[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 24. Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4773-4779]
 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials


[[Page 4773]]



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commentary and editing by David Paul Bird, J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Introductory; Various Types of Bills, Resolutions, and Other 
Mechanisms for Action

    Sec. 1. In General
    Sec. 2. Bills
    Sec. 3. Private Bills
    Sec. 4. Joint Resolutions
    Sec. 5. Concurrent Resolutions
    Sec. 6. Simple Resolutions
    Sec. 7. Resolutions of Approval or Disapproval of Executive Plans; 
            the ``Legislative Veto''
    Sec. 8. Resolutions of Inquiry
    Sec. 9. Titles and Preambles
   Sec. 10. Petitions and Memorials

B. General Procedures Associated With Passage of Legislation

   Sec. 11. Readings
   Sec. 12. Engrossment
   Sec. 13. Transmission of Legislative Messages Between House and 
            Senate
   Sec. 14. Enrollment; Correcting Bills in Enrollment
   Sec. 15. Signing
   Sec. 16. Recalling Bills From the President

C. Veto Powers

   Sec. 17. In General

[[Page 4774]]

   Sec. 18. Effect of Adjournment; the Pocket Veto
   Sec. 19. Proposals for Item Veto
   Sec. 20. Return of Vetoed Bills
   Sec. 21. Motions Relating to Vetoes
   Sec. 22. Consideration and Passage of Vetoed Bills; Voting
   Sec. 23. Disposition of Vetoed Bills After Reconsideration

D. Vacating Legislative Actions

   Sec. 24. Procedure

  
                         DESCHELER'S PRECEDENTS

                          INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
                                     

Adjournment
    bills signed during, Sec. Sec. 15.9-15.11
    day certain, signing bill during adjournment to, Sec. Sec. 15.3, 
        15.7
    rescinding by concurrent resolution, Sec. 5.15
    sine die, authorization to sign, following, Sec. Sec. 15.1, 15.4
    three days, by concurrent resolution, when more than, Sec. 5.10
Aggression, joint resolution authorizing response to enemy's, Sec. 4.17
Amendment
    enrollment, omission in, amendment to correct, Sec. 14.18
    titles, amendment of, Sec. Sec. 9.3, 9.4
Appropriation and revenue measures, House prerogatives as to, Sec. 13.3
Committee jurisdiction of resolutions of inquiry, Sec. 8.1
Committee of the Whole
    preamble consideration in, Sec. Sec. 9.6, 9.7
    suspension of proceedings in, to permit signing of bill, Sec. 15.18
Concurrent resolution
    attendance at foreign meeting, authorizing Members', Sec. 5.27
    conference managers authorized by, Sec. 5.16
    conference report amended by, Sec. 5.17
    engrossment of bill changed by, Sec. 12.6
    enrolled bill, correction in authorized by, Sec. 14.7
    enrollment of bill changed by, Sec. 14.9
    enrollment of bill, making technical corrections in, 
        Sec. Sec. 14.5, 14.7, 14.14-14.18
    form, recalling bill from President, Sec. 16.1
    funds, providing for additional committee, Sec. 5.7
    greeting English royalty, Sec. 5.34
    hearings authorized by, Sec. 5.6
    honoring foreign governments, Sec. Sec. 5.32, 5.33
    honoring former Presidents, Sec. Sec. 5.28, 5.29
    honoring military figures, Sec. Sec. 5.30, 5.31
    joint committee established by, Sec. Sec. 5.2-5.5
    joint session, providing for, Sec. Sec. 5.19-5.24

[[Page 4775]]

    legislative budget for fiscal year established by, Sec. 5.25
    prayer room for Members established by, Sec. 5.26
    preamble of, motion to strike, Sec. 9.10
    rescinding adjournment, Sec. 5.15
    rescinding conference committee, Sec. 5.18
    rescinding enrollment of bill, Sec. Sec. 14.9-14.12
    rescinding passage of bill, Sec. 5.14
    return of enrolled bill to Senate, requested by, Sec. 14.8
    sine die adjournment, authorizing, Sec. Sec. 5.8, 5.9
    text of bill changed by, Sec. Sec. 5.12, 5.13
    use of, Sec. 5.1
Conference committee, rescinding by concurrent resolution, Sec. 5.18
Conference report, amending by concurrent resolution, Sec. 5.17
Consideration
    resolution of disapproval agreed to without debate, Sec. 7.21
    resolution of disapproval, precedence of, Sec. Sec. 7.14, 7.15
    resolution of disapproval, procedure for, consideration of, 
        Sec. 7.12
    resolution of inquiry, considered by unanimous consent, Sec. 8.14
Convening Congress, joint resolution setting date for, Sec. 4.5
Declaration of war, joint resolution authorizing, Sec. 4.16
Discharge
    resolution of disapproval, committee discharged from consideration 
        by unanimous consent, Sec. 7.6
    resolution of disapproval, limitation as to debate on, 
        Sec. Sec. 7.8-7.10
    resolution of disapproval, qualification of Member moving to 
        discharge, Sec. 7.7
    resolution of inquiry, debate after discharge of, Sec. 8.9
    resolution of inquiry, filed without written report, considered as 
        discharged, Sec. 8.12
Electoral votes, joint resolution changing date for counting of, 
    Sec. 4.6
Engrossment
    changing by concurrent resolution, Sec. Sec. 12.6, 12.7
    changing by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 12.8-12.13
    changing by unanimous consent, timeliness of, Sec. 12.2
    Committee of the Whole, corrections not in order in, Sec. 12.2
    Senate amendment, engrossed copy of bill corrected before action 
        on, Sec. 12.7
    simple resolution, effecting changes in, Sec. Sec. 12.3, 12.5
    star print, Sec. 12.1
Enrollment
    concurrent resolution rescinding, Sec. Sec. 14.9-14.12
    duty placed on Secretary of Senate, Sec. 14.4
    enrolled House bill returned to the Senate, Sec. 14.8
    House Administration, Committee on, responsibility of, Sec. 14.2
    omission in, amendment to correct, Sec. 14.19
    re-enrollment with a change, Sec. 14.15
    technical corrections made by concurrent resolution, 
        Sec. Sec. 14.5, 14.7, 14.14-14.18
Germaneness of titles, Sec. 9.2
Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing military force, Sec. 4.17
Hearings, concurrent resolution authorizing, Sec. 5.6
House-Senate conference, simple resolution requesting, Sec. 6.10
Interpretation of bills, Sec. Sec. 2.1, 2.2

[[Page 4776]]

Joint committee
    concurrent resolution establishing, Sec. Sec. 5.2-5.5
    joint resolution establishing, Sec. 4.10
Joint resolutions
    authorizing a publication, Sec. Sec. 4.8, 4.9
    constitutional amendment, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2
    continuing appropriations, Sec. 4.3
    date for convening Congress, Sec. 4.5
    date for counting electoral votes, Sec. 4.6
    date for Presidential budget, Sec. 4.7
    date for reorganization plan, Sec. 4.4
    declaration of war, Sec. 4.16
    establishing a joint committee, Sec. 4.10
    granting subpena power, Sec. 4.11
    honoring President Lincoln, Sec. Sec. 4.14, 4.15
    honoring President Truman, Sec. 4.13
    military action, resolution authorizing, Sec. 4.17
    preamble, amendment of, Sec. 9.11
    travel appropriations, Sec. 4.12
Joint session
    concurrent resolution providing for, honoring George Washington, 
        Sec. 5.20
    concurrent resolution providing for, to count electoral votes, 
        Sec. 5.23
    concurrent resolution providing for, to hear foreign dignitary, 
        Sec. 5.24
    concurrent resolution providing for, to hear Presidential 
        communication, Sec. Sec. 5.19, 5.21, 5.22
Legislative budget, concurrent resolution establishing, Sec. 5.25
Message from House to Senate regarding enrolled bills, Sec. 13.1
Message from Senate to House regarding bill passage, Sec. 13.2
Motion to lay resolution of inquiry on the table, Sec. 8.8
Motion to recommit, timeliness of, Sec. Sec. 11.3, 11.4
Petitions and memorials introduced by request, Sec. 10.1
Petitions, presentation of, by petitioners, Sec. 10.2
Preamble
    generally, Sec. 9.5
    amendment to, time for consideration, Sec. Sec. 9.8, 9.9, 9.11
    Committee of the Whole, considered in, Sec. Sec. 9.6, 9.7
    House concurrent resolution, motion to strike out, Sec. 9.10
    strike out, motion to, Sec. 9.10
Prerogatives of the House regarding revenue bills and appropriation
    measures, Sec. 13.3
Presidential budget, joint resolution setting date for submitting, 
    Sec. 4.7
Presidents, concurrent resolutions honoring former, Sec. Sec. 5.28, 
    5.29
Presidents, joint resolutions honoring, Sec. Sec. 4.13-4.15
Private bills
    authorizing acceptance of foreign honor, Sec. 3.1
    calendar, private, criteria for placing bill on, Sec. 3.4
    public bills distinguished, Sec. Sec. 3.1-3.3
Reading of bill
    full reading in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 11.1
    point of no quorum interrupting, Sec. 11.2
    Senate practice, Sec. Sec. 11.5, 11.6
Recalling bill from President
    concurrent resolution requesting President to return bill, 
        Sec. Sec. 16.1, 16.6
    message from President returning bill, Sec. Sec. 16.8, 16.9
    postponing bill indefinitely after, Sec. 16.5
    re-enrollment, for purpose of, Sec. Sec. 16.2-16.4
    transmittal of returned bill to the Senate, Sec. 16.7
Recommit, timeliness of motion to, Sec. Sec. 11.3, 11.4

[[Page 4777]]

Referral of vetoed bill messaged from Senate, Sec. 20.7
Reorganization plan, joint resolution setting date for, Sec. 4.4
Resolution of approval or disapproval
    affirmative majority vote for adoption of, Sec. 7.25
    amendment prohibition, Sec. 7.23
    Committee of the Whole, report by, House consideration of, 
        Sec. 7.24
    consideration and debate, allotment of time to opposition for, 
        Sec. 7.22
    consideration without debate, Sec. 7.21
    debate on, limited by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 7.17-7.19
    discharge by unanimous consent, Sec. 7.6
    discharge, limitation of debate on motion to, Sec. Sec. 7.8-7.10
    House as in Committee of the Whole, considered in, Sec. 7.19
    House disapproval of reorganization plan, Senate action relating 
        to, Sec. Sec. 7.26, 7.27
    precedence of consideration, Sec. Sec. 7.14, 7.15
    privileged motion for consideration of, Sec. 7.11
    procedure for consideration of, Sec. 7.12
    reorganization plan, effective date, Sec. Sec. 7.3, 7.4
    Senate joint resolution passed, in lieu of House version, Sec. 7.2
    termination of authority, provision for, in resolution of approval, 
        Sec. 7.1
    time limits on debate in Senate, Sec. 7.16
Resolution of inquiry
    committee action, Sec. 8.10
    committee jurisdiction, Sec. Sec. 8.1, 8.11
    consideration by unanimous consent, Sec. 8.14
    debate after discharge, Sec. 8.9
    discharge by committee motion, Sec. 8.12
    motion to lay on the table, Sec. 8.8
    nonprivileged resolution soliciting opinions, Sec. 8.2
    privileged status, Sec. 8.5
    referred to House Calendar, Sec. 8.6
    reply to, referred to committee, Sec. 8.11
    reporting date, extension of, Sec. 8.4
    time for reporting, Sec. 8.3
    waiver of three-day availability requirement for report, Sec. 8.13
    written report, resolution filed without, Sec. 8.12
    yields to Private Calendar, Sec. 8.7
Revenue and appropriation measures, House prerogatives as to, Sec. 13.3
Rules of the House
    simple resolution adopting, Sec. 6.2
    simple resolution amending, Sec. 6.4
    simple resolution waiving, Sec. 6.3
Signing of bills and resolutions
    adjournment, announcements as to bills signed during, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.9-15.11
    adjournment, authorizing signing during, by resolution, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.1-15.3
    adjournment, unanimous consent authorizing for signing during, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.4-15.8
    duplicate copies of bills, Sec. Sec. 15.16, 15.17 ``during any 
        adjournment,'' Sec. Sec. 15.3, 15.7
    interrupting proceedings in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 15.18
    President pro tempore signing bills, Sec. Sec. 15.2, 15.19
    remainder of session, signing authorized for, Sec. Sec. 15.2, 15.7
    sine die adjournment, during, Sec. Sec. 15.1, 15.4
    Speaker pro tempore signing bills, Sec. Sec. 15.14, 15.15
    vacated, Sec. Sec. 15.12, 15.13

[[Page 4778]]

Simple resolution
    committee investigation authorized by, Sec. Sec. 6.5-6.7
    conference with Senate requested by, Sec. 6.10
    effect of, Sec. 6.1
    engrossment of bill changed by, Sec. Sec. 12.3, 12.5
    expressing sympathy, Sec. 6.18
    preamble amendable after adoption of, Sec. 9.9
    providing a standing order of business, Sec. 6.11
    rescinding resolution previously adopted, Sec. 6.9
    response to subpena, resolution authorizing, Sec. Sec. 6.13-6.17
    rules of the House adopted by, Sec. 6.2
    rules of the House amended by, Sec. 6.4
    rules of the House waived by, Sec. 6.3
    Senate film report, providing for, Sec. 6.12
    special rules, use of simple resolution for, Sec. 6.8
    subpena, authorizing response to, Sec. Sec. 6.13-6.17
    use of, Sec. 6.1
Sine die adjournment
    concurrent resolution providing for, Sec. Sec. 5.8, 5.9
    signing bills or resolutions during, Sec. Sec. 15.1, 15.4
Special rules, simple resolutions used for, Sec. 6.8
Subpena, joint resolution granting power to, Sec. 4.11
Subpena, simple resolution authorizing response to, Sec. Sec. 6.13-6.17
Table, motion to lay resolution of inquiry on, Sec. 8.8
Titles
    amendment of, Sec. Sec. 9.3, 9.4
    germaneness of amendment to bill not determined by, Sec. 9.2
    purpose of, Sec. 9.1
Unanimous consent
    engrossment of bill changed by, Sec. Sec. 12.8-12.13
Unanimous-consent request, timeliness of request to change engrossment 
    of bill, Sec. 12.2
Vacating particular proceedings
    adoption of amendments, Sec. 24.7
    agreement to concurrent resolution, Sec. 24.10
    agreement to simple resolutions, Sec. Sec. 24.8, 24.9
    passage of bills, Sec. Sec. 24.1-24.4
    passage of joint resolution, Sec. 24.11
    postponement, indefinite, of joint resolution, vacated, Sec. 24.12
    reporting of bill by committee order, Sec. 24.6
    ``tabling'' of bills, Sec. 24.5
Veto
    error in veto message, Sec. 20.8
    item veto Sec. Sec. 19.1, 19.2
    message, personal delivery of, Sec. 20.5
    pocket veto, notification of, Sec. Sec. 18.1-18.3
    presentation of bill to President delayed, legal question arising 
        from, Sec. 17.3
    receipt of veto message announced, Sec. 20.2
    signing resolution similar to one previously vetoed, Sec. 17.7
    ten-day period, commencement of, Sec. Sec. 17.1-17.5
    timeliness of, Sec. Sec. 17.1-17.5
    veto message laid before the House, Sec. 20.1
    veto message received by the Clerk, Sec. Sec. 20.3, 20.4
    veto message returned to President, Sec. 20.9

[[Page 4779]]

Vetoed bill
    Calendar Wednesday, consideration of veto message on, Sec. 22.4
    consideration of veto message, effect of rejection of motion to 
        postpone, Sec. 21.2
    consideration of veto message, motion to postpone, Sec. 21.9
    consideration of veto message, motion to postpone, as privileged, 
        Sec. 21.10
    debate on motion to refer, Sec. 21.12
    debate on passing over President's veto, Sec. Sec. 22.7, 22.8
    discharge, motion to, as privileged, Sec. 21.8
    failure to override, bill and veto message referred to committee 
        after, Sec. 23.1
    motion to refer defeated, effect of, Sec. 21.3
    notification of House action on, Sec. 23.2
    notification of Senate action on, Sec. 20.6
    pairs on question of override, Sec. 22.12
    postpone consideration, motion to, generally, Sec. 21.9
    postpone consideration, motion to, as privileged, Sec. 21.10
    postpone, rejection of motion to, effect of, Sec. 21.2
    precedence of motion to refer, Sec. 21.1
    previous question, demand for as precluding debate, Sec. 22.9
    recapitulation of vote, Sec. 22.11,
    reference to committee, objection to, Sec. 21.6
    refer, precedence of motion to, Sec. 21.1
    referred to committee by motion, Sec. 21.4
    referred to committee by unanimous consent, Sec. 21.5
    reported from committee, Sec. 22.5
    report from committee as privileged, Sec. 22.6
    unfinished business, Sec. Sec. 22.1-22.3
    yeas and nays, requirement on override of, voting by, Sec. 22.10

[[Page 4781]]



                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
    A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER 
                         MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
 
Sec. 1. In General


    The objectives of this chapter are to define the various procedures 
by which measures are introduced and considered by the Congress and to 
describe the formal steps through which legislation must pass in order 
to become law. The role of the President in approving or vetoing 
measures submitted by the Congress is also considered.
    While the greater part of the business considered and voted upon in 
the two Houses of Congress is legislative in character, other kinds of 
business are taken up by resolution either in one House alone or in 
both Houses concurrently. These nonlegislative measures, while not 
having the force of statute and usually limited to declarations of 
policy or to the internal operations of Congress, nevertheless play an 
important procedural role. Examples of such business include measures 
expressing the opinions of Congress on political questions or 
establishing rules of parliamentary procedure.


 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
    A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER 
                         MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
 
Sec. 2. Bills

    The term ``bill,'' as used in the Constitution,(1) 
refers to the chief vehicle employed by the Congress in the enactment 
of laws under its legislative power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bills are categorized under two headings: public and private. The 
former are general in their application, while the latter are specific 
and are limited in application to specified individuals or 
entities.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 2 of title I of the United States Code contains the 
following provision regarding the enacting clause of a bill:

        Sec. 101. The enacting clause of all Acts of Congress shall be 
    in the following form: ``Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
    Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 
    Assembled.''

                            Cross Reference
Introduction and reference of bills, see Ch. 16, supra.

[[Page 4782]]

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

Interpretation of Bills

Sec. 2.1 It is not in order for a Member to have distributed on the 
    floor of the House copies of a bill marked with his own 
    interpretation of its provisions.

    On Aug. 16, 1935,(3) during consideration of a 
resolution (H. Res. 343) making in order the consideration of the 
Snyder-Guffey coal bill (H.R. 9100), Mr. Claude A. Fuller, of Arkansas, 
raised the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 79 Cong. Rec. 13433, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fuller: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. I 
    just sent a page for the bill under consideration, H.R. 9100, and 
    received the copy which I have in my hand. At the top of the bill, 
    pasted onto it is a pink slip, and on that pink slip in typewriting 
    are the words:

            Bituminous-coal bill as amended and reprinted--
        controversial phases largely eliminated. Two-thirds of tonnage 
        output operators favor bill, and more than 95 percent of labor.

        My inquiry is to know whether it is proper for anybody to paste 
    such a thing as that on a document of the House and whether it is 
    proper for it to be circulated in the House. This is the first time 
    in my experience that I have ever seen any advertisement on an 
    official document or bill pending in the House. I rise for the 
    purpose of ascertaining how it came there and whether or not it is 
    proper to be on this bill.
        The Speaker: (4) The Chair has no information on the 
    subject. Where did the gentleman get his copy of the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fuller: From a page. I send this copy to the desk so that 
    the Speaker may examine it.
        Mr. [J. Buell] Snyder [of Pennsylvania]: I can tell the 
    gentleman how that came there.
        The Speaker: The gentleman may state.
        Mr. Snyder: Mr. Speaker, I had so many of these bills sent to 
    my office, and with my secretarial help we wrote those words on 
    that pink slip and pasted the slip on the bill. That is how that 
    happens to be there. I sent copies of these bills with the slip on 
    them to those interested and sent some of them to the desk back 
    here, to be handed out upon request. It is altogether fitting and 
    proper that I should do so. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair knows of no rule or authority for 
    inserting a statement like that to which the gentleman has called 
    attention on a bill, and the Chair instructs the pages of the House 
    not to distribute any more bills carrying this sort of inscription 
    to Members on the floor of the House.

Sec. 2.2 The Speaker does not rule on the effect of the provisions of a 
    bill or whether they might have been incorrectly drafted.

    On May 3, 1949,(5) during consideration in the House of 
the Na
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 5543, 5544, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4783]]

tional Labor Relations Act of 1949 (H.R. 2032), Mr. Adam Clayton 
Powell, Jr., of New York, raised a point of order:

        Mr. Powell: If this bill uses language which is no longer in 
    keeping with our laws, I raise the point of order that it is 
    incorrectly drawn. On page 53, line 13, this bill uses the 
    language, ``to review by the appropriate circuit court of 
    appeals.'' I make the point of order that there is no longer any 
    circuit court of appeals.
        The Speaker: (6) There might be 203 Members take the 
    same position that the gentleman from New York does, but that does 
    not alter the situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.



                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
    A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER 
                         MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
 
Sec. 3. Private Bills

    Private legislation is the means by which the Congress grants 
relief to ``. . . one or several specified persons, corporations, 
institutions, etc. .  . .'' (7) who may have no other legal 
remedy available to them. It also provides a means whereby honoraria 
are granted to individuals, but by far its most common usage pertains 
to granting a remedy to the personal and pecuniary grievances of 
individuals.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3285.
 8. In the 92d Congress, for example, 609 bills and resolutions 
        regarding claims against the United States were referred to the 
        House Committee on the Judiciary and 2,144 bills and 
        resolutions concerning individual immigration problems. U.S. 
        House of Representatives. Final Legislative Calendar, Committee 
        on the Judiciary (92d Cong.), p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Private laws constitute a significant portion of the total number 
of laws passed by each Congress. For example, in the 92d Congress 161 
private laws and 607 public laws were enacted. (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For a table listing private and public laws enacted in each 
        Congress since the 52d Congress, see Calendars of the United 
        States House of Representatives and History of Legislation, 
        Final Edition (92d Cong.), p. 261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The distinction between public and private bills is sometimes 
difficult to make. A statutory definition of a private bill was nacted 
in 1895 (10) and amended in 1905.(11) However, 
this definition (12) was removed from title 44 of the United 
States Code when that title was enacted into positive law in 
1968.(13) Through the years the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Jan. 12, 1895, Ch. 23, Sec. 55, 28 Stat. 609.
11. Jan. 20, 1905, Ch. 50, Sec. 2, 33 Stat. 611.
12. ``. . . The term `private bill' shall be construed to mean all 
        bills for the relief of private parties, bills granting 
        pensions, bills removing political disabilities, and bills for 
        the survey of rivers and harbors.'' Codified at 44 USC Sec. 189 
        (1964 ed).
13. Oct. 22, 1968 Pub. L. No. 90-620, Sec. 706, 82 Stat. 1238, 1248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4784]]

term ``private bill'' has been used to describe widely differing types 
of legislation.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 4 Hinds Precedents Sec. 3285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 1968, the preponderance of private laws enacted by the House 
has continued to be for the relief of individuals devoid of other legal 
remedy. Citizenship for a person or persons otherwise ineligible on a 
technicality is frequently granted by private law.
     A Speaker or former Speaker, and Members of Congress have on more 
than one occasion been granted permission to accept, or accept and 
wear, a foreign decoration,(15) when such acceptance would 
otherwise be constitutionally prohibited.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Priv. L. No. 89-61 (H.R. 10132); Priv. L. No. 91-244 (H.J. Res. 
        1420); Priv. L. No. 92-24 (H.J. Res. 850).
16. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 9 clause 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other purposes for which private laws have been enacted have 
included: permitting free entry to the United States of scientific and 
musical apparatus destined for use at specific colleges and 
universities; conveyance of real property and rights of the United 
States; relief of certain named private businesses; exemption from 
taxation of specific property in the District of Columbia; 
authorization for the Secretary of Agriculture to grant an easement 
over certain lands to a railroad company; and requirements that the 
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission determine or redetermine the 
validity of claims of named individuals against specified foreign 
governments.

    In the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,(17) 
Congress limited the types of measures that may be considered as 
private bills:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Aug. 2, 1946, Ch. 753, 60 Stat. 812.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 131. No private bill or resolution (including so-called 
    omnibus claims or pension bills), and no amendment to any bill or 
    resolution, authorizing or directing (1) the payment of money for 
    property damages, for personal injuries or death for which suit may 
    be instituted under the Tort Claims Procedure as provided in Title 
    28, United States Code, or for a pension (other than to carry out a 
    provision of law or treaty stipulation); (2) the construction of a 
    bridge across a navigable stream; or (3) the correction of a 
    military or naval record, shall be received or considered in the 
    House.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 60 Stat. 831. This provision was incorporated into the rules of the 
        House in 1953. See Rule XXII clause 2, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 852 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain of the categories in which private bills were banned under 
the act were delegated to other agencies by other sections of the act. 
The Secretaries of War, the Navy, and the Treasury were authorized to 
establish civilian

[[Page 4785]]

boards to review military and naval records to correct errors and 
remove any injustices.(19) The Federal Tort Claims Act 
provided administrative and judicial remedies in certain personal 
injury cases involving negligence of federal employees acting within 
the scope of their employment.(20) And general authority for 
the construction of bridges over the navigable waters of the United 
States was delegated to the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of 
War.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sec. 207, 60 Stat. 837, now at 10 USC Sec. 1552.
20. Title IV, Sec. Sec. 401-403, 60 Stat. 842.
21. Title V, Sec. Sec. 501-511, 60 Stat. 847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today private bills considered and passed in the Congress fall 
largely into two major categories: claims cases and immigration and 
naturalization cases. Other less frequently introduced types of private 
bills include conveyances of real property to identified individuals or 
private groups, bills affecting military rank (though not correcting 
military records) of individuals, bills or resolutions paying tribute 
to or conferring awards or medals upon living persons, bills 
documenting private vessels, and bills permitting U.S. citizens to be 
employed by foreign governments.

Claims Cases

    Since the United States may not be sued absent the authority of an 
act of Congress,(1) Congress has over the years enacted a 
series of laws allowing the administrative and judicial settlement of 
claims against the United States in order to alleviate the 
determination of individual cases by means of private legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. United States v Clarke, 8 Pet. (33 U.S.) 436 (1834).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court of Claims was created by the Act of Feb. 24, 
1855,(2) ``. . . primarily to relieve the pressure on 
Congress caused by the volume of private bills.'' (3) Under 
this act the court was directed to hear claims and report its findings 
and recommendations to Congress. By the Act of Mar. 3, 
1863,(4) the judgments of the court were made final, but 
appeals to the Supreme Court were allowed in certain cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2.  Ch. 122, 10 Stat. 612.
 3. Opinion of Justice Harlan, Glidden Company v Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 
        552 (1962).
 4. Ch. 92, Sec. 5, 12 Stat. 765, 766.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1887, Congress enacted the Tucker Act the (5) whereby 
the jurisdiction of the court was greatly expanded. Its present form in 
the revised title 28 provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Mar. 3, 1887, Ch. 359, 24 Stat. 505.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment 
    upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the 
    Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of

[[Page 4786]]

    an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract 
    with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages 
    in cases not sounding in tort. . . .(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 28 USC Sec. 1491.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress has also authorized suits against the United States in the 
Court of Claims for patent infringement,(7) in U.S. District 
Court for admiralty and maritime torts,(8) and in U.S. 
District Court for torts by employees of the government while acting 
within the scope of their employment.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 28 USC Sec. 1498 (1970 ed.).
 8. Feb. 28, 1920, Ch. 95, Sec. 2, 41 Stat. 525, 46 USC Sec. 742 (1970 
        ed.); and Mar. 3, 1925, Ch. 428, Sec. 1, 43 Stat. 1112, 46 USC 
        Sec. 781 (1970 ed.).
 9. Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 USC Sec. Sec. 1346(b), 2671 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Congress has established the Customs 
Court,(10) the Court of Customs and Patent 
Appeals,(11) and the Tax Court (12) to hear 
claims cases against the government in these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 28 USC Sec. 1581.
11. 28 USC Sec. 211 et seq.
12. 28 USC Sec. 7441 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cases that do not fall into any of the above categories or where a 
statute of limitations under one of those judicial or administrative 
remedies has run, become possible subjects for private legislation to 
be considered by the Congress itself. However, the separation between 
judicial and congressional determination of claims cases is not 
complete since Congress frequently refers private bills to the Court of 
Claims (13) for a determination of the nature of the claims 
``. . . and the amount, if any, legally or equitably due from the 
United States. . . .''(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 28 USC Sec. 1492.
14. 28 USC Sec. 2509. The congressional reference of claims has 
        generated some question as to the nature of the Court of Claims 
        as legislative or constitutional. That court and the Court of 
        Customs and Patent Appeals were declared constitutional under 
        art. III in Glidden v Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962). However, no 
        clear standard for pronouncing a court to be legislative (art. 
        I) rather than constitutional (art. III) has been announced by 
        the Supreme Court. See: Constitution of the United States of 
        America pp. 590-596, S. Doc. No. 92-82, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 
        (1972).
            It is clear that a court is of a legislative character when 
        it performs functions of a legislative or advisory nature which 
        are subject to review by a legislative or executive body. See 
        Gordon v United States, 5 Wall. (72 U.S.) 419 (1867). Thus, the 
        Court of Claims commissioners, not the Court of Claims judges, 
        are performing a nonjudicial advisory function under the 
        congressional reference statute (28 USC Sec. 2509(b)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Perhaps the clearest, although indirect, statement upholding the 
constitutional basis of private claims legislation was made by

[[Page 4787]]

the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Pope v United 
States.(15) That case was decided on appeal to the Supreme 
Court after the Court of Claims had refused to give effect to a private 
law directing that court to render judgment for the petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 323 U.S. 1 (1944).
            The Supreme Court on two occasions has upheld the validity 
        of private laws affecting controversies between individuals. 
        Those cases were Maynard v Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), and 
        Paramino Co. v Marshall, 309 U.S. 370 (1940). The former 
        involved a private law granting an individual an ex parte 
        divorce in the Oregon Territory, and the latter involved a 
        private law directing the reopening of a work injury case 
        against a private insurance carrier under the Longshoremen's 
        and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. A commentator has 
        suggested that such laws would not be upheld today under modern 
        concepts of equal protection (Private Bills in Congress, 79 
        Harv. L. Rev. 1684, 1696.) Private bills now generally do not 
        affect rights between individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner first sued for the costs incurred in performing 
additional work in connection with a contract with the government for 
the construction of a tunnel as part of the water system of the 
District of Columbia. The Court of Claims denied these costs since such 
additional work was not specified in the contract. After a review of 
the case was denied by the Supreme Court, the petitioner obtained a 
private law from Congress directing the Court of Claims to order 
payment of the costs in question. The Court of Claims declined to 
follow this private law on the grounds that it was an invasion of a 
judicial function which that court had already exercised.

    The Supreme Court ruled that the private law in question did not 
set aside the former judgment but created a new obligation on the part 
of the government where none existed before. Mr. Chief Justice Stone, 
writing for the Court, went on to say:

        We perceive no constitutional obstacle to Congress' imposing on 
    the Government a new obligation where there had been none before, 
    for work performed by petitioner which was beneficial to the 
    Government and for which Congress thought (petitioner) had not been 
    adequately compensated. The power of Congress to provide for the 
    payment of debts, conferred by Sec. 8 of Article I of the 
    Constitution, is not restricted to payment of those obligations 
    which are legally binding on the Government. It extends to the 
    creation of such obligations in recognition of claims which are 
    merely moral or honorary.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Pope v United States, 323 U.S. 1 at p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A similar interpretation of article I, section 8, clause 1 of the

[[Page 4788]]

Constitution was announced by the Supreme Court in 1895 in the case of 
United States v Realty Company.(17) Although that case did 
not involve a private law, it did provide to a class of individuals the 
type of relief that is dispensed under a private bill. The Court said, 
``The term `debts' includes those debts or claims which rest upon a 
merely equitable or honorary obligation, and which would not be 
recoverable in a court of law if existing against an individual.'' 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 163 U.S. 427.
18. Id. at p. 440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1949, the Court of Claims, citing both the Pope and Realty Co. 
cases, made clear that the ``debts'' of the United States to be paid by 
private legislation are not limited in their determination by ``. . . 
principles of right and justice as administered by courts of equity, 
but (by) the broader moral sense based upon general equitable 
consideration. . . .'' (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Burkhardt v United States, 84 F Supp 553, 559 (Ct. Cl. 1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immigration Cases

    The second major subject of private legislation now considered in 
Congress involves situations arising under the immigration and 
naturalization laws.(1) Specifically, Congress has acted to 
exempt individuals from the application of the law in hardship cases 
where the law would otherwise prohibit entry into or require 
deportation from the United States, or where individuals are capable of 
rendering service to the nation but are otherwise incapable of 
fulfilling citizenship requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 8 USC Sec. Sec. 1101-1503 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Deportation cases are inherently difficult because, by the nature 
of the process, an individual subject to deportation is likely to be 
removed from the country before a private bill exempting him can be 
introduced and considered in Congress. To alleviate this problem the 
Department of Justice and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees 
follow a procedure under which the deportation of an individual will be 
halted when a private bill has been introduced on his behalf and the 
Committee on the Judiciary of either the House or Senate has requested 
a report from the Immigration and Naturalization Service.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  2. Rules of the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on 
        Immigration, U.S. House of Representatives, Rule No. 3, 93d 
        Cong. (1973). Rule 4 of these rules provides further, that a 
        departmental report shall not be requested in cases of those 
        ``. . . who have entered the United States as nonimmigrants, 
        stowaways, in transit, deserting crewmen, or by surreptitiously 
        entering without inspection through the land or sea borders of 
        the United States.''
            The committee has subsequently placed further conditions 
        and restrictions on when and in what types of cases it will 
        request a report.
            Under a prior practice, mere introduction of a bill was 
        sufficient to stay deportation. The procedure was recognized in 
        United States ex rel. Knauff v McGrath (171 F2d 839, 2d cir. 
        1950), where a writ of habeas corpus was issued staying the 
        deportation of one on whose behalf a private bill granting 
        admission has been introduced in Congress.

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

[[Page 4789]]

                         Collateral References
Col. M. T. Bennett. Private Claims Acts and Congressional References, 
    Reprinted by House Committee on the Judiciary. 90th Cong. 2d Sess. 
    (Committee Print 1968).
Private Bills in Congress. 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1684 (1966).
Private Bills and the Immigration Law. 69 Harv. L. Rev. 1083 (1956).
Gelhorn and Lauer. Congressional Settlement of Tort Claims Against the 
    United States, 55 Colum. L. Rev. 1 
    (1955).
                          -------------------

Authorizing Acceptance of Foreign Honors or Awards

Sec. 3.1 A private bill authorizing a former Speaker of the House to 
    accept an award from a foreign government passed the House on the 
    Private Calendar.

    On Aug. 3, 1965,(3) the House passed a private bill 
(H.R. 10132) to authorize the Honorable Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, a former Speaker, to accept from the Government of 
Portugal the award of the Military Order of Christ with the rank of 
Grande Officer.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 19210, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. See also H.R. 11227, authorizing Representative Eugene J. Keogh 
        (N.Y.), to accept the award of the Order of Isabella the 
        Catholic from Spain. 112 Cong. Rec. 12480, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 7, 1966.
            Congress has by law consented to the acceptance of 
        decorations by Members, officers, or employees of the House. 
        [See 5 USC Sec. 7342(d), Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, 
        Pub. L. No. 95-105.] The Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct has promulgated regulations concerning such acceptance 
        and retention of decorations and gifts from foreign governments 
        (see Ethics Manual for Members and Employees, published each 
        Congress by the committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indemnifying a Foreign Government

Sec. 3.2 A bill to indemnify a foreign government for injury to its 
    nationals is a public bill.

    On Apr. 6, 1936,(5) the Clerk called on the Consent 
Calendar
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 80 Cong. Rec. 5027, 5028, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4790]]

the bill (H.R. 11961) authorizing an appropriation for the payment of 
the claim of General Higinio Alvarez, a Mexican citizen, with respect 
to certain lands in Arizona. Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, raised 
a point of order against consideration of the bill on the grounds that 
it was of a private character and should be on the Private Calendar 
instead of the Consent Calendar.

    The Speaker (6) ruled, ``In the opinion of the Chair, 
this is a public bill. It provides that part of this money shall be 
paid to the Government of Mexico.'' (7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
 7. Speaker Byrns cited Cannon's Procedure (p. 335, 1963 ed.) for 
        authority that, ``A bill to indemnify a foreign government for 
        injury to its nationals'' is a public bill. For a similar 
        ruling by Speaker William B. Bankhead (Ala.), see 81 Cong. Rec. 
         649, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 1, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indian Claims

Sec. 3.3 A bill dealing with Indians as a nation and not with Indians 
    as individuals is a public bill.

     On Feb. 4, 1931,(8) the Clerk called on the House 
Calendar the bill (S. 3165) conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of 
Claims to hear, consider, and report upon a claim of the Choctaw and 
Chickasaw Indian nations or tribes for fair and just compensation for 
certain lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 73 Cong. Rec. 3969-71, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, raised a point of order 
against the bill contending that it was a private bill:

        A private bill is a bill for the relief of one or several 
    specified persons, corporations, institutions, etc., and is 
    distinguished from a public bill, which relates to public matters 
    and deals with individuals by classes only.

    The Chair (9) ruled that, ``. . . As the Chair 
recollects the law, the United States deals with the Choctaw and 
Chickasaw tribes as nations and through treaties. Therefore this bill 
deals with the Indians as a nation and not with Indians as individuals. 
The Chair believes that this is a public bill and is properly on the 
public calendar, and overrules that point of order. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disposition of Private Bills

Sec. 3.4 Where a bill affects an individual or particular individuals 
    or corporations or institutions, it should go to the Private 
    Calendar.

    On Mar. 17, 1930,(10) Mr. William H. Stafford, of 
Wisconsin,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 72 Cong. Rec. 5454, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4791]]

raised a point of order against the consideration on the Consent 
Calendar of the bill (H.R. 5917), for the relief of certain newspapers 
(for advertising services rendered the Public Health Service), that it 
was a private bill and not properly on the Consent Calendar.

    The Chair (11) ruled that, ``. . . Where a bill affects 
an individual, individuals, corporations, institutions, and so forth, 
it should and does go to the Private Calendar. Where it applies to a 
class and not to individuals as such, it then becomes a general bill 
and would be entitled to a place on the Consent Calendar. In the 
judgment of the Chair this bill, while affecting a class of concerns, 
specifies individuals, and for the purpose of the rule the Chair holds 
that the bill is improperly on this [Consent] Calendar and transfers it 
as of the date of the original reference to the Private Calendar.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Earl C. Michener (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
    A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER 
                         MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
 
Sec. 4. Joint Resolutions

    The joint resolution is another legislative instrument employed by 
the Congress in the exercise of its power under article I, section 1 of 
the Constitution. It is the type of measure that requires an 
affirmative vote by both Houses and submission to the President for 
approval under article I, section 7. When a joint resolution is 
approved by the President, or when he fails to return it to the 
Congress within the prescribed time, or when he vetoes it and his veto 
is overridden it becomes public law and it is published in the 
statutes-at-large as such.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 1 USC Sec. Sec. 106, 106a, 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the joint resolution is considered in the same manner as a 
bill, with one important exception: where a joint resolution is used to 
bring about a constitutional amendment,(13) the resolution, 
after approval thereof by both Houses by two-thirds vote, is submitted 
to the states for ratification. It is not submitted to the 
President.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Since 1936 the following amendments to the Constitution have been 
        adopted pursuant to joint resolutions: 22d amendment, H.J. Res. 
        27. 93 Cong. Rec. 2392, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 21, 1947; 
        23d amendment, S.J. Res. 39. 106 Cong. Rec. 12858, 86th Cong. 
        2d Sess., June 16, 1960; 24th amendment, S.J. Res. 29. 108 
        Cong. Rec. 17670, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 14, 1962; 25th 
        amendment, S.J. Res. 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 15593, 89th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., July 6, 1965; and 26th amendment, S.J. Res. 7. 117 Cong. 
        Rec. 7570, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1971.
14. U.S. Const. art. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are no established rules requiring the use of a joint resolu

[[Page 4792]]

tion rather than of a public bill, or vice versa, in the consideration 
and enactment of legislation. However, in practice joint resolutions 
are not now used for purposes of general legislation. They are used for 
special purposes and for such incidental matters as changing or fixing 
effective dates,(15) to establish joint committees or 
provide a commission with subpena power,(16) or to provide 
continuing appropriations.(17) The joint resolution, because 
it permits the use of a preamble (which is not appropriate in a bill), 
is also used where it is necessary to set forth in the legislation the 
events or state of facts which prompt the measure. For this reason, 
declarations of war have been made by joint resolution.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 4.4 et seq., infra.
16. See Sec. Sec. 4.10, 4.11, infra.
17. See Sec. 4.3, infra.
18. See Sec. 4.16, infra.
            Note: Joint resolutions may contain preambles which are 
        amendable after engrossment and prior to third reading of the 
        joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 2 of title I of the United States Code contains the 
following provision regarding the enacting clause of a joint 
resolution:

        Sec. 102. The resolving clause of all joint resolutions shall 
    be in the following form: ``Resolved by the Senate and House of 
    Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 
    assembled.''                          -------------------

Constitutional Amendment

Sec. 4.1 It is permissible on the floor of the Senate, where a 
    germaneness rule is not operating, to amend a joint resolution that 
    is legislative in character by striking all after the resolving 
    clause and inserting provisions of a constitutional amendment.

    On Mar. 26, 1962,(19) during consideration in the Senate 
of a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 29) establishing the former dwelling 
house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument, Senator Spessard L. 
Holland, of Florida, offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
proposing to amend the Constitution to abolish the poll tax. Senator 
Richard B. Russell, of Georgia, raised a point of order against the 
amendment: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 108 Cong. Rec. 5042, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
20. Id. at pp. 5083-87 (Mar. 27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . I take the position that the Constitution itself 
    prescribes the method by which it may be amended, and that the 
    pending proposal does not appear in the Constitution as a means 
    where

[[Page 4793]]

    by a proposed constitutional amendment may be submitted to the 
    several States. I further submit that in the 173 years since the 
    Constitution of the United States was first ratified and approved, 
    no attempt whatever has ever been made to distort the 
    constitutional process. This is the first time in 173 years that an 
    effort has been made to use a piece of proposed general legislation 
    as a vehicle for amending the Constitution of the United States and 
    submitting that amendment to the several States. . . .
        In article V we find the language to which the great interest 
    of Congress should be devoted. Yet instead of a resolution in the 
    form prescribed or indicated in article V, and followed for the 173 
    years that Congress has been meeting, an attempt is made to utilize 
    a piece of proposed legislation, respectable enough in itself, 
    proposing a memorial to a great American who has not yet had any 
    memorial erected in his honor; but which requires the ordinary 
    legislative process requiring the signature of the President or 
    else a vote on the part of Congress to override a veto by the 
    President.

        Mr. President, the amendment of the Constitution of the United 
    States is a procedure which is solely between the Congress and the 
    several States. This is the only process from which the President 
    of the United States is completely excluded. Nothing in the 
    Constitution indicates that the President shall even see a proposed 
    amendment of the Constitution. He has no authority to veto it. 
    There is no requirement that he approve it. Nothing in the 
    Constitution indicates that it shall even be brought to his 
    attention.
        Yet the Senate is undertaking to add to article V of the 
    Constitution, without any authority to do so, a third method of 
    amending the Constitution, by saying that a proposed amendment to 
    the Constitution can be appended to the joint resolution now under 
    consideration.
        Mr. President, this is wholly unconstitutional procedure. 
    Nothing in the Constitution warrants it. Nothing in the precedents 
    of the Senate justifies it, although over the years we have had 
    almost every precedent of which the mind of man can conceive. . . .
        Mr. [Mike] Mansfield [of Montana]: Mr. President, I think it is 
    clear that the proposal of the Senator from Florida is entirely in 
    accord with the Constitution of the United States and with the 
    Senate rules. On the question of final adoption of Senate Joint 
    Resolution 29, as amended by the Holland substitute, two-thirds of 
    the Senate must vote in the affirmative if the resolution is to be 
    agreed to. The same will be true in the House of Representatives. 
    The joint resolution, as thus amended, will then be submitted to 
    the several States for ratification. Therefore, all the 
    requirements of the Constitution and of our rules will have been 
    met.
        Mr. President, I move that the question of constitutionality as 
    raised by the distinguished Senator from Georgia be laid on the 
    table, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

    The motion was agreed to (58 yeas, 34 nays).(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id. at pp. 5086, 5087.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.2 A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
    may be amend

[[Page 4794]]

    ed in the Senate by a substitute providing legislative provisions 
    designed to accomplish the same result.

