[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 25. Appropriation Bills]
[B. Reporting and Consideration of Appropriation Bills]
[Â§ 6. Generally; Privileged Status]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 5087-5093]
 
                               CHAPTER 25
 
                          Appropriation Bills
 
       B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
 
Sec. 6. Generally; Privileged Status


    The rules (5) give a privileged status to reports on 
general appropriation bills. Under the rules, the Committee on 
Appropriations is given ``leave to report at any time'' on general 
appropriation bills. But the privilege is subject to the requirement 
under another rule (6) that general appropriation bills not 
be considered in the House until printed committee hearings and a 
committee report thereon have been available for the Members for at 
least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal 
holidays). Of course, the rule requiring printed hearings and the 
committee report to have been available for three days may be waived by 
unanimous consent.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Rule XI clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 (1981).
            See Sec. 5, supra, for discussion of the privileged status 
        of resolutions reported by the Committee on House 
        Administration that provide for expenditures from the 
        contingent fund of the House.
 6. Rule XXI clause 6 (subsequently clause 7), House Rules and Manuals 
        Sec. 848 (1981).
 7. See 108 Cong. Rec. 19237, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 12, 1962 
        (proceedings relating to H.R. 13175).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The precedence of appropriation bills is also recognized in 
provisions relating to the order of business in Committee of the 
Whole.(8) But the usual practice is to consider general 
appropriation bills under the rule giving privileged status to a motion 
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
purpose of considering general appropriation bills.(9) The 
motion ordinarily designates the particular bill to be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Rule XXIII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 869 (1981).
 9. Rule XVI clause 9, House Rules and Manual Sec. 802 (1981). Under 
        the rule, the motion to consider general appropriation bills 
        and the motion to consider revenue bills are of equal 
        privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be emphasized that the right of the Committee on 
Appropriations to report at any time is confined strictly to general 
appropriation bills, and does not include appropriations for specific 
purposes or resolutions extending appropriations. An example of 
measures not considered ``general appropriation bills,''and therefore 
not reported or called up as privileged, is a joint resolution 
providing continuing appropriations for departments and agencies of

[[Page 5088]]

government, to provide funds until the regular appropriation bills are 
enacted.(10) Similarly, a joint resolution providing an 
appropriation for a single government agency is not a general 
appropriation bill and is not reported as privileged.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 8.9, infra.
11. See Sec. 7.4, infra; and 111 Cong. Rec. 9518, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        May 5, 1965.
            The Committee on Appropriations filed as privileged a joint 
        resolution making supplemental appropriations to two diverse 
        departments for the balance of the fiscal year. See Procedure 
        in the U.S. House of Representatives Ch. 25 Sec. 1.2 (4th ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, consideration of nonprivileged appropriation bills may 
be made in order by unanimous consent. Thus, a joint resolution 
continuing appropriations for a fiscal year may be called up as if 
privileged pursuant to a special order entered into by unanimous 
consent, even where such joint resolution has been reported pursuant to 
the rule (12) relating to the filing of nonprivileged 
reports.(13) Similarly, by unanimous consent, the House may 
make in order the consideration of a resolution providing supplemental 
appropriations for a single government agency.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 743 (1981).
13. See Sec. 8.8, infra. Joint resolutions continuing appropriations 
        pending enactment of regular annual appropriation measures are, 
        by unanimous consent, generally considered ``in the House as in 
        Committee of the Whole,'' but are sometimes considered in 
        Committee of the Whole to permit more extensive general debate. 
        See 115 Cong. Rec. 31867, 31886, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 28, 
        1969 (H.J. Res. 966).
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 1149, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 30, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All bills that make appropriations--in fact all proceedings 
touching appropriations of money--require consideration first in 
Committee of the Whole, and a point of order made pursuant to this rule 
is good at any time before the consideration of a bill has 
commenced.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Rule XXIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 865 
        (1981).                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relative Privilege

Sec. 6.1 The House having agreed that consideration of a general 
    appropriation bill take priority over all business except 
    conference reports, it was held that such agreement gave a higher 
    privilege to the appropriation bill than to consideration of a 
    resolution disapproving reorganization plans of the Presi

[[Page 5089]]

    dent, business in order under the ``21-day rule,'' and other 
    business

    On May 9, 1950 (16) the following proceedings took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 6720-24, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the House is not proceeding in the regular 
    order because under section 205a of the Reorganization Act, which 
    is Public Law 109 of the Eighty-first Congress, first session, any 
    Member of the House is privileged, and this is a highly privileged 
    motion, to make the motion that the House proceed to the 
    consideration of House Resolution 516.
        The gentleman from Michigan being on his feet to present this 
    highly privileged motion, the regular order is that he be 
    recognized for that purpose that the motion be entertained and the 
    question put before the House, and my motion is that the House 
    proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 516.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) That is the resolution 
    disapproving one of the reorganization plans?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: That is right, House Resolution 516 
    disapproving plan No. 12. . . .
        Mr. [George H.] Mahon (of Texas): Mr. Speaker, on April 5, 
    1960, as shown at page 4835 of the daily Record of that day, the 
    chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman 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. [John] Taber [of New York]: Under the estabished 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]: 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. . . .

[[Page 5090]]

        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.
        . . . The Chair calls attention to the language of paragraph 
    (b) of section 201 of title II of the Reorganization Act of 1949 
    which reads as follows: ``with full recognition of the 
    constitutional right of either House to change such rules so far as 
    relating to procedure in such House at any time in the same manner 
    and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such 
    House.''. . .
        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. . . .
        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

[[Page 5091]]

    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 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. . . .
        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. [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, 
    whether or not that was taken up because of its high privilege or 
    whether it was taken up because of the sufferance 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

[[Page 5092]]

    rather close, it was because the chairman of the Committee on 
    Appropriations permitted it to be done through sufferance. 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. . 
    . .
        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. . . .
        The unanimous-consent request . . . 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.''

House Determines Question of Consideration

Sec. 6.2 An automatic roll call was had on the motion to go into the 
    Committee of the Whole to consider an appropriation bill after a 
    motion to adjourn was rejected.

    On Feb. 14, 1946,(18) a Member addressed Speaker pro 
tempore John J. Sparkman, of Alabama, as follows, and proceedings 
ensued as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 1324, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Louis T.] Ludlow [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill 
    (H.R. 5452) making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
    Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, and for other 
    purposes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Indiana.
        Te question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Cochran) there were--ayes 103, no 1.
        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will count. (After 
    counting.) One hundred and seventy-four Members present; not a 
    quorum.
        Mr. [Compton I.] White [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.

    The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. White) 
there were--ayes 31, noes 103.

        So the motion was rejected.

[[Page 5093]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Ludlow].
        The Doorkeeper will close the doors, the Sergeant-at-Arms will 
    notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 243, nays 16, not 
    voting 171.