion is successful, moving to lay the 
resolution on the table. This procedure also avoids the three-day 
requirement which is likewise applicable only to reported resolutions.

Time for Consideration of Report

Sec. 8.13 Parliamentarian's Note: A resolution of inquiry reported by a 
    committee would ordinarily be subject to the provisions of the rule 
    that a resolution is not privileged until the report has been 
    available for three calendar days; when no point of order is 
    raised, however, the House may proceed to consider such a 
    resolution on the day reported.

    On June 30, 1971,(20) F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, reported from the 
committee and called up as privileged a resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 
489) directing the President to present to the House a copy of the 
report entitled ``United States-Vietnam Relationships, 1945-1967'' 
prepared by the Vietnam Task Force, office of the Secretary of Defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 117 Cong. Rec. 23030, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Hebert immediately moved to lay the resolution on the table,

[[Page 4876]]

and the motion was agreed to without objection being made that 
consideration of the resolution was not privileged for failure to 
comply with Rule XI clause 27(d)(4) (Rule XI clause 2(l)(6) Sec. 715 in 
the 1981 House Rules and Manual).

Consideration by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 8.14 The Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services reported 
    adversely a privileged resolution of inquiry, then obtained 
    unanimous consent for its immediate consideration [thereby waiving 
    the three-day availability requirement for committee reports under 
    Rule XI clause 2(l)(6), House Rules and Manual Sec. 715 (1981)] and 
    then moved to lay the resolution on the table.

    On May 9, 1973,(21) F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, reported adversely from 
the committee a privileged resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 379) 
directing the Secretary of Defense to supply the House with information 
regarding American military activity in Laos. Mr. Hebert asked and was 
granted unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the 
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 119 Cong. Rec. 14990-94, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.; H. Jour. 657 (1973).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Hebert proceeded to outline the information received by the 
committee in response to the resolution. He then moved to lay the 
resolution on the table, and the motion was agreed to.

Inspection of Reports

Sec. 8.15 Inspection of reports from governmental departments submitted 
    in connection with a resolution of inquiry was formerly within the 
    discretion of the committee having possession. Currently, all 
    Members are given access to committee files.

    On Feb. 7, 1939,(1) Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, called 
up as a privileged matter a resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 78) reported 
by the Committee on Foreign Affairs requesting information of the State 
Department on Mexican relations with the recommendation that it do not 
pass since ``Such information available to the Department of State as 
is consistent with the public interest has been furnished your 
committee and is on file.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 84 Cong. Rec. 1181, 1182, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, raised a parliamentary in

[[Page 4877]]

quiry as to whether the information supplied by the Secretary of State 
was open to inspection by all Members of Congress. The Speaker 
(2) responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         . . . [T]he Chair states that disposition of the report, what 
    should be done with it, whether it should be thrown open to all 
    Members of Congress, is a matter within the discretion of the 
    Foreign Affairs Committee.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XI clause 2(e)(2), House Rules 
and Manual Sec. 706c (1981), all Members are given access to committee 
files, with specified exceptions relating to the Committee on Standards 
of Official Conduct.