    On Feb. 2, 1960,(1) during consideration in the Senate 
of a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 39) to amend the Constitution to allow 
Governors to fill temporary vacancies in the House of Representatives, 
Senator Jacob K. Javits, of New York, raised the following 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 1747, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I understand that it will be in order, after action is taken on 
    the Holland amendment, for me to move as substitute for the entire 
    joint resolution a statutory provision to accomplish the same 
    result. Is that correct?
        The Presiding Officer: (2) The Senator is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Edmund S. Muskie (Me.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuing Appropriations

Sec.  4.3 Measures providing continuing appropriations for a fiscal 
    year are enacted by joint resolution, and such joint resolutions, 
    when previously made in order by unanimous consent, are called up 
    as privileged, even though they are not now considered general 
    appropriations bills.

    On Aug. 25, 1965,(3) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, made 
the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 21751, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of 
    yesterday, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 639) making 
    continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1966, and for other 
    purposes, and ask unanimous consent that it be considered in the 
    House as in Committee of the Whole. . . .
        The Speaker: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Fixing Date for Reorganization Plan

Sec. 4.4 A joint resolution has been used to fix the date when certain 
    reorganization plans of the President shall go into effect.

    On June 1, 1939,(5) the House considered the following 
Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 138):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 84 Cong. Rec. 6527, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That the provisions of reorganization plan No. 
    I, submitted to the Congress on April 25, 1939, and the provisions 
    of reorganization plan No. II, submitted to the Congress on May 9, 
    1939, shall take effect on July 1, 1939, notwithstanding the 
    provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1939.

[[Page 4795]]

        With the following committee amendment:
        Page 1, after line 8, insert the following:
        ``Sec. 2. Nothing in such plans or this joint resolution shall 
    be construed as having the effect of continuing any agency or 
    function beyond the time when it would have terminated without 
    regard to such plans or this joint resolution or of continuing any 
    function beyond the time when the agency in which it was vested 
    would have terminated without regard to such plans or this joint 
    resolution.''

Fixing Date for Convening Congress

Sec. 4.5 A joint resolution has been used to fix the day of meeting of 
    a new session of Congress in lieu of the regular meeting date.

    On Dec. 30, 1941,(6) the House considered and passed the 
following joint resolution (S.J. Res. 123):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 87 Cong. Rec. 10126-31, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That the second session of the Seventy-seventh 
    Congress shall begin at noon on Monday, January 5, 1942, and the 
    first session of the Seventy-eight Congress shall begin at noon on 
    Monday, January 4, 1943.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The Constitution provides: ``The Congress shall assemble at least 
        once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 
        3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different 
        day.'' U.S. Const. amend. 20, Sec. 2.
            See also 111 Cong. Rec. 28563, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 
        22, 1965; 105 Cong. Rec. 19364, 19365, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Sept. 12, 1959; joint resolution pocket vetoed 102 Cong. Rec. 
        15294, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 27, 1956; and 93 Cong. Rec. 
        10521, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change in Date for Counting Electoral Votes

Sec. 4.6 A joint resolution has been used to change the date for the 
    counting of the electoral votes.

    On Feb. 7, 1956,(8) the House considered and passed the 
following joint resolution (H.J. Res. 517):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 102 Cong. Rec. 2220, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas January 6, 1957, is a Sunday; and
        Whereas Public Law 771, 80th Congress (62 Stat. 672, 675), 
    provides that ``Congress shall be in session on the 6th day of 
    January succeeding every meeting of the (Presidential) electors'' 
    for the purpose of counting the electoral votes: Therefore be it

        Resolved, etc., That the two Houses of Congress shall meet in 
    the Hall of the House of Representatives on Monday the 7th day of 
    January 1957, at 1 o'clock postmeridian, pursuant to the 
    requirements of the Constitution and laws relating to the election 
    of President and Vice President of the United States.

[[Page 4796]]

Change in Date for Submission of Presidential Budget

Sec. 4.7 A joint resolution has been used to postpone the dates for the 
    submission of the President's budget message and economic report.

    On Jan. 6, 1965,(9) the House considered and passed the 
following joint resolution (H.J. Res. 123):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 134, 135, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) 
    notwithstanding the provisions of section 201 of the Act of June 
    10, 1922, as amended (31 U.S.C. 11), the President shall transmit 
    to the Congress not later than January 25, 1965, the budget for the 
    fiscal year 1966, and (b) notwithstanding the provisions of section 
    3 of the Act of February 20, 1946, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1022), the 
    President shall transmit to the Congress not later than January 28, 
    1965, the Economic Report.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. For a joint resolution postponing the dates set by law for the 
        transmittal of the President's economic report and the report 
        thereon by the Joint Economic Committee, see 115 Cong. Rec.  
        40901, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 22, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorizing Printing of Publication

Sec. 4.8 A joint resolution has been used to authorize the printing of 
    additional copies of ``Senate Procedure'' and making such 
    publications subject to copyright.

    On Oct. 16, 1963,(11) the House considered and passed 
the following joint resolution (S.J. Res. 123):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 109 Cong. Rec. 19611, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be 
    printed and bound for the use of the Senate one thousand five 
    hundred copies of a revised edition of Senate Procedure, to be 
    prepared by Charles L. Watkins, Parliamentarian, and Floyd M. 
    Riddick, Assistant Parliamentarian, to be printed under the 
    supervision of the authors and to be distributed to the Members of 
    the Senate.
        Sec. 2. That, notwithstanding any provisions of the copyright 
    laws and regulations with respect to publications in the public 
    domain, such edition of Senate Procedure shall be subject to 
    copyright by the authors thereof.

Sec. 4.9 The House agreed to a joint resolution providing for the 
    printing of ``Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives.''

    On Mar. 25, 1959,(12) the House considered and passed 
the fol
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 105 Cong. Rec. 5259, 5260, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4797]]

lowing joint resolution (H.J. Res. 301):

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be 
    printed and bound for the use of the House one thousand five 
    hundred copies of ``Cannon's Procedure in the House of 
    Representatives'', by Clarence Cannon, to be printed under the 
    supervision of the author and to be distributed to the Members by 
    the Speaker.
        Sec. 2. That, notwithstanding any provision of the copyright 
    laws and regulations with respect to publications in the public 
    domain, ``Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives'' 
    shall be subject to copyright by the author thereof.

Establishing a Joint Committee

Sec. 4.10 The House considered a joint resolution proposing the 
    establishment of a joint committee to investigate crime.

    On July 12, 1968,(13) the House considered the following 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 114 Cong. Rec. 21012, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) there is 
    hereby created a Joint Committee To Investigate Crime, to be 
    composed of seven Members of the House of Representatives to be 
    appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and seven 
    Members of the Senate to be appointed by the President pro tempore 
    of the Senate. In each instance not more than four members shall be 
    members of the same political party.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Investigations generally, see Ch. 15, supra; creating committees, 
        see Ch. 17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grant of Subpena Power

Sec. 4.11 The House agreed to a joint resolution granting subpena 
    powers to the commission appointed by the President to report on 
    the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

    On Dec. 10, 1963,(15) the House considered and passed a 
joint resolution (S.J. Res. 137) stating in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 23941, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) for the 
    purposes of this joint resolution, the term `Commission' means the 
    Commission appointed by the President by Executive Order 11130, 
    dated November 29, 1963.
        (b) The Commission, or any member of the Commission when so 
    authorized by the Commission, shall have power to issue subpenas 
    requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the 
    production of any evidence that relates to any matter under 
    investigation

[[Page 4798]]

    by the Commission. The Commission, or any member of the Commission 
    or any agent or agency designated by the Commission for such 
    purpose, may administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses, 
    and receive evidence.

Travel Appropriations

Sec. 4.12 The House considered a joint resolution making appropriations 
    for mileage for the Vice President, Senators, Representatives, 
    Delegates, and Commissioners, and for pay of pages incidental to a 
    special session of Congress.

    On Sept. 25, 1939,(16) the House considered and passed 
the following joint resolution (H.J. Res. 384):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 85 Cong. Rec. 16, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That the following sums are hereby 
    appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
    appropriated, for the payment of expenses incident to the second 
    session of the Seventy-sixth Congress, namely:
        For mileage of the President of the Senate and of Senators, 
    $51,000.
        For mileage of Representatives, the Delegate from Hawaii, and 
    the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, and for expenses of the 
    Delegate from Alaska, $171,000.
        For the payment of 21 pages for the Senate and 48 pages for the 
    House of Representatives, at $4 per day each, for the period 
    commencing September 21, 1939, and ending with the last day of the 
    month in which the Seventy-sixth Congress adjourns sine die at the 
    second session thereof, so much as may be necessary for each the 
    Senate and House of Representatives.

Presidential Honors

Sec. 4.13 The House considered a joint resolution providing for a 
    Presidential proclamation recognizing former President Truman's 
    role in the creation of the United Nations.

    On Sept. 26, 1968,(17) the House considered and passed 
the following joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1459):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 28327, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President 
    of the United States is hereby authorized and requested to issue on 
    October 24, 1968, a proclamation recognizing the significant part 
    which Harry S. Truman, as President of the United States, played in 
    the creation of the United Nations.

Sec. 4.14 The House considered a joint resolution providing for a joint 
    session of Congress to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the 
    birth of Abraham Lincoln.

    On July 24, 1958,(18) the House considered and passed 
the fol
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 104 Cong. Rec. 15019, 15020, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4799]]

lowing joint resolution (H.J. Res. 648):

        Whereas Thursday, February 12, 1959, will mark the 150th 
    anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the 
    United States; and
        Whereas Mr. Lincoln is our best example of that personal 
    fulfillment which American institutions permit and encourage; and . 
    . .
        Whereas on Monday, February 12, 1866, in the presence of the 
    President of the United States, the members of his Cabinet, the 
    Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, the 
    diplomatic corps, officers of the Army and Navy, assistant heads of 
    departments, the governors of States and Territories, and others in 
    authority, the two Houses of Congress convened in joint session to 
    hear ``an address upon the life and character of Abraham Lincoln, 
    late President of the United States,'' pronounced by an eminent 
    historian, the Honorable George Bancroft: Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved, etc., That on Thursday, February 12 next, the 
    sesquicentennial of the birth of Abraham Lincoln shall be 
    commemorated by a joint session of the Congress, and to that end 
    the President of the Senate will appoint 4 Members of the Senate 
    and the Speaker of the House will appoint 4 Members of the House of 
    Representatives jointly to constitute a Committee on Arrangements.
        The Committee on Arrangements shall plan the proceedings, issue 
    appropriate invitations, and select a distinguished Lincoln scholar 
    to deliver the memorial address; and be it further
        Resolved, That the President of the United States, the Vice 
    President of the United States, the Chief Justice and Associate 
    Justices of the Supreme Court, the diplomatic corps, assistant 
    heads of departments, and the members of the Lincoln 
    Sesquicentennial Commission be invited to join in this 
    commemoration.

Sec. 4.15 The House considered a joint resolution providing for a 
    ceremony to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Lincoln's second 
    inauguration.

    On June 23, 1964,(19) the House considered and passed 
the following joint resolution (H.J. Res. 925):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 14699, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas March 4, 1965, will be the one hundredth anniversary of 
    the second inauguration of Abraham Lincoln as President of the 
    United States; and
        Whereas President Lincoln in his inaugural address looked to 
    the end of a great fratricidal struggle and spoke, ``with malice 
    toward none and charity for all,'' of ``a just and lasting peace 
    among ourselves and with all nations''; and . . .
        Whereas today a part of the aspirations which Abraham Lincoln 
    held for the people of the United States has been achieved: Now, 
    therefore, be it
        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That on Wednesday, 
    March 4 next, the one hundredth anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's 
    second inauguration shall be commemorated by such observance as may 
    be determined by the committee

[[Page 4800]]

    on arrangements in cooperation with the National Civil War 
    Centennial Commission, the Civil War Centennial Commission of the 
    District of Columbia, and the Lincoln Group of the District of 
    Columbia.
        Immediately upon passage of this resolution, the President of 
    the Senate shall appoint four Members of the Senate and the Speaker 
    of the House shall appoint four Members of the House of 
    Representatives jointly to constitute a committee on arrangements.

Declaration of War

Sec. 4.16 The House adopted a joint resolution declaring war on Japan.

    On Dec. 8, 1941,(20) the House passed the following 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 254):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 87 Cong. Rec. 9519, 9520, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed repeated 
    acts of war against the Government and the people of the United 
    States of America: Therefore be it
        Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States 
    and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust 
    upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and that the 
    President be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to employ 
    the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the 
    resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial 
    Government of Japan; and to bring the conflict to a successful 
    termination all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged 
    by the Congress of the United States.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For other joint resolution declaring war, see also: (1) against 
        Rumania, 88 Cong. Rec. 4818, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., June 3, 1942; 
        (2) against Hungary, 88 Cong. Rec. 4817, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 3, 1942; (3) against Bulgaria, 88 Cong. Rec. 4816, 77th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., June 3, 1942; and (4) against Germany and 
        Italy, 87 Cong. Rec. 9665, 9666, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 11, 
        1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.17 The House adopted a joint resolution relating to hostilities 
    in Southeast Asia and supporting the President's actions to repel 
    aggression by North Vietnam.

    On Aug. 7, 1964,(2) the House considered and passed the 
following joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1145):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 110 Cong. Rec. 18538, 18539, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in 
    violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations 
    and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked 
    United States naval vessels lawfully present in international 
    waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international 
    peace; and
        Whereas these attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic 
    campaign of aggression that the Communist regime in North Vietnam 
    has been waging against its neighbors and the nations

[[Page 4801]]

    joined with them in the collective defense of their freedom; and
        Whereas the United States is assisting the peoples of southeast 
    Asia to protect their freedom and has no territorial, military or 
    political ambitions in that area, but desires only that these 
    peoples should be left in peace to work out their own destinies in 
    their own way: Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress 
    approves and supports the determination of the President, as 
    Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any 
    armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent 
    further aggression.
        Sec. 2. The United States regards as vital to its national 
    interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace 
    and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of 
    the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in 
    accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective 
    Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the 
    President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the 
    use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the 
    Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in 
    defense of its freedom.
        Sec. 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall 
    determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably 
    assured by international conditions created by action of the United 
    Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by 
    concurrent resolution of the Congress.


 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
    A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER 
                         MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
 
Sec. 5. Concurrent Resolutions

    Concurrent resolutions are used as a means by which the two Houses 
may concurrently express certain facts, or declare certain principles, 
opinions, or purposes. A concurrent resolution is binding on neither 
House until agreed to by both. They are not used in the adoption of 
general legislation. Concurrent resolutions are used in the adoption of 
joint rules, setting up joint committees, expressing the sense of 
Congress on propositions,(3) and in recent years as vehicles 
by which both Houses are permitted to approve or disapprove of certain 
executive actions, pursuant to laws containing mechanisms for such 
procedures (see House Rules and Manual, 97th Congress, ``Congressional 
Disapproval'' provisions contained in public laws).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives (97th Cong.) Ch. 24 
        Sec. 1.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The important practical consideration to be kept in mind in 
distinguishing joint and concurrent resolutions, in the current usage, 
is that only the former must be submitted to the President for his 
approval before taking effect. A concurrent resolution does not involve 
an exercise of the legislative

[[Page 4802]]

power under article I of the Constitution in which the President must 
participate. The following language is found in article I, section 7, 
clause 3, of the Constitution:

        Every Order, Resolution, or Vote, to which the Concurrence of 
    the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on 
    a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of 
    the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be 
    approved by him.

    Since the passage of a concurrent resolution requires the 
concurrence of both Houses, it is possible to argue, on the basis of 
this language, that a concurrent resolution also requires submission to 
the President for his approval. However, the Congress has never 
accepted this literal interpretation. In 1897 the Committee on the 
Judiciary of the Senate issued a report on the nature of the concurrent 
resolution.(4) The committee found that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Inquiry in Regard to River and 
        Harbor Act, S. Rept. No. 1335, 54th Cong. 2d Sess. (1897); 4 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he Constitution looks beyond the mere form of a 
    resolution in determining whether it should be presented to the 
    President, and looks rather to the subject-matter of the resolution 
    itself to ascertain whether it is one ``to which the concurrence of 
    the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary.''
        The Constitution prescribes no definite form in which 
    legislation shall be framed. The manner by which the legislative 
    will may be expressed seems to be left to the discretion of 
    Congress, except that section 7 (article I) seems to imply that it 
    is to be done by bill, as it expressly provides that ``every bill 
    which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate 
    shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of 
    the United States'' (subdivision 2); and it is also to be implied 
    from the provisions of subdivision 3 (article 1, sec. 7) that it 
    may be done by ``order, resolution, or vote,'' and in that case it 
    must be presented to the President as ``in the case of a bill.''

        . . . [N]o ``order, resolution, or vote'' need be presented to 
    the President unless its subject-matter is legislation to which the 
    Constitution expressly requires in the first instance the assent of 
    both Houses, matter to which such assent is constitutionally 
    necessary. In other words, the phrase ``to which the concurrence . 
    . . may be necessary'' should be held to refer to the 
    ``concurrence'' made ``necessary'' by the other provisions of the 
    Constitution and not to the mere form of the procedure; so that no 
    mere resolution, joint, concurrent, or otherwise, need be presented 
    to the President for his approval unless it relates to matter of 
    legislation to which the Constitution requires the concurrence of 
    both Houses of Congress and the approval of the President--in other 
    words, unless such Congressional action be the exercise of 
    ``legislative powers'' vested in Congress under the provisions of 
    section 1, article I.

[[Page 4803]]

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

Use of Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 5.1 Concurrent resolutions are not used in practice to enact 
    legislation; but if they are so used, the approval of the President 
    would be required.
    On July 19, 1945,(5) the following memorandum was 
prepared and inserted in the Record by Senator Abe Murdock, of Utah:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 7809, 7810, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Memorandum on Concurrent Resolutions

        Article I, section 7, subdivision 3 of the Constitution of the 
    United States provides:
        ``Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of 
    the Senate and the House of Representatives may be necessary 
    (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the 
    President of the United States.''
        While this constitutional provision would seem literally to 
    require that every concurrent resolution be submitted to the 
    President, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary has indicated that 
    a somewhat more liberal reading of the constitutional provision may 
    be warranted. Senate Report No. 1335, Fifty-fourth Congress, second 
    session, was submitted pursuant to a resolution of the Senate which 
    directed the Judiciary Committee to inquire, among other things, as 
    to whether concurrent resolutions generally are required to be 
    submitted to the President of the United States.
        On the subject of concurrent resolutions, the committee report 
    may be summarized as follows: Concurrent resolutions, except in a 
    few early instances in which the resolution was neither designated 
    as concurrent or joint, have not been used for the purposes of 
    enacting legislation but to express the sense of Congress upon a 
    given subject, to adjourn longer than 3 days, to make, amend, or 
    suspend joint rules, and to accomplish similar purposes, in which 
    both Houses have a common interest, but with which the President 
    has no concern. They have never embraced legislative provisions 
    proper, and hence have never been deemed to require Executive 
    approval. While resolutions, other than joint resolutions, may 
    conceivably embrace legislation, if they do so they require the 
    approval of the President. But Revised Statutes, Second Edition, 
    1878, page 2, sections 7 and 8, prescribe the form of bills and 
    joint resolutions, and it may properly be inferred that Congress 
    did not intend or contemplate that any legislation should 
    thereafter be enacted except by bill or joint resolution. That is a 
    fair inference, because Congress provided no form for legislation 
    by concurring resolution. Moreover, the rules of the respective 
    Houses treat bills and joint resolutions alike, and do not 
    contemplate that legislation shall be enacted in any other form or 
    manner.
        In substance, it was the conclusion of the committee that 
    concurrent resolutions were, as a matter of congressional practice, 
    never used to enact legislation, but that if they were so used the 
    approval of the President would be required. The committee report 
    concludes that--
        ``Whether concurrent resolutions are required to be submitted 
    to the Presi

[[Page 4804]]

    dent of the United States'' must depend not upon their mere form 
    but upon the fact whether they contain matter which is properly to 
    be regarded as legislative in its character and effect. If they do, 
    they must be presented for his approval; otherwise, they need not 
    be. In other words, we hold that the clause in the Constitution 
    which declares that every order, resolution, or vote must be 
    presented to the President, to ``which the concurrence of the 
    Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary,'' refers to 
    the necessity occasioned by the requirement of the other provisions 
    of the Constitution whereby every exercise of ``legislative power'' 
    involves the concurrence of the two Houses; and every resolution 
    not so requiring two concurrent actions, to wit, not involving the 
    exercise of legislative powers, need not be presented to the 
    President. In brief, the nature or substance of the resolution, and 
    not its form, controls the question of its disposition.''
        Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, volume 
    VII, section 1045, states that a ``concurrent resolution'' is not 
    used in conveying title to Government property. His authority for 
    this statement is that on January 15, 1923, a concurrent resolution 
    declining a devise of land to be used as a national park was 
    considered and agreed to with the following amendment:
        Insert: ``Resolved by the Senate and the House of 
    Representatives of the United States of America in Congress 
    assembled'' in lieu of ``the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring).'' (64 Congressional Record 1773.)
        In section 1037 of volume VII, Cannon states that ``a 
    concurrent resolution is without force and effect beyond the 
    confines of the Capitol.'' In addition, in section 1084, Cannon 
    states that on June 1, 1920, the Senate was considering the 
    concurrent resolution respectfully declining to grant to the 
    Executive the power to accept a mandate over Armenia, as requested 
    in the message of the President, when Mr. Hitchcock, of Nebraska, 
    offered an amendment empowering the President to appoint American 
    members of a joint commission to supervise certain fiscal relations 
    of Armenia. Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, presented a 
    point of order to the effect that this was a concurrent resolution, 
    that concurrent resolutions did not go to the President, but that 
    since the proposed amendment was legislation requiring the assent 
    of the President it would not be in order on a resolution which 
    does not go to the President. Thomas R. Marshall, Vice President of 
    the United States, said that so far as he was aware there was no 
    opinion of the Supreme Court to the effect that a concurrent 
    resolution need not go to the President, and consequently overruled 
    the point of order which had been made against it.
        In response to an inquiry from the Secretary of the Interior. 
    Attorney General Caleb Cushing, on August 23, 1854, rendered an 
    opinion in which he held that a declaratory resolution of either 
    House of Congress is not obligatory against the judgment of the 
    Executive. He characterized the contrary view as follows:
        ``According to the letter of the Constitution, resolutions of 
    the two Houses, even a joint resolution, when submitted to the 
    President and disapproved by him, do not acquire the

[[Page 4805]]

    force of law until passed anew by a concurrent vote of two-thirds 
    of each House. On the present hypothesis, the better way would be 
    not to present the resolution to the President at all, and then to 
    call on him to accept it as law, with closed eyes, and, however 
    against law he may know it to be, yet to execute it out of 
    deference to the assumed opinion of Congress.
        ``In the second place, the hypothesis puts an end to all the 
    forms of legislative scrutiny on the part of Congress. A 
    declaratory law, especially if it involve the expenditure of the 
    public treasure, has forms of legislation to go through to insure 
    due consideration. All these time-honored means of securing right 
    legislation will pass into desuetude, if the simple acceptance of a 
    resolution, reported by a committee, is to be received as a 
    constitutional enactment, obligatory on all concerned, including 
    the Executive.
        ``In this way, instead of the revenues of the Government being 
    subject only to the disposition of Congress in the form of a law 
    constitutionally enacted, they will be transferred to the control 
    of an accidential majority, expressing its will by a resolution, 
    passed, it may be, out of time, and under circumstances, in which a 
    law, duly and truly representing the will of Congress, could not 
    have passed. And thus, all those checks and guards against the 
    inconsiderate appropriation of the public treasure, so carefully 
    devised by the founders of the Government, will be struck out of 
    the Constitution.'' (6 Op. Attorney General 694.)
        With specific reference to the authority of Congress to declare 
    by resolution, without presentation to the President, the meaning 
    of an existing law, the Attorney General stated (idem, p. 694):
        ``A mere vote of either or of both Houses of Congress, 
    declaring its opinion of the proper construction of a general law, 
    has, be it repeated, in itself, no constitutional force or 
    obligation as law. It is opinion merely, and to be dealt with as 
    such, receiving more or less of deference, like other mere 
    opinions, according to the circumstances.''

Establishing Joint Committees

Sec. 5.2 The House adopted a concurrent resolution, establishing a 
    Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress, reported by 
    the House Committee on Rules.

    On Mar. 3, 1965,(6) the Committee on Rules of the House 
of Representatives reported the following privileged resolution (H. 
Con. Res. 4):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 3995, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That there is hereby established a Joint Committee on 
    the Organization of the Congress (hereinafter referred to as the 
    committee) to be composed of six Members of the Senate (not more 
    than three of whom shall be members of the majority party) to be 
    appointed by the President of the Senate, and six Members of the 
    House of Representatives (not more than three of whom shall be 
    members of the majority party) to be appointed by the Speaker of 
    the House

[[Page 4806]]

    of Representatives. The committee shall select a chairman and a 
    vice chairman from among its members. No recommendation shall be 
    made by the committee except upon a majority vote of the members 
    representing each House, taken separately.
        Sec. 2. The committee shall make a full and complete study of 
    the organization and operation of the Congress of the United States 
    and shall recommend improvements in such organization and operation 
    with a view toward strengthening the Congress, simplifying its 
    operations, improving its relationship with other branches of the 
    United States Government, and enabling it better to meet its 
    responsibilities under the Constitution . . .
        (d) The committee shall report from time to time to the Senate 
    and the House of Representatives the results of its study, together 
    with its recommendations, the first report being made not later 
    than one hundred and twenty days after the effective date of this 
    concurrent resolution. If the Senate, the House of Representatives, 
    or both, are in recess or have adjourned, the report shall be made 
    to the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives, or both, as the case may be. All reports and 
    findings of the committee shall, when received, be referred to the 
    Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate and the 
    appropriate committees of the House.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. On Mar. 11, 1965 (Id. at pp. 4768-80) following the passage of H. 
        Con. Res. 4, S. Con. Res. 2 (an identical resolution) was taken 
        from the Speaker's table and agreed to. The language of this 
        concurrent resolution was similar to that employed in the 79th 
        Congress in setting up a joint committee to study a proposal 
        which resulted in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. 
        See H. Con. Res. 18, 79th Cong., H. Jour. pp. 80, 137, 79th 
        Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.3 The Joint Committee on Hawaii was created by a concurrent 
    resolution.

    On Aug. 21, 1937,(8) the House agreed to the following 
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 18):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 9624, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That there is hereby created a joint congressional 
    committee to be known as the Joint Committee on Hawaii, which shall 
    be composed of not to exceed 12 Members of the Senate, to be 
    appointed by the President of the Senate, and not to exceed 12 
    Members of the House of Representatives and the Delegate from 
    Hawaii, to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives. The committee shall select a chairman from among 
    its members. The committee shall cease to exist upon making its 
    report to Congress pursuant to this resolution.
        Sec. 2. The committee is authorized and directed to conduct a 
    comprehensive investigation and study of the subject of statehood 
    and of other subjects relating to the welfare of the Territory of 
    Hawaii. The committee shall report to the Senate and to the House 
    of Representatives not later than January 15, 1938, the results of 
    its investigation and study, together with its rec

[[Page 4807]]

    ommendations for such legislation as it deems necessary or 
    desirable.
        Sec. 3. For the purpose of this resolution, the committee is 
    authorized to sit and act, as a whole or by subcommittee, at such 
    times and places as it deems advisable, to hold such hearings, to 
    administer such oaths and affirmations, to take such testimony, and 
    to have such printing and binding done as it deems necessary.

Sec. 5.4 A concurrent resolution is used to provide for the appointment 
    of a joint committee for the inauguration of the President-elect.

    On May 5, 1948,(9) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 48):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 5321, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That a joint committee consisting of three Senators 
    and three Representatives, to be appointed by the President pro 
    tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives, respectively, is authorized to make the necessary 
    arrangements for the inauguration of the President-elect of the 
    United States on the 20th day of January 1949.

Sec. 5.5 A concurrent resolution provided for the appointment of a 
    joint committee to formulate plans for the commemoration of the 
    anniversary of the death of General Lafayette.

    On Feb. 2, 1934,(10) the House considered and passed the 
following concurrent resoluton (H. Con. Res. 26):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 78 Cong. Rec. 1889, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That there is hereby established a special joint 
    congressional committee to be composed of five members of the 
    Senate to be appointed by the President of the Senate and five 
    members of the House of Representatives, to be appointed by the 
    Speaker of the House of Representatives, which shall make 
    appropriate arrangements for the commemoration of the one-hundredth 
    anniversary of the death of General Lafayette, occurring on May 20, 
    1934.

Authorizing Hearings

Sec. 5.6 The Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan Problems was 
    authorized, by concurrent resolution, to hold hearings and report 
    to the Committee on the District of Columbia of the Senate and 
    House on two bills ``to aid in the development of an integrated 
    system of transportation for the National Capital region.''

    On Apr. 21, 1960,(11) the House considered and agreed to 
the fol
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 106 Cong. Rec. 8546, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4808]]

lowing concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 101) from consideration of 
which the Rules Committee had been discharged:

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the Joint Committee on Washington Metropolitan 
    Problems, created by House Concurrent Resolution 172, agreed to 
    August 29, 1957 [and extended by S. Con. Res. 2 in the 86th 
    Congress], is hereby authorized to hold public hearings on the 
    bills S. 3193 and H.R. 11135, and to furnish transcripts of such 
    hearings, and make such recommendations as it sees fit, to the 
    Committees on the District of Columbia of the Senate and House of 
    Representatives, respectively.

Additional Committee Funds

Sec. 5.7 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution providing 
    additional funds for the Joint Committee on the Organization of the 
    Congress.

    On Jan. 27, 1966,(12) the House agreed to the following 
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 69) which had been called up for 
consideration pursuant to a unanimous-consent request by Mr. Ray J. 
Madden, of Indiana:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 1341, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the Joint Committee on the Organization of the 
    Congress, established by Senate Concurrent Resolution 2, Eighty-
    ninth Congress, agreed to March 11, 1965, is hereby authorized, 
    from February 1, 1966, through December 31, 1966, to expend not to 
    exceed $140,000 from the contingent fund of the Senate upon 
    vouchers approved by the chairman of the joint committee.

Adjournments

Sec. 5.8 The House agreed to a Senate concurrent resolution providing 
    for sine die adjournment of Congress.

    On Nov. 21, 1929,(13) the House considered and agreed to 
the following privileged Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
19):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 71 Cong. Rec. 5916, 71st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of 
    the House of Representatives be authorized to close the present 
    session of the Congress by adjourning their respective Houses on 
    Friday, November 22, 1929, at the following hours, namely: the 
    Senate at the hour of 10 o'clock p.m., and the House at such hour 
    as it may by order provide.

Sec. 5.9 The House passed a concurrent resolution providing for 
    adjournment sine die and giving the consent of the House to an 
    adjournment sine die of the Senate at any time prior to Dec. 25, 
    1954.

[[Page 4809]]

    On Aug. 20, 1954,(14) the House considered and agreed to 
a Senate amendment to a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 266):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 100 Cong. Rec. 15554, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert ``That the 
    House of Representatives shall adjourn on August 20, 1954, and that 
    when it adjourns on said day, it stand adjourned sine die.
        ``Resolved further, That the consent of the House of 
    Representatives is hereby given to an adjournment sine die of the 
    Senate at any time prior to December 25, 1954, when the Senate 
    shall so determine; and that the Senate, in the meantime may 
    adjourn or recess for such periods in excess of 3 days as it may 
    determine.''

Sec. 5.10 Adjournments of more than three days have been effected 
    pursuant to concurrent resolution.

    On June 22, 1940,(15) the House adopted the following 
privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 9085, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Saturday, June 22, 
    1940, they stand adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian, Monday, July 
    21, 1940.

Sec. 5.11 The House adopted a concurrent resolution providing that the 
    House adjourn from July 21 to Oct. 8, 1945, and consenting to a 
    Senate adjournment during the month of August or September until 
    Oct. 8, 1945; the resolution also made provision for the earlier 
    reassembling of the two Houses by the leadership if legislative 
    expediency should so warrant.

    On July 18, 1945,(16) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 68):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 7733, 7734, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That when the House adjourns on Saturday, July 21, 
    1945, it stand adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian on Monday, 
    October 8, 1945, or until 12 o'clock meridian on the third day 
    after Members are notified to reassemble in accordance with section 
    3 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
        Sec. 2. That the consent of the House of Representatives is 
    hereby given to an adjournment of the Senate at any time during the 
    month of August or September, 1945, until 12 o'clock meridian on 
    Monday, October 8, 1945, or until 12 o'clock meridian on the third 
    day after Members are notified to reassemble in accordance with 
    section 3 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
        Sec. 3. The President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker 
    of the

[[Page 4810]]

    House of Representatives shall notify the Members of the Senate and 
    the House, respectively, to reassemble whenever in their opinion 
    legislative expediency shall warrant it or when-ever the majority 
    leader of the Senate and the majority leader of the House, acting 
    jointly, or the minority leader of the Senate and the minority 
    leader of the House, acting jointly, file a written request with 
    the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House that the 
    Congress reassemble for the consideration of legislation.

Changing Text Agreed to by Both Houses

Sec. 5.12 Changes in the text of a joint resolution agreed to by the 
    two Houses (but not yet sent to the President) may be made by 
    concurrent resolution, called up by unanimous consent, which 
    directs the Clerk to make corrections in the enrollment of the 
    joint resolution.

    On Feb. 1, 1937,(17) the House was considering a Senate 
amendment to a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 81) creating a Joint 
Committee on Government Organization which had passed both the House 
and the Senate. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, offered an 
amendment to the Senate amendment, but the Speaker (18) 
ruled it out of order because it amended language in the resolution to 
which both Houses had already agreed. The Speaker then indicated that 
the proposed change could be effected by concurrent resolution: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 646-48, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
19. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1041, 1042 for instances in 
        which concurrent resolutions were used to amend bills agreed to 
        by both Houses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude A.] Fuller [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fuller: Cannot that be amended by unanimous consent?
        The Speaker: The only way under the rules of the House by which 
    this situation could be changed would be by a concurrent 
    resolution, agreed to by both Houses, changing the text of the 
    matter already passed upon by the House and accepted by the Senate.

Sec. 5.13 Items in an appropriation bill which were not in disagreement 
    between the two Houses, and hence not committed to the conferees, 
    were changed through adoption of a concurrent resolution called up 
    unanimous consent.

    On July 23, 1962,(20) the House adopted a concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 505) ordering the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 14400, 14403, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4811]]

Clerk of the House to make certain changes in the enrollment of a bill 
(H.R. 11038) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
1962. Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, asked unanimous consent that further 
reading of the resolution be dispensed with so that he could explain 
the purpose of the resolution. The proceedings were as follows:

                Second Supplemental Appropriation Bill, 1962

        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous agreement of 
    last Friday,(21) I call up for consideration a House 
    concurrent resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See 108 Cong. Rec. 14364, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 1962, for 
        the unanimous-consent request ``to consider on Monday next a 
        concurrent resolution in connection with . . . H.R. 11038.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 505

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representatives be 
        authorized and directed in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 
        11038 to make the following changes in the engrossed House 
        bill:
            (1) Page 2, strike out lines 13 to 16 inclusive. . . .
            (28) Page 14, strike out lines 4 to 7, inclusive.
            (29) Page 14, strike out lines 17 to 21, inclusive.

        Mr. Thomas (interrupting reading of the House concurrent 
    resolution): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further 
    reading of the resolution be dispensed with. I shall attempt to 
    explain what it is.
        The Speaker:(22) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled this deals with 
    what we call the second supplemental appropriation bill for 1962. 
    When the supplemental left the House it had 55 items carrying about 
    $447 million, which was a reduction, in round figures, of $100 
    million under the budget, a reduction of about 20 percent.
        It went to the other body and that body added some 29 items, 
    increasing the amount over the House by $112 million, which made a 
    round figure of about $560 million.
        We bring to you two items, one a concurrent resolution and the 
    other a conference report. First, why the concurrent resolution? We 
    put in the concurrent resolution some 29 items which were 
    originally in the supplemental, but those 29 items are a 
    reduction--follow me now--below the figure that was in the 
    supplemental when it left the House and the figure when it left the 
    Senate.
        It is a complete reduction and a change. It is in the 
    concurrent resolution because it could not be in the conference 
    report, and the reason it could not be in the conference report is 
    because it is a reduction in those amounts. . . .
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.

[[Page 4812]]

        The concurrent resolution was agreed to.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Parliamentarian's Note: The second supplemental appropriation bill, 
        H.R. 11038, was passed by the House on Mar. 30, and by the 
        Senate, amended, on Apr. 6, 1962. The conference report was not 
        filed until July 20. Since fiscal year 1962 expired on June 30, 
        there was no longer a need for some of the funds carried in the 
        bill when it passed the two Houses. To eliminate the sums no 
        longer required, but not in disagreement, the concurrent 
        resolution was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rescinding Passage of Bill

Sec. 5.14 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution rescinding the 
    action of the two Houses in connection with the passage of a 
    private bill and providing that the bill be postponed indefinitely.

    On Feb. 7, 1952,(2) the House by unanimous consent 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 88):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 98 Cong. Rec. 934, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the action of the two Houses in connection with 
    the passage of the bill (S. 1236) for the relief of Kim Song Nore 
    be rescinded, and that the said bill be postponed indefinitely.

Rescinding Resolution of Adjournment

Sec. 5.15 A concurrent resolution was submitted proposing to rescind a 
    concurrent resolution adjourning the House to a day certain.

    On Aug. 23, 1951,(3) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
offered a resolution (H. Con. Res. 152):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 97 Cong. Rec. 10586, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That House Concurrent Resolution 151, Eighty-second 
    Congress, is hereby repealed.

    Mr. J. Percy Priest, of Tennessee, then interjected a motion that 
the House adjourn, and that motion was considered and agreed to (the 
motion to adjourn taking precedence over a concurrent resolution 
proposing to rescind a concurrent resolution adjourning the House to a 
day certain). Thereupon the House adjourned until Sept. 12, 1951, in 
accordance with the terms of House Concurrent Resolution 151.

Authorization to Conference Managers

Sec. 5.16 By concurrent resolution, the managers of a conference may be 
    authorized to

[[Page 4813]]

    consider amendments inadvertently omitted from the official papers.

    On July 20, 1956,(4) Mr. Clair Engle, of California, 
asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the 
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 86) authorizing the conferees on 
H.R. 1774, abolishing the Verendrye National Monument, North Dakota, to 
consider certain Senate amendments that were inadvertently omitted from 
the official papers and not originally disagreed to by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 102 Cong. Rec. 13724, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution was as follows:

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the conferees on H.R. 1774, in addition to the 
    Senate amendments already pending before them, be authorized to 
    consider the following amendments:
        ``(3) Page 1, line 6, strike out all after `permits' down to 
    and including `site' in line 8.
        ``(4) Page 1, strike out all after line 8 over to and including 
    line 5 on page 2.''

    There was no objection, and the concurrent resolution was agreed 
to.

Amending Conference Report

Sec. 5.17 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution amending a 
    conference report that had been agreed to by the two Houses.

    On Feb. 27, 1931,(5) the House by unanimous consent 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 52):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 74 Cong. Rec. 6279, 6280, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the report of the Committee of Conference on the 
    disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill of the House (H.R. 
    980) entitled ``An Act to permit the United States to be made a 
    party defendant in certain cases,'' heretofore agreed to by the two 
    Houses be amended by adding at the end of the amendment agreed to 
    in the report the following new section:

            Sec. 7. This act shall not apply to any lien of the United 
        States held by it for its benefit under the Federal Reclamation 
        laws.

Rescinding Appointment of Conferees

Sec. 5.18 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution of the Senate 
    rescinding the action of the two Houses in appointing conferees and 
    providing for the return of the bill to the Senate for further 
    amendment.

    On May 20, 1940,(6) the House, by unanimous consent, 
agreed to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 86 Cong. Rec. 6463, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4814]]

the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 47):

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the action of the two Houses, respectively, with 
    reference to the appointment of conferees on the bill (H.R. 8438) 
    making appropriations for the Navy Department and the naval service 
    for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1941, and for other purposes, 
    be, and it is hereby, rescinded; and that the bill, with the 
    accompanying papers, be returned to the Senate.

Providing for Joint Session

Sec. 5.19 A joint session to receive a communication from the President 
    is provided for by concurrent resolution.

    On Jan. 3, 1935,(7) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 1):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 15, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the two Houses of Congress assemble in the Hall 
    of the House of Representatives on Friday, the 4th day of January, 
    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.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. This is the customary form for the concurrent resolution convening 
        a joint session to hear the President's state of the Union 
        message. For similar examples, see 113 Cong. Rec. 34, 35, 90th 
        Cong. 1st Sess, Jan. 10, 1967; 109 Cong. Rec. 23, 88th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Jan. 9, 1963; and 100 Cong. Rec. 8, 83d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Jan. 6, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.20 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution providing for a 
    joint session of the two Houses to commemorate the 200th 
    anniversary of George Washington's birthday.

    On Jan. 20, 1932,(9) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 12):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 75 Cong. Rec. 2342, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That in commemoration of the two-hundredth anniversary 
    of the birth of George Washington the two Houses of Congress shall 
    assemble in the Hall of the House of Representatives at 11:30 
    o'clock a.m. on Monday, February 22, 1932.
        That the President of the United States, as the Chairman of the 
    United States Commission for the celebration of the two-hundredth 
    anniversary of the birth of George Washington, is hereby invited to 
    address the American people in the presence of the Congress in 
    commemoration of the bicentennial anniversary of the birth of the 
    first President of the United States.
        That invitations to attend the ceremony be extended to members 
    of the

[[Page 4815]]

    cabinet, the Chief Justice and associate justices of the Supreme 
    Court of the United States, the Diplomatic Corps (through the 
    Secretary of State), the General of the Armies, the Chief of Naval 
    Operations, and the Major General Commandant of the Marine Corps, 
    and such other persons as the Joint Committee on Arrangements shall 
    deem proper.

Sec. 5.21 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution providing for a 
    joint session of the two Houses to receive a message from the 
    President; such session to commence immediately following the joint 
    session to count the electoral vote.

    On Jan. 6, 1945,(10) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 2):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 91 Cong. Rec. 63, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the two Houses of Congress assemble in the Hall 
    of the House of Representatives on Saturday, the 6th of January 
    1945, immediately following the counting of the electoral votes for 
    President and Vice President, as provided for in Senate Concurrent 
    Resolution 1, for the purpose of receiving such communications as 
    the President of the United States shall be pleased to make to 
    them.

    The terms ``joint meeting'' and ``joint session'' have distinct 
meanings. `Joint meeting' is properly used to describe joint 
proceedings during recesses of the two Houses for purposes that are 
usually ceremonial, while ``joint session'' refers to actual sessions 
of both Houses that have some legislative purpose, or which are 
prescribed by law as the count of the electoral vote (3 USC Sec. 15).

Sec. 5.22 A concurrent resolution providing for a joint session of the 
    House and the Senate to receive a message from the President is 
    privileged.

    On May 20, 1935 (11) Mr. Edward T. Taylor, of Colorado, 
asked for the immediate consideration of a concurrent resolution (H. 
Con. Res. 22) providing for a joint session of the House and Senate to 
receive a message from the President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 79 Cong. Rec. 7838, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (12) The question is on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

Sec. 5.23 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution pro

[[Page 4816]]

    viding for a joint session of the two Houses to count the electoral 
    votes for President and Vice President.

    On Jan. 5, 1937,(13) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 2):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 14, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 Wednesday, the 6th day of 
    January 1937, at 1 o'clock p.m., 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 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 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 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.

