[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.