[Deschler's Precedents]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID:52093c25_txt-7]
[Page 5087-5093]
CHAPTER 25
Appropriation Bills
B. REPORTING AND CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION BILLS TEXT
Sec. 6. Generally; Privileged Status
The rules <SUP>(5)</SUP> 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 <SUP>(6)</SUP> 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.<SUP>(7)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.<SUP>(8)</SUP> 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.<SUP>(9)</SUP> 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.<SUP>(10)</SUP> Similarly, a joint resolution providing an
appropriation for a single government agency is not a general
appropriation bill and is not reported as privileged.<SUP>(11)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <SUP>(12)</SUP> relating to the filing of nonprivileged
reports.<SUP>(13)</SUP> Similarly, by unanimous consent, the House may
make in order the consideration of a resolution providing supplemental
appropriations for a single government agency.<SUP>(14)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.<SUP>(15)</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 <SUP>(16)</SUP> 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: <SUP>(17)</SUP> 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,<SUP>(18)</SUP> 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.