Sec. 5.24 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution providing for a 
    joint session to hear an address by the President of Brazil.

    On May 9, 1949,(14) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 59):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 5909, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the two Houses of Congress assemble in the Hall 
    of the House of Representatives on Thursday, the 19th day of May 
    1949, at 12:30 o'clock p.m., for the purpose of hearing an address 
    by His Excellency Eurico Gaspar Dutra, President of the United 
    States of Brazil.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This appears to have been a joint session, 
but most such occasions are joint meetings which are arranged 
informally by each House granting permission for a recess on the day 
agreed upon without a concurrent resolution being used.

[[Page 4817]]

Legislative Budget

Sec. 5.25 A legislative budget for a fiscal year was established by 
    concurrent resolution.

    On Feb. 27, 1948,(15) the House considered the following 
concurrent resolution (S. Con Res. 42) which had been made in order for 
consideration by the adoption of House Resolution 485:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 94 Cong. Rec. 1875-85, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That it is the judgment of the Congress, based upon 
    presently available information, that revenues during the period of 
    the fiscal year 1949 will approximate $47,300,000,000 and that 
    expenditures during such fiscal year should not exceed 
    $37,200,000,000, of which latter amount not more than 
    $26,600,000,000 would be in consequence of appropriations hereafter 
    made available for obligation in such fiscal year.

Providing Facilities for Prayer

Sec. 5.26 A concurrent resolution authorized the Architect of the 
    Capitol to make available a room, with facilities for prayer and 
    meditation, for the use of Members of the Senate and House.

    On July 17, 1953,(16) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 60):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 99 Cong. Rec. 9073-76, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the Architect of the Capitol is hereby authorized 
    and directed to make available a room, with facilities for prayer 
    and meditation, for the use of Members of the Senate and House of 
    Representatives. The Architect shall maintain the prayer room for 
    individual use rather than assemblies and he shall provide 
    appropriate symbols of religious unity and freedom of worship.

Attendance at Foreign Meeting

Sec. 5.27 A concurrent resolution provided for the acceptance of an 
    invitation to attend a meeting of the Empire Parliamentary 
    Association and for the appointment of certain Members to a 
    delegation thereto.

    On June 22, 1943,(17) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 14):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 89 Cong. Rec. 6268, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the Senate and the House of Representatives 
    hereby accept the invitation tendered by the Speaker of the Senate 
    of Canada and joint-president of the Empire Parliamentary 
    Association, Dominion of Canada branch, to have four

[[Page 4818]]

    Members of the Senate and four Members of the House of 
    Representatives attend a meeting to be held in Ottawa, Canada, 
    during the period June 26 to July 1, 1943, at which the Dominion of 
    Canada Branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association will be host 
    to a delegation from the United Kingdom Parliament and probably to 
    delegations from the legislative bodies of Australia, New Zealand, 
    and Bermuda. The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
    House of Representatives are authorized to appoint the Members of 
    the Senate and the Members of the House of Representatives, 
    respectively, to attend such meeting and are further authorized to 
    designate the chairmen of the delegations from each of the Houses. 
    The expenses incurred by the members of the delegations appointed 
    for the purpose of attending such meeting, which shall not exceed 
    $1,000 for each of the delegations, shall be reimbursed to them 
    from the contingent fund of the House of which they are Members, 
    upon the submission of vouchers approved by the chairman of the 
    delegation of which they are members.

Honoring Former Presidents

Sec. 5.28 A concurrent resolution may be used by the Congress to extend 
    birthday greetings to a former President of the United States.

    On Aug. 2, 1949,(18) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 59):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 95 Cong. Rec. 10628, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the Congress hereby extends to the Honorable 
    Herbert Hoover, our only living ex-President, its cordial birthday 
    greetings on his seventy-fifth birthday, and expresses its 
    admiration and gratitude for his devoted service to his country and 
    to the world; and that the Congress hereby expresses its hope that 
    he be spared for many more years of useful and honorable service; 
    and be it further
        Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit a copy of 
    this resolution to Mr. Hoover.

Sec. 5.29 By concurrent resolution a day was set aside for appropriate 
    exercises in commemoration of the life, character, and public 
    service of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    On May 23, 1946,(19) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 152):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 92 Cong. Rec. 5559, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That Monday, the 1st day of July 1946, be set aside 
    as the day upon which there shall be held a joint session of the 
    Senate and the House of Representatives for appropriate exercises 
    in commemoration of the life, character, and public service of the 
    late Franklin D. Roosevelt, former President of the United States.

[[Page 4819]]

        That a joint committee, to consist of three Senators and five 
    Members of the House of Representatives, to be appointed by the 
    President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives, respectively, shall be named, with full power to 
    make all arrangements and publish a suitable program for the joint 
    session of Congress herein authorized, and to issue the invitations 
    hereinafter mentioned.
        That invitations shall be extended to the President of the 
    United States, the members of the Cabinet, the Chief Justice and 
    Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and 
    such other invitations shall be issued as to the said committee 
    shall seem best.
        That all expenses incurred by the committee in the execution of 
    the provisions of this resolution shall be paid, one-half from the 
    contingent fund of the Senate and one-half from the contingent fund 
    of the House of Representatives.

Honoring Military Figures

Sec. 5.30 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution tendering the 
    thanks of Congress to General of the Army Douglas MacArthur.

    On July 20, 1962,(20) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 347):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 14329, 14330, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the thanks and appreciation of the Congress and 
    the American people are hereby tendered to General of the Army 
    Douglas MacArthur, in recognition of his outstanding devotion to 
    the American people, his brilliant leadership during and following 
    World War II, and the unsurpassed affection held for him by the 
    people of the Republic of the Philippines which has done so much to 
    strengthen the ties of friendship between the people of that nation 
    and the people of the United States.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also concurrent resolution commending Lt. Col. John H. Glenn, 
        USMC, on successfully completing the first United States manned 
        orbital space flight. 108 Cong. Rec. 2608, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Feb. 20, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 5.31 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution authorizing the 
    use of the rotunda of the Capitol for lying-in-state ceremonies for 
    the body of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur.

    On Apr. 6, 1964,(2) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 74):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 110 Cong. Rec. 6878, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That in recognition of the long and distinguished 
    service rendered by Douglas MacArthur, General of the Army of the 
    United States, the remains be per

[[Page 4820]]

    mitted to lie in state in the rotunda of the Capitol from April 8 
    to April 9, 1964, and the Architect of the Capitol, under the 
    direction and supervision of the President pro tempore of the 
    Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall take 
    all necessary steps for the accomplishment of that purpose.

Honoring Foreign Governments

Sec. 5.32 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution amending a 
    concurrent resolution providing for a joint session in 
    commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Cuba.

    On Apr. 14, 1948,(3) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 184):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 94 Cong. Rec. 4437, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the first paragraph of House Concurrent 
    Resolution 139, Eightieth Congress, is hereby amended to read as 
    follows:
        ``That in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the 
    liberation of Cuba, the two Houses of Congress shall assemble in 
    the Hall of the House of Representatives at 12 o'clock meridian, on 
    Monday, April 19, 1948.''

Sec. 5.33 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution extending the 
    congratulations of Congress to the Finnish Parliament on its 50th 
    anniversary.

    On Nov. 27, 1967,(4) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 49):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 33762, 33763, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the year 1967 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the 
    independence of Finland; and
        Whereas these fifty years have been marked by close ties of 
    friendship and association between Finland and the United States: 
    Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the Congress of the United States extends its 
    congratulations and best wishes to the Parliament of Finland on the 
    occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the independence of Finland 
    and in affirmation of the affection and friendship of the people of 
    the United States for the people of Finland.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Parliamentarian's Note: The concurrent resolution was enrolled on 
        parchment, signed by the Speaker and the Vice President, and 
        transmitted to the Secretary of State. The Secretary in turn 
        saw to it that the resolution was included in the next 
        diplomatic pouch to Finland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honoring Royalty

Sec. 5.34 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution to assemble the 
    House and the Senate in the rotunda to wel

[[Page 4821]]

    come the King and Queen of Great Britain and appointing a joint 
    committee to make necessary arrangements.

    On May 23, 1939,(6) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 17):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 84 Cong. Rec. 6032, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring). That the two Houses of Congress shall assemble in 
    their respective Houses on Friday, June 9, 1939, at 10:30 o'clock 
    antemeridian, and thereafter, in recess, the Members of each House 
    shall proceed informally to the rotunda of the Capitol at 11 
    o'clock antemeridian, for the purpose of welcoming Their Majesties 
    the King and Queen of Great Britain, and the members of their 
    party, on the occasion of their visit to the Capitol, and at the 
    conclusion of such ceremonies the two Houses shall reassemble in 
    their respective Chambers.
        That a joint committee consisting of three Members of the 
    Senate, to be appointed by the President of the Senate, and three 
    Members of the House of Representatives, to be appointed by the 
    Speaker of the House, is hereby authorized to make the necessary 
    arrangements for carrying out the purpose of this concurrent 
    resolution.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. See also S. Con. Res. 20, 84 Cong. Rec. 7151, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        June 19, 1939, authorizing expenses from the contingent funds 
        of the two Houses for the reception of the King and Queen of 
        Great Britain in the rotunda of the Capitol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
    A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER 
                         MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
 
Sec. 6. Simple Resolutions

                            Cross References
Simple Resolutions as related to House-Senate Conferences, Ch. 33, 
    infra.
Simple Resolutions as related to privileges of the House or a Member, 
    Ch. 11, supra.
Simple resolutions and special orders, Ch. 21, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Use of Simple Resolution

Sec. 6.1 Simple resolutions are used in dealing with nonlegislative 
    matters such as expressing opinions or facts, creating and 
    appointing committees, calling on departments for information, 
    reports, and the like. Except as specifically provided by law, they 
    have no legal effect, and require no action by the other House. 
    Containing no legislative provisions, they are not presented to the 
    President of the United States for his approval, as in the case of 
    bills and joint resolution.

    On Oct. 29, 1943,(8) during consideration in the Senate 
of a Senate resolution (S. Res. 192) declar
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.  89 Cong. Rec. 8901, 8902, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4822]]

ing certain aims of the United States abroad, the following discussion 
took place:

        Mr. [John A.] Danaher [of Connecticut]: Under the precedents of 
    the Senate, does a Senate resolution have legislative effect?
        The Presiding Officer: (9) The Chair understands the 
    question to be, Under the precedents of the Senate, does a 
    resolution of the kind now pending before the Senate have 
    legislative effect?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Scott W. Lucas (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Danaher: That is correct.
        The Presiding Officer: In the opinion of the present occupant 
    of the chair, the answer is ``No.''
         Mr. Danaher: Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Presiding Officer: The Senator will state it.
        Mr. Danaher: Is such a resolution, if adopted, binding upon a 
    succeeding Senate?
        The Presiding Officer: In the opinion of the present occupant 
    of the chair, the answer is the same as the answer to the previous 
    question--``Absolutely no.''
        Mr. Danaher: Mr. President, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Presiding Officer: The Senator will state it.
        Mr. Danaher: Does a Senate resolution, if adopted, have a 
    greater effect than to reflect the views of the largest number of 
    Senators agreeing thereto, who are present and voting for it?
        Mr. [Joel Bennett] Clark of Missouri: Mr. President, I make the 
    point of order that that is not a parliamentary inquiry; neither 
    were the two preceding questions parliamentary inquiries. They both 
    involve legal questions, and are not properly parliamentary 
    questions to be decided by the Chair.
        The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Missouri is certainly 
    late with the point of order so far as the first two questions are 
    concerned. With respect to the last question, the Chair will 
    overrule the point of order and permit the Senator from Connecticut 
    again to state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Danaher: Mr. 
    President, does a Senate resolution, if adopted, have greater 
    effect than to reflect the views of the largest number of Senators 
    agreeing thereto, who are present and voting for it?
        The Presiding Officer: The Chair will state that under the 
    universal practice a resolution of this kind is not binding on 
    anyone. It is merely a statement of the opinion of the Senate.
        Mr. Danaher: Mr. President, in response to the comment of the 
    Senator from Montana, let me say that with very considerable 
    diligence I made inquiry into the Senate precedents with reference 
    to the status and effect of a Senate resolution of this character. 
    I have taken the matter up with the parliamentarian of the Senate 
    and with others in a position to give me the benefit of their 
    advice and experience. I have been informed--and I think reliably--
    by the parliamentarian himself that he has made a search of the 
    precedents at my request. I respectfully ask unanimous consent to 
    have inserted in the Record at this point as a part of my remarks a 
    definition of the effect of a Senate resolution, as prepared for me 
    by the Senate parliamentarian.

[[Page 4823]]

        Mr. [Carl A.] Hatch [of New Mexico]: Mr. President, will the 
    Senator yield?
        Mr. Danaher: I yield.
        Mr. Hatch: Does not the Senator intend to read it, or have it 
    read?
        Mr. Danaher: Yes. I ask that the memorandum be read at the 
    desk.
        The Presiding Officer: Without objection, the clerk will read 
    the memorandum.
        The legislative clerk read as follows:

            Under the uniform practice of this body, Senate (or simple) 
        resolutions are used in dealing with nonlegislative matters 
        exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Senate, such as 
        expressing opinions or facts, creating and appointing 
        committees of the body, calling on departments for information, 
        reports, etc. They have no legal effect, their passage being 
        attested only by the Secretary of the Senate, and require no 
        action by the House of Representatives. Containing no 
        legislative provisions, they are not presented to the President 
        of the United States for his approval, as in the case of bills 
        and joint resolutions.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As in the case of concurrent resolutions, 
Congress has in recent years enacted legislation permitting either 
House by simple resolution to approve or disapprove certain proposed 
executive actions. See Sec. 7, infra. [See also House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 1013 (1981).]

Adoption of Rules

Sec. 6.2 A simple resolution is used to adopt the rules of the House 
    for each Congress.

    On Jan. 3, 1935,(10) the House considered and agreed to 
the following House resolution (H. Res. 17):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 13, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the rules of the Seventy-third Congress be, and 
    they are hereby, adopted as the rules of the Seventy-fourth 
    Congress, including therein the following amendment, to wit:
        That the last sentence of the first paragraph of section 4 of 
    rule XXVII be amended to read as follows:
        ``When a majority of the total Membership of the House shall 
    have signed the motion, it shall be entered on the Journal, printed 
    with the signatures thereto in the Congressional Record, and 
    referred to the Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees.''

Waiver of Rules

Sec. 6.3 The Committee on Rules may report and call up as privileged 
    resolutions temporarily waiving any rule of the House, including 
    statutory provisions enacted as an exercise in the House's 
    rulemaking authority which would otherwise prohibit the 
    consideration of a bill being made in order by the resolution.

    The following proceedings took place on Mar. 20, 1975: 
(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 7676, 7677, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 4824]]

        Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 337 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 337

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI and 
        section 401 of Public Law 93-344 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. 4485) to provide for greater 
        homeownership opportunities for middle-income families and to 
        encourage more efficient use of land and energy resources. . . 
        .

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I raise a 
    point of order against House Resolution 337 on the grounds that the 
    Budget Act by direct inference forbids any waiver of the section 
    401 ban on new backdoor spending in the House of Representatives.
        Mr. Speaker, my point of order is grounded on two basic facts: 
    First, there is no specific provision in section 401 for an 
    emergency waiver of its provisions; and yet, in section 402, which 
    generally prohibits consideration of bills authorizing new budget 
    authority after May 15, there is specific provision for an 
    ``Emergency Waiver in the House'' if the Rules Committee determines 
    that emergency conditions require such a waiver. It is my 
    contention that if the authors of section 401 had intended to 
    permit a waiver of its provisions, they would have specifically 
    written into law as they did with section 402. Section 402 makes a 
    similar provision for waiving its provisions in the Senate.
        Second, section 904 of the Budget Act, in subsections (b) and 
    (c) states that any provision of title III or IV may be waived or 
    suspended in the Senate by a majority vote of the Members voting, 
    thus extending a waiver procedure in the Senate to section 401 as 
    well as 402. But section 904 contains no similar waiver provision 
    for the House of Representatives.
        It should be clear from these two facts that the House was 
    intentionally excluded from waiving the provisions of section 401 
    of the Budget Act.
        Mr. Speaker, the point may be made that the Budget Act's 
    provisions are part of the rules of the House, and, as such, are 
    subject to change at any time under the constitutional right of the 
    House to determine the rules of its proceedings. But I think a fine 
    distinction should be drawn here. This resolution is presented for 
    the purpose of making a bill in order for consideration, and is not 
    before us for the purpose of amending or changing the Budget Act. 
    Since section 401 of the Budget Act deals concurrently with the 
    House and the Senate and their integrated procedures for 
    prohibiting new backdoor spending, any attempt to alter this would 
    have to be dealt with in a concurrent resolution at the very 
    minimum, if not a joint resolution or amendment to the Budget Act. 
    It is one thing for the House to amend its rules; it is quite 
    another for it to attempt, by simple resolution, to waive a 
    provision of law relating to the joint rules of procedures of both 
    Houses. . . . It is my contention that the authors of the Budget 
    Act never in

[[Page 4825]]

    tended for side-door spending in the Rules Committee and for that 
    reason specifically excluded any provision for emergency waivers in 
    section 401 in the House. I therefore urge that my point of order 
    be sustained.
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling (of Missouri): . . . Mr. Speaker, there 
    are a variety of grounds on which it would be possible to address 
    this point of order. It could be dismissed very quickly on the 
    grounds that the rules of the House provide that it shall always be 
    in order to call up for consideration a report from the Committee 
    on Rules on a rule, joint rule or the order of business, and then 
    it proceeds to give the very limited number of exceptions. The one 
    that the gentleman from Illinois makes as his points of order, and 
    all the different ones he makes as his points of order, are not 
    included in those specific exceptions.
        So, the rules of the House specifically make it clear that the 
    Rules Committee is in order when it reports a rule dealing with the 
    order of business, and it does not qualify that authority except in 
    a very limited degree.
        Furthermore, it is an established fact that the House can 
    always change its rules. It is protected by so doing. . . .
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Does not the Budget Control 
    Act, section 401(a) prohibit backdoor spending?
        Mr. Bolling: It also is possible for that provision to be 
    waived. What I tried to do in my discussion in opposition to the 
    validity of the point of order made by the gentleman from Illinois 
    was to point out the very broad basis on which such a matter could 
    be waived, a constitutional basis and a specific provision of 
    clause 4 of rule XI granting the Committee on Rules a very broad 
    authority to report matters that relate to order of business. It is 
    a well-known fact that the Committee on Rules often reports waivers 
    of points of order, and this is, in effect, a waiver of a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: (12) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois makes the point of order against 
    the consideration of House Resolution 337 reported from the 
    Committee on Rules, on the grounds that that Committee has no 
    authority to report as privileged a resolution waiving the 
    provisions of section 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 
    Section 401 prohibits the consideration in the House of any bill 
    which provides new spending authority unless that bill also 
    provides that such new spending authority is to be available only 
    to the extent provided in appropriations acts.
        The Chair would point out that while section 401 has the force 
    and effect of law, section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act 
    clearly recites that all of the provisions of title IV, including 
    section 401, were enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of 
    the House, to be considered as part of the rules of the House, with 
    full recognition of the constitutional right of each House to 
    change such rules at any time to the same extent as in the case of 
    any other rule of the House. House Resolution 5, 94th Congress, 
    adopted all these provisions of the Budget Act as part of the rules 
    of the House for this Congress. . . .

[[Page 4826]]

        The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order.

Amending Rules

Sec. 6.4 The House agreed to a resolution amending the rules of the 
    House to permit the Delegate from Alaska to serve on an additional 
    committee.

    On Aug. 2, 1949,(13) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following resolution (H. Res. 294):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 95 Cong. Rec. 10618, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That rule XII of the Standing Rules of the House of 
    Representatives is hereby amended to read as follows:

                                    Rule XII

                      Delegates and Resident Commissioners

            1. The Delegate from Hawaii and the Resident Commissioner 
        of the United States from Puerto Rico shall be elected to serve 
        as additional members on the Committees on Agriculture, Armed 
        Services, and Public Lands, and the Delegate from Alaska shall 
        be elected to serve as an additional member on the Committees 
        on Agriculture, Armed Services, Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
        and Public Lands; and they shall possess in such committees the 
        same powers and privileges as in the House, and may make any 
        motion except to reconsider.

Committee Investigations

Sec. 6.5 The Senate considered a resolution providing for the 
    investigation by a Senate committee of charges made in the press 
    concerning the bribery of candidates for public office.

    On Mar. 8, 1960,(14) there was considered in the Senate 
the following resolution (S. Res. 285):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 4899, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration, or 
    any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and 
    directed under sections 134(a) and 136 of the Legislative 
    Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, and in accordance with its 
    jurisdictions specified by rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the 
    Senate, to examine, investigate, and make a complete study of the 
    charges, with a view to determine the truth or falsity thereof, 
    which have recently appeared in the public press that certain 
    persons have sought, through corruptly offering various favors, 
    privileges, and other inducements (including large sums of money), 
    to induce certain individuals to lend their political support to 
    one political party rather than to another, or to become candidates 
    of one political party rather than of another, and that the offers 
    made by such persons have in fact corruptly induced certain of such 
    individuals to change their political affiliations or to lend their 
    political support to one political party rather than to another.

[[Page 4827]]

        Sec. 2. The committee shall report its findings, together with 
    its recommendations for such legislation as it deems advisable, to 
    the Senate at the earliest practicable date, but not later than 
    January 31, 1961.
        Sec. 3. For the purpose of this resolution, the committee, from 
    the date on which this resolution is agreed to, to January 31, 
    1961, inclusive, is authorized (1) to make such expenditures as it 
    deems advisable, and (2) to employ on a temporary basis technical, 
    clerical, and other assistants and consultants.

Sec. 6.6 The House agreed to a resolution directing a committee to 
    investigate whether a subpena issued by a court or grand jury 
    purporting to command a Member to appear and testify invades the 
    rights and privileges of the House.

    On Nov. 10, 1941,(15) Mr. Hamilton Fish, of New York, 
rose to a question of personal privilege, and sent to the desk a 
subpena which had been served on him, asking that it be read by the 
Clerk. When the subpena had been read, Mr. Fish submitted, as a matter 
of privilege of the House, the issue of compliance with the subpena.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 87 Cong. Rec. 8734, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker,(16) I have been summoned to 
    appear before the District grand jury to give testimony next 
    Wednesday morning. The subpena has just been read by the Clerk. 
    Under the precedents of the House, I find that I am unable to 
    comply with this summons without the consent of the House, the 
    privilege of the House being involved. I therefore submit the 
    matter for the consideration of this body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, addressed the House 
concerning the significance of the matter Mr. Fish had brought to the 
attention of the House, and following his remarks, included below, 
introduced, as a question of the privilege of the House, House 
Resolution 335, which the House then considered and agreed to:

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York raises 
    a fundamental question, which is very important to the House to 
    have correct information and advice upon before proceeding. The 
    matter concerns the integrity of the House itself whether or not an 
    individual Member can be summoned under the circumstances disclosed 
    in the case of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] and if he 
    cannot, if he can waive his constitutional privileges as a Member.
        This resolution does not pass upon the merits or the demerits 
    of the grand jury proceedings. In offering the resolution I am 
    about to offer, it is not a question of reflection on the grand 
    jury or the Department of Justice or the judicial branch of the 
    Government, but it involves a question of the integrity of the 
    House.

[[Page 4828]]

        I offer the following resolution and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows (H. Res. 335):

            Whereas Hamilton Fish, a Member of this House from the 
        State of New York, has been summoned to appear as a witness 
        before the grand jury of a United States Court for the District 
        of Columbia to testify; and
            Whereas the service of such a process upon a Member of this 
        House during his attendance while the Congress is in session 
        might deprive the district which he represents of this voice 
        and vote; and
            Whereas Article I, section 6, of the Constitution of the 
        United States provides: ``They (the Senators and 
        Representatives) shall in all cases, except treason, felony, 
        and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their 
        attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in 
        going to and returning from the same . . . and for any speech 
        or debate in either House, they (the Senators and 
        Representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place''; 
        and
            Whereas it appears by reason of the action taken by the 
        said grand jury that the rights and privileges of the House of 
        Representatives may be infringed:
            Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary of the House 
        of Representatives is authorized and directed to investigate 
        and consider whether the service of a subpena or any other 
        process by a court or a grand jury purporting to command a 
        Member of this House to appear and testify invades the rights 
        and privileges of the House of Representatives. The committee 
        shall report at any time on the matters herein committed to it, 
        and that until the committee shall report Representative 
        Hamilton Fish shall refrain from responding to the summons 
        served upon him.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. On Nov. 17, 1941, the Committee on the Judiciary, in relation to 
        the above matter, filed a privileged report (H. Rept. 1415) 
        which was referred to the House Calendar. 87 Cong. Rec. 8933, 
        77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.7 The House considered as a question of privilege, a resolution 
    referring to the Committee on the Judiciary the question of whether 
    subpenas served upon certain Members, former Members, and House 
    employees in a civil suit invaded the rights and privileges of the 
    House.

    On Mar. 26, 1953,(18) the House considered and agreed to 
the following resolution (H. Res. 190):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 99 Cong. Rec. 2356-58, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas Harold H. Velde, of Illinois; Donald L. Jackson, of 
    California; Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania; Morgan M. Moulder, 
    of Missouri; Clyde Doyle, of California; and James B. Frazier, Jr., 
    of Tennessee, all Representatives in the Congress of the United 
    States; and Louis J. Russell and William Wheeler, employees of the 
    House of Representatives, have been by subpenas commanded to appear 
    on Monday and Tuesday, March 30 and 31, 1953, in the city of Los 
    Angeles, Calif., and to testify and give their depositions in the 
    case of Michael Wilson et al. v. Loew's Incorporated et al.,

[[Page 4829]]

    an action pending in the Superior Court of the State of California 
    in and for the County of Los Angeles; and
         Whereas the complaint in the aforesaid case of Michael Wilson 
    et al. v. Loew's Incorporated et al., lists among the parties 
    defendant therein John S. Wood, Francis E. Walter, Morgan M. 
    Moulder, Clyde Doyle, James B. Frazier, Harold E. Velde, Barnard W. 
    Kearney, Donald L. Jackson, Charles E. Potter, Louis J. Russell, 
    and William Wheeler; and . . .
        Whereas part V of said complaint contains an allegation that 
    ``on and prior to March 1951 and continuously thereafter defendants 
    herein and each of them conspired together and agreed with each 
    other to blacklist and to refuse employment to and exclude from 
    employment in the motion-picture industry all employees and persons 
    seeking employment in the motion-picture industry who had been or 
    thereafter were subpenaed as witnesses before the Committee on Un-
    American Activities of the House of Representatives . . .''; and
        Whereas article I, section 6, of the Constitution of the United 
    States provides: ``They (the Senators and Representatives) shall in 
    all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be 
    privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of 
    their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the 
    same; . . . and for any speech or debate in either House, they (the 
    Senators and Representatives) shall not be questioned in any other 
    place''; and
        Whereas the service of such process upon Members of this House 
    during their attendance while the Congress is in session might 
    deprive the district which each respectively represents of his 
    voice and vote; and
        Whereas the service of such subpenas and summons upon Members 
    of the House of Representatives who are members of the duly 
    constituted committee of the House of Representatives, and the 
    service of such subpenas and summons upon employees of the House of 
    Representatives serving on the staff of a duly constituted 
    committee of the House of Representatives, will hamper and delay if 
    not completely obstruct the work of such committee, its members, 
    and its staff employees in their official capacities; and
        Whereas it appears by reason of allegations made in the 
    compliant in the said case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's 
    Incorporated, et al., and by reason of the said processes 
    hereinbefore mentioned the rights and privileges of the House of 
    Representatives may be infringed:
        Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a 
    whole or by subcommittee, is hereby authorized and directed to 
    investigate and consider whether the service of the processes 
    aforementioned purporting to command Members, former Members, and 
    employees of this House to appear and testify invades the rights 
    and privileges of the House of Representatives; and whether in the 
    complaint of the aforementioned case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. 
    Loew's Incorporated et al., the allegations that Members, former 
    Members, and employees of the House of Representatives acting in 
    their official capacities as members of a committee of the said 
    House conspired against the plaintiffs in such action to the 
    detriment of such plaintiffs, and

[[Page 4830]]

    any and all other allegations in the said complaint reflecting upon 
    Members, former Members, and employees of this House and their 
    actions in their representative and official capacities, invade the 
    rights and privileges of the House of Representatives. The 
    committee may report at any time on the matters herein committed to 
    it, and until the committee shall report and the House shall grant 
    its consent in the premises the aforementioned Members, former 
    Members, and employees shall refrain from reponding to the subpenas 
    or summons served upon them. . . .
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I think 
    probably a few words in explanation of the resolution and the 
    reason for its being here are in order at this time, in spite of 
    the fact that the resolution for the most part speaks for itself.
        By way of explanation, as most of us know, certain members of 
    the House Committee on Un-American Activities and employees of that 
    committee are presently in the State of California conducting 
    certain investigations as a part of their operation as a standing 
    committee of the House of Representatives. They are there in their 
    official capacity as members of the committee and employees of the 
    committee, and as Members of the House of Representatives and 
    employees of the House of Representatives. They are there, 
    furthermore, by direction of the House of Representatives, and they 
    are there on official business as evidenced by the action taken in 
    the House yesterday excusing them from attendance here by reason of 
    their performance of official duties in California at this time.

        The suit that has been filed in the State courts of California 
    arises out of certain alleged conduct, or activities, or 
    operations, of the House Committee on Un-American Activities of the 
    82d Congress. Enough has been included in the resolution, I think, 
    to indicate the nature of the suit which is, as I understand, one 
    for damages asserted against certain corporations and private 
    individuals, and likewise against Members of the House of 
    Representatives and employees of the House of Representatives, 
    admittedly by the provisions of the complaint itself involving them 
    in the conduct of their official duty.
        If you noted the reading of the resolution it is clear that the 
    privileges of the House are infringed by this action. The purpose 
    of this resolution is to avoid the immediate effect of the action 
    sought to be taken in California and at the same time to direct the 
    Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives to make a 
    thorough study and investigation of the whole matter and report to 
    the House of Representatives with respect to it and other matters 
    of like character that may arise in the future.
        I have spoken of the fact that the complaint recognizes the 
    official character of the conduct and actions of Members of the 
    House of Representatives and the employees of the committee. The 
    Constitution provides that, as recited in the resolution:

            They--

        Referring to the Senators and Representatives--
        shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the 
        peace be privileged from arrest during their attendance on the 
        session of their respective Houses, and in going to and 
        returning from the same.

[[Page 4831]]

        It is further provided:

            That for any speech or debate in either House they--

        Referring to the Senators and Representatives--
        shall not be questioned in any other place.

        Through the years that language has been construed to mean more 
    than the speech or statement made here within the four walls of the 
    House of Representatives; it has been construed to include the 
    conduct of Members and their statements in connection with their 
    activities as Members of the House of Representatives. As a result, 
    it seems clear to me that under the provisions of the Constitution 
    itself the adoption of the resolution which was presented is 
    certainly in order.
        Let us assume that any regular standing committee of the House 
    of Representatives should conduct a hearing and any one of us were 
    there as a Member of the House in his official capacity. Let us 
    further assume that this Member saw fit to elicit certain 
    information from a witness by questions and as a result of that 
    questioning the witness, employed by someone, subsequently lost his 
    job. Is the Member of the House of Representatives to be held 
    accountable and haled into court on a suit for damages for his 
    participation in the operations of that committee as a member of 
    the committee and as Members of the House of Representatives? To me 
    it seems clear that no such action can be taken under the 
    Constitution.
        Furthermore, this committee that is presently in California is 
    there on official business for the House of Representatives and as 
    a part of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the 
    United States. Everyone recognizes the investigatory process as a 
    part of the legislative process. So, under the rules creating the 
    committee and under long established precedents, the members of 
    that committee and their employees are there operating and acting 
    as an arm of the House of Representatives.
        To me it seems very clear that if a civil suit for damages can 
    be filed and summonses served on Members of the House of 
    Representatives who are there present, followed by subpenas 
    requiring them to attend and give testimony as witnesses on 
    deposition, as is pointed out in this resolution, then the work of 
    the committee could be completely obstructed, since conceivably the 
    questioning of the Members of the House of Representatives who are 
    presently there would be carried on interminably, and the work of 
    the committee stopped.

Consideration of Concurrent Resolutions

Sec. 6.8 The consideration of a House concurrent resolution which is 
    not otherwise privileged may be provided for by a resolution from 
    the Committee on Rules.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(19) the House considered the following 
resolution (H. Res. 827) from the Committee on Rules providing for the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 108 Cong. Rec. 22618, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4832]]

consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 570:

                  Sense of Congress With Respect to Berlin

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 827 
    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 
        the consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 
        570) expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the 
        situation in Berlin. After general debate, which shall be 
        confined to the concurrent resolution, 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 
        Foreign Affairs, the concurrent resolution shall be considered 
        as having been read for amendment. No amendment shall be in 
        order to said concurrent resolution except amendments offered 
        by the direction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and such 
        amendments shall not be subject to amendment. At the conclusion 
        of the consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
        amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the concurrent 
        resolution to the House with such amendments as may have been 
        adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto, to 
        final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
        recommit with or without instructions.

Rescinding Resolution Previously Adopted

Sec. 6.9 By resolution, the House rescinded a previously adopted 
    resolution whereby a bill had been referred to the Court of Claims 
    for report.

    On Apr. 30, 1957,(20) the House considered by unanimous 
consent and passed the following resolution (H. Res. 241):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 103 Cong. Rec. 6159, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            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.

Requesting Conference

Sec. 6.10 The House considered a resolution taking a House joint 
    resolution with Senate amendments thereto from the Speaker's table, 
    disagreeing to the Senate amendments, and requesting a conference.

    On Oct. 31, 1939,(21) the House considered the following 
resolu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 85 Cong. Rec. 1092, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4833]]

tion (H. Res. 320) reported from the Committee on Rules:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution, the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 306), the 
        Neutrality Act of 1939, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and 
        the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's table to the end 
        that the amendments of the Senate be, and the same are hereby, 
        disagreed to and a conference is requested with the Senate on 
        the disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

Providing a Standing Order of Business

Sec. 6.11 The Senate agreed to a resolution providing that the 
    Presiding Officer shall temporarily suspend business at 12 noon, on 
    days when the Senate has remained in session from the preceding 
    calendar day, to allow the Chaplain to give the customary daily 
    prayer.

    On Feb. 29, 1960 (22) the Senate considered and agreed 
to the following resolution (S. Res. 283):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 106 Cong. Rec. 3709, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That during the sessions of the Senate when that body 
    is in continuous session, the Presiding Officer shall temporarily 
    suspend the business of the Senate at noon each day for the purpose 
    of having the customary daily prayer by the Chaplain of the Senate.

Distribution of Senate Film Report

Sec. 6.12 The Senate agreed to a resolution providing for the 
    designation and distribution of a documentary film prepared by a 
    Senate committee as a ``Senate Film Report.''

    On Oct. 2, 1963,(1) the Senate agreed to the following 
resolution (S. Res. 208):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 109 Cong. Rec. 18541, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the film report on water pollution, entitled 
    ``Troubled Waters,'' prepared by the Committee on Public Works, 
    shall be designated as Senate Film Report numbered 1, Eighty-eighth 
    Congress, and that there be printed seven additional copies of such 
    film, five for the use of that committee, and two for the Library 
    of Congress. The Secretary of the Senate is authorized and directed 
    to pay, from the contingent funds of the Senate, the actual cost of 
    reproduction of these copies of the film: Provided, That copies of 
    said film may be made available to nongovernmental agencies or 
    individuals at the cost of reproduction.

Response to Subpena

Sec. 6.13 By resolution the House may authorize certain Members to 
    respond to a subpena issued by a federal district court in a 
    contempt case.

    On Feb. 23, 1948,(2) the House considered and agreed to 
the fol
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 94 Cong. Rec. 1557, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4834]]

lowing privileged resolution (H. Res. 477):

        Whereas Representatives John S. Wood, J. Hardin Peterson, John 
    R. Murdock, and Gerald W. Landis, Members of this House, have been 
    subpenaed to appear as witnesses before the District Court of the 
    United States for the District of Columbia to testify at 10 a.m. on 
    the 24th day of February 1948, in the case of the United States v. 
    Richard Morford, Criminal No. 366-47; and
        Whereas by the privileges of the House no Member is authorized 
    to appear and testify but by the order of the House: Therefore be 
    it
        Resolved, That Representatives John S. Wood, J. Hardin 
    Peterson, John R. Murdock, and Gerald W. Landis are authorized to 
    appear in response to the subpenas of the District Court of the 
    United States for the District of Columbia in the case of the 
    United States v. Richard Morford at such time as when the House is 
    not sitting in session; and be it further
        Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to 
    the said court as a respectful answer to the subpenas of the said 
    court.

Sec. 6.14 The House may by resolution authorize certain of its officers 
    to appear before a grand jury in response to a subpena duces tecum 
    and permit the court to take copies of certain papers.

    On May 25, 1953,(3) the House considered and agreed to 
privileged resolutions (H. Res. 245 and H. Res. 246) permitting its 
Clerk and its Sergeant at Arms to appear before a federal grand jury. 
The resolution pertaining to the Clerk was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 99 Cong. Rec. 5523, 5524, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
            The resolution (H. Res. 246) allowing the Sergeant at Arms 
        to respond was identical in terms to that for the Clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas in re investigation of possible violation of title 18, 
    United States Code, section 1001, a subpena duces tecum was issued 
    by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia 
    and addressed to Lyle Snader, Clerk of the House of 
    Representatives, directing him to appear before the grand jury of 
    said court on Thursday, the 28th day of May 1953, at 9:15 o'clock 
    antemeridian to testify and to bring with him certain forms, 
    papers, and records in the possession and under the control of the 
    House of Representatives: Therefore be it
        Resolved, That by the privileges of this House no evidence of a 
    documentary character under the control and in the possession of 
    the House of Representatives can, by the mandate of process of the 
    ordinary courts of justice, be taken from such control or 
    possession but by its permission; be it further
        Resolved, That when it appears by the order of the court or of 
    the judge thereof or of any legal officer charged with the 
    administration of the orders of such court or judge, that 
    documentary evidence in the possession and under the control of the 
    House is needful for use in any court of justice or be

[[Page 4835]]

    fore any judge or such legal officer, for the promotion of justice, 
    this House will take such order thereon as will promote the ends of 
    justice consistently with the privileges and rights of this House; 
    be it further
        Resolved, That Lyle O. Snader, Clerk of the House, be 
    authorized to appear at the place and before the grand jury of the 
    court named in the subpena duces tecum before-mentioned, but shall 
    not take with him any papers, documents, or records on file in his 
    office or under his control or in his possession as Clerk of the 
    House; be it further
        Resolved, That when said court determines upon the materiality 
    and the relevancy of the papers, documents, and records called for 
    in the subpena duces tecum, then the said court, through any of its 
    officers or agents, have full permission to attend with all proper 
    parties to the proceedings and then always at any place under the 
    orders and control of this House and take copies of any papers, 
    documents, or records and the Clerk is authorized to supply 
    certified copies of such papers, documents, or records in 
    possession or control of said Clerk that the court has found to be 
    material and relevant, so as, however, the possession of said 
    papers, documents, and records by the said Clerk shall not be 
    disturbed, or the same shall not be removed from their place of 
    file or custody under said Clerk; and be it further
        Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to 
    the said court as a respectful answer to the subpena duces tecum 
    aforementioned.

Sec. 6.15 The House agreed to a resolution authorizing the Committee on 
    the Judiciary to file appearances and provide for the defense of 
    certain Members, former Members, and House employees in a civil 
    action.

    On Aug. 1, 1953,(4) the House considered and agreed to 
the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 386):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 99 Cong. Rec. 10949, 10950, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas Harold H. Velde, of Illinois, Donald L. Jackson, of 
    California, Morgan M. Moulder, of Missouri, Clyde Doyle, of 
    California, and James B. Frazier, Jr., of Tennessee, all 
    Representatives in the Congress of the United States; and Louis J. 
    Russell, and William Wheeler, employees of the House of 
    Representatives, were by subpenas commanded to appear on Monday and 
    Tuesday, March 30 and 31, 1953 in the city of Los Angeles, Calif., 
    and to testify and give their depositions in the case of Michael 
    Wilson, et al. v. Loew's, Incorporated, et al., an action pending 
    in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los 
    Angeles; and
        Whereas the complaint in the aforesaid case of Michael Wilson, 
    et al. v. Loew's Incorporated, et al. lists among the parties 
    defendant therein Harold H. Velde, Bernard W. Kearney, Donald L. 
    Jackson, Francis E. Walter, Morgan M. Moulder, Clyde Doyle, and 
    James B. Frazier, members of the Committee on Un-American 
    Activities; John S. Wood, and Charles E. Potter, former members of 
    the Committee on Un-

[[Page 4836]]

    American Activities; and Louis J. Russell, and William Wheeler, 
    employees of the Committee on Un-American Activities; and
        Whereas summonses in the aforesaid case of Michael Wilson et 
    al. v. Loew's Incorporated, et al. were served on Harold H. Velde, 
    Donald L. Jackson, Morgan M. Moulder, Clyde Doyle, James B. 
    Frazier, Jr., Louis J. Russell and William Wheeler while they were 
    in the city of Los Angeles, Calif., actively engaged in the 
    performance of their duties and obligations as members and 
    employees of the Committee on Un-American Activities; and
        Whereas Harold H. Velde, Donald L. Jackson, Morgan M. Moulder, 
    Clyde Doyle, James B. Frazier, Jr., Louis J. Russell, and William 
    Wheeler appeared specially in the case of Michael Wilson, et al. 
    versus Loew's Incorporated, et al., for the purpose of moving to 
    set aside the service of summonses and to quash the subpenas with 
    which they had been served; and
        Whereas on July 20, 1953, the Superior Court of the State of 
    California in and for the County of Los Angeles ruled that the 
    aforesaid summonses served upon Harold H. Velde, Morgan M. Moulder, 
    James B. Frazier, Jr., and Louis J. Russell should be set aside for 
    the reasons that it was the public policy of the State of 
    California ``that nonresident members and attaches of a 
    congressional committee who enter the territorial jurisdiction of 
    its courts for the controlling purpose of conducting legislative 
    hearings pursuant to law should be privileged from the service of 
    process in civil litigation''; and
        Whereas on July 20, 1953, the Superior Court of the State of 
    California in and for the County of Los Angeles also ruled that the 
    subpenas served upon Harold H. Velde, Morgan M. Moulder, James B. 
    Frazier, Jr., and Louis J. Russell should be recalled and quashed 
    for the reason set forth above, and for the further reasons that 
    such service was premature and that such service was invalid under 
    article I, section 6, of the Constitution of the United States 
    which provides: ``They (the Senators and Representatives) shall in 
    all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be 
    privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of 
    their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the 
    same; . . . and for any speech or debate in either House, they 
    shall not be questioned in any other place''; and
        Whereas on July 20, 1953, the Superior Court of the State of 
    California in and for the County of Los Angeles further ruled that 
    the subpenas served on Clyde Doyle and Donald Jackson should be 
    recalled and quashed because such service was invalid under the 
    aforementioned article I, section 6, of the Constitution of the 
    United States; and
        Whereas the case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's 
    Incorporated, et al. in which the aforementioned Members, former 
    Members, and employees of the House of Representatives are named 
    parties defendant is still pending; and
        Whereas the summonses with respect to Donald L. Jackson, Clyde 
    Doyle, and William Wheeler in the case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. 
    Loew's Incorporated, et al., have not been quashed:
        Resolved, That the House of Representatives hereby approves of 
    the

[[Page 4837]]

    special appearances of Harold H. Velde, Donald L. Jackson, Morgan 
    M. Moulder, Clyde Doyle, James B. Frazier, Jr., Louis J. Russell, 
    and William Wheeler theretofore entered in the case of Michael 
    Wilson, et al. v. Loew's Incorporated, et al., and be it further
        Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a 
    whole or by subcommittee, is hereby authorized to direct the filing 
    in the case of Michael Wilson, et al. v. Loew's Incorporated, et 
    al. of such special or general appearances on behalf of any of the 
    Members, former Members, or employees of the House of 
    Representatives named as defendants therein, and to direct such 
    other or further action with respect to the aforementioned 
    defendants in such manner as will, in the judgment of the Committee 
    on the Judiciary, be consistent with the rights and privileges of 
    the House of Representatives; and be it further Resolved, That the 
    Committee on the Judiciary is also authorized and directed to 
    arrange for the defense of the Members, former Members, and 
    employees of the Committee on Un-American Activities in any suit 
    hereafter brought against such Members, former Members, and 
    employees, or any one or more of them growing out of the actions of 
    such Members, former Members, and employees while performing such 
    duties and obligations imposed upon them by the laws of the 
    Congress and the rules and resolutions of the House of 
    Representatives. The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to 
    incur all expenses necessary for the purposes hereof, including but 
    not limited to expenses of travel and subsistence, employment of 
    counsel and other persons to assist the committee or subcommittee, 
    and if deemed advisable by the committee or subcommittee, to employ 
    counsel to represent any and all of the Members, former Members, 
    and employees of the Committee on Un-American Activities who may be 
    named as parties defendant in any such action or actions; and such 
    expenses shall be paid from the contingent fund of the House of 
    Representatives on vouchers authorized by the Committee on the 
    Judiciary and signed by the chairman thereof and approved by the 
    Committee on House Administration.

