[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7]
[Chapter 24. Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials]
[A. Introductory; Various Types of Bills, Resolutions, and Other Mechanisms for Action]
[§ 7. Resolutions of Approval or Disapproval of Executive Plans; the "Legislative Veto"]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4839-4865]
 
                               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.