Sec. 6.16 The House may by resolution authorize a Member to respond to 
    a subpena requiring him to appear before a state court.

    On July 9, 1954,(5) the House considered the following 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 640):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 100 Cong. Rec. 10904, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas James A. Haley, a Representative in the Congress of the 
    United States, has been served with a subpena to appear as a 
    witness before the circuit court of the State of Florida for 
    Sarasota County to testify at 10 o'clock a.m., on the 3d day of 
    August 1954, in the case of the County of Sarasota, Florida v. 
    State of Florida and the Taxpayers, Etc., and

        Whereas by the privileges of the House of Representatives no 
    Member is authorized to appear and testify but by the order of the 
    House: Therefore be it
        Resolved, That Representative James A. Haley is authorized to 
    appear in re

[[Page 4838]]

    sponse to the subpena of the Circuit Court of the State of Florida 
    for Sarasota County on Tuesday, August 3, 1954, in the case of the 
    County of Sarasota, Florida, v. State of Florida and the Taxpayers, 
    Etc.; and be it further
        Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted to 
    the said court as a respectful answer to the subpena of the said 
    court.

Sec. 6.17 The House considered a resolution relating to a subpena duces 
    tecum served on the House dispersing clerk by a U.S. District 
    Court, authorizing him to appear in the court and permitting the 
    court through its agents to take copies of papers in possession of 
    the clerk.

    On Feb. 7, 1955,(6) the House considered and agreed to 
the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 132):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 101 Cong. Rec. 1215, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas in the case of Bettie M. Bacon v. The United States 
    (No. 2384-53, civil docket) pending in the District Court of the 
    United States for the District of Columbia, a subpena duces tecum 
    was issued by the said court and addressed to Harry M. Livingston, 
    disbursing clerk of the House of Representatives, directing him to 
    appear as a witness before the said court on the 8th day of 
    February 1955, at 1:30 post meridian and to bring with him certain 
    and sundry papers in the possession and under the control of the 
    House of Representatives: Therefore be it
        Resolved, That by the privileges of this House no evidence of a 
    documentary character under the control and in the possession of 
    the House of Representatives can, by the mandate of process of the 
    ordinary courts of justice, be taken from such control or 
    possession but by its permission; be it further
        Resolved, That when it appears by the order of the court or of 
    the judge thereof, or of any legal officer charged with the 
    administration of the orders of such court of judge, that 
    documentary evidence in the possession and under the control of the 
    House is needful for use in any court of justice, or before any 
    judge or such legal officer, for the promotion of justice, this 
    House will take such order thereon as will promote the ends of 
    justice consistently with the privileges and rights of this House; 
    be it further
        Resolved, That Harry M. Livingston, disbursing clerk of the 
    House, be authorized to appear at the place and before the court 
    named in the subpena duces tecum before-mentioned, but shall not 
    take with him any papers or documents on file in his office or 
    under his control or in possession of the Clerk of the House; be it 
    further
        Resolved, That when said court determines upon the materiality 
    and the relevancy of the papers and documents called for in the 
    subpena duces tecum, then the said court, through any of its 
    officers or agents, have full permission to attend with all proper 
    parties to the proceeding and then always at any place under the 
    orders and control of

[[Page 4839]]

    this House and take copies of any documents or papers and the Clerk 
    is authorized to supply certified copies of such documents and 
    papers in possession or control of said Clerk that the court has 
    found to be material and relevant, except minutes and transcripts 
    of executive sessions, and any evidence of witnesses in respect 
    thereto which the court or other proper officer thereof shall 
    desire, so as, however, the possession of said documents and papers 
    by the said Clerk shall not be disturbed, or the same shall not be 
    removed from their place of file or custody under said Clerk; and 
    be it further
        Resolved, That copy of these resolutions be transmitted to the 
    said court as a respectful answer to the subpena aforementioned.

Expressing Sympathy

Sec. 6.18 The Senate agreed to a resolution wishing a speedy recovery 
    to the wife of a Colombian official who was confined to a hospital 
    while visiting the United States with her husband.

        On June 25, 1962,(7) the Senate considered and 
    agreed to the following resolution (S. Res. 355):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 11653, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas the newly elected President of Colombia, the Honorable 
    Guillermo Valencia, is now a visitor to the United States; and
        Whereas Mr. Valencia has served with distinction for 20 
    consecutive years as a Senator in his country, from which position 
    His Excellency was elected President, both of which facts Members 
    of the United States Senate have taken due and appreciative notice; 
    and
        Whereas the gracious wife and companion of President-elect 
    Valencia is now hospitalized in the United States: Be it
        Resolved, That the Senate sends to Mrs. Valencia greetings and 
    welcome, and best wishes for early recovery; and be it further
        Resolved, That a bouquet of American roses be purchased from 
    the contingent fund of the Senate and be taken by special courier 
    to Mrs. Valencia, as a token of the Senate's esteem for her, for 
    her distinguished husband, and for the people of Colombia.

 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
    A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER 
                         MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
 
Sec. 7. Resolutions of Approval or Disapproval of Executive Plans; the 
    ``Legislative Veto''

    Congress has, from time to time, provided procedures whereby it has 
by statute reserved to itself the right to disapprove certain executive 
actions. These procedures envision some form of congressional action on 
a simple or concurrent resolution of disapproval or 
approval.(8) This prac
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Resolutions of approval or disapproval fall into three categories: 
        those in which the resolution must be acted upon by either or 
        both Houses and which are privileged for consideration; those 
        in which the resolution must be acted upon by either or both 
        Houses but which are not privileged; and those in which the 
        resolution need only be acted upon by designated committees of 
        either or both Houses. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 1013 
        (1981). All three types are in a sense ``nonlegislative'' in 
        that none are presented to the President for his approval or 
        disapproval pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 7 of the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4840]]

tice has come to be known as the ``legislative (or congressional) 
veto,'' and has been used extensively as a congressional device to 
maintain control over executive plans and actions authorized by 
statute. This procedure has been employed only when it has been 
authorized by a specific statute and for the specific purpose stated in 
such statute, there being no inherent power under the Constitution by 
which the Congress may nullify a duly authorized function of the 
executive branch. The procedure prescribed by a given statute in this 
respect varies according to the extent of control the Congress wished 
to exercise.

    The constitutionality of these legislative veto provisions has been 
questioned since their earliest use.(9) The Supreme Court 
has in fact invalidated the one-House legislative veto mechanism 
contained in section 244(d)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
in Immigration and Naturalization Service v Chadha et al. decided June 
23, 1983.(10) The opinion of the Court is to the effect that 
the constitutional requirement of bicameral consideration and 
presentment to the President is an absolute requirement for all 
exercises of legislative power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See President Carter's message on the subject of legislative 
        vetoes, June 21, 1978, H. Doc. 95-357.
10. 462 U.S.----.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The precedents contained in this section must be considered in 
light of the Court's ruling. They are retained because of their 
historic significance and because they may yet have precedential value 
in other contexts and in the event future legislative mechanisms are 
devised to overcome the constitutional infirmities recognized in 
Chadha.
    Under some statutes enacted prior to the Chadha decision, the 
branch or agency of the government affected must submit certain of its 
decisions or plans to the Houses of Congress or directly to the 
appropriate congressional committees for a stated period, and such 
decisions or plans will not go into effect if the Congress passes a 
concurrent resolution stating in substance that it does not favor the 
proposed action.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For example, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC Sec. 2074) 
        provides that the Atomic Energy Commission must submit to the 
        Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, for a period of 60 days 
        before becoming effective, its determination as to the 
        distribution of certain ``special nuclear material''. The 
        proposals do not become effective if the Congress passes a 
        concurrent resolution expressing its disapproval thereof.

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

[[Page 4841]]

    Such provisions are to be distinguished from those statutes under 
which Congress is entitled to receive periodic reports from an agency 
on its plans or programs, but does not have direct authority to 
disapprove of them.(12) However, the congressional committee 
receiving reports under such a statute may exercise an informal 
negotiating procedure with the agency involved in order to bring its 
decisions into conformity with the views of the committee. The Internal 
Revenue Code, for example, provides that whenever the Internal Revenue 
Service determines that a taxpayer is entitled to a tax refund or 
credit in excess of $100,000 it shall not award the money to the 
taxpayer until 30 days after it has submitted a report of its decision 
to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 18 USC Sec. 3771 and 28 USC Sec. 2072. The Supreme Court 
        approved, by way of dictum, the validity of the waiting period 
        requirement regarding the adoption of new court rules in 
        Sibbach v Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 15 (1941).
13. 26 USC Sec. 6405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff of the joint committee then reviews each report it 
receives from the Internal Revenue Service to decide whether or not it 
agrees with the service's determination. Frequently a tax refund or 
credit case will not become final until the joint committee and the 
service have through consultation agreed on the proper determination.
    In addition to expressing its disapproval by resolution the 
Congress may choose to amend the law under which the decision or plan 
was submitted, or by statute suspend the action of the reporting 
agency. For example, during the 83d Congress the Supreme Court drafted 
and submitted to the Congress under a mandatory 90-day waiting period 
new rules of evidence for federal courts and amendments to the federal 
rules of civil and criminal procedure.
    Under other statutes, the agency involved must come into agreement 
with the appropriate congressional committees regarding the final terms 
of such plan. Thus, a 1949 statute authorizing the establishment of a 
joint long-range proving ground for guided missiles contained the 
following language:

        . . . Prior to the acquisition under the authority of this 
    section of any

[[Page 4842]]

    lands or rights or other interests pertaining thereto, the 
    Secretary of the Air Force shall come into agreement with the Armed 
    Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
    with respect to the acquisition of such lands, rights, or other 
    interests.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Pub. L. No. 81-60, Sec. 2, 63 Stat. 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``come-into-agreement'' clause was used during and after World 
War II, but in recent years it has fallen into disuse because of strong 
Presidential protest. For example, in 1954 President Eisenhower vetoed 
a bill (H.R. 7512, 83d Cong.) authorizing the transfer of federally 
owned land within Camp Blanding Military Reservation, Florida, to the 
State of Florida after the Secretary of the Army had come into 
agreement with the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House 
of Representatives regarding the terms of such transfer. In his veto 
message the President said:

        The purpose of this clause is to vest in the Committees of 
    Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives power to 
    approve or disapprove any agreement which the Secretary of the Army 
    proposes to make with the State of Florida pursuant to section 
    2(4). The practical effect would be to place the power to make such 
    agreement jointly in the Secretary of the Army and the members of 
    the Committees on Armed Services. In so doing, the bill would 
    violate the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of 
    powers prescribed in articles I and II of the Constitution which 
    place the legislative power in the Congress and the executive power 
    in the executive branch.
        The making of such a contract or agreement on behalf of the 
    United States is a purely executive or administrative function, 
    like the negotiation and execution of Government contracts 
    generally. Thus, while Congress may enact legislation governing the 
    making of Government contracts, it may not delegate to its Members 
    or committees the power to make such contracts, either directly or 
    by giving to them a power to approve or disapprove a contract which 
    an executive officer proposes to make. Moreover such a procedure 
    destroys the clear lines of responsibility for results which the 
    Constitution provides.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Doc. No. 403, 83d Cong. 2d Sess. (May 26, 1954). See also the 
        memorandum of Mr. J. V. Rankin of the Department of Justice 
        expressing disapproval of a come-into-agreement clause in 
        proposed amendments to the Public Building Act of 1949. 100 
        Cong. Rec. 4878, 4879, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 8, 1954.
            President Eisenhower made even stronger objection in his 
        budget message of 1960 to another come-into-agreement statute: 
        ``In the budget message for 1959, and again for 1960, I 
        recommended immediate repeal of section 601 of the Act of 
        September 28, 1951 (65 Stat. 365). This section prevents the 
        military departments and the Office of Civil and Defense 
        Mobilization from carrying out certain transactions involving 
        real property unless they come into agreement with the 
        Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
        Representatives. As I have stated previously, the Attorney 
        General has advised me that this section violates fundamental 
        constitutional principles. Accordingly, if it is not repealed 
        by the Congress at its present session, I shall have no 
        alternative thereafter but to direct the Secretary of Defense 
        to disregard the section unless a court of competent 
        jurisdiction determines otherwise.'' Budget Message of the 
        President for fiscal year 1961. H. Doc. No. 255, 86th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., and 106 Cong. Rec. 674, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 18, 
        1960. That same year the Congress amended the statute that the 
        President found objectionable by changing the come-into-
        agreement clause to one permitting a committee resolution of 
        disapproval of military real estate transactions. Act of June 
        8, 1960, Pub. L. No. 86-500, title V, Sec. 511(1), 74 Stat. 
        186; 10 USC Sec. 2662.

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

[[Page 4843]]

    Another procedural device found in agency authorization statutes is 
the clause providing that the agency charged with general executive 
authorization under a statute must consult the committees of both 
Houses that have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the statute 
before taking certain of the specific actions authorized under it. For 
example, the statute pertaining to the disposition of naval petroleum 
reserves declares that:

        The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
    Representatives must be consulted and the President's approval must 
    be obtained before any condemnation proceedings may be started 
    under this chapter. . . .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 10 USC Sec. 7431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Still other statutes provide that an affirmative resolution of 
approval must be adopted by the congressional committees having 
jurisdiction of the subject matter before a plan drafted under the 
provisions of such statute by an executive agency shall go into effect. 
This affirmative approval procedure has usually been tied to the 
appropriation process. Thus, a statute will read that ``no 
appropriation shall be made'' until the particular projects authorized 
under it have been drafted by an agency concerned, submitted to the 
appropriate congressional committees, and approved by them by means of 
committee resolution.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 7 of the Public Building Act of 1959 (40 USC Sec. 606), 
        and Sec. 2 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Control Act of 
        1954, as amended (16 USC Sec. 1002). The Public Building Act of 
        1954 provided that if a project approved by committee 
        resolution receives no appropriation within a year the 
        committee may rescind their approval at any time thereafter 
        before an appropriation has been made. See House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 1013 (1981) for compilation of ``Legislative Veto'' 
        provisions contained in recent public laws.

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

[[Page 4844]]

    The legislative veto came into use in the modern practice of the 
Congress with the passage of the Reorganization Act of 
1939.(18) Under the act the President is authorized to draft 
plans for the reorganization of the executive branch. Such plans will 
go into effect upon their completion and 60 days after the President 
has submitted them to the Congress. However, if during that 60-day 
period (19) ``. . . either House passes a resolution stating 
in substance that the House does not favor the reorganization 
plan'',(20) the plan shall not go into effect. The act also 
sets forth the procedure by which such resolutions shall be considered 
in the House and Senate as exceptions to the regular rules of 
procedure.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Apr. 3, 1939, Ch. 36, 53 Stat. 561; 5 USC Sec. Sec. 901-913.
19. The 60-day period must be continuous during a session of the 
        Congress. It is broken only by an adjournment of the Congress 
        sine die, and it does not include adjournments of more than 
        three days within a session of Congress. 5 USC Sec. 906(b).
20. 5 USC Sec. 906(a). The act originally provided that disapproval 
        must be expressed by concurrent resolution (53 Stat. 562, 563). 
        However, the requirement was changed to a simple resolution by 
        the 1949 amendments (June 20, 1949, Ch. 226, Sec. 6, 63 Stat. 
        205).
            Under provisions contained in a reorganization plan, any 
        provision thereof may be effective at a time later than the 
        date on which the plan otherwise is effective or, if both 
        Houses have defeated a resolution of disapproval, may be 
        effective at a time earlier than the expiration of the 60-day 
        period mentioned above. 5 USC Sec. 906(c).
21. 5 USC Sec. Sec. 908-913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of the resolution of disapproval has not been limited to 
reorganization plans of the President. It is found in other statutes as 
well, as illustrated by the following examples.
    The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 provides that when the 
Attorney General determines that certain classes of aliens are to be 
deported he may suspend the deportation after reviewing the petitions 
filed by the individuals affected. Such suspensions, however, will not 
become final until the Attorney General has reported his determination 
to the Congress and neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives 
has passed a simple resolution, before the end of the session following 
the session in which the report is received, disapproving such 
determination. The law further provides that in cases involving certain 
classes of aliens sus

[[Page 4845]]

pension of deportation may be finalized before the end of the following 
session of Congress by the adoption of a concurrent resolution 
approving the Attorney General's findings.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 8 USC Sec. 1254 (1970 ed.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resolution of disapproval may take the form of a committee 
resolution. For example, the Small Projects Reclamation Act of 1956 
(2) provides that no appropriation shall be made for 
participation in certain projects under the act prior to 60 days after 
the Secretary of the Interior has submitted his findings and approval 
for such projects to the Congress, ``. . . and then only if, within 
said sixty days, neither the House nor the Senate Interior and Insular 
Affairs Committee disapproves the project proposal by committee 
resolution.'' (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 70 Stat. 1044.
 3. 70 Stat. 1045, Sec. 4(c), 43 USC Sec. 422d(d) (1970 ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some statutes have provided that the entire authority granted 
therein may be terminated by a concurrent resolution of the Congress 
prior to the stated expiration date of the act, if one is provided. 
Thus, the Lend-Lease Act provided:

        After June 30, 1943, or after the passage of a concurrent 
    resolution by the two Houses before June 30, 1943, which declares 
    that the powers conferred by or pursuant to subsection (a) are no 
    longer necessary to promote the defense of the United States, 
    neither the President nor the head of any department or agency 
    shall exercise any of the powers conferred by or pursuant to 
    subsection (a); except that until July 1, 1946, any of such powers 
    may be exercised to the extent necessary to carry out a contract or 
    agreement with such a foreign government made before July 1, 1943, 
    or before the passage of such concurrent resolution, whichever is 
    the earlier.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Act of Mar. 11, 1941, Ch. 11, Sec. 3(c), 55 Stat. 32. See also the 
        Selective Service Extension Act of Aug. 18, 1941, Ch. 362, 
        Sec. 2, 55 Stat. 626; the Emergency Price Control Act of June 
        30, 1942, Ch. 26, Sec. 1(b), 56 Stat. 24; the Economic 
        Cooperation Act of Apr. 3, 1948, Ch. 169, title I, Sec. 122, 62 
        Stat. 155; the ``Gulf of Tonkin Resolution'' of Aug. 10, 1964, 
        Pub. L. No. 88-408, Sec. 3, 78 Stat. 384; and the War Powers 
        Resolution of Nov. 7, 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-148, Sec. 5(c), 87 
        Stat. 556-557.
            President Franklin D. Roosevelt objected to the inclusion 
        of such a concurrent resolution disapproval provision in the 
        Lend-Lease Act. However, he did not make his objections public 
        because he felt the measure was urgently needed and he feared 
        endangering its passage by his own pronouncement. R. H. 
        Jackson, A Presidential Legal Opinion, 66 Harv. L. Rev. 1353, 
        at 1356 (1953).
            For a compilation of the views of a number of Presidents on 
        the various forms of the legislative veto, see Hearings on the 
        Separation of Powers Doctrine Before the Subcommittee on 
        Separation of Powers of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
        90th Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 215-228 (1967).

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

[[Page 4846]]

                         Collateral References
Congressional Adaptation: The Come-into-Agreement Provision. 37 Geo. 
    Wash. L. Rev. 387 (1968).
Cooper, Joseph and Ann. The Legislative Veto and the Constitution. 30 
    Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 467 (1962).
Harris, Joseph P. Congressional Control of Administration, CH. 8, The 
    Legislative Veto. The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. 
    (1964).
Jackson, Robert H. A Presidential Legal Opinion. 66 Harv. L. Rev. 1353 
    (1953).                          -------------------

Terminating Authority by Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 7.1 The House adopted a joint resolution relating to preservation 
    of peace in Southeast Asia, authorizing the President to repel 
    aggression by North Vietnam, and providing that the Congress may 
    terminate such authority by concurrent resolution.

    On Aug. 7, 1964,(5) the House considered and passed the 
following joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1145):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 18538, 18539, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in 
    violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations 
    and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked 
    United States naval vessels lawfully present in international 
    waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international 
    peace; and
        Whereas these attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic 
    campaign of aggression that the Communist regime in North Vietnam 
    has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with 
    them in the collective defense of their freedom; and
        Whereas the United States is assisting the peoples of Southeast 
    Asia to protect their freedom and has no territorial, military or 
    political ambitions in that area, but desires only that these 
    peoples should be left in peace to work out their own destinies in 
    their own way: Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress 
    approves and supports the determination of the President, as 
    Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any 
    armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent 
    further aggression.
        Sec. 2. The United States regards as vital to its national 
    interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace 
    and security in Southeast Asia. Consonent with the Constitution of 
    the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in 
    accordance with obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective 
    Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the 
    President determines, to take all necessary steps, including

[[Page 4847]]

    the use of armed force, to assist any member of protocol state of 
    the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance 
    in defense of its freedom.
        Sec. 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall 
    determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably 
    assured by international conditions created by action of the United 
    Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by 
    concurrent resolution of the Congress.

Approval of Executive Plan

Sec. 7.2 The House passed a Senate joint resolution expressing approval 
    of a report of the Department of the Interior on the construction 
    of a dam and reservoir, and then tabled a similar House concurrent 
    resolution called up on the Consent Calendar.

    On Aug. 18, 1958,(6) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
sought and obtained unanimous consent that a Senate joint resolution be 
considered in lieu of a similar House concurrent resolution on the 
Consent Calendar.(7) The Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 
190) was passed, and the House concurrent resolution was laid on the 
table. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 104 Cong. Rec. 18290, 18291, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. H. Con. Res. 301, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. (1958).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk called the resolution (H. Con. Res. 301) to approve 
    the report of the Department of the Interior on Red Willow Dam and 
    Reservoir in Nebraska.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore [John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts]: 
    Is there objection to the present consideration of the concurrent 
    resolution?
        Mr. Aspinall: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a 
    similar Senate resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 190, be 
    considered in lieu of the House Concurrent Resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Colorado?
        There being no objection, the Clerk read the Senate joint 
    resolution, as follows:

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the report 
        of the Secretary of the Interior demonstrating economic 
        justification for construction and operation of the Red Willow 
        Dam and Reservoir is hereby approved.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Parliamentarian's Note: Pub. L. No. 84-505 (70 Stat. 126), provided 
        that there should be no expenditure of funds for construction 
        of the Red Willow Dam until the Secretary of the Interior, with 
        the approval of the President, had submitted to the Congress a 
        report and the Congress had approved such report. Following 
        research as to the meaning of the word ``Congress'' in the 
        statute, it was decided that the approval should take the form 
        of a joint resolution for Presidential signature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changing Effective Date of Executive Plan

Sec. 7.3 The House adopted a House joint resolution chang

[[Page 4848]]

    ing the effective date of a reorganization plan.

    On May 23, 1940,(9) the House considered and passed the 
following joint resolution (H.J. Res. 551):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 86 Cong. Rec. 6713, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That the provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 
    V, submitted to the Congress on May 22, 1940, shall take effect on 
    the tenth day after the date of enactment of this joint resolution, 
    notwithstanding the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1939.
        Sec. 2. Nothing in such plan or this joint resolution shall be 
    construed as having the effect of continuing any agency or function 
    beyond the time when it would have terminated without regard to 
    such plan or this joint resolution or of continuing any function 
    beyond the time when the agency in which it was vested would have 
    terminated without regard to such plan or this joint resolution.

Sec. 7.4 The House passed a Senate joint resolution changing the date 
    when certain reorganization plans of the President would go into 
    effect.

    On June 1, 1939,(10) by direction of the Select 
Committee on Government Organization, Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, 
called up a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 138) which the House considered 
and passed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 6527, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, etc., That the provisions of reorganization plan No. 
    I, submitted to the Congress on April 25, 1939, and the provisions 
    of reorganization plan No. II, submitted to the Congress on May 9, 
    1939, shall take effect on July 1, 1939, notwithstanding the 
    provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1939.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 86 Cong. Rec. 6712, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 23, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disapproval of Executive Plan

Sec. 7.5 Formerly, a privileged concurrent resolution was used to 
    express disapproval of an executive reorganization plan.

    On May 3, 1939,(12) the House considered and rejected 
the following concurrent resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 5085, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       House Concurrent Resolution 19

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the Congress does not favor the Reorganization 
    Plan No. I, transmitted to Congress by the President on April 25, 
    1939.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 93 Cong. Rec. 7252, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1947; 
        93 Cong. Rec. 6898, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., June 12, 1947; and 86 
        Cong. Rec. 6027-49, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 14, 1940. The 
        Reorganization Act of 1949 changed from concurrent to simple 
        the form of resolution used in disapproving reorganization 
        plans. June 20, 1949, Ch. 226, Sec. 6, 63 Stat. 205; 5 USC 
        Sec. 906(a).

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

[[Page 4849]]

Discharge by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 7.6 The Select Committee on Reorganization was discharged from 
    further consideration of a resolution disapproving a reorganization 
    plan by unanimous consent.

    On May 7, 1940,(14) Mr. Clarence F. Lea, of California, 
moved to discharge the Select Committee on Government Organization from 
further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 60 (disapproving 
Reorganization Plan No. IV): (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 5676, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
15. 5 USC Sec. 911(a) at that time provided that a motion to discharge 
        a committee from further consideration of a resolution 
        disapproving a reorganization plan of the President was 
        privileged when the resolution had been before the committee 
        for 10 calendar days. 5 USC Sec. 911 at present provides that 
        if the committee to which is referred a resolution as specified 
        has not reported such resolution or identical resolution at the 
        end of 45 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after 
        its introduction, such committee shall be deemed to be 
        discharged from further consideration of such resolution and 
        such resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of 
        the House involved. Pub. L. No. 81-109 as amended by Pub. L. 
        No. 95-17 and extended by Pub. L. No. 96-230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (16) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                         House Concurrent Resolution 60

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress does not favor the 
        Reorganization Plan No. IV transmitted to Congress by the 
        President on April 11, 1940.

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, the majority 
    members of the Select Committee on Organization are in accord with 
    the gentleman from California, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
    motion of the gentleman from California to discharge the select 
    committee be considered as having been agreed to.
        The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion here was privileged, but was 
agreed to by unanimous consent to avoid debate and a vote on the 
discharge motion.

Qualification to Offer Motion to Discharge Resolution

Sec. 7.7 A Member must qualify as being in favor of a resolution 
    disapproving a reorganization plan in order to move to discharge a 
    committee from further consideration thereof.

[[Page 4850]]

    On Aug. 3, 1961,(17) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, offered 
the following motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 107 Cong. Rec. 14548, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross moves to discharge the Committee on Government 
    Operations from further consideration of House Resolution 335, 
    introduced by Mr. Monagan, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 6, 
    transmitted to Congress by the President on June 12, 1961.
        The Speaker: (18) Is the gentleman in favor of the 
    resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the disapproving 
    resolution, yes.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is entitled to 30 
    minutes.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 5 USC Sec. 911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Motion to Discharge

Sec. 7.8 Debate on a motion to discharge a committee from further 
    consideration of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan is 
    limited to one hour and is equally divided between the Member 
    making the motion and a Member opposed thereto.

    On Aug. 3, 1961,(20) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, offered a 
privileged motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 14548, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Gross moves to discharge the Committee on Government 
        Operations from further consideration of House Resolution 335, 
        introduced by Mr. Monagan, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 
        6, transmitted to Congress by the President on June 12, 1961.

        The Speaker: (1) Is the gentleman in favor of the 
    resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the disapproving 
    resolution, yes.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is entitled to 30 minutes.
        The gentleman from Florida will be recognized for 30 
    minutes.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 5 USC Sec. 911(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Member opposed must also qualify.

Sec. 7.9 Debate on a motion to discharge the Committee on Government 
    Operations from consideration of a resolution disapproving a 
    reorganization plan was, by unanimous consent, extended from one to 
    two hours to be controlled and divided by the proponent of the 
    motion and a Member designated by the Speaker.

    On July 18, 1961,(3) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 107 Cong. Rec. 12774, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the 
    event a

[[Page 4851]]

    motion is made to discharge the Committee on Government Operations 
    on the resolution disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 7, that the 
    time for debate be extended from 1 hour to 2 hours, one-half to be 
    controlled by the proponent of the motion and one-half by a Member 
    designated by the Speaker.
        The Speaker: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Debate on motions to discharge resolutions disapproving 
        reorganization plans is limited to one hour (63 Stat. 207, 5 
        USC Sec. 911(b)) rather than 20 minutes under the normal 
        discharge procedure (Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 908 (1981)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. Sec. 7.10 The Presiding Officer ruled that in the Senate the one 
    hour of debate on a motion to discharge a committee from further 
    consideration of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan is 
    inclusive of time consumed by quorum calls, parliamentary 
    inquiries, and points of order.

    On Feb. 20, 1962,(6) during consideration of a motion to 
discharge the Committee on Government Operations from further 
consideration of Senate Resolution 288, opposing Reorganization Plan 
No. 1 of 1962, Senator Mike Mansfield, of Montana, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 108 Cong. Rec. 2528, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. President, I should like to raise a parliamentary inquiry 
    of my own: I should like to have a ruling from the Chair as to the 
    appropriate procedure for a motion of this kind.
        The Vice President: (7) The understanding of the 
    Chair is that debate on the motion is limited to 1 hour, to be 
    equally divided. If a point of order is made or if there is a 
    quorum call or if the Senator from Montana or any other Senator 
    obtains the floor and speaks, the time available under the motion 
    will be running.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Lyndon B. Johnson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The ruling in the House would be to the 
contrary. Under the precedents, since debate is not set by the clock, 
votes, quorum calls, etc., do not come out of the time.

Motion to Consider Resolution of Disapproval

Sec. 7.11 A motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole for the consideration of a resolution disapproving a 
    reorganization plan is highly privileged and may be called up by 
    any Member.

    On June 8, 1961,(8) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 9775-77, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 4852]]

        Mr. Speaker, is it in order and proper at this time to submit a 
    highly privileged motion?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) If the matter to which 
    the gentleman refers is highly privileged, it would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Then, Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of section 
    205(a) Public Law 109, the Reorganization Act of 
    1949,(10) I submit a motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Section 205 of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (68 Stat. 207, 5 USC 
        Sec. 912(a)) provided ``When the Committee has reported, or has 
        been discharged from further consideration of, a resolution 
        with respect to a reorganization plan, it is at any time 
        thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the same 
        effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the 
        consideration of the resolution. The motion is highly 
        privileged and is not debatable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Gross moves that the House resolve itself into the 
        Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
        consideration of H. Res. 303 introduced by Mr. Monagan 
        disapproving Reorganization Plan No 2 transmitted to the 
        Congress by the President on April 27, 1961.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 107 Cong. Rec. 9777, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Resolution of Disapproval

Sec. 7.12 The following procedure was employed in the House in 
    considering a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan of the 
    President.

    On June 10, 1947,(12) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
made the following statement regarding a resolution disapproving the 
President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1947:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 6722, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 House Concurrent Resolution 49; and pending that 
    motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate be 
    limited to 3 hours, the time to be equally divided and controlled 
    by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Manasco] and myself.

        The Speaker: (13) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 7.13 After a committee has reported a resolution disapproving a 
    reorganization plan, any Member may move that the House proceed to 
    consideration thereof, and a Member is not required to qualify as 
    being in favor of the resolution in order to move that the House 
    resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider it.

[[Page 4853]]

    On July 19, 1961,(14) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, 
moved 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. 328) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 5 transmitted to the 
Congress by the President on May 24, 1961. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, 
raised a parliamentary inquiry based on his contention that a Member so 
moving must qualify as being in favor of such resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 107 Cong. Rec. 12905, 12906, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: . . . Is the gentleman from Florida in favor of the 
    resolution, or does he disfavor the resolution?
        The Speaker: (15) Under the rules, the gentleman 
    does not have to qualify in that respect on this particular 
    motion.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
16. See 5 USC Sec. 912(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence of Consideration

Sec. 7.14 Consideration of resolutions disapproving reorganization 
    plans of the President does not take precedence over a grant of 
    unanimous consent for the consideration of an appropriation bill, 
    unless the Committee on Appropriations yields for that purpose.

    On May 9, 1950,(17) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
raised a point of order against the consideration of the general 
appropriation bill of 1951 (H.R. 7786):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 6720-24, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. 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: (18) That is the resolution 
    disapproving one of the reorganization plans?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: That is right, House Resolution 516 
    disapproving plan No. 12. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Texas desire 
    to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, on April 5, 
    1950, as shown at page 4835 of the daily record of that day, the 
    chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gen

[[Page 4854]]

    tleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] asked and received unanimous 
    consent that the appropriation bill should have the right-of-way 
    over other privileged business under the rules until disposition, 
    with the exception of conference reports. Therefore, I believe the 
    regular order would be to proceed with the further consideration of 
    H.R. 7786.
        Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Record would speak for itself. 
    . . .
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Under the established rules of 
    practice of the House, when a special order like that is granted, 
    like that which was granted at the request of the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cannon], if those in charge of the bill do not 
    present on any occasion a motion to go into Committee of the Whole, 
    it is in order for the Speaker to recognize other Members for other 
    items that are in order on the calendar. That does not deprive the 
    holder of that special order of the right, when those items are 
    disposed of, to move that the bill be considered further in 
    Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rich: If the 21 resolutions that were presented to the 
    House by the President, a great many of which have been considered 
    by the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments--of 
    which the chairman is a member, and which have been acted on by 
    that committee--are not presented to the House before the twenty-
    fourth of this month, they become law. The general appropriation 
    bill does not necessarily have to be passed until the 30th of June, 
    but it is necessary that the 21 orders of the President be brought 
    before the House so they can be acted on by the twenty-fourth of 
    this month, and it seems to me that they ought to take precedence 
    over any other bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has made a statement of 
    fact, not a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, may I be 
    heard on the point of order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Rankin: I was going to say that if this is of the highest 
    constitutional privilege it comes ahead of the present legislation.
        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 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

[[Page 4855]]

    (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 daily Record shows, on page 4976, April 6, that the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] said:

            Mr. Speaker, on page 4835 of the daily Record of yesterday, 
        the first column carrying the special order made by the House 
        last night reads that the general appropriation bill shall be a 
        special order privileged above all other business of the House 
        under the rule until disposition. The order made was until 
        final disposition. I ask unanimous consent that the Record and 
        Journal be corrected to conform with the proceedings on the 
        floor of the House yesterday.

        The Record further shows that the Speaker put the request and 
    there was no objection.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the Chair finish.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry at this time.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is in the process of making 
    a ruling.
        Mr. Rankin: That is the reason I want to propound the inquiry 
    right at this point.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
        Mr. Rankin: We for the first time this year have all the 
    appropriations in one bill. Now, if they drag out consideration 
    under the 5-minute rule beyond the 24th, would that not shut the 
    Congress off entirely from voting on any of these recommendations? 
    So we do have a constitutional right to consider these propositions 
    without having them smothered in this way.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: 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

[[Page 4856]]

    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.
        Mr. [Arthur L.] Miller of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Miller of Nebraska: I understood the statement of the 
    gentleman from Missouri on April 6 was that the appropriation bill 
    would take precedence over all legislation and special orders until 
    entirely disposed of. Does that include conference reports?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: A conference report is in a privileged 
    status in any event.
        Mr. Taber: They were specifically exempted.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: They were specifically exempted. 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 
    sufference 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.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a further point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: The point of order is the same as I 
    raised before; but, to keep the Record clear, I wish to make the 
    same point of order regarding House Resolution 522, House 
    Resolution 545, and House Resolution 546, that is, that the House 
    proceed to the consideration of each of those resolutions in the 
    order named, assuming, of course, that the ruling will be the same, 
    but making a record.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will reaffirm his ruling in 
    relation to the several resolutions the gentleman has referred to.
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: I believe I am correct, Mr. Speaker, in stating 
    that since the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cannon] was granted, that the House took up a measure 
    under the new 21-day rule. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker,

[[Page 4857]]

    whether or not that was taken up because of its high privilege or 
    whether it was taken up because of the sufference of the chairman 
    of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Missouri 
    (Mr. Cannon).
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present occupant of the Chair, of 
    course, is unable to look into the mind of the Speaker who was 
    presiding at the time. But from the knowledge that the Chair has, 
    which, of course, is rather close, it was because the chairman of 
    the Committee on Appropriations permitted it to be done through 
    sufference. In other words, if the chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations had insisted on going into the Committee of the 
    Whole House on the State of the Union, and if the present occupant 
    of the chair had been presiding, there is nothing else that could 
    have been done under the unanimous-consent request, in the Chair's 
    opinion, but to recognize the motion.
        Mr. Eberharter: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: As I understand the unanimous-consent request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri, it was that the appropriation bill 
    would take preference over any other matters having a high 
    privilege. My understanding of the new 21-day rule is that that is 
    a matter of the highest privilege, and therefore I am wondering 
    whether the same rule applies.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct, but that 
    rule can be changed just like any other rule of the House can be 
    changed.
        Mr. Eberharter: But the gentleman from Missouri did not insist 
    on all matters having the highest privilege. According to the 
    Record, he only made his request with respect to motions having a 
    high privilege.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The unanimous-consent request, I might 
    advise the gentleman from Pennsylvania, appears in the Record of 
    April 6, that the general appropriation bill shall be a special 
    order privileged above all other business of the House under the 
    rule until disposition. The order made was ``until final 
    disposition.''

     Sec. 7.15 The Speaker permitted consideration and debate on a 
    conference report to intervene between consideration of two 
    resolutions disapproving of two Presidential reorganization plans 
    where the original papers accompanying the conference report were 
    messaged from the Senate before consideration of the second 
    resolution had begun.

    On Sept. 28, 1970,(19) the Speaker (1) 
recognized a Member to call up a conference report on a bill dealing 
with railroad safety (S. 1933) after consideration of the first of two 
reorganization plans and before debate was to begin on the 
second.(2) He announced his intention to do so as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 33870, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 2. The House was considering H. Res. 1209, disapproving of 
        Reorganization Plan No. 3 and H. Res. 1210, disapproving of 
        Plan No. 4.

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

[[Page 4858]]

        The Chair has been informed and understands that the original 
    papers on the next conference report have not been messaged over to 
    the House as yet. They will be here shortly.
        The Chair will recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Holifield) in connection with the first reorganization plan, and if 
    the papers [on the conference report] arrive between consideration 
    of the first and second reorganization plans, the Chair will 
    recognize the gentleman from West Virginia at that time.

Limitations on Time for Debate

     Sec. 7.16 Debate on resolutions disapproving reorganization plans 
    is fixed by statute, and the Senate rule relative to the time for 
    debate on usual propositions does not apply.

    On May 14, 1940,(3) the Senate considered a concurrent 
resolution (S. Con. Res. 43) disapproving a Presidential reorganization 
plan. The Vice President (4) made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 86 Cong. Rec. 6027, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 4. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Let the Chair make a statement with reference to the statutory 
    and parliamentary situation. The statute, as the Chair understands 
    it, and as it was interpreted by the President pro tempore 
    yesterday--and the Chair thinks he was correct--divides the time 
    equally between those for and those against the pending resolution. 
    The Parliamentarian advises the Chair that those favoring the 
    resolution have 2 hours and 4 minutes and those opposed to it have 
    1 hour and 56 minutes. Ordinarily, under the rules of the Senate, 
    when a Senator is recognized he may continue to address the Senate 
    indefinitely. In this case, however, the statute limits the time. 
    Any Senator recognized now can continue until the limitation of 
    time for his side would take him from the floor. The Chair is going 
    to recognize the Senator from Vermont. He has 2 hours and 4 minutes 
    on his side. When he ceases, some other Senator then will be 
    recognized. The Chair thought he ought to make this statement, so 
    that the Senate may understand the parliamentary situation.

     Sec. 7.17 By unanimous consent, debate on a resolution 
    disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1959, was limited to two 
    hours in lieu of the 10 hours allowed under the Reorganization Act 
    of 1949.

    On July 1, 1959,(5) Mr. Neal Smith, of Iowa, asked 
unanimous consent that debate on House Resolution 295 disapproving 
Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1959 scheduled for consideration on the 
following Monday be limited to two hours, one-half of the time to be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 12519, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4859]]

controlled by the majority and one-half of the time to be controlled by 
the minority.

    There was no objection.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Section 205 of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 207, 5 USC 
        Sec. 912) permits 10 hours of debate on such a resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.18 A resolution disapproving a reorganization plan was called up 
    and debated for two hours in the Committee of the Whole under a 
    previous unanimous-consent agreement.

    On July 6, 1959,(7) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, 
moved that the House resolve itself under the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the resolution 
(H. Res. 295) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1959. The 
proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 105 Cong. Rec. 12740-46, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) Under the consent agreement of 
    Wednesday, July 1,(9) 2 hours of general debate are 
    allowed on the resolution, to be equally divided between the 
    majority and the minority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Stewart L. Udall (Ariz.).
 9. 105 Cong. Rec. 12519, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the conclusion of debate Mr. Fascell moved:

        Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report 
    the resolution back to the House with the recommendation that it do 
    pass.
        The motion was agreed to.

     Sec. 7.19 A resolution disapproving a reorganization plan of the 
    President was, by unanimous consent, considered in the House as in 
    Committee of the Whole, debated for only five minutes, and passed.

    On June 18, 1947,(10) the House considered a concurrent 
resolution disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 3 of the President. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 93 Cong. Rec. 7252, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Reorganization Plan No. 3

         Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House proceed to take up House Concurrent Resolution 51, which 
    does not favor Reorganization Plan No. 3 of May 27, 1947, and, 
    pending that motion, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution 
    may be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole and 
    that general debate be limited to 5 minutes.
        The Speaker: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

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

[[Page 4860]]

        That the Congress does not favor the Reorganization Plan No. 3 
        of May 27, 1947, transmitted to Congress by the President on 
        the 27th day of May 1947.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
    minutes.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is no objection to 
    this resolution.
        I yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Manasco], ranking 
    minority member of the committee, to explain the resolution and any 
    opposition, if any there be.
        Mr. [Carter] Manasco: Mr. Speaker, a similar plan was sent up 
    during the Seventy-ninth Congress and rejected by the House.
        This plan reorganizes the housing agencies of the Government. 
    Our committee thinks these agencies should be reorganized but we do 
    not think the lending and insuring agencies should be placed in the 
    same organization with the construction agency.
        I have no requests for time on this side. That is the only 
    issue involved.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
        I move the previous question on the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 7.20 In considering three resolutions disapproving three 
    reorganization plans of the President, the House agreed by 
    unanimous consent that the three resolutions be considered 
    together, that debate be limited to three hours, and that after 
    debate the resolutions be voted on separately.

    On June 28, 1946,(12) Mr. Carter Manasco, of Alabama, 
made the following unanimous-consent request regarding resolutions of 
disapproval of the President's Reorganization Plans Nos. 1, 2, and 3:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 7886, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Reorganization Plans No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3

        Mr. Manasco: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Concurrent Resolution 
    155, and I ask unanimous consent that House Concurrent Resolutions 
    154 and 151 be considered; that the debate be limited on the three 
    resolutions to 3 hours, the time to be divided equally between 
    myself and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
    Expenditures in the Executive Departments; that after 3 hours of 
    general debate on the resolutions, the resolutions be voted on 
    separately.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, as I understand it, in these 3 hours 
    a Member may talk about any one of the three resolutions.
        The Speaker: (13) That is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: And that at the end of general 
    debate the resolutions will be voted on separately.
        Mr. Manasco: Each resolution separately.
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent also that the plans be 
    voted on in

[[Page 4861]]

    their order, plan 1 first; plan 2, second; and plan 3, third.
        Mr. [William A.] Pittenger [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, it is the resolutions that must be 
    voted on.
        Mr. Manasco: That is correct.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Reserving the right 
    to object, the gentlemen have agreed on time, which is very 
    satisfactory. The only suggestion I have to make is that I hope 
    they do not use the entire 3 hours.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Alabama ask unanimous consent 
    that there be 3 hours of general debate on these resolutions, at 
    the end of which time the resolutions are to be voted on separately 
    in this order: Plan No. 1, plan No. 2, and plan No. 3.
        Is there objection?
        There was no objection.

Consideration Without Debate

Sec. 7.21 A resolution disapproving a reorganization plan was 
    considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole by 
    unanimous consent and agreed to by voice vote without debate.

    On July 15, 1956,(14) Mr. William L. Dawson, of 
Illinois, asked unanimous consent that House Resolution 534 
disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 1 be considered in the House as in 
the Committee as the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 102 Cong. Rec. 11886, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The question was taken.
        The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the resolution having 
    received an affirmative vote of a majority of the authorized 
    membership of the House, the resolution is agreed 
    to.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. A similar procedure was employed to adopt a resolution (H. Res. 
        541) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1956. See 102 
        Cong. Rec. 11886, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 5, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Control of Time in Opposition

Sec. 7.22 The Member calling up a resolution disapproving a 
    reorganization plan announced that the majority and minority 
    members of the Committee on Government Operations (both in favor of 
    the plan) would yield half of their time to Members opposed to the 
    resolution, who would in turn control the time in opposition.

     On Aug. 9, 1967,(17) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 21941, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4862]]

the Union for the consideration of House Resolution 512 disapproving 
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967. The Chairman (18) then 
made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William L. Hungate (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the unanimous-consent agreement of Thursday, August 3, 
    1967, general debate on the resolution will continue for not to 
    exceed 4 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Blatnik] and the gentlewoman from New 
    Jersey [Mrs. Dwyer].
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota. . . .
        Mr. [Porter] Hardy [Jr., of Virginia]: I wonder if we could 
    have an understanding now so that there will not be any confusion 
    as to how the time will be divided. I am sure the gentleman from 
    Minnesota has already indicated what he plans to do, but I think it 
    might be well if we had that cleared up now, if the gentleman would 
    not mind?
        Mr. [John A.] Blatnik: I will be pleased to do so and I think 
    the gentleman has made a very proper request.
        What we have done by agreement of the leadership on both sides 
    of the House, and by agreement with the majority and minority 
    leadership of the House Committee on Government Operations and of 
    the Committee on the District of Columbia is that we have agreed to 
    divide the time equally between the proponents and the opponents as 
    follows:
        The minority will divide their time with 1 hour allocated to 
    the opponents and 1 hour for the proponents.
        The majority on our side have done the same thing, to allocate 
    1 hour to the proponents and 1 hour to the opponents.
        The time for the opponents on the majority side will be handled 
    by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Hardy], and I shall handle the 
    time for the proponents.
        I understand the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Erlenborn] will 
    handle the time on the minority side for the proponents on their 
    side and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Nelsen] will handle the 
    time for the opponents.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Under the law debate on a resolution disapproving a reorganization 
        plan is divided equally between the proponents and opponents of 
        the resolution. 5 USC Sec. 912(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment of Resolution

Sec. 7.23 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    resolution to disapprove a reorganization plan back to the House, 
    with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out, 
    was held not in order on the ground that there would be no 
    amendment stage during which to offer the motion.

    On June 27, 1953,(20) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a resolution (H. Res.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 99 Cong. Rec. 7482, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4863]]

295) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 6, Mr. W. Sterling Cole, of 
New York, made the following motion:

        Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Cole of New York moves that the Committee do now rise 
        with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the motion is not in order.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair is compelled to agree 
    with the gentleman from Michigan. The resolution is not amendable 
    and, therefore, the preferential motion is not in 
    order.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Leslie C. Arends (Ill.).
 2. See 5 U.S.C. 912(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Consideration of Report of Committee of the Whole

Sec. 7.24 When the Committee of the Whole has reported back to the 
    House its recommendation regarding the adoption or rejection of a 
    resolution disapproving a reorganization plan, the question in the 
    House recurs on the adoption of the resolution of disapproval and 
    not on concurring in the committee's recommendation.

    On Feb. 21, 1962, (3) the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union considered a resolution (H. Res. 530) 
disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 1 transmitted to the Congress by 
the President on Jan. 30, 1962, and reported the resolution back to the 
House with the recommendation that it not be agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 2679, 2680, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker (4) ordered the resolution read by the Clerk 
and announced that the question was on the adoption of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voting on Resolutions of Disapproval

Sec. 7.25 An affirmative vote of a majority of the authorized 
    membership of the House is required to adopt a resolution 
    disapproving a reorganization plan of the President, and such vote 
    may be had by viva voce, by division, or by the yeas and nays.

    On Aug. 11, 1949,(5) during consideration in the House 
of a resolution (H. Res. 301) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 
1949 and adversely reported from the Committee on Expenditures in the 
Executive Departments, Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 11314, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Further, Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that under the 
    terms of

[[Page 4864]]

    the Reorganization Act under which we are operating the proponents 
    of the resolution who by that resolution would seek to disapprove 
    Reorganization Plan No. 2 would have to have 218 votes actually 
    present and voting in order to carry the resolution?
        The Speaker: (6) That is correct; that is the law, 
    and the Chair will take this opportunity to read the law:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Sec. 6. (a) Except as may be otherwise provided pursuant to 
        subsection (c) of this section, the provisions of the 
        reorganization plan shall take effect upon the expiration of 
        the first period of 60 calendar days of continuous session of 
        the Congress, following the date on which the plan is 
        transmitted to it; but only if, between the date of transmittal 
        and the expiration of such 60-day period there has not been 
        passed by either of the two Houses by the affirmative vote of a 
        majority of the authorized membership of that House, a 
        resolution stating in substance that that House does not favor 
        the reorganization plan.

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: How will the Chair determine whether there 
    are 218 votes cast in favor of the resolution?
        The Speaker: By the usual method: Either by a viva voce vote, 
    division vote, or a vote by the yeas and nays.
        The question is on the resolution.
        The question was taken.
        The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair the resolution not 
    having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the 
    authorized membership of the House, the resolution is not agreed 
    to.
        So the resolution was rejected.

Rejection by House as Affecting Senate Action

Sec. 7.26 Where the House disagrees to a reorganization plan submitted 
    by the President, it notifies the Senate of its action, and the 
    Senate may indefinitely postpone further consideration of a 
    resolution disapproving the same reorganization plan.

    On July 20, 1961,(7) there was received in the Senate a 
message from the House announcing that the House had agreed to a 
resolution (H. Res. 328) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 5 
transmitted to Congress by the President on May 24, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 107 Cong. Rec. 13017, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senator Mike Mansfield, of Montana, subsequently moved that Senate 
Resolution 158, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 5, be indefinitely 
postponed.
    The motion was agreed to.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Id. at p. 13027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 7.27 The House having agreed to a resolution disapproving a 
    reorganization plan, the Senate Committee on Government Operations

[[Page 4865]]

    ordered reported, without recommendation, a resolution to the same 
    effect.

    On June 16, 1961,(9) Senator John L. McClellan, of 
Arkansas, made the following statement in the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 107 Cong. Rec. 10628, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. President, on June 13, 1961, the Committee on Government 
    Operations, in executive session, ordered reported, without 
    recommendations, S. Res. 142, expressing disapproval of 
    Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1961.
        Under section 6 of the Reorganization Act of 1949, as amended, 
    a reorganization plan may not become effective if a resolution of 
    disapproval is adopted by a simple majority of either House. On 
    June 15, 1961, the House of Representatives adopted House 
    Resolution 303, to disapprove Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1961. 
    Since this action results in the final disposition of the matter, 
    it is no longer necessary either for the Committee on Government 
    Operations to file a report on S. Res. 142, or for the Senate to 
    take any further action.
        I call attention to the fact, however, that hearings on that 
    resolution have been held and will be available shortly for the 
    information of Members of the Senate. Legislation to enact certain 
    provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 2 is now pending before the 
    Senate Committee on Commerce--S. 2034--and the House Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce--H.R. 7333--and the House committee 
    has now completed hearings on H.R. 7333.
        I thought it proper to make this announcement in view of the 
    fact that the committee had voted to report the resolution as I 
    have indicated.


                               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.

 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
    A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER 
                         MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
 
Sec. 9. Titles and Preambles

Purpose of Title

Sec. 9.1 Titles in legislation are for purposes of identification, and 
    do not affect the obvious meaning of a statute.

    On Dec. 20, 1941,(3) during consideration of S. 2082, 
the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 87 Cong. Rec. 10079, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I should like to 
    invoke the ruling of the Chair on that point. I may say, Mr. 
    Speaker, that this bill was identical in the House and the Senate 
    versions, but in the House committee an amendment was made in the 
    body of the bill to include other officers than originally were 
    named in the House bill, namely, the members of alien-enemy hearing 
    boards. The House committee conceived it to be wise to amend the 
    title to show that the amendment had been put in the bill, but the 
    Senate, in passing the bill, although it adopted the House 
    amendment, did not amend the title.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michener: The gentleman from Alabama has not submitted a 
    parliamentary inquiry. He has asked the Chair for a legal opinion 
    on what the gentleman himself admits is debatable. Under the rules 
    of the House, the Speaker of the House is not required to render 
    legal opinions, at least without notice.
        Mr. Hobbs: I am not contending that the Speaker is required to 
    do so. I am asking as a matter of the grace and indulgence of the 
    Chair that he do so, and advise us if the Senate version be 
    adopted, the limited reference in the title would be sufficient to 
    carry the full bill as amended.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks that the title of the bill is 
    identification more than anything else. Mr. Justice Brewer in the 
    case of Patterson v. Bank Eudora (190 U.S. 169) held--

            That the title is no part of the statute and cannot be used 
        to set at naught its obvious meaning.

[[Page 4878]]

Titles as Related to Germaneness

Sec. 9.2 The germaneness of an amendment to a bill is not determined by 
    the title of the bill; it is the body of the bill that is 
    controlling.

    On Aug. 2, 1949,(5) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole of a bill (H.R. 29) to provide price supports 
for tung nuts, a committee amendment was reported applying the 
provisions of the act to honey. Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, raised a 
point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 10639, 10640, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, since the committee amendment has no greater 
    standing than any other amendment, the title of this bill is to 
    amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, to 
    provide parity for tung nuts and for other purposes. I make the 
    point of order that the inclusion of honey is not related to the 
    bill and is, therefore, not in order.
        Mr. [Walter K.] Granger [of Utah]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
        Mr. Granger: I trust the gentleman will not press his point of 
    order. We are willing to concede the point would apply, but what we 
    will have to do is take out the part of the bill that the gentleman 
    I am sure is interested in. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    title of the bill does not control. It is the body of the bill that 
    controls. When an individual proposition is added to another 
    individual proposition by amendment, even though they are in the 
    same class, they are not germane. The Chair sustains the point of 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John McSweeney (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment of Title

Sec. 9.3 Amendments to the title of a bill or joint resolution may be 
    considered after its passage.

    On Jan. 30, 1962,(7) several committee amendments, 
including one to the title of a bill (H.R. 4879), were offered en bloc. 
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reminded the proponent of 
the amendments that title amendments are properly considered in the 
House following passage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 108 Cong. Rec. 1183, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.4 Amendment to titles of bills are properly presented after the 
    bill is passed and are not debatable.

    On Dec. 11, 1947,(8) during consideration in the House 
of a foreign aid bill (H.R. 4604) the following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 93 Cong. Rec. 11307, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles J.] Kersten of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I have an 
    amend

[[Page 4879]]

    ment to change the title of the bill, which I understand is proper.
        The Speaker: (9) That will come after the passage of 
    the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kersten of Wisconsin: I should like to inform the 
    membership that this is an important amendment and I should like to 
    speak on it.
        The Speaker: It is not debatable.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XIX, ``Of Amendments'', specifies that 
``Amendments to the title of a bill or resolution shall not be in order 
until after its passage, and shall be decided without debate.'' House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (1981).

Preambles Generally

Sec. 9.5 Where no action is taken to strike out the preamble of the 
    bill and the bill is passed, the preamble remains as a part of the 
    bill.

    On Mar. 22, 1935,(10) during consideration of a bill 
(H.R. 3896) providing for payment of world war adjusted service 
certificates, Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, raised a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 79 Cong. Rec. 4314, 4315, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a point of order with respect to 
    the present parliamentary situation of one part of the bill, and in 
    connection therewith I ask permission of the Chair to make a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.  Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Blanton: On yesterday, after the first section of the 
    Vinson bill was read, as shown on page 4216, the gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Patman] moved to strike out the first section and to 
    insert his own bill as a substitute therefor, giving the usual 
    notice that, in case his amendment carried, he would move to strike 
    out the remaining sections of the Vinson bill.
        Mr. [Fred M.] Vinson of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        Mr. Blanton: I am making the point of order now.
        Mr. Vinson of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I am making a point of 
    order to the gentleman's point of order. My point of order is that 
    the bill to which the gentleman's motion applies has been concluded 
    and is history.
        Mr. Blanton: In connection with my point of order, I am asking 
    the Chair a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the point of order of the 
    gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Blanton: Mr. Speaker, the Chair will find on this page 4216 
    of the Record for yesterday that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Patman] moved to strike out the first section of the Vinson bill 
    and offered his bill as an amendment in the way of a substitute, 
    giving proper notice that if his amendment were adopted he would 
    thereafter move to strike out all the remaining paragraphs of the 
    Vinson bill. Nothing was said about striking out the preamble of 
    the bill which preceded the first section, and it was not

[[Page 4880]]

     stricken out, although the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] 
    objected to the reading of the preamble.
        The procedure I have outlined was followed. After the 
    substitute of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] was voted upon 
    and adopted by teller vote in the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the state of the Union, as shown on page 4231 of the Record, the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman], asked unanimous consent that the 
    remaining sections of the Vinson bill that [followed] section 1 be 
    stricken out, and that request was granted, and the remaining 
    sections of the Vinson bill were stricken out, but the preamble, 
    which preceded the enacting clause, was left undisturbed, and 
    remained in the bill just preceding the enacting clause. No action 
    whatever was taken by the House, or by the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union with respect to the preamble 
    except, as before stated, the gentleman from Texas objected to its 
    being read, as a preamble is never read. And, of course, unanimous 
    consent is usually requested for the preamble to be stricken out, 
    but as to this bill no such request was made.
        The parliamentary inquiry I desire to make is this: although it 
    is not usual to leave preambles in a bill that is finally passed, 
    yet the preamble to this bill is so apropos and was so well written 
    in the bill introduced by our friend, the gentleman from Kentucky 
    [Mr. Vinson], and it so well applies to the Patman bill that it 
    should stay in, and not be stricken out, and I wish to ask the 
    Chair whether or not the preamble could be stricken out except by 
    unanimous consent, or by a motion passed by the House.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Texas 
    that the only way it can be done is by action of the House. No 
    action was taken by the House with respect to striking out the 
    preamble, so it still remains.

Preambles in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 9.6 In the Committee of the Whole the body of a concurrent 
    resolution is first considered and after the resolving clauses have 
    been read for amendment, the preamble is considered and perfected.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(12) the Committee of the Whole, 
pursuant to a special rule (H. Res. 827), undertook consideration of a 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 570) expressing the sense of the 
Congress with respect to certain problems that had arisen in Berlin, 
Germany. The Committee first considered amendments to the body of the 
resolution before considering amendments to the preamble thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 22637, 22638, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.7 Amendments to the preamble of a concurrent resolution are 
    considered and voted on in the Committee of the Whole after 
    amendments

[[Page 4881]]

    to the body of the resolution, and such amendments are voted on in 
    the House after the resolution has been adopted.

    On Oct. 30, 1945,(13) a concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 80) expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the size of the 
post-war Navy was considered in the Committee of the Whole. After the 
reading of the resolution the Clerk read the amendments to the 
resolution proposed by the committee that reported it. Mr. W. Sterling 
Cole, of New York, raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 91 Cong. Rec. 10202, 10203, 10205, 10206, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we are going to consider the 
    amendments to the preamble first?
        The Chairman: (14) The amendments to the preamble 
    are considered after amendments to the body of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Butler B. Hare (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following committee amendment to the preamble was considered:

        In the preamble, page 1, fourth paragraph, strike out ``giving 
    due consideration to the security of the United States and its 
    Territories and insular possessions, the protection of our 
    commerce, and the necessity for cooperating with other world powers 
    in the maintenance of peace; and'' and insert in lieu thereof ``in 
    order to insure our national integrity, support our national 
    policies, guard the continental United States and our overseas 
    possessions, give protection to our commerce and citizens abroad, 
    and to cooperate with other world powers in the maintenance of 
    peace; and.''. . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the committee amendment to the 
    preamble.
        The amendment was agreed to.

    After consideration of the resolution the Committee rose and 
reported it back to the House:

        The Speaker: (15) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair 
    will put them en gross.
        The amendments were agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the adoption of the resolution.
        Mr. [Carl] Vinson [of Georgia]: 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 347, nays 0, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 83, as fol-
    lows: . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the preamble.
        The amendment to the preamble was agreed to.

Preambles in the House

Sec. 9.8 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the

[[Page 4882]]

    Speaker stated that an amendment to the preamble of a resolution is 
    considered in the House after the adoption of the resolution.

    On June 8, 1970,(16) a resolution (H. Res. 976) 
authorizing a select committee to study recent developments in 
Southeast Asia was being considered in the House. Mr. Hugh L. Carey, of 
New York, raised a parliamentary inquiry after certain committee 
amendments had been agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 18656, 18658, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, at what point did the Speaker put the committee 
    amendment which appears on page 1 to strike out the preamble?
        The Speaker: (17) That question will come after the 
    adoption of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.9 The preamble of the simple resolution is amendable in the 
    House following the adoption of the resolution unless the previous 
    question is ordered thereon. The previous question is ordered 
    separately on the preamble of a resolution after adoption of the 
    resolution.

    On Mar. 1, 1967,(18) after the adoption of a resolution 
(H. Res. 278) relating to the right of a Representative-elect Adam C. 
Powell, of New York, to be sworn, Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, 
moved the previous question on the adoption of the preamble of the 
resolution. Mr. Phillip Burton, of California, raised a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 5038, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Missouri is urging a motion that duplicates 
    an action already taken by the House. The House already has had a 
    motion to close debate on the preamble and on the resolution as 
    amended.
        We have already had that vote. I make the point of order that 
    the gentlemen's request and/or motion is out of order. I think the 
    record of the proceedings of the House will indicate that the point 
    being advocated reflects accurately the proceedings as they have 
    transpired.
        The Speaker: (1) The Chair will state that the 
    previous question was ordered on the amendment and the resolution 
    but not on the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.10 A motion to strike all after the resolving clause of a 
    concurrent resolution does not affect the preamble thereof; and a 
    motion to strike out the preamble is properly offered after the 
    resolution has been agreed to.

    On Feb. 21, 1966,(2) the House considered a concurrent 
resolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 3473, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4883]]

(H. Con. Res. 552) recognizing the 50th anniversary of the chartering 
of the Boy Scouts of America. Mr. Arch A. Moore, Jr., of West Virginia, 
asked and received unanimous consent to consider a similar Senate 
resolution (S. Con. Res. 68) in lieu of the House concurrent 
resolution. Mr. Moore then offered an amendment to the Senate 
resolution striking out all after the resolving clause and inserting 
the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 552:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) Is the purpose of the 
    gentleman from West Virginia to strike out the preamble?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Moore: My amendment would strike out the language of the 
    Senate concurrent resolution and substitute in lieu thereof the 
    language of the concurrent resolution just passed by the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Would the amendment of the gentleman 
    from West Virginia strike out the preamble or all after the 
    enacting clause and substitute the language of the House concurrent 
    resolution just passed?
        Mr. Moore: It would strike out all after the enacting clause.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That would not eliminate the preamble.
        Mr. Moore: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the preamble.
        The Senate concurrent resolution was agreed to and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment of 
    the gentleman from West Virginia.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Moore moves to strike out the preamble.

        The amendment was agreed to.
        A similar House concurrent resolution was laid on the table.

Preamble of Joint Resolution

Sec. 9.11 The preamble of a joint resolution is properly amended after 
    the engrossment and pending the third reading of the resolution.

    On Apr. 2, 1962,(4) the House considered and agreed to a 
House joint resolution (H.J. Res. 628) along with a committee amendment 
to strike out the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 108 Cong. Rec. 5516, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House Journal records that the joint resolution was ordered 
engrossed, that the preamble was amended or stricken out, and that the 
resolution was then ordered read the third time, was read the third 
time, and passed.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. H. Jour. 231 (1962).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
    A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER 
                         MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
 
Sec. 10. Petitions and Memorials

    A petition is a plea to the Congress to take some action, or 
refrain from action, on a subject of legislative concern. The term ``me

[[Page 4884]]

morial'' is ordinarily used to describe a petition from a state 
legislature.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 389, 849 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitions and memorials, when brought to the attention of the House 
by a Member or the Speaker, are referred to the committees having 
appropriate jurisdiction. They are not legislative measures, but may 
provide the initiative for legislative action. Thus, they are not 
reported from committee and voted on in the House in the manner of 
bills and resolutions.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The introduction and reference of petitions and memorials is 
        governed by Rule XXII clauses 1, 3, 4, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 849, 853, 854 
        (1981).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction by Request

Sec. 10.1 When a citizens' petition is introduced ``by request'' under 
    Rule XXII, these words are entered on the Journal and printed in 
    the Record following the name of the Member who introduces the 
    petition.

    On Apr. 13, 1961,(8) the following was recorded in the 
Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 5900, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under clause 1 of rule XXII, petitions and papers were laid on 
    the Clerks' desk and referred as follows:
        118. By Mr. [Perkins] Bass of New Hampshire (by request): 
    Petition of 67 faculty members of Dartmouth College seeking the 
    elimination of the House Committee on Un-American Activities as a 
    standing committee; to the Committee on Rules.

Presentation by Petitioners

Sec. 10.2 The Speaker declined to entertain a unanimous-consent request 
    that certain petitioners be permitted to present a petition on the 
    floor of the House.

    On May 24, 1972,(9) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 118 Cong. Rec. 18679-81, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Bella] Abzug [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, we have 
    petitioning us today outstanding citizens of this country, social 
    leaders, leaders of the arts, sciences, and professions. They have 
    come here to petition us to act immediately to cut off funds for 
    the war and end our military activity in Indochina. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I renew my request in the form of asking unanimous 
    consent that a representative of those citizens come in and have 
    the opportunity to present a petition and that we hear what those 
    people, who are the conscience of this country and who represent a 
    majority of the American people, have to say. . . .
        The Speaker: (10) The time of the gentlewoman from 
    New York has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4885]]

        The gentlewoman's request is not in order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under Rule XXXII clause 1, the Speaker does 
not have the authority to entertain a request to waive the rule 
pertaining to the privilege of admission to the floor.


                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
      B. GENERAL PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
 
Sec. 11. Readings


    The reading of a bill or joint resolution is an essential step 
leading to passage. It is read the first time by title (which 
requirement is now complied with upon introduction of the bill or joint 
resolution by printing the title in the Journal and Record), the second 
time in full, and the third time by title. The applicable rule, Rule 
XXI clause 1, was amended in 1965 (11) to eliminate the 
right of any Member to demand the reading in full of the engrossed 
copy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. H. Res. 8, 111 Cong. Rec. 21-25, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 
        1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second reading, which is a reading in full, may be dispensed 
with only by unanimous consent.(12) It may not be dispensed 
with by motion.(13) And when a bill is read in full for the 
first time the text of the bill as originally introduced is read. 
Proposed committee amendments are not reported at that 
time.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 11.1, infra.
13. Compare 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4738 where Chairman Albert Hopkins 
        (Ill.), ruled that a bill that had been read in full in the 
        House may be again read in full on the demand of a Member in 
        the Committee of the Whole ``. . . unless its reading is 
        dispensed with by the action of the Committee.''
14. See 75 Cong. Rec. 8139, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The three readings referred to in Rule XXI clause 1 do not include 
the actual procedure for reading for amendment. Reading for amendment 
is actually yet another reading that, although not specifically 
provided for in that rule, is conducted pursuant to a practice of the 
House derived from an earlier version of the present Rule XXIII clause 
5,(15) or pursuant to the terms of a special order or rule 
which may be adopted to govern the consideration of a particular bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 872 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross Reference
Reading bills for Amendment and reading of amendments, Ch. 27, infra.

[[Page 4886]]

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

Reading in Full

Sec. 11.1 A motion to dispense with the full reading of a bill in the 
    Committee of the Whole is not in order.

    On June 4, 1951,(16) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the District of 
Columbia Law Enforcement Act of 1951 (H.R. 4141). The Chairman 
(17) stated that without objection the first (full) reading 
of the bill would be dispensed with. Objection was heard from Mr. 
Herman P. Eberharter, of Pennsylvania, and the Chairman ordered the 
Clerk to read the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 6099-101, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Herbert C. Bonner (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the reading of the bill a parliamentary inquiry was raised:

        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole of New York (interrupting the reading of 
    the bill): Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cole of New York: Mr. Chairman, is it possible under the 
    rules of the Committee of the Whole to by motion dispense with the 
    further reading of a bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair will say that it requires unanimous 
    consent to suspend the further reading of the bill.
        Mr. Cole of New York: It is not possible to do that by motion?
        The Chairman: That motion is not privileged.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Parliamentarian's Note: In this instance the Committee of the Whole 
        directed the reading in full of the bill on its first reading. 
        The bill was read by title only on the next day when the 
        Committee of the Whole reconvened to resume consideration of 
        it. Although the procedure followed was somewhat unorthodox, it 
        illustrates the point that any Member may demand a full reading 
        of a bill before general debate thereon begins, provided the 
        bill has not previously been read in full.
            The House can dispense with the first reading in Committee 
        of the Whole by motion if the motion is made privileged, as 
        when reported from the Committee on Rules. A special order 
        reported by the Committee on Rules can also waive the first 
        reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interruption by Point of No Quorum

Sec. 11.2 A point of no quorum may interrupt the reading of a 
    resolution.

    For example, on Mar. 1, 1967,(1) Mr. Porter Hardy, Jr., 
of Virginia, interrupted the reading of a House resolution (H. Res. 
278) relating to the seating of Representative-elect Adam C. Powell, of 
New York, to make the point of order that a quorum was not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noting that evidently a quorum was not present, the Speaker 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4887]]

recognized a Member to move a call of the House.

Reading as Related to Motion to Recommit

Sec. 11.3 A motion to recommit is properly made in the House after the 
    third reading of a bill.

    On Aug. 13, 1959,(3) during consideration in the House 
of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (H.R. 
8342) the previous question was ordered on an amendment agreed to in 
the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Frank Thompson, Jr., of New Jersey, 
raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 105 Cong. Rec. 15859, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is it my understanding that the vote about to be taken is on 
    whether or not the substitute will be accepted, and that it is not 
    a vote on final passage?
        The Speaker: (4) It will be a vote on the amendment 
    adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Neill: Will a vote to recommit then be in order?
        The Speaker: After the third reading.
        Mr. O'Neill: And then a vote would be in order on the final 
    passage?
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. [James] Roosevelt [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Roosevelt: If the amendment is defeated, what is then the 
    parliamentary situation?
        The Speaker: Then the question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the so-called committee bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The ``so-called committee bill'' would be 
the original text as introduced.

Sec. 11.4 A motion to recommit was held not to be in order before the 
    engrossment and third reading of the bill.

    On June 11, 1959,(5) after debate on the bill (H.R. 
7246) to amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 the Speaker announced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 10561, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to vote on the 
    motion to recommit at this time?
        The Speaker: It would not be in order until after the reading 
    of the engrossed copy. . . .

[[Page 4888]]

        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cooley: As I understand the situation, the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma [Mr. Belcher] had submitted a motion to recommit. Why 
    should we not vote on that this afternoon?
        The Speaker: It is not time to vote on it. We have got to have 
    the engrossed copy of the bill here before the motion to recommit 
    can be offered.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This precedent reflects the earlier 
practice regarding the engrossed copy of a bill, which had to be 
available and was subject to a demand for full reading. Under the new 
rule, bills on their passage are read the first time by title and the 
second time in full, when, if the previous question is ordered, the 
Speaker states the question to be: Shall the bill be engrossed and read 
a third time? If the question is decided in the affirmative, the bill 
is read the third time by title and the question then put upon its 
passage. Rule XXI clause 1, House Rules and Manual (1981). (The 
provision permitting a Member to demand a third reading in full was 
eliminated from the rule in 1965.)

Reading in the Senate

Sec. 11.5 In the Senate a bill messaged from the House may not be read 
    twice in the same legislative day without unanimous consent, but 
    the Senate may adjourn for a brief period (thus creating a new 
    legislative day) and then proceed to the second reading of the 
    bill.

    On Mar. 24, 1960,(7) there was received in the Senate 
the civil rights bill of 1960 (H.R. 8601) messaged from the House of 
Representatives. When the bill had been read the first time, Senator 
Lyndon B. Johnson, of Texas, asked unanimous consent that the bill be 
read the second time. Senator Richard B. Russell, of Georgia, objected. 
Senator Johnson then moved that the Senate adjourn for three minutes, 
and the motion was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 6451, 6452, 6454, 6455, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
            Under Senate Rule XIV clause 2, every bill and joint 
        resolution receives three readings prior to its passage, which 
        readings must be on three different days, unless the Senate 
        unanimously directs otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Senate adjourned for three minutes from 1:32 p.m. to 1:35 
p.m. of the same day, and upon reconvening the civil rights bill was 
read a second time and referred to committee.

Sec. 11.6 In the Senate, by unanimous consent, a bill may be

[[Page 4889]]

    read the second time on the same day it is received by message from 
    the House.

    On Mar. 14, 1962,(8) the proceedings below were recorded 
in the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 4097, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Everett McKinley] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. President, I 
    ask unanimous consent that H.R. 10079, which came over from the 
    House and is now on the table----
        Mr. [John C.] Stennis [of Mississippi]: A point of order, Mr. 
    President. Is the Senate in the morning hour?
        Mr. Dirksen: Yes, it is.
        I ask that the bill be advanced to a second reading and be 
    permitted to lie on the desk.
        The Vice President: (9) Is there objection to the 
    request of the Senator from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Lyndon B. Johnson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There being no objection, the bill was ordered to a second 
    reading, and was read the second time.
        The Vice President: Without objection the bill will be printed, 
    and will lie on the table.


 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
      B. GENERAL PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
 
Sec. 12. Engrossment

    Engrossment is the process by which a bill or resolution or a House 
amendment to a Senate measure is printed on special paper by direction 
of the enrolling clerk under supervision of the Clerk of the House or 
the Secretary of the Senate. After House action, House bills and 
resolutions are engrossed on a distinctive blue paper, as are House 
amendments to measures received from the Senate. This blue paper 
indicates that it is the official copy of the measure as passed by the 
House.(10) Senate bills and Senate amendments to House bills 
are engrossed on white paper. The engrossed copies of the bill, when 
signed by the Clerk of the House (in the case of a bill originating in 
the House) or by the Secretary of the Senate (on a Senate bill), become 
the nucleus of the official papers which go from one house to the other 
during the various actions on a bill. A Senate bill cannot be acted on 
in the House, e.g., until the House is in possession of the signed copy 
of the engrossed Senate bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives (97th Cong.), Ch. 24 
        Sec. 5.1.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Star Prints

Sec. 12.1 The engrossed copy of a bill may be ``star printed'' (that 
    is, reprinted with a star to indicate the reprinting) to rectify 
    clerical errors; and an

[[Page 4890]]

    engrossed ``star print'' of a House bill, substituted for the 
    original engrossed copy containing a clerical error when messaged 
    to the Senate, is properly before that body.

    On July 9, 1957,(11) Senator William F. Knowland, of 
California, moved that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the 
House bill 6127:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 103 Cong. Rec. 11089, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. President, on yesterday the Senator from Georgia [Mr. 
    Russell] stated that the star-print bill which is now proposed to 
    be taken up upon my motion is not the same bill which was 
    heretofore read twice and ordered to be placed on the calendar. 
    This colloquy appears on pages 10986-10987 of the Record of July 8, 
    1957. It was stated that the star print bill had not been read 
    twice.
        I desire to submit a parliamentary inquiry, as to whether, if 
    my motion prevails, the bill then before the Senate will be the 
    engrossed bill, star print, and as to whether the validity of any 
    proceedings the Senate may now or hereafter take on the star-print 
    bill may be questioned.
        The Vice President: (12) A study of the precedents 
    indicates that the question as to the validity of a star print has 
    not been previously raised in the Senate. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Richard M. Nixon (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A star print, so called, of an engrossed bill, whether it is 
    either a House or Senate bill, is simply a bill that has been 
    reprinted for the purpose of correcting an error or errors, usually 
    of a clerical or typographical nature, made by some person whose 
    duty it was to see that such bill, when printed, was in conformity 
    in all respects with and truly and accurately reflected the action 
    of the particular House in its passage. It is designed to 
    substitute for a bill in which an error has been discovered a 
    reprinted bill correcting such error or errors and showing the 
    exact form in which such bill was actually passed by the original 
    House. The practice of star printing bills has been followed by 
    both Houses of Congress, in a more or less routine manner, for a 
    long period of time. The Parliamentarian has found instances going 
    back almost 50 years ago. It is somewhat analogous to the method of 
    correcting by a concurrent resolution errors discovered in an 
    enrolled bill after it has passed through the legislative processes 
    beyond the stage of amendment; indeed, in some cases, after an 
    enrolled bill has been signed by the two presiding officers and 
    presented to the President, it is recalled, the errors are 
    corrected, and the bill again signed and presented to the President 
    for his action thereon.
        An engrossed bill is attested, in the Senate by the Secretary, 
    and in the House by the Clerk, and transmitted to the other body by 
    message. If an error in such a bill is not discovered until after 
    its receipt by the other House, the usual procedure is for the 
    enrolling clerk of the first House to have a star print made 
    correcting such error and it is delivered to the enrolling clerk of 
    the second House, who delivers to the first House the original 
    signed bill con

[[Page 4891]]

    taining the error. In such a case, a star print is made by the 
    enrolling clerk of the second House of the bill on white paper 
    showing the bill in its correct form, with the same action 
    indicated thereon as appears on the original bill. All the original 
    copies of the bill are withdrawn from the files and the star-print 
    copies substituted therefor, whether the bill was referred to a 
    committee or placed on the calendar.
        The error in the engrossed bill H.R. 6127, the Civil Rights Act 
    of 1957, was not discovered until after it had been transmitted by 
    message to the Senate, read twice, and placed upon the calendar.
        During the consideration of the bill in the House on June 17, 
    1957, as shown on pages 9378-9384 of the Congressional Record, Mr. 
    Whitener, of North Carolina, offered an amendment embracing the 
    language of the proviso shown in the original engrossed bill 
    beginning on page 8 line 19, and extending down to and including 
    line 9, page 9. A point of order was made and sustained by the 
    Chairman, Mr. Forand, that it was not germane specifically to the 
    section to which it was offered, but it was stated by the Chairman 
    that it would be germane to the bill as a separate section. Mr. 
    Whitener then obtained unanimous consent that he might offer it as 
    an amendment in the form of a separate section, to be known as 
    subsection (e) of section 131, and to be inserted immediately 
    following line 13, on page 12. An amendment to the amendment was 
    offered by Mr. Hoffman, of Michigan, which was ruled out on a point 
    of order as not being germane to Mr. Whitener's amendment. Mr. 
    Whitener, by unanimous consent, then made a slight modification of 
    his amendment, and the amendment as modified was agreed to. By 
    inadvertence, the amendment as adopted was inserted in the bill at 
    the same point where it was originally offered instead of at the 
    place where it was offered the second time.
        When the error was discovered, the enrolling clerk of the House 
    had a star print made of the engrossed bill, in which the language 
    of the amendment was transposed from the erroneous place in the 
    bill to the place specifically indicated by him when he offered the 
    amendment the second time, which now appears on page 12, as lines 
    10 to 23, inclusive, of the Senate Calendar print of the bill.
        It was simply a transposition of the language of the amendment 
    to the correct and proper place, as indicated by the proceedings in 
    the Congressional Record. No word was changed in this 
    transposition. It was placed in the star printed bill in exactly 
    the same language as proposed and adopted by the House.
        The transposition necessitated a change in the pages and lines 
    of the star print after the place in which the amendment was 
    incorrectly inserted, and it was therefore necessary to have a star 
    print made in the Senate of the original calendar print, in view of 
    the fact that any amendment offered after page 8, line 19, would 
    not correspond to the language in the star printed engrossed bill.
        When this star print was delivered to the Secretary's Office of 
    the Senate, following the custom, undeviated from, the original 
    erroneous engrossed bill was returned to the enrolling clerk of the 
    House, and a copy of the Senate

[[Page 4892]]

    Calendar print of the bill was sent to the Government Printing 
    Office for a star print.
        The proceedings in connection with the star printing of the 
    bill in the Senate followed the usual routine procedure customary 
    in the correction of errors in engrossed bills.
        Mr. [Richard B.] Russell: Mr. President, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Vice President: The Senator will state it.
        Mr. Russell: The Chair did not so state specifically, but I 
    understood the distinguished Senator from California to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry as to the validity of this procedure. Did I 
    correctly understand the Chair to rule that this remarkable 
    procedure was valid under rule XIV?
        The Vice President: The Chair did so rule.

House, Not Committee of the Whole, Controls Engrossment

Sec. 12.2 A request that the Clerk, in the engrossment of a bill, make 
    corrections in section numbers and cross references in the bill, is 
    properly made in the House, following passage of the bill and is 
    not in order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 29, 1969,(13) during consideration in the 
Committee of the Whole on the bill (H.R. 4153) authorizing procurement 
of vessels and aircraft and construction of shore and offshore 
establishments for the Coast Guard, Mr. Frank T. Bow, of Ohio, offered 
an amendment. Mr. Hastings Keith, of Massachusetts, then raised a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 10753, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, if the amendment is adopted and I hope and trust 
    it will be; would that not require the renumbering of the lines in 
    which the earlier amendments have been incorporated into the 
    existing legislation?
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman may request that 
    the Clerk be authorized to renumber accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Jacob H. Gilbert (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keith: I would so request.
        The Chairman: The gentleman may make the request that the Clerk 
    be authorized to renumber the sections accordingly after the 
    Committee rises and we are in the House.

    After the Committee of the Whole had arisen and reported back to 
the House and the Speaker (15) had announced the question as 
being the engrossment and third reading of the bill, Mr. Keith raised a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, while we were in Committee of the Whole I raised a 
    question, the answer to which indicated that I should ask 
    permission that certain sections be renumbered.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state in response to the 
    parliamentary inquiry that the gentleman's request will be in order 
    and the gentleman will be

[[Page 4893]]

    recognized to make such a request after the bill is 
    passed.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives (97th 
        Cong.), Ch. 24 Sec. Sec. 5.4, 5.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clerk May be Directed by Resolution to Correct Engrossment

Sec. 12.3 The House agreed to a resolution, in the form shown below, 
    authorizing and directing the Clerk of the House to make certain 
    changes in the engrossment of a joint resolution.

    On May 10, 1945,(17) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following resolution (H. Res. 254):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 4434, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Clerk of the House in the engrossment of the 
    joint resolution (H.J. Res. 60) proposing an amendment to the 
    Constitution of the United States relative to the making of 
    treaties, is authorized and directed, in the last sentence of 
    section 1 of the proposed article of amendment to the Constitution, 
    to insert after the word ``against'' the following: ``advising and 
    consenting to the'', so that such sentence shall read as follows: 
    ``In all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by 
    yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against 
    advising and consenting to the ratification of the treaty shall be 
    entered on the Journal of each House respectively.''

Senate Request for Return of Bill From House, Privileged in House

Sec. 12.4 The Speaker laid before the House a resolution of the Senate, 
    in the form shown below, requesting the House to return to that 
    body an engrossed bill together with accompanying papers.

     On June 16 (legislative day June 14), 1938,(18) the 
following proceedings took place in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 9681, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (19) The Chair desires to make an 
    announcement with reference to a request sent to the House this 
    morning by the Senate of the United States. The Clerk will report 
    the order of the Senate of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to request the 
        House of Representatives to return to the Senate the engrossed 
        bill (H.R. 7084) to provide that all cabs for hire in the 
        District of Columbia be compelled to carry insurance for the 
        protection of passengers, and for other purposes, together with 
        all accompanying papers.

        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it is proper to state that as a 
    matter of comity between the two branches, when a request of this 
    character comes over from the other body to this body,

[[Page 4894]]

    it is the duty of the House to comply with such order and it is 
    under the precedents a matter of privilege.
        Mr. [Thomas D.] O'Malley [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Malley: What will be the status of the measure when it 
    returns to the Senate?
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot answer that question. We are 
    simply returning the bill to the Senate.
        Mr. O'Malley: It does not go to conference by reason of this 
    order?
        The Speaker: It does not. Without objection, the request of the 
    Senate will be complied with.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.5 The House, by unanimous consent, considered a resolution 
    requesting the Senate to return a House bill and authorizing the 
    Clerk to reengross the bill with a correction.

    On Apr. 16, 1951,(20) the following House resolution (H. 
Res. 195) was before the House by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 97 Cong. Rec. 3918, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. H.R. 3587 had not yet been 
        reported in the Senate. This situation differs from that in 
        Sec. 12.6, infra, in which the Senate had acted on the bill and 
        requested a conference which had been agreed to by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Senate be requested to return to the House 
    the bill (H.R. 3587) making supplemental appropriations for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and for other purposes, and that 
    the Clerk be authorized to reengross the said bill with the 
    following correction:
         Page 11, line 11, strike out ``$18,350,000'' and insert in 
    lieu thereof ``$19,100,000.''
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, this is because the enrolling clerk made a mistake 
    in indicating that the Heselton amendment was carried instead of 
    being defeated on roll call; is that correct?
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: That is correct. The 
    engrossed copy showed the earlier action but failed to change back 
    on final roll call.

A Concurrent Resolution is Used to Effect Change in Engrossment When 
    Both Houses Have Acted

Sec. 12.6 The House, by unanimous consent, considered a concurrent 
    resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Senate to re-engross 
    the amendments of the Senate to a House bill and make a correction 
    in such reengrossment.

    On June 27, 1951,(1) the concurrent resolution shown 
below was before the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 97 Cong. Rec. 7254, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. As noted above (see 
        Sec. 12.5, supra), the Senate had requested and the House had 
        agreed to a conference on the bill H.R. 3880.

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

[[Page 4895]]

                Independent Offices Appropriation Bill, 1952

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent for the immediate consideration of the concurrent 
    resolution (S. Con. Res. 35) ordering the reengrossment of the 
    Senate amendment to H.R. 3880, the independent offices 
    appropriation bill for 1952.
        The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is 
        hereby, authorized and directed to reengross the amendments of 
        the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3880) making appropriations for 
        the Executive Office and sundry independent executive bureaus, 
        boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, and offices for 
        the fiscal year ending June 30, 1952, and for other purposes; 
        and to reengross Senate amendment numbered 79 so as to read as 
        follows:
            On page 35, line 23, strike out ``$875,163,335'' and insert 
        ``$873,105,770.''

        The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Phillips [of California]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, will the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thomas] please 
    explain the reason for the request on the part of the other body?
        Mr. Thomas: Mr. Speaker, this resolution authorizes 
    reengrossment of amendment No. 79 of the independent offices 
    appropriation bill. It all adds up to this: Apparently the other 
    body has made a mistake in printing or engrossing this amendment. 
    Amendment No. 79 deals with salaries and expenses for the Veterans' 
    Administration. What happened was that they show a reduction in 
    that appropriation of about $1,200,000 more than the figure 
    actually agreed upon by the Senate.

Correction in Engrossed Bill Prior to Disagreement to Senate Amendment

Sec. 12.7 A concurrent resolution authorizing the Clerk of the House to 
    make certain corrections in the engrossed copy of a House bill was 
    considered and agreed to before the House disagreed to a Senate 
    amendment to the bill.

    On July 16, 1968,(3) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado, 
asked unanimous consent for the consideration of a concurrent 
resolution (H. Con. Res. 798) authorizing the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives to make certain changes in the engrossed copy of the 
bill (H.R. 9098) to revise the boundaries of the Bad Lands National 
Monument in the State of South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 21538, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The resolution read in part as follows:

[[Page 4896]]

        In lieu of the language appearing on page 4, lines 9 through 21 
    of the House engrossed bill and the Senate amendment thereto, 
    insert the following:
        ``(b) Any former Indian or non-Indian owner of a tract of land, 
    whether title was held in trust or fee, may purchase such tract 
    from the Secretary of the Interior. . . .''

    The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
    Mr. Aspinall then asked unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the same bill messaged back to the House from the 
Senate with a Senate amendment. Mr. Aspinall asked unanimous consent to 
consider such bill and disagree to the Senate amendment.
    There was no objection.

Effecting Changes by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 12.8 By unanimous consent, the Clerk was authorized to include an 
    amendment striking out a preamble in the engrossment of amendments 
    to a Senate joint resolution passed in the House.

    On Nov. 16, 1943,(4) Mr. Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, 
made the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 89 Cong. Rec. 9587, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of 
    the amendments to Senate Joint Resolution 47, providing for the 
    appointment of a National Agricultural Jefferson Bicentenary 
    Committee to carry out under the general direction of the United 
    States Commission for the Celebration of the Two Hundredth 
    Anniversary of the Birth of Thomas Jefferson appropriate exercises 
    and activities in recognition of the services and contributions of 
    Thomas Jefferson to the farmers and the agriculture of the Nation, 
    the Clerk of the House be authorized to include therein an 
    amendment striking out the preamble.
        The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Georgia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.9 Where the House amended the text of a Senate bill but 
    neglected to make a conforming change in the title thereof, the 
    Clerk was authorized and directed, by unanimous consent, to correct 
    the oversight by inserting the correct title in the engrossment of 
    the House amendments to the Senate bill.

    On May 15, 1968,(6) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, made 
the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 114 Cong. Rec. 13400, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of 
    the

[[Page 4897]]

    amendment to the Senate bill (S. 2986) to extend Public Law 480, 
    83d Congress, to which the House agreed yesterday, that the Clerk 
    of the House be authorized and directed to make a conforming 
    amendment to the title of the bill. The title of the Senate bill 
    provided for a 3-year extension of the law, but the House only 
    extended the law until December 31, 1969.
        The title should be amended to read as follows:

            To extend the Agricultural Trade and Assistance Act of 
        1954, as amended, and for other purposes.

        The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right 
    to object, that means then specifically that it is limited to 1 
    year?
        Mr. Poage: That is right; it just gets it in the title.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.10 The Clerk may be authorized by unanimous consent to make 
    certain changes in section numbers, cross references, and other 
    technical changes during the engrossment of a House-passed bill.

    On Oct. 11, 1967,(8) Mr. Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New 
York, made the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 113 Cong. Rec. 28672, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be 
    authorized to make the appropriate conforming changes in, and 
    omissions of, section numbers and references in the bill (H.R. 
    7977).
        The Speaker: (9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

     Similarly, on July 24, 1968,(10) after the House passed 
H.R. 17735, Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, made the following 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 114 Cong. Rec. 23096, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, because of the number of amendments adopted to the 
    bill just passed, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk, in the 
    engrossment of the bill, be authorized and directed to make such 
    changes in section numbers, cross-references, and other technical 
    and conforming corrections as may be required to reflect the 
    actions of the House. . . .
        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.11 The Clerk was authorized, by unanimous consent, to make 
    clerical corrections in the engrossment of a House amendment to a 
    Senate bill.

     On Sept. 12, 1967,(11) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, 
made
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 25230, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4898]]

the following unanimous-consent request:

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk may make 
    any necessary corrections in punctuation, section numbers, and 
    cross references in the amendment of the House to the bill, S. 
    1862.
        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.12 A unanimous-consent request was made authorizing the Clerk 
    in the engrossing of a revenue bill to make changes in the table of 
    contents, to make clerical changes, and to amend or strike out 
    cross references.

     On Apr. 28, 1936,(13) Mr. Robert L. Doughton, of North 
Carolina, submitted the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 80 Cong. Rec. 6299, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossing of the pending 
    bill (H.R. 12395), the Clerk of the House be authorized:
        (1) To make such changes in the table of contents as may be 
    necessary to make such table conform to the action of the House in 
    respect of the bill;
        (2) To make such clerical changes as may be necessary to the 
    proper numbering and lettering of the various portions of the bill, 
    and to secure uniformity in the bill in respect of typography and 
    indentation; and
        (3) To amend or strike out cross-references that have become 
    erroneous or superfluous, and to insert cross-references made 
    necessary by reason of changes made by the House.

Sec. 12.13 The Clerk of the House was directed, in the engrossment of 
    House Resolution 7 (re the adoption of rules for the 90th 
    Congress), to make certain corrections in the text of the 
    resolution and the amendment thereto to reflect the intention of 
    the House.

    On Jan. 12, 1967,(14) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
asked unanimous consent that in the engrossment of House Resolution 7 
the Clerk of the House be authorized and directed to make certain 
corrections:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 430, 431, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, as I understand it, the request of the 
    distinguished majority leader is solely for the purpose of 
    perfecting what the House intended to do on Tuesday last; is that 
    correct?
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished minority leader 
    yield?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan is 
    correct. Most of them are obvious. Obviously, we

[[Page 4899]]

    were working last year under the rules of the 89th Congress, but 
    there were two or three clerical errors and the only purpose is to 
    correct clerical errors.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of 
    objection.
        The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.



 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
      B. GENERAL PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
 
Sec. 13. Transmission of Legislative Messages Between House and Senate

 Messages From House

Sec. 13.1 Customarily, sundry enrolled bills, signed by the Speaker, 
    are announced as a group (but seldom by individual title or with 
    reference to number or content) at the Senate door when they are 
    messaged from the House, although this procedure has provoked 
    discussion.

     On May 20, 1963,(16) Senator Bourke B. Hickenlooper, of 
Iowa, raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 9006, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. President, I wanted to make a parliamentary inquiry. For 
    the record, may I ask if H.R. 4997, which is the feed grain bill, 
    has been messaged over from the House to the Senate?
        The Presiding Officer: (17) That bill has come over 
    from the House and has been signed by the President pro tempore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hickenlooper: May I ask at what time it came over from the 
    House?
        The Presiding Officer: About 7 or 8 minutes after 12 
    o'clock.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Recorded in the Record at 109 Cong. Rec. 8978, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hickenlooper: Was it presented through the so-called front 
    door of the Senate and was any public announcement made of the 
    message from the House at the time is was sent over?
        The Presiding Officer: It was not officially announced when it 
    was received.
        Mr. Hickenlooper: So there was no public announcement, at the 
    time the bill was coming from the House, of this having been signed 
    by the Speaker. Is that correct?
        The Presiding Officer: That is correct.
        Mr. Hickenlooper: Therefore, there was no opportunity or 
    knowledge on the part of anyone who might have wanted to raise 
    parliamentary issues with regard to that bill because there was no 
    opportunity as the result of any notice.
        The Presiding Officer: Apparently there was none.
        Mr. Hickenlooper: May I ask if that is the usual procedure, or 
    the unusual procedure, for a bill to be messaged over 
    surreptitiously and secretly from the House of Representatives, in 
    that manner?

[[Page 4900]]

        The Presiding Officer: The usual procedure is for a bill to be 
    announced at the door.
        Mr. Hickenlooper: It was not followed in this case.
        The Presiding Officer: That is correct.
        Mr. Hickenlooper: I thank the Chair for explaining this very 
    interesting and unusual procedure in connection with this 
    bill.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 4997, the Feed Grain Act of 1963, was 
        signed by the Speaker shortly after noon on May 20. Since there 
        was some urgency about getting the bill to the White House as 
        quickly as possible, the messenger from the House took the bill 
        directly to the Senate where he was instructed, by the 
        Secretary of the Senate, to take the bill directly to the desk 
        for signature by the President pro tempore. The bill was then 
        taken immediately to the White House by a representative of the 
        Secretary of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Messages From Senate

Sec. 13.2 The Speaker lays before the House letters from the Clerk 
    advising him that pursuant to authority granted, the Clerk had, 
    during adjournment, received messages from the Senate relative to 
    the passage of House bills.

     On Apr. 12, 1965,(20) the Speaker (21) laid 
before the House the following communication from the Clerk of the 
House of Representatives: (22)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 7771, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
21. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
22. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 14845, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. June 28, 1965; 
        and 111 Cong. Rec. 9115, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. May 3, 1965.
            For a more extensive discussion of House-Senate messages 
        and House-Senate relations generally, see Ch. 32, infra.
                                    Office of the Clerk,
                                   House of Representatives,
                               Washington, D.C., April 10, 1965.
    The Honorable the Speaker,
    House of Representatives.

        Sir: Pursuant to authority granted on April 8, 1965, the Clerk 
    received from the Secretary of the Senate today the following 
    message:
        That the Senate passed H.R. 2362, entitled ``An act to 
    strengthen and improve educational quality and educational 
    opportunities in the Nation's elementary and secondary schools.''
        Respectfully yours,

                                           Ralph R. Roberts,
                             Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives.

Revenue and Appropriation Measures

Sec. 13.3 The House has agreed to privileged resolutions providing for 
    the return to the Senate of joint resolutions passed by that body 
    and held to infringe on the revenue-raising powers of the House 
    under the Constitution.

    On Mar. 12, 1953,(1) the House considered and agreed to 
the fol
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 99 Cong. Rec. 1897, 1898, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4901]]

lowing privileged resolution (H. Res. 176):

        Resolved, That Senate Joint Resolution 52, making an 
    appropriation out of the general fund of the District of Columbia, 
    in the opinion of the House, contravenes the first clause of the 
    seventh section of the first article of the Constitution and is an 
    infringement of the privileges of this House, and that the said 
    joint resolution be taken from the Speaker's table and be 
    respectfully returned to the Senate with a message communicating 
    this resolution.

     Again, on July 2, 1960,(2) the House considered and 
agreed to the following resolution (H. Res. 598):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 106 Cong. Rec. 15818, 15819, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That Senate Joint Resolution 217 [extending Sugar Act of 1948] 
    in the opinion of this House contravenes the first clause of the 
    seventh section of the first article of the Constitution of the 
    United States, and is an infringement of the privileges of this 
    House, and that the said resolution be respectfully returned to the 
    Senate with a message communicating this resolution.

     Similarly, on Oct. 10, 1962,(3) the House considered 
and agreed to the following resolution (H. Res. 831):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 23014, 23015, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That Senate Joint Resolution 234, making 
    appropriations for the Department of Agriculture and the Farm 
    Credit Administration for the fiscal year 1963, in the opinion of 
    the House, contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of 
    the first article of the Constitution and is an infringement of the 
    privileges of this House, and that the said joint resolution be 
    taken from the Speaker's table and be respectfully returned to the 
    Senate with a message communicating this resolution.

     The jurisdiction and authority of the House over revenue bills is 
treated more extensively in the chapter on the general powers and 
prerogatives of the House. See chapter 13, supra.



 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
      B. GENERAL PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
 
Sec. 14. Enrollment; Correcting Bills in Enrollment

Enrollment Procedure

Sec. 14.1 A bill is enrolled by the House in which it originated. Under 
    the enrollment procedure, the bill is printed at the Government 
    Printing Office on distinctive paper under special 
    supervision.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives (97th Cong.), Ch. 24 
        Sec. 6.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.2 Under Rule X clause 4(d)(1),(5) the Committee on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 697b (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4902]]

    House Administration has the function of ``examining all bills, 
    amendments, and joint resolutions after passage by the House and, 
    in cooperation with the Senate, examining all bills and joint 
    resolutions which shall have passed both Houses to see that they 
    are correctly enrolled, forthwith presenting those which originated 
    in the House to the President of the United States in person after 
    their signature by the Speaker of the House and the President of 
    the Senate and reporting the fact and date of such presentation to 
    the House.''

Sec. 14.3 The Committee on House Administration reports to the House 
    when it carries out its functions of certifying the correct 
    enrollment of bills and joint resolutions.

     On Mar. 24, 1947,(6) Mr. Karl M. Le Compte, of Iowa, 
from the Committee on House Administration reported that that committee 
had examined and found truly enrolled and signed by the Speaker the 
joint resolution of the House (H.J. Res. 27) proposing an amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of office 
of the President. Mr. Le Compte announced further that that committee 
had presented to and filed with the Secretary of State such joint 
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 93 Cong. Rec. 2482, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Constitutional amendments, having passed 
both Houses of Congress, are now presented to the Administrator of 
General Services for transmission to the several states for 
ratification. See 1 USC Sec. 106b; 1 USC Sec. 112.

Sec. 14.4 In the Senate, the responsibility for the correct enrollment 
    of bills and joint resolutions is vested in the Secretary of the 
    Senate.

    On Jan. 30, 1945,(7) the Senate considered and agreed to 
the following resolution (S. Res. 64):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 91 Cong. Rec. 591, 592, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate shall examine all 
    bills, amendments, and joint resolutions before they go out of the 
    possession of the Senate, and shall examine all bills and joint 
    resolutions which shall have passed both Houses, to see that the 
    same are correctly enrolled, and, when signed by the Speaker of the 
    House and the President of the Senate, shall forthwith present the 
    same, when they shall have originated in the Senate, to

[[Page 4903]]

    the President of the United States, and report the fact and date of 
    such presentation to the Senate.

     Parliamentarian's Note: The provisions of this resolution are now 
part of the standing rules of the Senate. See Rule XIV, paragraph 5, 
Senate Manual Sec. 14.5 (1975).

Authorizing Numerical Corrections

Sec. 14.5 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution providing that in 
    the enrollment of general appropriation bills enacted during the 
    remainder of a session, the Clerk of the House could correct 
    chapter, title, and section numbers.

    On July 4, 1952,(8) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 239):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 98 Cong. Rec. 9440, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That in the enrollment of general appropriation bills 
    enacted during the remainder of the second session of the Eighty-
    second Congress the Clerk of the House may correct chapter, title, 
    and section numbers.

    The Senate also agreed to this resolution (see H. Jour. 761, 82d 
Cong. 2d Sess., July 5, 1952).

Changing Items in Appropriation Bill

Sec. 14.6 Items in an appropriation bill not in disagreement between 
    the two Houses, and hence not committed to the conferees, were, by 
    unanimous consent, changed through adoption of a concurrent 
    resolution directing the changes in the enrollment of the bill.

     On July 23, 1962,(9) Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, 
called up for consideration under a previous unanimous-consent 
agreement a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 505) making 29 changes 
in a supplemental appropriation bill (H.R. 11038). Had the items been 
included in the conference agreement, the report would have been 
subject to a point of order. In explanation of the concurrent 
resolution Mr. Thomas stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 108 Cong. Rec. 14400, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled this deals with what we call 
    the second supplemental appropriation bill for 1962. When the 
    supplemental left the House it had 55 items carrying about $447 
    million, which was a reduction, in round figures, of $100 million 
    under the budget, a reduction of about 20 percent.
        It went to the other body and that body added some 29 items, 
    increasing

[[Page 4904]]

    the amount over the House by $112 million, which made a round 
    figure of about $560 million.
        We bring to you two items, one a concurrent resolution and the 
    other a conference report. First, why the concurrent resolution? We 
    put in the concurrent resolution some 29 items which were 
    originally in the supplemental, but those 29 items are a 
    reduction--follow me now--below the figure that was in the 
    supplemental when it left the House and the figure when it left the 
    Senate.

        It is a complete reduction and a change. It is in the 
    concurrent resolution because it could not be in the conference 
    report, and the reason it could not be in the conference report is 
    because it is a reduction in those amounts.

    The concurrent resolution was agreed to.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Id. at p. 14403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correcting Printing Errors

Sec. 14.7 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution authorizing the 
    Clerk of the House, in the enrollment of a House bill, to correct 
    certain printing errors in the bill as reported from conference to 
    reflect the true intention of the conferees and the two Houses.

     On Oct. 17, 1966,(11) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 1039):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 112 Cong. Rec. 27152, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representatives in the 
    enrollment of the bill (H.R. 15857) to amend the District of 
    Columbia Police and Fireman's Salary Act of 1958 to increase 
    salaries of officers and members of the Metropolitan Police force 
    and the Fire Department, and for other purposes, is authorized and 
    directed to make the following corrections in the salary schedule 
    for teachers, school officers, and certain other employees of the 
    District of Columbia Board of Education, which is provided in 
    section 202(1) of the bill:
        (1) In class 3, step 2, strike out ``$16,856'' and insert in 
    lieu thereof ``$16,865''.
        (2) In class 3, step 6, strike out ``18,115'' and insert in 
    lieu thereof ``18,105''.
        (3) In class 6, group C, principal level III, step 5, strike 
    out ``14,905'' and insert ``14,095''.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Parliamentarian's Note: Printing errors in the conference report 
        were not discovered until after the Senate had acted on the 
        report. These errors could have been corrected by a star print 
        had they been caught before the two Houses had acted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return of Original Papers to Senate

Sec. 14.8 By concurrent resolution the Senate requested return of a 
    House bill erro

[[Page 4905]]

    neously messaged to the House as having passed the Senate without 
    amendment; the Secretary of the Senate was authorized, upon its 
    return, to transmit the bill to the House with a Senate amendment, 
    and provided for the return to the House of an incorrectly enrolled 
    bill, signed by the Speaker, and that the Speaker's signature be 
    rescinded.

    On Aug. 8, 1957,(13) the Speaker, Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
laid before the House the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 
46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 103 Cong. Rec. 14102, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the House of Representatives return to the Senate 
    the engrossed bill (H.R. 5707) for the relief of the A. C. Israel 
    Commodity Co., Inc., erroneously messaged to the House on August 6, 
    1957, as having passed the Senate on the preceding day without 
    amendment; that upon its return to the Senate the Secretary shall 
    transmit to the House the said bill, together with the amendment 
    made by the Senate thereto; that the enrolled bill, signed by the 
    Speaker of the House and transmitted to the Senate on yesterday, be 
    returned to the House, and that the action of the Speaker in 
    signing said enrolled bill be thereupon rescinded.

Rescinding Enrollment

Sec. 14.9 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to a concurrent 
    resolution rescinding the action of the Speaker and President of 
    the Senate in signing an enrolled bill and directing the Clerk of 
    the House to reenroll the bill with certain changes.

    On Apr. 21, 1938,(14) the House agreed to the following 
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 30) which had passed the Senate on 
Mar. 30, 1938:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 83 Cong. Rec. 5640, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the action of the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives and the President of the Senate in signing the 
    enrolled bill (H.R. 5793) for the relief of Josephine Fontana be, 
    and it is hereby, rescinded, and the Clerk of the House be, and he 
    is hereby, authorized and directed to reenroll the bill with the 
    following amendments, viz: . . . strike out ``Josephine Fontana, . 
    . . $600 in full satisfaction of her claim'' and . . . insert . . . 
    ``Nathaniel M. Harvey, as administrator of the estate of Josephine 
    Fontana. . . .''

Sec. 14.10 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to a Senate 
    concurrent resolution rescinding the signatures of the two 
    presiding officers on

[[Page 4906]]

    an enrolled bill and providing for its return to the Senate.

     On May 24, 1956,(15) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 80):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 102 Cong. Rec. 8945, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the action of the Speaker pro tempore of the 
    House of Representatives and of the President of the Senate in 
    signing the enrolled bill (H.R. 4656) relating to the Lumbee 
    Indians of North Carolina be, and it is hereby, rescinded, and that 
    the engrossed bill be returned to the Senate.

Sec. 14.11 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to a Senate 
    concurrent resolution rescinding the action of the Speaker and 
    President of the Senate in signing an enrolled bill and requesting 
    the House to return the engrossed copy to the Senate.

    On Apr. 5, 1938,(16) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 29):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 83 Cong. Rec. 4775, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the action of the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives and of the President of the Senate in signing the 
    enrolled bill (H.R. 7158) to except yachts, tugs, towboats, and 
    unrigged vessels from certain provisions of the act of June 25, 
    1936, as amended, be, and it is hereby, rescinded; and that the 
    House of Representatives be, and it is hereby, requested to return 
    to the Senate the engrossed bill.

Sec. 14.12 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to a concurrent 
    resolution rescinding the action of the Speaker and Vice President 
    in signing an enrolled bill and requesting the House to return to 
    the Senate its message announcing its agreement to an amendment of 
    the House.

     On June 4, 1935,(17) the House considered the following 
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 16):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 79 Cong. Rec. 8645, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the action of the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives and the Vice President of the United States, 
    respectively, in signing the enrolled bill (S. 2105) to provide for 
    an additional number of cadets at the United States Military 
    Academy, and for other purposes, be, and the same is hereby, 
    rescinded; and that the House of Representatives be, and it is 
    hereby, requested to return to the Senate the message announcing 
    its agreement to the amendments of the House to the said bill.

[[Page 4907]]

Reenrollment With a Correction

Sec. 14.13 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to a concurrent 
    resolution rescinding the action of the Speaker in signing an 
    enrolled bill and authorizing the Clerk to reenroll it with a 
    correction.

     On Aug. 17, 1954,(1) the House considered and passed 
the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 106):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 100 Cong. Rec. 14877, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the action of the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives in signing the enrolled bill (H.R. 1975) to amend 
    section 2201 of title 28, United States Code, to extend the Federal 
    Declaratory Judgments Act to the Territory of Alaska, be rescinded, 
    and that the Clerk of the House be, and he is hereby authorized and 
    directed, in the reenrollment of the bill, to make the following 
    correction:
        On page 1, line 6 of the engrossed House bill, strike out the 
    word ``section'' and in lieu thereof insert the word ``sentence.''

Sec. 14.14 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to a Senate 
    concurrent resolution authorizing and directing the Clerk of the 
    House to reenroll a House bill with a correction.

    On Oct. 13, 1966,(2) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 113):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 26639, 26640, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representatives of the 
    United States be authorized to correct an enrolling error in H.R. 
    698, to provide for the establishment of the Guadalupe Mountains 
    National Park in the State of Texas, and for other purposes, and 
    that section 3(a) of H.R. 698, shall when corrected read as 
    follows:
        ``When title to all privately owned land within the boundary of 
    the park, subject to such outstanding interests, rights, and 
    easements as the Secretary determines are not objectionable. . . 
    .'' (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Parliamentarian's Note: The Senate originated this concurrent 
        resolution since the error in the enrollment was in reality a 
        Senate error reflecting a mistake in the engrossment of the 
        Senate amendment to the House bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Reenrollment With a Change

Sec. 14.15 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution rescinding the 
    action of the Speaker in signing an enrolled bill and authorizing 
    the Secretary of the Senate to reenroll the bill with a change.

[[Page 4908]]

    On June 16, 1954,(4) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, of 
Massachusetts, laid before the House a concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 87) which the House considered and agreed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 100 Cong. Rec. 8360, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the action of the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives in signing the enrolled bill (S. 2657), to amend 
    the act entitled ``An act to regulate the practice of the healing 
    art to protect the public health in the District of Columbia,'' be, 
    and the same is hereby, rescinded; and that the Secretary of the 
    Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to reenroll 
    the bill with the following change, namely: On page 2, line 6, 
    after the word ``or'', insert the word ``by''.

Sec. 14.16 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to a concurrent 
    resolution authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Senate to 
    make certain corrections in the enrollment of a Senate bill.

    On Aug. 25, 1966,(5) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 990):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 112 Cong. Rec. 20688, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That in the enrollment of the bill (S. 3105) to 
    authorize certain construction at military installations, and for 
    other purposes, the Secretary of the Senate is authorized and 
    directed to make the following correction:
        In section 612, strike out ``$50,000'' and insert ``$150,000''.

Sec. 14.17 The House, by unanimous consent, agreed to a concurrent 
    resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Senate to make such 
    corrections in title and section numbers and cross references as 
    may be necessary by reason of the omission of a title in an 
    enrolled bill.

    On Mar. 23, 1942,(6) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 27):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 88 Cong. Rec. 2808, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That in enrolling the bill (S. 2208) to further 
    expedite the prosecution of the war, the Secretary of the Senate is 
    authorized and directed to make all necessary corrections in title 
    and section numbers and cross references as may be necessary by 
    reason of the omission from the enrolled bill of title VIII.

Sec. 14.18 By unanimous consent, the House adopted a concurrent 
    resolution authorizing and directing the Secretary of the Senate, 
    in the enrollment of a bill, to make cer

[[Page 4909]]

    tain conforming changes to the title of the bill, changes designed 
    to make the title conform to amendments made to the text thereof.

    On Oct. 1, 1968 (7) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 838):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 28863, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Correction of Title of the Bill S. 698, Intergovernmental 
                          Cooperation Act of 1968

        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 838) and ask unanimous consent 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Secretary of the Senate in the enrollment 
        of the bill (S. 698) to achieve the fullest cooperation and 
        coordination of activities among the levels of government . . . 
        and for other purposes, is authorized and directed to correct 
        the title of the bill so as to read: ``An Act to achieve the 
        fullest cooperation and coordination of activities among the 
        levels of government . . . and for other purposes.''

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The concurrent resolution was agreed to.

Incomplete Enrollment

Sec. 14.19 Where in the enrollment of a bill a section thereof was 
    omitted and the President signed the bill as presented to him, the 
    Congress, by unanimous consent, immediately enacted an amendment to 
    the law inserting the omitted section.

    On July 1, 1954,(9) the House considered and agreed to a 
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 553) amending a law (Priv. L. No. 495) to 
include a section that had been inadvertently omitted from the enrolled 
bill sent to the President.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 100 Cong. Rec. 9566, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Parliamentarian's Note: In the enrollment of H.R. 7258, a private 
        bill for the relief of the Willmore Engineering Company, a 
        portion of the bill, section 2, which had been in the bill when 
        it was passed by both the House and the Senate, was erroneously 
        omitted. The erroneously enrolled bill was signed by the 
        presiding officers of the two Houses and approved by the 
        President on June 30, 1954. The omission of section 2 was 
        discovered only after the bill had been approved by the 
        President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Providing for Duplicate Enrollment

Sec. 14.20 Pursuant to a concurrent resolution brought up

[[Page 4910]]

    and agreed to by unanimous consent, the Clerk presented the 
    duplicate copy of an enrolled bill to the President after the 
    original copy had been lost.

    On May 15, 1935,(11) the Speaker (12) laid 
before the House the following communication:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 79 Cong. Rec. 7633, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).

                                                     May 15, 1935.
    The Speaker,
    House of Representatives,
    Washington, D.C.

        Sir: Pursuant to the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 
    21, Seventy-fourth Congress, I have this day presented to the 
    President of the United States the signed duplicate copy of the 
    enrolled bill, H.R. 6084. . . .
        Very truly yours,
                                                South Trimble,
                                                    Clerk of the
                                         House of Representatives.

    Parliamentarian's Note: For circumstances which required this 
duplicate enrollment, see Sec. 15.16, infra.


                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
      B. GENERAL PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
 
Sec. 15 Signing

    The practice of the two Houses of Congress in the signing of 
enrolled bills was formerly governed by joint rules, and has continued 
since those rules were abrogated in 1876.(13) A House-
enrolled bill, having been approved as to form by the Committee on 
House Administration, and certified by the Clerk as having originated 
in the House, is reported to the House. Senate enrollments are 
delivered to the House after examination and certification by the 
Secretary of the Senate. All enrollments are signed first by the 
Speaker and then by the Vice President or President pro tempore of the 
Senate.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 575 (1981).
14. Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives (97th Cong.), Ch. 24 
        Sec. 11.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where the Record and Journal, through oversight, fail to indicate 
that the Speaker has signed a particular bill, the Speaker announces to 
the House the date on which he has signed the bill and asks that the 
permanent record and Journal be corrected accordingly.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives (97th Cong.), Ch. 24 
        Sec. 11.2.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorization to Sign During Adjournments

Sec. 15.1 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution au

[[Page 4911]]

    thorizing the Vice President and the Speaker to sign enrolled bills 
    and joint resolutions of the two Houses that have been duly passed 
    notwithstanding an adjournment.

    On Aug. 24, 1935,(16) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 39):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 14583, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That notwithstanding the adjournment of the first 
    session of the Seventy-fourth Congress, the President of the Senate 
    and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be, and they are 
    hereby, authorized to sign any enrolled bills or joint resolutions 
    duly passed by the two Houses and which have been examined by the 
    Committee on Enrolled Bills of each House and found truly enrolled.

    Similarly, on July 8, 1943,(17) the House considered and 
agreed to the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 18):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 89 Cong. Rec. 7516, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That notwithstanding the adjournment of the two Houses 
    as authorized by Senate Concurrent Resolution 17, the President of 
    the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be and 
    they are hereby, authorized to sign enrolled bills and joint 
    resolutions duly passed by the two Houses which have been examined 
    by the Committee on Enrolled Bills of each House and found truly 
    enrolled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The earlier practice utilized a concurrent 
resolution to grant signing authority during an adjournment. Under a 
more recent practice, each House obtained its own unanimous-consent 
permission. Since Jan. 5, 1981, the Speaker has had permanent authority 
to sign enrollments whether or not the House is in session. See Rule I 
clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 624 (1981).

Sec. 15.2 The Senate agreed to a resolution authorizing the acting 
    President pro tempore to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions 
    during adjournments and recesses for the remainder of the session.

    On Dec. 12, 1963,(18) the Senate considered and agreed 
to the following resolution (S. Res. 235):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 24329, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That notwithstanding adjournments or recesses of the 
    Senate during the remainder of the present session of the Congress, 
    the Secretary be authorized to receive messages from the House, and 
    the President pro tempore or the Acting President pro tempore be 
    authorized to sign during such adjournments or recesses enrolled 
    bills

[[Page 4912]]

    and joint resolutions passed by the two Houses and found truly 
    enrolled.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See Senate Rule 1, paragraph 3, dealing 
with the authority of the President pro tempore and the acting 
President pro tempore to sign enrolled bills. Signing authority during 
periods of adjournment is customarily granted by unanimous consent.

Sec. 15.3 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution authorizing the 
    Speaker and President pro tempore of the Senate to sign enrolled 
    bills, notwithstanding ``any'' adjournment of the two Houses to a 
    day certain.

    On July 2, 1964,(19) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 322):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 15897, 15898, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That notwithstanding any adjournment of the two 
    Houses until July 20, 1964, the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate be, and 
    they are hereby, authorized to sign enrolled bills and joint 
    resolutions duly passed by the two Houses and found truly enrolled.

Sec. 15.4 Under a more recent practice, the Speaker was usually 
    authorized by unanimous consent to sign enrolled bills and joint 
    resolutions passed by the two Houses, notwithstanding a sine die 
    adjournment.

    On Oct. 2, 1964,(20) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, was 
granted the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 23788, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
    notwithstanding the sine die adjournment of the House, the Clerk be 
    authorized to receive messages from the Senate and that the Speaker 
    be authorized to sign any enrolled bills and joint resolutions duly 
    passed by the two Houses and found truly enrolled.
        The Speaker: (1) Without objection, it is so 
    ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since Jan. 5, 1981, permanent authority to 
receive messages from the Senate is carried in Rule III clause 5 [House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 647a (1981)], and the Speaker is authorized to 
sign enrolled bills by Rule I clause 4 [House Rules and Manual Sec. 624 
(1981)].

Sec. 15.5 Notwithstanding any adjournment of the House between Friday 
    and Monday, the Speaker was authorized by unanimous consent to

[[Page 4913]]

    sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions passed by the two Houses.

    On Dec. 13, 1963,(2) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, asked 
unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House 
until Monday next the Clerk may be authorized to receive messages from 
the Senate and the Speaker may be authorized to sign any enrolled bills 
and joint resolutions duly passed by the two Houses and found truly 
enrolled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 109 Cong. Rec. 24553, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Sec. 15.6 The Speaker pro tempore, who had been elected to serve in 
    that capacity, was authorized to sign enrolled bills and joint 
    resolutions notwithstanding an adjournment of the House for only 
    one day.

    On Sept. 21, 1961,(3) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
asked unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adjournment of the 
House until the next day the Speaker pro tempore (4) be 
authorized to sign any enrolled bills and joint resolutions duly passed 
by the two Houses and found truly enrolled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 107 Cong. Rec. 20572, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, had been elected on Aug. 
        31, 1961, to serve as Speaker pro tempore (see H. Jour. 949, 
        87th Cong. 1st Sess.). See Sec. 15.14, infra, as to necessity 
        of House approval of designation of Speaker pro tempore to 
        permit his authorization to sign enrolled bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Sec. 15.7 By unanimous consent, the Speaker was, on one occasion, 
    authorized for the remainder of the session to sign enrolled bills 
    and joint resolutions notwithstanding adjournments of the House.

    On Aug. 10, 1961,(5) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that notwithstanding any 
adjournment of the House during the present session of the 87th 
Congress the Clerk be authorized to receive messages from the Senate 
and that the Speaker be authorized to sign any enrolled bills and joint 
resolutions duly passed by the two Houses and found truly enrolled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 15320, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.

Sec. 15.8 The House agreed to a unanimous-consent request that, 
    notwithstanding sine die adjournment, the Speak

[[Page 4914]]

    er be authorized to sign enrolled bills duly passed.

    On Dec. 21, 1943,(6) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 89 Cong. Rec. 10958, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the 
    sine die adjournment of the first session of the Seventy-eighth 
    Congress, the Speaker be authorized to sign enrolled bills and 
    joint resolutions, duly passed by the two Houses and examined by 
    the Committee on Enrolled Bills and found truly enrolled.

    There was no objection.

Announcements as to Bills Signed During Adjournment

Sec. 15.9 The Speaker informed the House when the elected Speaker pro 
    tempore had, pursuant to authority granted, signed certain enrolled 
    bills during adjournment.

    On July 14, 1958,(7) the Speaker (8) made the 
following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 104 Cong. Rec. 13675, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         The Chair desires to announce that, pursuant to the authority 
    granted on Thursday, July 10, 1958, the Speaker pro tempore did on 
    July 11, 1958, sign the following enrolled bills of the House:
        H.R. 7963. An act to amend the Small Business Act of 1953, as 
    amended; and
        H.R. 11414. An act to amend section 314(c) of the Public Health 
    Service Act.

Sec. 15.10 The Speaker announced the signing of enrolled bills after 
    the House had adjourned to a day certain.

    On July 26, 1948,(9) the Speaker (10) 
announced that pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 219 of the 80th 
Congress he had made appointments to special committees and signed 
enrolled bills during an adjournment to a day certain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 9363, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 15.11 The Speaker announced that following the President's return 
    of an enrolled bill and the reenrollment thereof with a correction, 
    he (the Speaker) had thereafter signed the bill during a period of 
    adjournment.

    On July 20, 1964,(11) the Speaker (12) made 
the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 16249, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair desires to announce that after the President returned 
    the bill,

[[Page 4915]]

    H.R. 10053, the Clerk of the House, pursuant to the provisions of 
    House Concurrent Resolution 323, 88th Congress, caused the bill to 
    be reenrolled with a correction. The Speaker, pursuant to the 
    authority granted him by House Concurrent Resolutions 322 and 323 
    [to sign enrolled bills during an adjournment], 88th Congress, did 
    on July 8, 1964, sign the same.

Vacating Signatures

Sec. 15.12 The House agreed to a Senate concurrent resolution 
    requesting that the action of the Speaker in signing an enrolled 
    bill be rescinded and that the House return to the Senate the 
    message announcing the Senate's agreement to certain House 
    amendments.

    On June 3, 1953,(13) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 31):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 99 Cong. Rec. 6000, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the action of the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives in signing the enrolled bill (S. 1550) to authorize 
    the President to prescribe the occasions upon which the uniform of 
    any of the Armed Forces may be worn by persons honorably discharged 
    therefrom be, and it is hereby, rescinded, and that the House be, 
    and it is hereby, requested to return to the Senate its message 
    announcing its agreement to the House amendments.

Sec. 15.13 The House agreed to a Senate resolution requesting the House 
    to rescind the action of the Speaker in signing an enrolled bill of 
    the House and that such bill be returned to the Senate.

    On July 30, 1942,(14) the Speaker pro tempore 
(15) laid before the House the following resolution from the 
Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 88 Cong. Rec. 6713, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Alfred L. Bulwinkle (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to request the House 
    of Representatives to rescind the action of the Speaker in signing 
    the enrolled bill (H.R. 7297) entitled ``An act authorizing the 
    assignment of personnel from departments or agencies in the 
    executive branch of the Government to certain investigating 
    committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, and for 
    other purposes,'' and that the House of Representatives be further 
    requested to return the above-numbered engrossed bill to the 
    Senate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        There was no objection.

Signing of Bills by Speaker Pro Tempore

Sec. 15.14 The House approved the designation of a Speaker

[[Page 4916]]

    pro tempore, thereby enabling him to sign enrolled bills.

    On Feb. 24, 1949,(16) Mr. Mike Mansfield, of Montana, 
offered the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 116):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 95 Cong. Rec. 1489, 81st Cong. lst Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the designation of Hon. John W. McCormack, a 
    Representative from the State of Massachusetts, as Speaker pro 
    tempore be approved by the House, and that the President of the 
    United States and the Senate be notified thereof. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: As I understand, this is 
    the customary resolution to meet a situation, so that bills may be 
    duly enrolled and presented for signature?
        Mr. Mansfield: The gentleman is correct. . . .
        The resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 15.15 The Speaker invited consideration of a resolution electing a 
    Speaker pro tempore in order that enrolled bills might be signed in 
    his absence.

    On June 9, 1949,(17) the House considered and agreed to 
the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 243):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 95 Cong. Rec. 7509, 81st Cong. lst Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That Hon. John W. McCormack, a Representative from 
    the State of Massachusetts, be, and he is hereby, elected Speaker 
    pro tempore during the absence of the Speaker.
        Resolved, That the President and the Senate be notified by the 
    Clerk of the election of Hon. John W. McCormack as Speaker pro 
    tempore during the absence of the Speaker.

    The Speaker (18) then offered the explanation below for 
the action taken:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This action is taken for two reasons: First, the Speaker will 
    not be here Monday and Tuesday, and the immediate necessity is that 
    there might be some enrolled bills that must be signed.

Signing of Duplicate Copy of Bill

Sec. 15.16 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution authorizing the 
    Speaker and the Vice President to sign a duplicate copy of an 
    enrolled bill and directing the Clerk of the House to transmit it 
    to the President.

    On May 15, 1935,(1) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 21):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 79 Cong. Rec. 7598, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 4917]]

    Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the 
    Senate be, and they are hereby, authorized to sign a duplicate copy 
    of the enrolled bill H.R. 6084, entitled ``An act to authorize the 
    city of Ketchikan, Alaska, to issue bonds . . .'' and that, to 
    issue bonds . . .'' and that the Clerk of the House be directed to 
    transmit the same to the President of the United 
    States.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. This concurrent resolution was adopted following the receipt of a 
        communication from the President advising the House that the 
        original copy of the enrolled bill (H.R. 6084) presented to the 
        President had been lost. The President recommended that a 
        duplicate bill be sent to him pursuant to authorization by a 
        concurrent resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 15.17 Where the Speaker signs a duplicate copy of an enrolled bill 
    (the original having been lost) pursuant to a concurrent resolution 
    authorizing such signing, he informs the House of that fact.

    On May 27, 1938, (3) the Speaker (4) 
announced that pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 37 the Chair 
had signed a duplicate copy of a Senate bill (S. 3532).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 83 Cong. Rec. 7645, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
 4. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension of Proceedings to Permit Signing

Sec. 15.18 Proceedings in the Committee of the Whole may be suspended 
    to allow the Speaker to sign an enrolled bill.

    On Feb. 26, 1964,(5) upon adoption of a motion to rise 
offered by Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, the Committee of the Whole, at 
the request of the Speaker, suspended consideration of a bill (H.R. 
9022) to amend the International Development Association Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 3653, 3654, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker (6) then signed an enrolled bill (H.R. 8363) 
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to reduce individual and 
corporate income taxes.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 7. Parliamentarian's Note: President Lyndon B. Johnson (Tex.) has 
        scheduled a ceremony in connection with his signing of this 
        bill, the Revenue Act of 1963, later in the day. The White 
        House has informed the Parliamentarian of this fact and the 
        Speaker has agreed to expedite the handling of the enrollment 
        in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Patman then moved that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole to continue consideration of H.R. 9022. The 
motion was agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The Committee is not required to vote to 
rise, but may rise ``informally,'' without motion, to allow the Speaker 
to receive messages from

[[Page 4918]]

the President or the Senate. Since the rules were amended in 1981 to 
permit the Speaker to sign enrolled bills, whether or not the House is 
in session (H. Res. 5, 97th Cong.), the concept of an ``informal 
rising'' of the Committee of the Whole has also been used to permit the 
Speaker to lay enrolled bills before the House. See House Rules and 
Manual Sec. 625 (1983).

 Senate Practice

Sec. 15.19 In the Senate, an acting President pro tempore, designated 
    in writing by the elected President pro tempore, signs enrolled 
    bills.

    On June 20, 1963,(8) the legislative clerk of the Senate 
read the following letter:

 8. 109 Cong. Rec. 11253, 88th Cong. lst Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            U.S. Senate,
                                      President Pro Tempore,
                                  Washington, D.C, June 20,1963.
To the Senate:

        Being temporarily absent from the Senate, I appoint Hon. Birch 
    Bayh, a Senator from the State of Indiana, to perform the duties of 
    the Chair during my absence.
                                                Carl Hayden,
                                            President pro tempore.

    The acting President pro tempore, pursuant to the authority granted 
by Rule I, paragraph 3 (9) of the Senate rules, then signed 
three enrolled bills (H.R. 131, H.R. 3574, and H.J. Res. 180) which had 
been signed by the Speaker and messaged to the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Senate Rule I, paragraph 3 provides that ``The President pro 
        tempore shall have the right to name in open Senate or, if 
        absent, in writing, a Senator to perform the duties of the 
        Chair, including the signing of duly enrolled bills and joint 
        resolutions but such substitution shall not extend beyond an 
        adjournment, except by unanimous consent; and the Senator so 
        named shall have the right to name in open session, or, if 
        absent, in writing, a Senator to perform the duties of the 
        Chair, but not to extend beyond an adjournment, except by 
        unanimous consent.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
      B. GENERAL PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
 
Sec. 16. Recalling Bills From the President

Recall by Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 16.1 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution requesting the 
    President to return an enrolled bill.

    On Feb. 5, 1932,(10) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 13):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 75 Cong. Rec. 3449, 72d Cong. lst Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 4919]]

    President of the United States be, and is hereby, requested to 
    return to the Senate the enrolled bill (S. 2199) entitled ``An Act 
    exempting building and loan associations from being adjudged 
    bankrupts.''

Recalling for Reenrollment

Sec. 16.2 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution requesting the 
    President to return to the House an enrolled House joint 
    resolution, rescinding the signatures of the two presiding officers 
    and authorizing the Clerk of the House to reenroll it with 
    corrections.

    On July 26, 1956,(11) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 271):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 102 Cong. Rec. 14770, 84th Cong. 2d Sess. The Senate acted on this 
        resolution on July 26, 1956, 102 Cong. Rec. 14648. The 
        President returned the bill to the House on July 27, 1956, 102 
        Cong. Rec. 15178.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the President of the United States is requested 
    to return to the House of Representatives the enrolled House joint 
    resolution (H.J. Res. 511). . . . If and when said resolution is 
    returned by the President, the action of the presiding officers of 
    the two Houses in signing said resolution shall be deemed 
    rescinded, and the Clerk of the House is authorized and directed, 
    in the enrollment of said resolution, to make the following 
    correction: On the last line of the enrolled resolution strike out 
    ``waived'' and insert ``reserved.''

Sec. 16.3 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution requesting the 
    President to return an enrolled bill, rescinding the action of the 
    Vice President and the Speaker in signing the bill, and directing 
    the Secretary of the Senate in the reenrollment of the bill to make 
    certain corrections.

    On Apr. 12, 1937,(12) the House, by unanimous consent, 
agreed to the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 8):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 3397, 75th Cong. lst Sess. The President returned 
        this bill to the Senate on Apr. 15, 1937, 81 Cong. Rec. 3497, 
        3498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the President of the United States be, and he is 
    hereby requested to return to the Senate the enrolled bill (S. 
    1455) . . . that if and when the said bill is returned by the 
    President, the action of the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives and of the President pro tempore of the Senate in 
    signing the said bill be deemed to be rescinded; and that the 
    Secretary of the Senate be, and is hereby, authorized and directed, 
    in the reenrollment of the said bill, to make the following 
    correction, viz: In the language inserted by the engrossed

[[Page 4920]]

    House amendment no. 4, on page 2, at the end of line 11 of the 
    engrossed bill, strike out the word ``lieutenant'' and insert the 
    words ``lieutenant colonel.''

Sec. 16.4 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution requesting the 
    President to return to the House an enrolled House bill, rescinding 
    the signatures of the two presiding officers, and directing the 
    Clerk to reenroll the bill to conform with a conference report 
    adopted by the two Houses.

    On Sept. 4, 1962,(13) the House, by unanimous consent, 
considered and agreed to the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 519):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 108 Cong. Rec. 18405, 87th Cong. 2d Sess. The Senate concurred in 
        this resolution on Sept. 4, 1962, 108 Cong. Rec. 18482. The 
        President acceded to this request on Sept. 11, 1962, 108 Cong 
        Rec 19092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the President of the United States is requested 
    to return to the House of Representatives the enrolled bill (H.R. 
    10062) to extend the application of certain laws to American Samoa. 
    If and when said bill is returned by the President, the action of 
    the presiding officer of the two Houses in signing in said bill 
    shall be deemed rescinded; and the Clerk of the House is authorized 
    and directed to reenroll said bill in accordance with the 
    conference report therein adopted by the two Houses.

Recall and Postponement

Sec. 16.5 The House agreed to a concurrent resolution requesting the 
    President to return an enrolled bill, rescinding the action of the 
    two presiding officers in signing said bill, and postponing the 
    bill indefinitely.

    On May 13, 1953,(14) the House considered and agreed to 
the following concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 99):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 99 Cong. Rec. 4895, 83d Cong. lst Sess. The Senate concurred in 
        this resolution on May 14, 1953, 99 Cong. Rec. 4915. The 
        President returned the bill on May 19, 1953, 99 Cong. Rec. 
        5139.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That the President of the United States is requested 
    to return to the House the enrolled bill (H.R. 1101) for the relief 
    of Daniel Robert Leary. If and when said bill is returned by the 
    President, the action of the Presiding Officers of the two Houses 
    in signing said bill shall be deemed rescinded, and the bill shall 
    be postponed indefinitely.

Recall and Return to Senate

Sec. 16.6 The Senate considered and postponed indefinitely a concurrent 
    resolution requesting the President to return to the House an 
    enrolled joint resolution, and

[[Page 4921]]

    requesting the House to return the joint resolution to the Senate.

    On Jan. 10, 1952,(15) the Vice resident (16) 
laid before the Senate the following concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
Res. 53):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 98 Cong. Rec. 71, 72, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Alben W. Barkley (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
    concurring), That the President of the United States be, and he is 
    hereby, requested to return to the House of Representatives the 
    enrolled joint resolution (H. J. Res. 289) to terminate the state 
    of war between the United States and the Government of Germany; 
    that if and when returned the action of the Presiding Officers in 
    signing the joint resolution be rescinded, and that the House be 
    requested to return the engrossed joint resolution to the Senate.

    Action on the concurrent resolution was indefinitely postponed.

Message to Senate When Enrolled Bill Returned to House, Engrossment 
    Transmitted to Senate

Sec. 16.7 The House transmitted to the Senate an engrossed bill, the 
    enrolled bill having been returned to the House by the President 
    pursuant to a Senate concurrent resolution.

    On July 3, 1947,(17) the following message was recorded 
in the Record as having been received in the Senate from the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 8203, 80th Cong. lst Sess. S. Con. Res. 22 was 
        adopted by the Senate on June 30, 1947, 93 Cong. Rec. 7876. The 
        House concurred on July 1, 1947, 93 Cong. Rec. 8012. Following 
        a conference on the bill, the conference report was agreed to 
        in the Senate on July 25, 1947, 93 Cong. Rec. 10139, and in the 
        House on July 26, 1947, 93 Cong. Rec. 10494.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Maurer, one 
    of its reading clerks, informed the Senate that the President of 
    the United States having returned to the House of Representatives 
    the enrolled bill (H.R. 493) to amend section 4 of the act entitled 
    ``An act to control the possession, sale, transfer, and use of 
    pistols and other dangerous weapons in the District of Columbia,'' 
    approved July 8, 1932 (sec. 22, 3204 D.C. Code, 1940 ed.),'' in 
    compliance with the request contained in Senate Concurrent 
    Resolution No. 22; and returned the engrossed copy of said bill to 
    the Senate.

Sec. 16.8 The President returned to the Senate an enrolled bill 
    pursuant to a request contained in a concurrent resolution adopted 
    by the two Houses.

    On June 13, 1960,(18) the Vice President laid before the 
Senate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 12370, 12371, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. S. Con. Res. 109 
        was adopted by the Senate on June 6, 1960, 106 Cong. Rec. 
        11905, and concured in by the House on June 7, 1960, 106 Cong. 
        Rec. 12009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4922]]

the following message from the President of the United States:

    To the Senate of the United States:

        In compliance with the request contained in the resolution of 
    the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring therein), I 
    return herewith S. 1892 entitled ``An Act to authorize Secretary of 
    the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the Norman 
    project, Oklahoma, and for other purposes.''
                                         Dwight D. Eisenhower,
                                                The White House,
                                                    June 11, 1960.

Sec. 16.9 The President returned to the House an enrolled bill pursuant 
    to a request contained in a concurrent resolution passed by the two 
    Houses.

    On July 3, 1947,(19) the Speaker (20) laid 
before the House the following message from the President of the United 
States:

19. 93 Cong. Rec. 8260, 80th Cong. lst Sess. See also Sec. 16.7, supra.
20. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To the House of Representatives:

        In compliance with the request contained in the resolution of 
    the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring therein), I 
    return herewith H.R. 493, an act to amend section 4 of the act 
    entitled ``An act to control the possession, sale, transfer, and 
    use of pistols and other dangerous weapons in the District of 
    Columbia,'' approved July 8, 1932 (sec. 22, 3204 D.C. Code, 1940 
    ed.).
                                               Harry S Truman,
                                                The White House,
                                                     July 3, 1947.


                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
                             C. VETO POWERS
 
Sec. 17. In General


    The term ``veto'' is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. 
Rather, what is provided is a procedure, under article 1, section 7, 
whereby the President participates with the Congress in the enactment 
of laws. His power under article I to disapprove (veto) a bill 
presented to him was described by Alexander Hamilton as a ``qualified 
negative'' designed to provide a defense for the executive against the 
Congress and ``to increase the chances in favour of the community 
against the passing of bad laws, through haste, inadvertence, or 
design.'' (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Article I, section 7, paragraph 2 of the Constitution provides:

[[Page 4923]]

        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. If after such 
    Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the 
    Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other 
    House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved 
    by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such 
    Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and 
    Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill 
    shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.
        If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten 
    Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, 
    the Same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, 
    unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in 
    which Case it shall not be a Law.

     Thus the President has a 10-day period (Sundays excepted), 
beginning at midnight on the day of presentation to him,(2) 
in which to approve or disapprove a bill. He can sign the bill into law 
or he can return it to the House of its origination with a message 
detailing why he chooses not to sign. If he fails to act during that 
period, the bill will become law automatically, without his signature. 
However, if before the end of that 10-day period the Congress adjourns 
sine die and thereby prevents the return of the bill, the bill does not 
become law if the President has taken no action (i.e., approval or 
disapproval) regarding it. This latter procedure is commonly referred 
to as a ``pocket veto.'' The authority to ``pocket veto'' during 
intrasession and intersession adjournments has been the subject of 
litigation, which is discussed in Sec. 18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 17.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Collateral Reference
 For a chronological list of Presidential vetoes and congressional 
    action thereon, from 1789 to 1968, see Senate Library, Presidential 
    Vetoes, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 
    1969.                          -------------------

Ten-day Period

Sec. 17.1 The 10-day period given the President under the Constitution 
    in which to approve or reject a bill may be considered as beginning 
    at midnight of the day on which the bill is presented to him.

    On Sept. 14, 1959,(3) Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New 
York,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 105 Cong. Rec. 19553, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4924]]

propounded a parliamentary inquiry in the Senate concerning the veto 
message of the President delivered to the House on a private bill (H.R. 
2717). He inquired whether more than 10 days had expired since the bill 
was presented to the President under the provisions of article I, 
section 7, of the Constitution.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. H.R. 2717 was presented at the White House on Aug. 31, 1959. 
        However, it was not presented to the President until after his 
        return from Europe on Sept. 7. The enrolled bill, when returned 
        to the House with the veto message, carried a stamped notation 
        added at the White House, reading as follows: ``Aug. 31, 1959. 
        Held for presentation to the President upon his return to the 
        United States.'' The issue of whether the veto message was 
        beyond the 10-day period is discussed in Sec. Sec. 17.3 and 
        17.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Presiding Officer (5) responded that the 10-day 
limitation begins to run as of midnight on the day on which a bill is 
presented to the President for his approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Howard W. Cannon (Nev.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Parliamentarian's Note: The day on which the bill is presented to 
the President is not counted in the computation.

Sec. 17.2 A private bill sent to the White House on Aug. 31, 1959, but 
    not presented to the President until after his return from Europe 
    on Sept. 7, was returned without the President's approval on Sept. 
    14, 1959.

    On Sept. 14, 1959,(6) the Speaker (7) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President received on that day 
of a private bill (H.R. 2717). The bill had been sent to the President 
on Aug. 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 19697, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the veto message had been read the Speaker declared:

        The objections of the President will be spread at large upon 
    the Journal, and, without objection, the bill and message will be 
    referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be 
    printed.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 17.3 Whether a bill has been acted on by the President within the 
    10 days allowed him by the Constitution is a legal question and not 
    open to determination by the Presiding Officer of the Senate.

    On Sept. 14, 1959,(8) Senator Kenneth B. Keating, of New 
York, raised several parliamentary inquiries in the Senate regarding 
the purported veto by President
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 105 Cong. Rec. 19553, 19554, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4925]]

Eisenhower of a private bill (H.R. 2717):

        Mr. President, I rise to propound a parliamentary inquiry: On 
    March 17, 1959, the House of Representatives passed, and on August 
    27, 1959, the Senate passed, House bill 2717, for the relief of 
    Eber Bros. Wine & Liquor Corp.
        The bill was sent to the White House on August 31, 1959. 
    However, I am informed that it was not brought to the President's 
    personal attention, by his staff, until approximately 5 days ago. 
    The President has today disapproved the bill and returned it here. 
    . . .
        My question is whether the status of a bill passed by the 
    Congress is affected in any way by the President's purported veto 
    of the bill this morning, more than 10 days after it was delivered 
    at the White House.
        The Presiding Officer: (9) The Chair states that if 
    the President has vetoed the bill, it being a House bill, it will 
    go back to the House for further action. If the House overrides the 
    veto, it will be submitted to the Senate, and there will be an 
    opportunity to act upon it. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Howard W. Cannon (Nev.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keating: My inquiry, which the Chair may be unwilling or 
    should refrain from responding to, is this: Is any action by the 
    Congress necessary if the President retains a bill for more than 10 
    days before he acts on it?
        The Presiding Officer: According to the Constitution, the bill 
    should become a law if it has not been acted upon within 10 days 
    after it has been presented to the President. The matter of whether 
    10 days have elapsed is a question for legal determination, and not 
    for the Chair to determine.

Sec. 17.4 The Court of Claims has ruled that where the President was on 
    a trip abroad and, with congressional acquiescence, had requested 
    that bills from Congress were to be received at the White House for 
    presentation to him only upon his return to the United States, the 
    President's veto of a bill more than 10 days after delivery to the 
    White House but less than 10 days from his return to the country 
    was timely.

     On Oct. 16, 1964, the U.S. Court of Claims took up the question of 
the effectiveness of a Presidential veto in Eber Brothers Wine & Liquor 
Corporation v U.S.(10) On Aug. 31, 1959, the Congress had 
delivered at the White House a private bill (H.R. 2717) for the relief 
of the Eber Brothers Wine and Liquor Corporation. The President was not 
in the country at the time. He returned on Sept. 7, and on Sept. 14, he 
vetoed the bill and sent his veto message to the House of 
Representatives. The House did not reconsider the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 337 F2d 624 (Ct. Cl.); cert. denied, 380 U.S. 950 (1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Eber Bros. Corp. filed suit in the Court of Claims asking for

[[Page 4926]]

the relief provided in H.R. 2717, claiming that the bill had become law 
since the President had taken no action regarding it within 10 days of 
its presentation to him on Aug. 31.
    The Court denied the plaintiff's contention. It ruled that the 
``presentation'' to the President contemplated in article I, section 7 
of the Constitution took place in this case on Sept. 7, when the 
President had properly vetoed the bill within 10 days after that date.
    To reach this conclusion the Court reasoned that article I section 
7 contemplates two important duties to be performed by the President 
and the Congress respectively: the President must consider a bill, and 
the Congress must reconsider it in the event it is vetoed by the 
President. The President has 10 days (Sundays excepted) to consider the 
bill after it is ``presented'' to him, and the Congress has an 
indefinite time to reconsider a veto provided it has not by its 
adjournment prevented its return.

    ``It is also important,'' the Court said, ``that under the careful 
words of the Constitution, the President's limited time for considering 
a bill does not begin until the measure is presented to him. That 
period does not mechanically commence at the end of the passage of the 
bill through the Congress. A further step is necessary, and the 
initiation of that step--presentation to the President--lies with the 
Congress.'' (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Id. at p. 629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court went on to say that the manner of presentation is a 
matter two sides are free to agree on between themselves. ``[T]hough 
personal presentation to the President is not mandatory, either the 
Congress or the President can insist on such delivery [,]'' in order to 
protect the duties of consideration and reconsideration assigned them 
by the Constitution. However, and most importantly, ``. . . If personal 
delivery is not demanded by either side, presentation can be made in 
any agreed manner or in a form established by one party in which the 
other acquiesces [.]'' (12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court found that in this case, and in light of the practice 
during previous administrations regarding Presidential trips abroad, 
the Congress had acquiesced in President Eisenhower's wish that bills 
delivered to the White House not be ``presented'' to him until his 
return from abroad.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at pp. 630-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.5 The 10 days provided in the Constitution during

[[Page 4927]]

    which the President may hold a bill without action runs from the 
    day it is presented to him and not from the day noted in the Record 
    as delivered at the White House.

    On Dec. 1, 1943,(14) the Speaker (15) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 
1155) for the relief of two military officers, where it appeared that, 
although the bill had been at the White House for more than 10 days, 
the President acted on the bill within 10 days of its presentation to 
him. In the veto message the President stated that the bill was 
presented to him on Nov. 25, 1943. The Congressional Record of Nov. 12, 
1943, records that this bill was presented to the President for his 
approval on that date. The enrolled copy of the bill returned by the 
President along with his veto message bore a White House stamp dated 
Nov. 12, 1943, along with the handwritten notation ``for forwarding.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 89 Cong. Rec. 10190, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The House did not vote on the returned bill but, by unanimous 
consent, referred the bill and message to the Committee on Claims.

Bill Signed in Prior Capacity as Presiding Officer of Senate

Sec. 17.6 The President has vetoed a bill he had previously signed as 
    Presiding Officer of the Senate.

    On Apr. 19, 1945,(16) the Speaker (17) laid 
before the House the veto message of President Harry Truman relating to 
a private bill (H.R. 2055).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 3577, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: After Vice President Truman had signed the 
enrolled bill as President of the Senate, and after the enrolled bill 
had been sent to the White House, President Franklin D. Roosevelt died. 
The Vice President became President and the bill was presented to him 
for approval as President.

 Approval of Bill Similar to One Previously Vetoed

Sec. 17.7 The President vetoed a Senate joint resolution but 
    subsequently signed a similar House joint resolution modified by an 
    amendment.

    On May 22, 1935,(18) Mr. William M. Citron, of 
Connecticut, ob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong. Rec. 8026, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4928]]

tained unanimous consent to take from the table House Joint Resolution 
107, authorizing the President of the United States to proclaim Oct. 
11, of each year, General Pulaski's Memorial Day. The resolution was 
agreed to with a committee amendment limiting the memorial day to Oct. 
11, 1935, rather than Oct. 11, of each year. The Senate on May 28 
passed the House joint resolution and the President signed it on June 
6.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This resolution was similar to Senate joint 
resolution (S.J. Res. 21) which had previously passed both Houses and 
which provided for an annual commemorative day, each October, without 
limitation. The Senate joint resolution was vetoed by the President on 
Apr. 11, 1935.



 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
                             C. VETO POWERS
 
Sec. 18. Effect of Adjournment; The Pocket Veto

    The President is not restricted to signing a bill on a day when 
Congress is in session. He may sign within 10 days (Sundays excepted) 
after the bill is presented to him, even if that period extends beyond 
the date of the final adjournment of Congress. The President is said to 
``pocket veto'' a bill where he takes no action on the bill during the 
10-day period and where the Congress adjourns before the expiration of 
that time in such a manner as to prevent the return of the bill to the 
originating House.
    The Supreme Court first considered the question of the pocket veto 
in 1929 in what is commonly referred to as the Pocket Veto 
Case.(19) In this case a Senate bill (S. 3185) authorizing 
certain Indian tribes to offer their claims to the Court of Claims was 
presented to the President on June 24, 1926. On July 3 of that year the 
first session of the 69th Congress adjourned sine die. The 10-day 
period for Presidential approval expired on July 6, by which time the 
President had neither signed the bill nor returned it to the Senate 
with his reasons for disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Okanogan, et al. v U.S., 279 U.S. 655 (1929).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taking the position that the bill had become law, the Indian tribes 
affected sought adjudication of their claims in the Court of Claims in 
accordance with the terms of the bill. The United States demurred to 
their petition on the ground that the bill had not become law. The 
Court of Claims sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition. The 
Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case (20) to 
determine
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 278 U.S. 597.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4929]]

whether ``. . . within the meaning of the last sentence [of art. I, 
Sec. 7, paragraph 2] . . . Congress by the adjournment on July 3 
prevented the President from returning the bill within 10 days, Sundays 
excepted, after it had been presented to him. . . .'' (1) 
The Court answered this question in the affirmative, and held that the 
bill did not become law.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 279 U.S. 655, 674.
 2. Id. at p. 692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. H. William Sumners, of Texas, a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary submitted a brief as amicus curiae  in the case in which he 
argued that only a final adjournment of the Congress, terminating its 
legislative existence, would prevent the President from returning a 
bill for reconsideration within the meaning of the Constitution and 
that during interim adjournments the President could return a bill to 
an agent of the House in which the bill originated to be presented as 
unfinished legislative business when that House reconvened.
     Counsel for the petitioners argued further that the term ``ten 
days'' in the Constitution should be construed as meaning 10 
``legislative days'' so that the period would cease running while the 
Congress was not in session.
     The amicus curiae argued that the President has only a qualified 
negative over legislation which requires him to return vetoed bills to 
the Congress along with his written objections. Thus, ``. . . the 
provision as to the return of a bill within a specified time is to be 
construed in a manner that will give effect to the reciprocal rights 
and duties of the President and of Congress and not enable him to 
defeat a bill of which he disapproves by a silent and `absolute veto,' 
that is, a so-called `pocket veto,' which neither discloses his 
objections nor gives Congress an opportunity to pass the bill over 
them. . . .'' (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at p. 676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To this the Court responded that the President does indeed have 
only a qualified negative over legislation which requires the return of 
a disapproved bill along with his written objections. To carry out this 
``monumentous duty,'' however, the President must have the full amount 
of time allotted to him by the Constitution. ``. . . And it is plain 
that when the adjournment of Congress prevents the return of a bill 
within the allotted time, the failure of the bill to become a law 
cannot properly be ascribed to the disapproval of the President . . . 
but is attributable solely to the action of Congress in adjourning 
before the time allowed the Presi

[[Page 4930]]

dent for returning the bill had expired. . . .'' (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at pp. 678, 679.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Court rejected the contention of the counsel for the 
petitioners that the 10-day limitation in the Constitution should be 
construed as 10 ``legislative'' days since it could find no precedent 
or reason to so modify the plain meaning of the words used. And for 
like reasons it rejected the contention of the amicus curiae that the 
term ``adjournment'' as used in article I section 7, paragraph 2 means 
the final adjournment of Congress. On the contrary, it found that the 
term adjournment as used in other parts of the Constitution is not 
limited to a final adjournment.
    The Court then considered the contention that the President may 
return a vetoed bill to an agent of the House in which it originated 
when that House is not in session. The Court found that ``. . . under 
the constitutional mandate [a vetoed bill] is to be returned to the 
`House' when sitting in an organized capacity for the transaction of 
business and having authority to receive the return, enter the 
President's objections on its journal, and proceed to reconsider the 
bill; and that no return can be made to the House when it is not in 
session as a collective body and its members are dispersed. . . .'' 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. As authority for its finding that the term ``House'' means a 
        constitutional quorum assembled for the transaction of 
        business, the Court cited Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v Kansas, 248 
        U.S. 276, 280, 281, 283: and 1 Curtis' Constitutional History 
        of the United States, 486, n. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Court found that the Congress had acquiesced in the 
``pocket vetoes'' of Presidents since the administration of James 
Madison, and that, ``long settled and established practice is a 
consideration of great weight in a proper interpretation of 
constitutional provisions of this character.'' (6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 279 U.S. 655, 689.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Supreme Court again considered the question of the ``pocket 
veto,'' albeit indirectly, in 1938 in the case of Wright v United 
States.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 302 U.S. 583.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senate bill No. 713 of the 74th Congress, having passed both 
Houses, was presented to the President on Friday, Apr. 24, 1936. On 
Monday, May 4, 1936, the Senate took a recess until noon, Thursday, May 
7, 1936, while the House of Representatives remained in session. S. 713 
was vetoed by the President and returned along with his message of 
disapproval to the Secretary of

[[Page 4931]]

the Senate on May 5.(8) When the Senate reconvened on May 7, 
the veto message of the President was laid before the Senate, recorded 
in the Journal, and referred to the Committee on Claims. No further 
action was taken on the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. The 10-day constitutional period for Presidential consideration 
        would have expired on the next day, May 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill proposed to grant jurisdiction to the Court of Claims to 
hear the case of David A. Wright. Mr. Wright subsequently sought 
adjudication of his case in the Court of Claims, contending that S. 713 
had become law. The Court of Claims denied his petition, and the 
Supreme Court granted certiorari.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 301 U.S. 681.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court held that S. 713 had not become law since the President 
had followed a valid veto procedure. The Court found that since the 
Senate was in recess for less than three days while the House of 
Representatives remained in session in accordance with article I, 
section 5, clause 4, of the Constitution,(10) this was not 
an ``adjournment'' of Congress within the meaning of article I, section 
7, clause 2, that would have prevented the President from returning a 
vetoed bill with his objections. The Court found that the definition of 
``the Congress'' in the Constitution is precise. Both the Senate and 
the House of Representatives constitute the Congress.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. That is, ``Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, 
        without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three 
        days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses 
        shall be sitting.''
11. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Court further answered the objection of the petitioner that a 
vetoed bill could not properly be returned to the Secretary of the 
Senate when that body was in recess:

        . . . The Constitution does not define what shall constitute a 
    return of a bill or deny the use of appropriate agencies in 
    effecting the return.
        Nor was there any practical difficulty in making the return of 
    the bill during the recess. The organization of the Senate 
    continued and was intact.
        The Secretary of the Senate was functioning and was able to 
    receive, and did receive, the bill. . . . To say that the President 
    cannot return a bill when the House in which it originated is in 
    recess during the session of Congress, and thus afford an 
    opportunity for the passing of the bill over the President's 
    objections, is to ignore the plainest practical considerations and 
    by implying a requirement of an artificial formality to erect a 
    barrier to the exercise of a constitutional right.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 302 U.S. 583, 589, 590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A third decision regarding the pocket veto was handed down by

[[Page 4932]]

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1974, in 
Kennedy v Sampson.(13) The Court there held that a bill--
allegedly pocket-vetoed--did become a law, and an intrasession 
adjournment of Congress did not prevent the President from returning 
the bill where appropriate arrangements had been made for the receipt 
of Presidential messages during the adjournment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 364 F Supp 1075 (D.D.C. 1973), affirmed, 511 F2d 430 (C.A.D.C. 
        1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kennedy v Sampson involved S. 3418 of the 91st Congress (the Family 
Practice of Medicine Act), which passed both Houses and was presented 
to the President on Dec. 14, 1970. On Dec. 22, 1970, Congress adjourned 
by concurrent resolution for the Christmas holidays, the Senate until 
Dec. 28, and the House until Dec. 29. On Dec. 24, the last day of the 
10-day period for Presidential consideration, the President issued a 
memorandum of disapproval on the bill which he did not deliver to the 
Senate, although the Secretary of the Senate had previously been 
authorized to receive such messages during the 
adjournment.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Secretary of the Senate has been authorized by unanimous 
        consent, on Dec. 22, 1970 [116 Cong. Rec.  43221, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess.], to receive messages from the President of the United 
        States during the adjournment from Dec. 22 to Dec. 28. See also 
        Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives (97th Cong.), 
        Ch. 24 Sec. 12.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senator Edward M. Kennedy, of Massachusetts, a supporter of the 
bill in the Senate, sought a declaratory judgment in a U.S. district 
court that S. 3418 had become public law. The court granted the 
declaratory judgment based on his finding that the Congress by 
adjourning for the Christmas holidays did not prevent the return of the 
bill within the meaning of article I, section 7, and that the bill was, 
therefore, not subject to a pocket veto by the President.
    Judge Waddy cited both the Pocket Veto and Wright cases to support 
his conclusion. From the Pocket Veto case he cited the following 
language as an underlying rationale for the court's decision in that 
case:

        ``Manifestly it was not intended that instead of returning the 
    bill to the House itself, as required by the constitutional 
    provision, the President should be authorized to deliver it, during 
    an adjournment of the House, to some individual officer or agent 
    not authorized to make any legislative record of its delivery, who 
    should hold it in his own hands for days, weeks, or perhaps 
    months--not only leaving open possible questions as to the date on 
    which it had been delivered to him, or

[[Page 4933]]

    whether it had in fact been delivered to him at all, but keeping 
    the bill in the meantime in a state of suspended animation until 
    the House resumes its sitting, with no certain knowledge on the 
    part of the public as to whether it had or had not been seasonably 
    delivered, and necessarily causing delay in its reconsideration 
    which the Constitution evidently intended to avoid.'' 279 U.S. at 
    684.

     Judge Waddy then cited the opinion of the Court in the Wright case 
where a direct comment was made on this language:

        ``These statements show clearly the sort of dangers which the 
    Court envisaged. However . . . they appear to be illusory when 
    there is a mere temporary recess.'' 302 U.S. at 595.

     Judge Waddy found this reasoning compelling, in spite of the fact 
that the case before him differed from the Wright  case in that only 
one House was in recess in the latter while both Houses were in recess 
in the former when the 10-day period for Presidential consideration 
expired:

        ``. . . The Senate returned on the third day after the final 
    day for the President to act. The interim two days would have 
    caused no long delay in delivery of the bill; not keeping it in 
    suspended animation. In three days the public would have been 
    promptly and properly informed of the President's objections, and 
    the purposes of the constitutional provisions would have been 
    satisfied.''

     In the 93d Congress, the President returned a House bill without 
his signature to the Clerk of the House, who had been authorized to 
receive messages from the President during an adjournment to a day 
certain, and the President asserted in his veto message that he had 
``pocket vetoed'' the bill during the adjournment of the House to a day 
certain. The House regarded the President's return of the bill without 
his signature as a veto within the meaning of article 1, section 7 of 
the Constitution and proceeded to reconsider and to pass the bill over 
the President's veto, after postponing consideration to a subsequent 
day. Subsequently, on Nov. 21, 1974, the Senate also voted to override 
the veto and pursuant to 1 USC Sec. 106a the enrolling clerk of the 
Senate forwarded the bill to the Archives for publication as a public 
law. The Administrator of General Services at the Archives, upon 
instructions from the Department of Justice, declined to promulgate the 
bill as public law on the day received. The question as to the efficacy 
of the congressional action in passing the bill over the President's 
veto was mooted when the House and Senate passed on Nov. 26, 1974, an 
identical bill which was signed into law on Dec. 7, 1974 (Pub. L. No. 
93-516). See also Kennedy v Jones, 412 F Supp 353 (D.D.C.

[[Page 4934]]

 1976); and for a discussion of the constitutionality of intersession 
or intrasession pocket vetoes see Kennedy, ``Congress, The President, 
and The Pocket Veto,'' 63 Va. L. Rev. 355 (1977). See also the most 
recent edition of the House Rules and Manual Sec. 112 (annotation 
following Art. I, Sec. 7 of the 
Constitution).
                          -------------------

Form of Notification of Pocket Veto

Sec. 18.1 On the first meeting day of the Senate after the Congress has 
    taken an adjournment to a day certain, the President notified that 
    body of his approval of certain bills and, in the same message, his 
    pocket veto of one bill.

    On Apr. 12, 1944,(15) the Senate met after an 
adjournment that began on Apr. 2. A message from the President was 
presented announcing that he had approved a bill (S. 662) authorizing 
pensions for certain physically or mentally helpless children as well 
as a bill (S. 1243) authorizing the construction and operation of 
demonstration plants to produce synthetic liquid fuels. In the same 
message the President announced the pocket veto on Apr. 11, 1944, of 
the bill (S. 555) for the relief of Almos W. Glasgow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 90 Cong. Rec. 3408, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Announcement to the Congress of pocket 
vetoes have taken various forms. On Apr. 9, 1956, the President 
transmitted to Congress a copy of a press release announcing his 
``pocket veto'' of a bill (H.R. 3963) for the relief of Ashot and 
Ophelia Knatzakanian. This press release was attached to a veto message 
of another bill, but it was not printed in the Congressional Record.

Sec. 18.2 The President pocket vetoed three bills during a two-month 
    adjournment to a day certain, and wrote separate memorandums 
    explaining his reasons for so doing in each instance.

    On July 19, 1943,(16) there was recorded in the Journal 
memorandums of disapproval from the President of three bills he had 
pocket vetoed. They were: (1) H.R. 986, an act to define misconduct for 
compensation and pension purposes; (2) H.R. 1712, an act for the relief 
of Sarah Elizabeth Holliday Foxworth and Ethel Allene Brown Haberfeld; 
and (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 7551, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4935]]

H.R. 1396, an act making certain regulations with reference to 
fertilizers or seeds that may be distributed by agencies of the United 
States.

Sec. 18.3 The President informed the House that he had withheld his 
    approval of numerous bills during an adjournment to a day certain.

    On July 26, 1948,(17) there were received in the House 
during a period of adjournment several messages from the President 
announcing his disapproval of numerous bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 9368-73, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Congress had adjourned on June 19, 1948, pursuant to House 
Concurrent Resolution 218, until Dec. 31, 1948. The President's 
memoranda of disapproval of each of these bills were dated July 2, 
1948, more than 10 days (excluding Sunday) after the Congress had 
adjourned.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See House bills 851, 1733, 1779, 3499, 1910, 4199, 4590, 6184, and 
        6818 in Calendars of the United States House of Representatives 
        and History of Legislation, final edition, 80th Cong. (1947-
        1948).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
                             C. VETO POWERS
 
Sec. 19. Proposals for Item Veto

    There is no express authority under the Constitution for the 
President to approve part of a bill and disapprove another part of the 
same measure. However, agitation for such authority occasionally has 
arisen when measures have been presented to the President for his 
approval which included unrelated provisions, some of which did not 
have the President's endorsement or support. Members have offered 
amendments attempting to include a clause in a bill granting the 
President a veto power with respect to an item in that 
bill,(19) though the constitutionality of such a proposal 
has not been determined, but general executive authority to disapprove 
only part of a bill does not exist. Numerous constitutional amendments 
have been introduced in the past to grant the President item veto 
authority, but these proposals have not been adopted.(20) 
Suggestions have also been made that the Congress address, 
legislatively, the definition of the term ``bill'' as used in the 
Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 19.1, 19.2, infra.
20. Charles J. Zinn, The Veto Power of the President, House Committee 
        on the Judiciary, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. (Committee Print 1951), p. 
        34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Item Veto and Executive Authority

Sec. 19.1 To an authorization bill for public works, an amend

[[Page 4936]]

    ment vesting item veto power in the President was held to be 
    germane and in order.

    On Mar. 11, 1958,(1) Mr. Donald E. Tewes, of Wisconsin, 
offered an amendment to the bill (S. 497) authorizing certain public 
works on rivers and harbors for purposes of navigation. The amendment 
gave the President authority to veto certain items provided for in the 
bill, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 104 Cong. Rec. 4020, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Sec. 211. For the purpose of disapproval by the President, each 
    paragraph of each of the preceding sections, shall be considered a 
    bill within the meaning of article I, section 7, of the 
    Constitution of the United States, and each such paragraph which is 
    disapproved shall not become law unless repassed in accordance with 
    the provisions of section 7, article I, of the Constitution 
    relating to the repassage of a bill disapproved by the President.

    Mr. Frank E. Smith, of Mississippi, raised a point of order against 
the amendment on the ground that such language is entirely out of order 
on any type of legislation since there is no provision in the 
Constitution for an item veto. The Chair (2) responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         . . . The Chair does not pass upon constitutional questions. 
    The amendment seems to be pertinent to the bill and relates to the 
    bill. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 19.2 To an appropriation bill, an amendment proposing to give the 
    President item veto power was held to be legislation and not in 
    order.

    On May 14, 1953 (3) Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., of 
New York, proposed an amendment to the Treasury and Post Office 
Appropriation Act of 1954 (H.R. 5174) giving the President item veto 
power over each separate appropriation in the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 99 Cong. Rec. 4939, 4940, 83d Cong. Ist Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Gordon Canfield, of New Jersey, raised the point of order 
against the amendment that it was legislation on an appropriation bill.
    The Chairman (4) sustained the point of order on the 
grounds that the amendment was legislation upon an appropriation bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Louis E. Graham (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Roosevelt then offered an amendment stating that each section 
or item of appropriation in the bill shall be deemed a separate bill 
for purposes of approval or disapproval by the President.
    Mr. Canfield then raised the same point of order that this point of 
order that this amendment was legislation on appropriation bill.

[[Page 4937]]

    The Chairman sustained the point of order for that same reason.



 
                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
                             C. VETO POWERS
 
Sec. 20. Return of Vetoed Bills

    The Constitution provides, in article I, section 7, clause 2, that 
if the President does not sign a bill presented to him ``. . . 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.''
    It is the usual rule that when a vetoed bill is received in the 
House from the President, the House proceeds at once to consider it. 
When a veto message is laid before the House the question of passage is 
considered as pending (5) and a quorum is required to be 
present to consider the question.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 1097-1099.
 6. Id. at Sec. 1094.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presentation of Veto Message to the house

Sec. 20.1 When a bill is vetoed and returned to the House with the 
    President's objections, the veto message is laid before the House, 
    read by the Clerk, and the objections spread at large on the 
    Journal.

    On May 28, 1948,(7) the Speaker pro tempore 
(8) laid before the House the veto message of President 
Harry Truman on the bill (H.R. 1308) for the relief of H. C. Biering, 
the message having been received in the House on the previous day 
shortly before adjournment. The message was read by the Clerk and the 
President's veto spread on the Journal. By unanimous consent, the bill 
and the message were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 94 Cong. Rec. 6697, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Charles A. Halleck (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Announcement as to Receipt of Veto Message

Sec. 20.2 Parliamentarian's Note: Where there are veto messages on the 
    Speaker's desk, he may announce that fact so that the Record and 
    Journal will show the receipt of the messages and to notify the 
    Members that consideration thereof is pending.

[[Page 4938]]

    On Aug. 2, 1946,(9) the Speaker (10) 
announced that the Chair had received veto messages on the bills H.R. 
4660 and H.R. 6442 and that they would be laid before the House at the 
proper time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 10744, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veto Messages Received During Adjournment

Sec. 20.3 When a veto message from the President is received by the 
    Clerk of the House at a time when the House is not in session, the 
    Clerk transmits the sealed envelope containing the message to the 
    Speaker with a letter explaining the circumstances.

    On Aug. 31, 1959,(11) the Speaker (12) laid 
before the House the following communication from the Clerk of the 
House:

11. 105 Cong. Rec. 17397, 86th Cong. Ist Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  August 28, 1959.
    The Honorable Speaker,
    House of Representatives.

        Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a sealed envelope 
    addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives from the 
    President of the United States, received in the Clerk's office at 
    3:15 p.m. on August 28, 1959, and said to contain a veto message on 
    H.R. 7509, ``An act making appropriations for civil functions 
    administered by the Department of the Army, certain agencies of the 
    Department of the Interior, and the Tennessee Valley Authority for 
    the fiscal year ending June 30, 1960, and for other purposes.''
        Respectfully yours,

                                               Ralph R. Roberts,

                             Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 7509 had been transmitted to the 
President on Aug. 18, 1959. The 10-day constitutional limitation for a 
veto would have expired Aug. 29. The House had adjourned from Thursday, 
Aug. 27, to Monday, Aug. 31, and the Clerk, pursuant to Wright v United 
States (302 U.S. 583), had authority to receive and did receive the 
message during a time when the House was not in session.
    Likewise, on July 24, 1961,(13) the Speaker 
(14) laid before the House the following communication:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 13151, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For other instances see 111 Cong. Rec. 14845, 89th Cong. 
        1st Sess., June 28, 1965; 110 Cong. Rec. 21410, 88th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Sept. 2, 1964; 110 Cong. Rec. 6095, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Mar. 24, 1964; 96 Cong. Rec. 9193, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., June 
        26, 1950; and 86 Cong. Rec. 13601, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Oct. 
        28, 1940.
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    July 21, 1961.

[[Page 4939]]

    The Honorable the Speaker,
    House of Representatives.

        Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a sealed envelope 
    addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives from the 
    President of the United States, received in the Clerk's office at 
    11:15 a.m. on July 21, 1961, and said to contain a veto message on 
    H.R. 4206, ``An act for the relief of Melvin H. Baker and Frances 
    V. Baker.''
        Respectfully yours,

                                               Ralph R. Roberts,

                             Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 4206 had been transmitted to the 
President on July 11, 1961. The 10-day period within which the 
President could veto the bill would have expired on July 22. The House 
had adjourned from Thursday, July 20, to Monday, July 24, and the 
Clerk, pursuant to procedure recognized as valid in Wright v United 
States (302 U.S. 583), had authority to receive the message during a 
time when the House was not in session.

Sec. 20.4 Where the President vetoed several bills during an 
    adjournment period in excess of 10 days, and sent his veto messages 
    to the Clerk of the House, upon reconvening the Speaker laid the 
    messages and bills before the House and referred them to the 
    committees from which they originated.

    On Sept. 5, 1945,(15) the Speaker (16) laid 
before the House the veto messages of the President on five bills 
(17) received in the House after an adjournment period in 
excess of 10 days. The Clerk had been authorized on July 21, 1945, to 
receive messages from the President during the adjournment of the 
House, which was scheduled to last from July 21 to Oct. 8, 1945. The 
Congress reconvened on Sept. 5 pursuant to a recall order of its 
leadership. The Speaker then laid the messages and bills before the 
House and, by separate motion on each bill, and by unanimous consent, 
referred them to the committees from which they had originated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 8322-24, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
17. The bills were: (1) H.R. 259 for the relief of George Gottlieb; (2) 
        H.R. 3477 authorizing improvement of certain harbors in the 
        interest of commerce and navigation; (3) H.R. 952 for the 
        relief of the Morgan Creamery Company; (4) H.R. 1856 for the 
        relief of Southwestern Drug Company; and (5) H.R. 3549 to 
        provide for the conveyance of certain weather bureau property 
        to Norwich University, Northfield, Vt. All of the veto messages 
        were dated before Aug. 1, 1945, the date on which the Senate 
        adjourned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delivery of Veto Message at Joint Session

Sec. 20.5 The President personally delivered a veto message

[[Page 4940]]

    to a joint session of the Congress.

    On May 22, 1935,(18) President Franklin D. Roosevelt 
personally addressed a joint session of the Congress in order to 
deliver his veto message of the bill (H.R. 3896), providing for the 
immediate payment to veterans of the face value of their adjusted-
service certificates. The President addressed both Houses pursuant to 
House Concurrent Resolution 22. He said, ``As to the right and 
propriety of the President in addressing the Congress in person, I am 
very certain that I have never in the past disagreed, and will never in 
the future disagree, with the Senate or the House of Representatives as 
to the constitutionality of the procedure. With your permission, I 
should like to continue from time to time to act as my own messenger.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong. Rec. 7993-96, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Senate had considered and passed the concurrent resolution (H. 
Con. Res. 22) authorizing this joint session on the preceding 
day.(19) Senator Frederick Steiwer, of Oregon, objected to 
the resolution, observing:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 7896-902, 7943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        My objection to the concurrent resolution is that it seeks to 
    involve the Senate in this procedure. It proposes that the Senate 
    shall meet with the House in joint session, and we are told that 
    the veto message of the President, or the objections which the 
    President proposes to make to a bill which Congress has passed 
    shall not be returned to the House, the body in which the 
    legislation was originated, but that it shall be returned to a 
    joint session of both bodies. It is that procedure which I condemn. 
    It is that procedure which I claim is not countenanced by the 
    Constitution. It is in violation of the Constitution of the United 
    States that this legislation should be returned to the joint body 
    rather than to the body in which the legislation originated. It 
    will be in violation of the Constitution if the objections shall be 
    made to the joint body rather than that they should be entered in 
    the Journal of the House by the normal and usual procedure which 
    has been employed in this country for a century and a 
    half.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 7897.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senator J. W. Robinson, of Utah, responded:

        The discussion as to what message is to be heard appears to me 
    to be more or less irrelevant. The concurrent resolution provides 
    for a joint session of the two Houses of the Congress to hear such 
    communications as the President shall be pleased to make.

        There is no limitation in the Constitution or in the rules of 
    the two Houses on the occasion or the purposes for which joint 
    sessions may be held. Therefore it is entirely within the 
    discretion or judgment of the two Houses when joint sessions shall 
    convene.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Id. at p. 7900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: As its first business upon reconvening

[[Page 4941]]

following the President's address, the House voted to override the 
Presidential veto on H.R. 3896.(22) The vote in the Senate 
on May 23 (legislative day of May 13) failed of a two-thirds majority, 
so that the veto was sustained.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Id. at pp. 7996, 7997.
 1. Id. at pp. 8066, 8067.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification of Senate Action on Vetoed Bill

Sec. 20.6 The Senate notifies the House when it passes a Senate bill 
    over a Presidential veto.

    On Aug. 13, 1958,(2) the Speaker (3) laid 
before the House the following message from the Senate:

 2. 104 Cong. Rec. 17354, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          In the Senate of the
                                                  United States,
                                                  August 12, 1958.

        The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the bill (S. 2266) 
    entitled ``An act to provide a method for regulating and fixing 
    wage rates for employees of Portsmouth, N.H., Naval Shipyard,'' 
    returned by the President of the United States with his objections 
    to the Senate, in which it originated, and passed by the Senate on 
    reconsideration of the same, it was
        Resolved, That the said bill pass, two-thirds of the Senators 
    present having voted in the affirmative.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See also 94 Cong. Rec. 8523, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1948; 
        and 87 Cong. Rec. 6886, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 7, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Referral of Vetoed Bill Messaged From Senate

Sec. 20.7 The Senate passed a private bill over the President's veto 
    and messaged it to the House, where it was referred to a committee.

    On July 5, 1952,(5) the Speaker (6) laid 
before the House a bill (S. 827)--passed by the Senate over the 
President's veto--for the relief of Fred P. Hines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 98 Cong. Rec. 9608, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, moved that the bill and veto 
message be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered 
printed.
    The motion was agreed to.

Correcting Errors in Veto Messages

Sec. 20.8 The White House, having discovered an error in a veto message 
    transmitted to the House, sent a further message to the House 
    correcting the error.

    On May 25, 1960,(7) the Speaker (8) laid 
before the House a com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 106 Cong. Rec. 11060, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4942]]

munication from the President of the United States; this message (shown 
below) was read and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
                                                     May 23, 1960.

        Dear Mr. Speaker: An error appears in my message of disapproval 
    on H.R. 7947, a bill relating to the income tax treatment of 
    nonrefundable capital contributions to Federal National Mortgage 
    Association.
        In the last sentence of the second paragraph of my message the 
    word ``purchases'' should be inserted in lieu of the word 
    ``sells''.
        Sincerely,
                                             Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Return of Veto Message to President

Sec. 20.9 The House complied with the request of the President that a 
    bill and veto message be returned to him.

    On Aug. 1, 1946,(9) the Speaker (10) laid 
before the House the following message from the President:

 9. 92 Cong. Rec. 10651, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To the House of Representatives:

        I hereby request the return of H.R. 3420, a bill ``to provide 
    for refunds to railroad employees in certain cases so as to place 
    the various States on an equal basis, under the Railroad 
    Unemployment Insurance Act, with respect to contributions of 
    employees,'' and my message of July 31 appertaining thereto.
                                                 Harry Truman,
                                                The White House,
                                                   August 1, 1946.

        The Speaker: Without objection, the request of the President 
    will be complied with, and the Clerk will transmit the papers 
    requested.
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The President transmitted to the House 
three veto messages shortly after the convening of the House on Aug. 1. 
The Speaker observed that included therewith was an apparent veto of 
H.R. 3420, although he believed that the President had intended to sign 
the bill. It was suggested that the President send a message to the 
House requesting the return of the bill before the veto was laid before 
the House. Such a message was received from the President, which was 
laid before the House and agreed to, and the bill H.R. 3420 was 
returned to the President without ever having been read to the House. 
It should be noted that if the veto message on H.R. 3420 had been laid 
before the House and read, then under the precedent established in the 
Senate on Aug. 15, 1876 (4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3521) the message and 
bill could not have been returned to the President. The above bill was 
signed by the President on Aug. 2,

[[Page 4943]]

1946, and became Public Law No. 79-599 of the 79th Congress.


                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
                             C. VETO POWERS
 
Sec. 21. Motions Relating to Vetoes

    When a vetoed bill is laid before the House the question of 
passage, the objections of the President to the contrary 
notwithstanding, is pending, but motions to refer to 
committee,(11) to postpone to a day certain, or to lay on 
the table are in order. Motions of this nature are within the 
constitutional mandate that the House ``shall proceed to reconsider'' a 
vetoed bill.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 21.1, infra.
12. See U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7, clause 2, and 7 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 1105, 1114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Motions to take from the table a vetoed bill, or to discharge a 
vetoed bill from a committee, are privileged.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3532, 3550; and 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 5439. See also Sec. 21.8, 
        infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Precedence of Motion to Refer

Sec. 21.1 When a vetoed bill is laid before the House and read, a 
    motion to refer to committee takes precedence over the question of 
    passage over the veto.

    On Oct. 10, 1940,(14) the Speaker (15) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President of the bill (H.R. 
7179) providing for the naturalization of Louis D. Friedman. Mr. Samuel 
Dickstein, of New York, moved to refer the bill and veto message to the 
Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 13522, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, reserved the right to object, 
saying:

        This bill can only be referred to a committee by unanimous 
    consent.
        The Speaker: No; a motion is in order.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand [but is it privileged?] Any Member can 
    demand a vote on this at any time, on a President's veto.
        The Speaker: A motion to refer to a committee takes preference, 
    of course.

        Mr. Rankin: I did not think a motion to refer to a committee 
    was privileged. My understanding is that any Member can demand a 
    vote at any time.
        The Speaker: A motion to refer at this stage is a privileged 
    motion and has preference, under the rule.

Effect of Defeat of Motion to Postpone

Sec. 21.2 Where a motion to postpone further consideration

[[Page 4944]]

    of a veto message to a day certain is defeated, the question 
    recurs, in the absence of any other motion, on passing the bill 
    over the objections of the President.

    On Jan. 24, 1936,(16) the Speaker (1) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 
9870) to provide for the immediate payment of world war adjustment 
service certificates and for the cancellation of unpaid interest 
accrued on loans secured by such certificates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 975, 976, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, moved that consideration of 
the President's message be postponed until the next Monday. After short 
debate Mr. Bankhead then moved the previous question on his motion. Mr. 
John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to 
whether a vote on the veto message would be in order if the motion to 
postpone were defeated:

        Mr. Rankin: And a preferential motion will be in order for an 
    immediate vote on the veto?
        The Speaker: It will be the only motion before the House.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Alabama 
    [Mr. Bankhead] on the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question now recurs upon the motion of the 
    gentleman from Alabama that further consideration of the veto 
    message be postponed until Monday.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Bankhead) there were ayes 131 and noes 189.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        So the motion was rejected.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House on reconsideration 
    agree to pass the bill, the objections of the President to the 
    contrary notwithstanding?

Effect of Defeat of Motion to Refer

Sec. 21.3 When a motion to refer a vetoed bill to a committee is voted 
    down, the question recurs on the passage of the bill over the 
    objections of the President.

    On Oct. 10, 1940,(2) the Speaker (3) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President of the bill (H.R. 
7179) providing for the naturalization of Louis D. Friedman. Mr. Samuel 
Dickstein, of New York, moved that the bill and veto message be 
referred to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 86 Cong. Rec. 13534, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4945]]

the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, raised a parliamentary inquiry 
as to whether the question before the House would be on the overriding 
of the veto if the motion to refer was voted down. The Speaker 
responded that the question of overriding the President's veto would 
recur if the motion to refer to committee was voted down.

Referral to Committee by Motion

Sec. 21.4 A veto message from the President may on motion be referred 
    to the originating committee and ordered printed.

    On Aug. 14, 1967,(4) the Speaker laid before the House 
the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 11089) to increase 
life insurance coverage for government employees, officials, and 
Members of Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 113 Cong. Rec. 22438, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Dominick V. Daniels, of New Jersey, moved that the bill and 
message be referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service 
and ordered to be printed.
    The motion was agreed to.

Referral to Committee by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 21.5 A veto message from the President was, by unanimous consent, 
    referred to a committee.

    On July 24, 1961,(5) the Speaker (6) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 
4206) for the relief of Melvin H. Baker and Frances V. Baker. The 
Speaker stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 13151, 13152, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The objections of the President will be spread at large upon 
    the Journal, and, without objection, the bill and message will be 
    referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be 
    printed.
        There was no objection.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 21244, 21245, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 
        23, 1965; and 105 Cong. Rec. 19697, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 
        14, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objections to Referral

Sec. 21.6 Where an objection is raised to a unanimous-consent request 
    to refer a veto message to a committee, and the House adjourns 
    without other disposition of the message, the request for referral 
    may be renewed.

[[Page 4946]]

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(8) the Speaker (9) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President of the United States 
on the bill (H.R. 3329) to incorporate the youth councils on civic 
affairs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 23623, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the bill and message will be referred to the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: To what does the gentleman object?
        Mr. Hall: I object to the reference of the veto message to the 
    committee.

    The House then adjourned without further action on the message.
    On Sept. 14, 1965,(10) the message and bill were, by 
unanimous consent, referred to the Committee on the District of 
Columbia and ordered to be printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 23628, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.7 A veto message from the President on a bill relating to 
    certain federal wages was referred to the Committee on Post Office 
    and Civil Service.

    On Jan. 2, 1971,(11) the Speaker (12) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 
17809) to fix the pay practices applied to federal ``blue collar'' 
employees. After the Clerk read the veto message, it was, without 
objection, referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service 
and ordered to be printed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 44599, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: No member of the Committee on Post Office 
and Civil Service was available to move that the bill and message be 
referred to that committee. The Speaker therefore ordered the bill 
referred on his own initiative.

Motion to Discharge

Sec. 21.8 A motion to discharge a committee from the consideration of a 
    vetoed bill presents a question of privilege, and such motion is 
    subject to a motion to table.

    On Sept. 7, 1965,(13) Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, 
addressed the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 22958, 22959, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. . . .
        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.

[[Page 4947]]

    Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, moved to lay that motion 
on the table.
    Mr. Hall then raised a parliamentary inquiry:

        Is a highly privileged motion according to the Constitution 
    subject to a motion to table?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) It is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Postpone

Sec. 21.9 By motion, the House may postpone to a day certain 
    consideration of a Presidential veto message transmitted from the 
    Senate.

    On Apr. 29, 1959,(15) the Speaker (16) laid 
before the House the veto message of the President of the bill (S. 144) 
entitled ``An Act to Modify Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1939 and 
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953,'' along with a message from the 
Senate that that body had passed the bill over the President's veto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 7027, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, moved that further 
consideration of the President's message be postponed until the next 
day.
    The motion was agreed to.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 105 Cong. Rec. 17397, 17398, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 
        31, 1959 (postponement for two days by unanimous consent); and 
        94 Cong. Rec. 4133, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 6, 1948 
        (postponement by motion for eight days).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.10 The motion to postpone further consideration of a veto 
    message to a day certain is privileged and takes precedence over 
    the pending question of passing the bill notwithstanding objections 
    of the President.

    On Jan. 27, 1970,(18) the Speaker pro tempore 
(19) laid before the House the veto message from the 
President on the bill (H.R. 13111) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare for fiscal year 
1970. He then announced that the question before the House was ``Will 
the House on reconsideration pass the bill H.R. 13111, the objections 
of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 1365, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, moved that further consideration of 
the veto message from the President be postponed until the next day. 
The Speaker pro tempore recognized him to proceed on his motion.

Sec. 21.11 Objection having been raised to a unanimous-con

[[Page 4948]]

    sent request that a veto message be referred to committee, further 
    proceedings on the message were postponed pursuant to a previous 
    order of the House that the matter be put over until Thursday.

    On Tuesday, Oct. 5, 1965,(20) the Speaker pro tempore 
laid before the House the veto message from the President on the bill 
(H.R. 5902) for the relief of Cecil Graham:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 25940, 25941, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(21) The objections of the 
    President will be spread at large upon the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If there is no objection, the bill and message will be referred 
    to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa objects.

        Under the order of the House of October 1, (22) this 
    matter will be pending business on Thursday, October 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. On Oct. 1, 1965, the Majority Leader asked unanimous consent that 
        any roll call votes, other than on questions of procedure, 
        which might be demanded on either Tuesday or Wednesday, Oct. 5 
        or 6 (which were religious holidays), be put over until Oct. 7. 
        There was no objection. See 111 Cong. Rec. 25796, 25797, 89th 
        Cong. lst Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate on Motion

Sec. 21.12 Debate on a motion to refer a vetoed bill is under the hour 
    rule, and if the Member recognized yields back a part of his time 
    without moving the previous question another Member is recognized 
    for an hour.

    On Oct. 10, 1940,(1) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
was recognized to move to refer to committee a private bill (H.R. 7179) 
and the veto message thereon. He was recognized to debate his motion 
under the hour rule, and after he had consumed 10 minutes, during which 
he yielded to various other Members for comments and questions, he 
yielded back the balance of his time. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 86 Cong. Rec. 13523, 13524, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lee E.] Geyer of California: Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Dickstein: I yield to the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Geyer of California: Much has been said rather impugning 
    certain things that the committee has done. It has been stated that 
    the committee is probably too lenient. May I say that I have had 
    bills before that committee involving definite hardship cases on 
    American citizens, and I think the committee is entirely too 
    stringent.
        [Here the gavel fell.]

[[Page 4949]]

        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed 
    for 2 additional minutes.
        The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Dickstein]?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the membership of 
    the House that I have tried the best way I can, as chairman of that 
    committee, to work with every Member of this House. I agree with my 
    good friend from California that sometimes the committee is too 
    strict, sometimes we may be a little lenient, but on the whole I 
    think we are a strict committee. . . . May I say that we should be 
    patient and reasonable. Let us look at it in the proper American 
    light and not from any other point of view.
        Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 
    recognition.
        The Speaker: The time is in control of the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Dickstein]. Has the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Dickstein] yielded the floor?
        Mr. Dickstein: Yes.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] is 
    recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Mississippi yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Rankin: I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dickstein: The gentleman from Mississippi asked me to give 
    him time, which I was good enough to do. I said I would be glad to 
    do it. Had I known I was going to surrender the floor by that, I 
    would not have done it. I did not surrender it. I simply yielded 
    back the balance of my time, and the Record will bear me out.
        The Speaker: The Chair distinctly asked the gentleman from New 
    York if he yielded the floor, and his answer was in the 
    affirmative.
        Mr. Dickstein: I did not understand.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 1 
    hour, if he desires that time.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had Mr. Dickstein moved the previous 
question after using his 10 minutes, and if that motion had been agreed 
to, no further debate would have been in order.


                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
                             C. VETO POWERS
 
Sec. 22. Consideration and Passage of Vetoed Bills; Voting

    Under the Constitution, a vetoed bill becomes law when it is 
reconsidered and passed by the requisite two-thirds vote in each 
House.(3) The Supreme Court has held that an affirmative 
vote of two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present, in 
each House, is sufficient to override the President's 
veto.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7, clause 2.
 4. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v Kansas, 248 U.S. 276 (1919), citing, at pp. 
        283, 284; see also 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3537, 3538 and 
        7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1111 and United States v Ballin, 114 
        U.S. 1 (1892).

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

[[Page 4950]]

    The vote on the question of passage, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding, must be by the yeas and nays 
under the express command of the Constitution.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. ``. . . But in all such Cases [reconsideration of a veto] the Votes 
        of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the 
        Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be 
        entered on the Journal of each House respectively.'' U.S. 
        Const. art. I, Sec. 7, clause 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consideration of a vetoed bill is privileged,(6) and 
when a vetoed bill is postponed to a day certain it comes up then as 
unfinished business.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. U.S. Const., House Rules and Manual Sec. 108 (1981); see also 
        Sec. 22.4, infra.
 7. See Sec. Sec. 22.1, 22.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A vetoed bill is considered under the hour rule (8) and 
the previous question may be moved at any time.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. Sec. 22.7, 22.8, infra.
 9. See Sec. 22.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to reconsider is not in order on the question of over-
riding a veto.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5644; and 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2778.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veto Message as Unfinished Business

Sec. 22.1 A veto message is the unfinished business before the House 
    where the consideration of the message has been postponed from the 
    previous day by motion.

    On Apr. 30, 1959,(11) the Speaker (12) 
announced that the unfinished business was the further consideration of 
the veto of the President of the bill (S. 144), to modify 
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1939 and Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 
1953. The question put was:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 105 Cong. Rec. 7200, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 
        26242, 89th Cong. lst Sess., Oct 7, 1965.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, the 
    objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding?

Sec. 22.2 When a veto message postponed to a day certain is announced 
    as the unfinished business, no motion is required from the floor 
    for the 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.

[[Page 4951]]

    On Apr. 14, 1948,(13) the Speaker (14) 
announced that the unfinished business of the House was the further 
consideration of the veto message of the President on the bill (H.R. 
5052) to exclude certain vendors of newspapers or magazines from 
provisions of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 4428, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
14. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House, on 
    reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to 
    the contrary notwithstanding? . . .
        The gentleman from California [Mr. Gearhart] is recognized.
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Bertrand W.] Gearhart: I yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Eberharter: Has the gentleman made a motion to call up the 
    bill?
        Mr. Gearhart: The Parliamentarian advises me that is not 
    necessary. The Speaker has already stated the issue.
        Mr. Eberharter: I just wanted the record to be certain. I did 
    not hear the gentleman make a motion to call up the bill. . . .
        The Speaker: The veto message was originally read on April 6, 
    and the request of the gentleman from California was that it be 
    reread for the information of the House. Previous to that request 
    the Chair had stated that the question before the House was, Will 
    the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the 
    President to the contrary notwithstanding?
        The gentleman will proceed.

Sec. 22.3 Where the House adjourns prior to disposition of a veto 
    message from the President, the bill comes up as unfinished 
    business on the next legislative day.

    On Sept. 14, 1965,(15) the Speaker (16) 
announced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 23628, 89th Cong. lst Sess.
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The unfinished business is the further consideration of the 
    veto message from the President on the bill H.R. 3329 
    [incorporating the Youth Councils on Civil Affairs]. Without 
    objection the message and the bill will be referred to the 
    Committee on the District of Columbia and ordered to be printed.
        There was no objection.

    The preceding day, the President's veto message was laid before the 
House shortly before adjournment. Objection was made to referral of the 
message and bill to committee.(17) Thus, it was brought up 
the next day as unfinished business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 23623, 89th Cong. lst Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 22.4 The consideration of a veto message was held to be

[[Page 4952]]

    in order on Calendar Wednesday.

    On May 11, 1932,(18) it being Calendar Wednesday, the 
Speaker (19) laid before the House the veto message of the 
President of the bill (H.R. 6662) to amend the Tariff Act of 1930:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 75 Cong. Rec. 10035, 72d Cong. lst Sess.
19. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

Effect of Committee Report

Sec. 22.5 After referral to the committee in which it originated, a 
    vetoed bill may be reported to the House with the recommendation 
    that it pass over the veto of the President.

    On May 18, 1949,(20) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
submitted a privileged report from the Committee on the Judiciary on 
the bill (H.R. 1036) for the relief of R. C. Owen, R. C. Owen, Jr., and 
Roy Owen. The bill had been vetoed by the President and referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary after delivery of the President's veto 
message in the House. The Committee on the Judiciary then reported the 
bill with the recommendation that it pass over the President's veto. 
The bill did so pass, two-thirds of the House voting in favor 
thereof.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 6426-30, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
21. For an instance where vetoed bill favorably reported from a 
        committee failed of passage, see 86 Cong. Rec. 12615-22, 76th 
        Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 25, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, on Aug. 5, 1940,(1) Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of 
Texas, submitted the report from the Committee on the Judiciary on the 
bill (H.R. 7737) providing for intervention by states in certain cases 
involving the validity of the exercise of federal power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 86 Cong. Rec. 9878-84, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill had been vetoed by the President and on return to the

[[Page 4953]]

House referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The committee in turn 
reported the bill with the recommendation that it pass the objections 
of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.
    The House voted to override the President's veto, with 253 yeas and 
46 nays.

Committee Report as Privileged

Sec. 22.6 Parliamentarian's Note: Reports from committees to which 
    vetoed bills are referred, recommending passage of such bills over 
    a veto, are privileged.

    On Aug. 17, 1951,(2) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
submitted a privileged report from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
on the bill (H.R. 3193), to establish a pension rate, with the 
recommendation that such bill pass over the President's veto. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 97 Cong. Rec. 10197, 10202, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: 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. . . .

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I ask for recognition.
        The Speaker: (3) The gentleman from Mississippi is 
    recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my 
    remarks at this point and include letters which I have received . . 
    . supporting this measure and urging the Congress to override the 
    veto. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House, on 
    reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to 
    the contrary notwithstanding?
        Under the Constitution, this vote must be determined by the 
    yeas and nays.
        Those in favor of passing the bill, the objections of the 
    President to the contrary notwithstanding, will, when their names 
    are called, vote 'aye,' those opposed ``no.''
        The Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were yeas 318, nays 45, not 
    voting 69. . . .
        So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the bill was 
    passed, the objec

[[Page 4954]]

    tions of the President to the contrary notwithstanding.

Debate

Sec. 22.7 Debate on the question of passing a bill over the President's 
    veto is under the hour rule and the Member in charge may yield to 
    others for debate in his hour.

    On May 17, 1951,(4) the Speaker (5) called up 
as unfinished business for further consideration a veto message from 
the President on a bill (H.R. 3096) relating to the acquisition and 
disposition of land by the armed forces. Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, 
was recognized by the Chair. Mr. Vinson raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 97 Cong. Rec. 5435, 82d Cong. 1st Sess. See also 116 Cong. Rec.  
        750, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 22, 1970.
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that under the rules of 
    the House I am entitled to 1 hour, during which time I can yield to 
    other Members without, however, yielding the floor?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.

Sec. 22.8 A Member recognized on the question of passage of a bill over 
    the President's veto controls one hour of debate, and he may yield 
    a portion of that time to another Member who may in turn control 
    the allocation of that time to other Members.

    On Apr. 10, 1973,(6) the House considered the question 
of overriding the President's veto on the bill (H.R. 3298), to restore 
certain water and sewer grant programs. Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, 
was recognized for one hour. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 11679-91, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Poage) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
    gentleman from Oklahoma, the Speaker of the House of 
    Representatives.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the 
    distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poage), has yielded to me. I appreciate 
    the years that I served under his leadership on that committee.
        In a few minutes, as every Member of this House knows, we will 
    cast one of the critical votes of this session of Congress--
    critical because of the importance of the subject matter with which 
    we are dealing, and critical because of the challenge which we 
    confront as a law-making body of the Nation. . . .
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, it is my desire to yield half of this 
    time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Teague). I understand 
    that I can only

[[Page 4955]]

    yield to him one time. Is it in order for me at this time to yield 
    him 30 minutes and let him apportion it?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The gentleman has 
    control of the time. He can yield his time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poage: I yield to the gentleman from California 30 minutes.
        Mr. [Charles M.] Teague of California: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Teague of California: Does that mean that I must use all of 
    my 30 minutes together?
        The Speaker: The gentleman may use his time as he sees fit, for 
    purposes of debate only.
        Mr. Teague of California: I thank the Speaker.
        I yield myself 3 minutes.
        Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President's veto of H.R. 
    3298.
        It is not easy for me, and I know it is not easy for a great 
    many of Members of the House, to vote to sustain the veto on this 
    bill. I say that because the program that has been affected by the 
    President's action is not, in my opinion, a bad program--it is in 
    fact the best of the several agricultural programs for which the 
    President has impounded funds. . . .
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from California desire to yield 
    further at this time.
        Mr. Teague of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Harsha].
        Mr. [William H.] Harsha: Mr. Speaker, I believe we should make 
    an attempt in this situation to separate rhetoric from the facts 
    and I want to allude now to some of the facts. . . .
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
    majority leader, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr.]: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today 
    as a window box farmer, as I was referred to by a gentleman from 
    the minority side the other day, but I want to remind my colleagues 
    that this program, very interestingly, passed the House by 297 
    votes to 54 votes. And it passed the House because the rural water 
    program is crucial for pollution control and health in rural 
    America. . . .
        Mr. Teague of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
    gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Sebelius).
        Mr. [Keith G.] Sebelius: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this 
    opportunity to discuss the Presidential veto of H.R. 3298, 
    legislation to restore the rural water and waste disposal grant 
    program.

        I share the conviction that we must restore commonsense to our 
    Federal spending and hold Federal outlays to the ceiling level of 
    $250 billion. However, how we ``spend'' this limited budget is 
    debatable. It is a matter of priorities. . . .
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.
        Mr. Speaker, there are two issues involved in our consideration 
    of the President's veto.
        The first is the issue of the constitutional division of powers 
    under our tripartite form of Government. Can any President 
    unappropriate funds--the appropriation of which he has previously 
    approved? . . .

[[Page 4956]]

        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

     Two-thirds not having voted in favor of the override, the veto of 
the President was sustained and the bill was rejected.

Effect of Moving the Previous Question

Sec. 22.9 The demand for the previous question precludes further debate 
    on the question of passing a bill over a Presidential veto.

    On June 16, 1948,(9) the House had under consideration 
the veto message of the President on a bill (H.R. 6355) making 
supplemental appropriations for the Federal Security Agency. Mr. Frank 
B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, was recognized to control the debate for one 
hour. After brief remarks, he immediately moved the previous question. 
Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, then raised a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 8473, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, under the rules is not the majority granted the 
    privilege of discussing this message?
        The Speaker: (10) If the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    withdraws his moving of the previous question it would be in order. 
    Otherwise it is not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Voting by Yeas and Nays

Sec. 22.10 Under the Constitution, the vote on passage of a bill over 
    the President's veto must be by the yeas and nays.

    On May 17, 1951,(11) the House had under consideration 
the question of overriding the President's veto on a bill (H.R. 3096), 
relating to the acquisition and disposition of land by the armed 
forces. Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, moved the previous question. The 
Chair (12) declared that under the Constitution, the 
question would have to be determined by the yeas and 
nays.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 97 Cong. Rec. 5444, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
13. U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 7. See also 97 Cong. Rec. 13745, 82d Cong. 
        1st Sess., Oct. 20, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vote Recapitulations and Changes

Sec. 22.11 Where a yea and nay vote has been announced and a 
    recapitulation is ordered on the question of overriding a 
    Presidential veto, a Member may correct his vote only and may not 
    change it; and corrections in a vote on recapitulation are made 
    after the yeas have

[[Page 4957]]

    been read by the Clerk and then after the nays are read.

    On June 17, 1947,(14) the House considered the question 
of overriding the President's veto on a bill (H.R. 1), to reduce 
individual income tax payments. After debate a roll call vote was taken 
pursuant to the constitutional requirement. Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of 
Indiana, sought a recapitulation of the vote, and the Chair ordered the 
recapitulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 93 Cong. Rec. 7143, 7144, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, raised a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Speaker, a Member having voted one way or the other cannot 
    change his vote on the capitulation?
        The Speaker: (15) A Member may correct his vote, but 
    cannot change it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will call the names of those voting ``yea.''
        The Clerk called the names of those voting ``yea.''
        The Speaker: Are there any corrections to be made where any 
    Member was listening and heard his name called as voting ``yea'' 
    who did not vote ``yea?'' . . . The Chair hears none.
        The Clerk will call the names of those voting ``nay.''
        The Clerk called the names of those voting ``nay.''
        The Speaker: Is there any Member voting ``nay'' who is 
    incorrectly recorded? . . . The Chair hears none.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since the vote on overriding a veto is now 
taken by the electronic voting device, a recapitulation is not in 
order. The Speaker could, of course, order the vote taken by the call 
of the roll if circumstances warranted.

Pairing of Votes

Sec. 22.12 Pairs on the question of passage of a bill over a 
    Presidential veto are recorded in the Congressional Record and are 
    arranged in a two to one ratio.

    On Aug. 5, 1940,(16) after a roll call vote which 
sustained the veto of the President of a bill (H.R. 3233) to repeal 
certain acts of Congress, the Clerk announced the pairing of certain 
Members on the vote. The Congressional Record disclosed the pairs, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 9889, 9890, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McDowell and Mr. Ball (to override with Mr. Schwert (to 
    sustain).
        Mr. Wolfenden of Pennsylvania and Mr. Osmers (to override) with 
    Mr. Cullen (to sustain).
        Mr. Culkin and Mr. Jennings (to override) with Mr. Hook (to 
    sustain).
        Mr. Kilburn and Mr. Reece of Tennessee (to override) with Mr. 
    Buckley of New York (to sustain).

[[Page 4958]]


                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
                             C. VETO POWERS
 
Sec. 23. Disposition of Vetoed Bills After Reconsideration

    When a vetoed House bill is reconsidered and passed in the House, 
the House sends the bill and veto message to the Senate and informs 
that body that it passed by the constitutional two-thirds 
vote.(17) When the House fails to pass a bill over the 
President's veto, the bill and veto message are referred to committee, 
and the Senate is informed of the action of the House.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 23.2, infra.
18. See Sec. 23.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A bill enacted over a Presidential veto is sent by the Presiding 
Officer of the House which last considered it to the Administrator of 
General Services who receives it for deposit.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 1 USC Sec. 106a (1970 ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Referral to Committee

Sec. 23.1 Where the House fails to override the President's veto, the 
    veto message and the bill are referred to the committee which 
    originally reported the bill.

    On Jan. 28, 1970,(2) the House considered overriding the 
President's veto of the bill (H.R. 13111) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare for fiscal year 
1970. The President's veto was sustained, two-thirds not having voted 
in favor of overriding it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 116 Cong. Rec. 1552, 1553, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 28, 1970. See 
        also 89 Cong. Rec. 7051-55, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 2, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker (3) then announced:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The message and the bill are referred to the Committee on 
    Appropriations.
        The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House.

    Note: the form of message sent to the Senate in this situation is 
as follows:
    ``The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the 
bill (H.R. ____) entitled . . . returned by the President of the United 
States with his objections, to the House of Representatives, in which 
it originated, it was Resolved, that the said bill do not pass, two-
thirds of the House of Representatives not agreeing to pass the same.''
    Similarly, on June 11, 1946,(4) the 
Speaker,(5) laid before the House the veto message of the 
President of the bill (H.R. 4908) to provide additional facilities for 
the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 6774-78, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4959]]

mediation of labor disputes. The House sustained the President's veto 
and the Speaker ordered the bill and accompanying papers referred to 
the Committee on Labor.

Sec. 23.2 By message the House informed the Senate of the passage of a 
    bill in the House to reduce income taxes over the President's veto.

    On Apr. 2, 1948,(6) the following message from the House 
of Representatives was laid before the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 94 Cong. Rec. 4018, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               In the House of
                                          Representatives, U.S.,
                                                    April 2, 1948.

        The House of Representatives having proceeded to reconsider the 
    bill (H.R. 4790) entitled ``An act to reduce individual income-tax 
    payments, and for other purposes,'' returned by the President of 
    the United States with his objections, to the House of 
    Representatives, in which it originated; it was
        ``Resolved, That the said bill pass, two-thirds of the House of 
    Representatives agreeing to pass the same.''
        Attest:
                                                   John Andrews,
                                                            Clerk.


                               CHAPTER 24
 
              Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
 
                    D. VACATING LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
 
Sec. 24. Procedure


Passage of Bills


Sec. 24.1 By unanimous consent, the proceedings whereby a bill had been 
    passed were vacated, so that an error in an amendment to the bill 
    could be corrected.

    On Feb. 12, 1951,(7) it was announced to the House that 
during a previous day's proceedings incident to the passage of a bill 
(8) the Committee of the Whole and the House by separate 
vote had agreed to a two-page amendment, the second page of which 
erroneously had not been read by the Clerk. Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, asked unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby the bill 
had been passed be vacated and that an amendment to the bill be agreed 
to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 97 Cong. Rec. 1233, 1234, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. H.R. 1612, to extend the authority of the President to enter into 
        trade agreements under Sec. 310 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was no objection.
    Thereupon, the Speaker (9) announced that without 
objection
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4960]]

the proceedings whereby the bill had been passed would be vacated, the 
amendment read by Mr. Mills agreed to, the bill be considered as 
engrossed, read a third time and passed, and that a motion to 
reconsider be laid on the table.

    There was no objection.

Sec. 24.2 By unanimous consent, the House may vacate the proceedings 
    whereby a bill was passed so that the Chair can entertain a motion 
    to recommit.

    On Mar. 23, 1970,(10) immediately after a voice vote by 
the House whereby a bill (11) was passed, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 8568, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
11. H.R. 15728, to authorize the extension of certain naval vessel 
        loans and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Parliamentary Inquiry

        Mr. [Donald M.] Fraser [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fraser: I was on my feet seeking recognition for the 
    purpose of making a motion to recommit at the time the Speaker was 
    beginning to move to the point of putting the question.

        The Speaker: The Chair wants to be absolutely fair. The Chair 
    believes the Members know that.
        Without objection, the action taken on the question of the 
    passage of the bill will be vacated.
        There was no objection.

     Thereupon, a motion to recommit the bill was offered by Mr. Silvio 
O. Conte, of Massachusetts. The motion was rejected.

Sec. 24.3 In the situation where the House and Senate have passed 
    similar bills, an action sometimes taken by the House is to amend 
    the Senate bill to conform to the provisions of the House bill, and 
    then to vacate, by unanimous consent, those proceedings whereby the 
    House bill was passed.

    On May 18, 1961,(13) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, asked 
unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of a Senate bill 
(14) and then moved to strike out of all its provisions 
after the enacting clause, and to insert the provisions of a previously 
passed House bill (15) in lieu thereof. There being no 
objection, both the bill and an amendment subsequently offered by Mr. 
Harris were read to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 8367, 8368, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. S. 610, providing for the establishment of a U.S. Travel Service 
        within the Department of Commerce and a Travel Advisory Board.
15. H.R. 4614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 4961]]

    The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed.
    By unanimous consent the proceedings by which the House bill (H.R. 
4614) was passed were vacated, and that bill was laid on the table.

Sec. 24.4 By unanimous consent, the proceedings whereby a Senate bill 
    had been considered in the House, amended (to include the 
    provisions of a similar House-passed bill), and passed, were 
    vacated, and the bill was indefinitely postponed.

    On May 12, 1970,(16) Mr. Don Fuqua, of Florida, asked 
unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby the House considered, 
amended, and passed a bill of the Senate (17) be vacated and 
that further proceedings on that bill be indefinitely postponed. There 
was no objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 116 Cong. Rec. 15150, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.; see also 116 Cong. Rec. 
        14951-60, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1970, for proceedings 
        incident to the passage of the bill. For a further example see 
        108 Cong. Rec. 18300, 18301, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 31, 
        1962; and 105 Cong. Rec. 7313, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 4, 
        1959.
17. S. 2694, to amend the District of Columbia Police and Firemen's 
        Salary Act of 1958 and the District of Columbia Teacher's 
        Salary Act of 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: After passage of the Senate bill it was 
found that it contained a tax provision and therefore could not under 
the Constitution originate in the Senate. After vacating the House 
passage of the Senate bill, the House passed its own bill (H.R. 17138) 
and sent it to the Senate.

Tabling of Bills

Sec. 24.5 By unanimous consent, proceedings whereby a House bill had 
    been laid on the table were vacated and the bill was again 
    considered, amended, and passed.

    On May 4, 1959,(18) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, asked 
unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby a bill (19) 
was laid on the table be vacated for the purpose of offering an 
amendment. There was no objection. Thereupon, Mr. Harris moved to 
strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof an 
amendment which he sent to the Clerk's desk. The amendment was read to 
the House, whereupon the following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 7310-13, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H.R. 5610, to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, the 
        Railroad Retirement Tax Act, and the Railroad Unemployment 
        Insurance Act, so as to provide increases in benefits and for 
        other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the Members of 
    the

[[Page 4962]]

    House, I have asked unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby 
    the bill H.R. 5610 was laid on the table, the amendment agreed to, 
    the bill engrossed and read a third time and passed, be vacated, 
    for the purpose of offering an amendment.
        The unanimous-consent request was agreed to, and I have offered 
    an amendment, which has just been read.
        The amendment to the bill H.R. 5610 which I have just offered 
    strikes out all after the enacting clause and inserts the 
    provisions of the bill that passed the Senate last week. . . .
        The necessity for this action is that last week after the House 
    had taken the action it did, we, as usual, when we have a bill from 
    the other body on the same subject on the Speaker's table, asked 
    that that bill be taken from the Speaker's desk, that all after the 
    enacting clause be stricken out, and that the House-passed bill be 
    inserted. That was the usual procedure we followed, and I made the 
    request after the House had taken its action last week. It later 
    developed that that was not the correct action that should have 
    been taken because there are tax provisions in this legislation. 
    The Constitution provides, as you know, that all legislation 
    relating directly to tax measures, revenues, must originate in the 
    House of Representatives. Therefore, this action to vacate that 
    proceeding is in order to comply with the constitutional provision 
    by passing this legislation in order to accomplish what the House 
    intended last week after it considered this matter rather 
    extensively. . . .
        The Speaker [Sam Rayburn, of Texas]: The question is on the 
    amendment.
        The amendment 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.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        The bill was passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    proceedings whereby S. 226, an act to amend the Railroad Retirement 
    Act of 1937, the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, and the Railroad 
    Unemployment Insurance Act, so as to provide increases in benefits, 
    and for other purposes, as amended, was read a third time, and 
    passed, be vacated, and the bill be indefinitely postponed.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Arkansas?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: There is no motion in the House to take a 
measure from the table. A unanimous-consent request to vacate 
proceedings whereby a measure was laid on the table is the available 
procedure.

Order That Bill Be Reported

Sec. 24.6 By unanimous consent, the House vacated proceedings whereby a 
    committee had ordered a bill reported to the House, prior to

[[Page 4963]]

    actual reporting of the bill, so that the committee could consider 
    proposed amendments thereto.

    On Dec. 5, 1944,(20) Mr. Schuyler Otis Bland, of 
Virginia, asked unanimous consent that the proceedings in the Committee 
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries by which a bill (H.R. 5387) was 
ordered to be reported to the House be vacated, for the purpose of 
considering proposed amendments. The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 90 Cong. Rec. 8863, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, what is the request of the gentleman?
        Mr. Bland: It is a bill amending section 101(a) of the Merchant 
    Marine Act of 1936. The purpose is to vacate certain proceedings of 
    the committee, which ordered the bill reported.
        The Speaker: (1) As the Chair understands, the 
    committee ordered the bill reported, but it has not yet been 
    reported, and the gentleman from Virginia desires it to go back to 
    the committee for further consideration by the committee. Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Adoption of Amendments

Sec. 24.7 By unanimous consent, proceedings in the Committee of the 
    Whole, whereby an amendment to a bill had been adopted, were 
    vacated, and the Chair again asked if any Member desired to debate 
    it.

    On Mar. 27, 1947,(2) after the adoption by the Committee 
of the Whole of an amendment to a pending bill,(3) Mr. John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, asked unanimous consent that the 
proceedings by which the amendment had been adopted be vacated. There 
was no objection to the gentleman's request. Thereupon, the Chairman 
(4) invited any Member, who so desired, to speak on the 
amendment. Some debate ensued, at the conclusion of which, the 
amendment was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 93 Cong. Rec. 2773, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H.R. 1, to reduce individual income tax payments.
 4. Francis H. Case (S.D.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreements to Simple Resolutions

Sec. 24.8 At the request of the Minority Leader, by unanimous consent, 
    the House agreed to vacate the proceedings whereby it had agreed to 
    a resolution electing minority members to committees of

[[Page 4964]]

    the House, then reconsidered the resolution and agreed to it with 
    an amendment changing the order of names (and thus the seniority on 
    a committee) in the resolution.

     On Feb. 3, 1969,(5) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 115 Cong. Rec. 2433, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to vacate the proceedings whereby the House agreed to House 
    Resolution 176 (6) on January 29, and ask for its 
    immediate consideration with an amendment which I send to the desk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. H. Res. 176, establishing the order of names on a resolution 
        electing Members to various committees of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    A reading of both the resolution and the amendment offered by Mr. 
Ford ensued, at the conclusion of which the amendment and the 
resolution as amended were agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid 
on the table.

Sec. 24.9 By unanimous consent, the House vacated the proceedings 
    whereby it had agreed, on a previous day, to a resolution, 
    reconsidered the resolution, and then again agreed to the 
    resolution with a corrective amendment.

    On Feb. 3, 1969,(8) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, asked 
unanimous consent to vacate the proceedings whereby the House agreed to 
a resolution (9) and asked for its immediate reconsideration 
with an amendment which he sent to the desk. There was no objection to 
the gentleman's request. Thereupon, both the resolution and the 
amendment offered by Mr. Albert were read to the House. The amendment 
and the resolution as amended were agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 2433, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. H. Res. 177, correcting the name of the Resident Commissioner to 
        correspond with that on the Clerk's official roll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Agreement to Concurrent Resolution

Sec. 24.10 By unanimous consent, the House vacated the proceedings 
    whereby it had agreed to a concurrent resolution with an amendment, 
    again considered the resolution, and agreed to it without an 
    amendment.

[[Page 4965]]

    On June 22, 1965,(10) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, 
asked unanimous consent that the proceedings whereby a Senate 
concurrent resolution (11) was amended and agreed to be 
vacated and that the resolution be considered as agreed to without 
amendment. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 14425, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. S. Con. Res. 36, relating to the 20th anniversary of the United 
        Nations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Passage of Joint Resolution

Sec. 24.11 A motion to take a matter from the table is not in order in 
    the House; and when a joint resolution has been engrossed, read a 
    third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider laid on the 
    table, the matter can be reopened only by a unanimous-consent 
    request that the proceedings be vacated.

     On Feb. 8, 1973,(12) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, asked for and was granted unanimous consent for the immediate 
consideration of a joint resolution.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 3929, 3930, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H.J. Res. 331, to extend the Railway Labor Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A reading of the resolution to the House ensued, at the conclusion 
of which the joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to 
reconsider was laid on the table.
    Thereafter, Mr. Staggers, who had been recognized to continue his 
remarks after passage, yielded for a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Devine: It was the understanding of the minority, and I 
    think of a majority of the people on the floor of the House, that 
    when the gentleman from West Virginia made his unanimous-consent 
    request that this bill be brought up, the question was whether or 
    not it could be brought up for immediate consideration without 
    objection. There was no objection, but I am not sure whether I 
    heard the Speaker correctly. The Speaker said that it was engrossed 
    and read a third time and passed.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct. The Chair had no 
    knowledge of any other procedure. The only procedure the Chair had 
    in his knowledge was it was going to be called up by a unanimous-
    consent request. Then the Chair said, ``without objection, the bill 
    is engrossed, read a third time, and passed.'' Any Member during 
    that entire procedure could have objected if he desired to do so.
        Mr. Devine: Is the gentleman from West Virginia now making a 
    statement

[[Page 4966]]

    after the fact, or is this in support of the bill already passed?
        The Speaker: The gentleman . . . is doing what is often done on 
    a unanimous-consent bill, and that is explain the bill to the House 
    after passage.
        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 5 minutes to explain and 
    say to the gentleman from Ohio that I did not intend for this to be 
    in this fashion; that I thought I would ask for unanimous consent 
    to bring it to the floor, and that was my intent. The Speaker did 
    make a statement that the bill was engrossed, read a third time, 
    and passed.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Devine: In view of the statement made by the chairman of 
    the committee that he had no intention that it be brought up under 
    that set of circumstances, and the fact that the Chair has stated 
    that a motion to reconsider has been laid on the table, I would ask 
    the Speaker if a motion would not be in order to remove from the 
    table the motion for reconsideration.
        The Speaker: It takes unanimous consent to vacate the 
    proceedings by which a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Speaker, I ask, therefore, unanimous consent to 
    vacate the order of the Chair in connection with this legislation.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio has asked unanimous 
    consent that the proceedings by which the joint resolution was 
    engrossed, read a third time, and passed, and the motion to 
    reconsider laid upon the table, be vacated.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

    There was no objection. Subsequently, the request for the immediate 
consideration of the House joint resolution was withdrawn.
    Thereupon, without objection, Senate Joint Resolution 59, which had 
been delivered to the House during discussion of House Joint Resolution 
331, and which also dealt with the Railway Labor Act, and differed 
little from the House joint resolution, was brought before the House 
for immediate consideration. After Senate Joint Resolution 59 had been 
read, Mr. Staggers explained the points wherein it differed from the 
House joint resolution earlier considered, and offered an amendment to 
the Senate joint resolution. The amendment was agreed to. Senate Joint 
Resolution 59 was then ordered read a third time, was read the third 
time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider laid on the 
table.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 3933-35, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Joint Resolution

Sec. 24.12 By unanimous consent, the proceedings whereby a joint 
    resolution had been indefinitely postponed were

[[Page 4967]]

    vacated and the resolution restored to the Consent Calendar.

    On Jan. 6, 1936,(16) the Clerk called Senate Joint 
Resolution 118, providing for the filling of a vacancy on the Board of 
Regents of the Smithsonian Institution of the class other than Members 
of Congress. By unanimous consent, the Senate joint resolution was 
indefinitely postponed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 112, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Feb. 3, 1936,(17) Mr. Kent E. Keller, of Illinois, 
the same Member who had requested that the Senate joint resolution be 
postponed indefinitely on Jan. 6, 1936, requested unanimous consent 
that those proceedings be vacated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 1381, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keller: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the 
    proceedings by which Senate Joint Resolution 118, providing for the 
    appointment of Mr. Morris, a member of the Board of Regents was 
    indefinitely postponed, and reinstate the same on the calendar.
        The Speaker: (18) Is there objection?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Subsequently, on Feb. 17, 1936,(19) after the Clerk's 
call of Senate Joint Resolution 118, the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 80 Cong. Rec. 2224, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is there objection (to the consideration of the 
    resolution)?
        Mr. [Jesse P.] Wolcott [of Michigan]: Reserving the right to 
    object, this is the first time this has been on the Consent 
    Calendar. This is numbered 375. I would like to ask the Chair how 
    it got on the calendar?
        The Speaker: The Chair is informed that this joint resolution 
    was indefinitely postponed and later the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Keller) asked unanimous consent that the proceedings be 
    vacated and the joint resolution restored to the calendar. That 
    request was granted and the joint resolution was restored to the 
    calendar by the order of the House.
        Is there objection to the consideration of the joint 
    resolution?
        There was no objection.
