Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21 - § 4. Calendar Wednesday; Morning Hour Call of Committees

[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[A. General Principles]
[§ 4. Calendar Wednesday; Morning Hour Call of Committees]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[Page 3827-3860]

CHAPTER 21

Order of Business; Special Orders

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Sec. 4. Calendar Wednesday; Morning Hour Call of Committees

Rule XXIV provides for two distinct calls of standing or select
committees for the consideration of reported bills--the morning hour
call of committees and the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday.
Clause 1 of the rule indicates the place of the morning hour call
in the order of business; \⁽¹⁰\⁾ clause 4
\⁽¹¹\⁾ governs the actual procedure for the
morning hour call:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 878 (1979).
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 889 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the unfinished business has been disposed of, the Speaker
shall call each standing committee in regular order, and then
select committees, and each committee when named may call up for
consideration any bill reported by it on a previous day and on the
House Calendar, and if the Speaker shall not complete the call of
the Committees before the House passes to other business, he shall
resume the next call where he left off, giving preference to the
last bill under consideration: Provided, That whenever any
committee shall have occupied the morning hour on two days, it
shall not be in order to call up any other bill until the other
committees have been called in their turn.

The morning hour call of committees is largely obsolete as a method
for gaining consideration of reported bills; the procedure was last
used in 1933.\⁽\^{12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------}12. See Sec. 4.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule XXIV clause 7 ⁽¹³⁾ provides for the Calendar
Wednesday call of committees and for a motion to dispense with such
proceedings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wednesday of each week no business shall be in order except
as provided by clause 4 of this rule unless the House by a two-
thirds vote on motion to dispense therewith shall otherwise
determine. On such a motion there may be debate not to exceed five
minutes for and against. On a call of committees under this rule
bills may be called up from either the House or the Union Calendar,
excepting bills which are privileged under the rules; but bills
called up from the Union Calendar shall be considered in Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union. This rule shall not
apply during the last 2 weeks of the session. It shall not be in
order for the Speaker to entertain a motion for a re

[[Page 3828]]

cess on any Wednesday except during the last 2 weeks of the
session: Provided, That no more than 2 hours of general debate
shall be permitted on any measure called up on Calendar Wednesday,
and all debate must be confined to the subject matter of the bill,
the time to be equally divided between those for and against the
bill: Provided further, That whenever any committee shall have
occupied one Wednesday it shall not be in order, unless the House
by a two-thirds vote shall otherwise determine, to consider any
unfinished business previously called up by such committee, unless
the previous question had been ordered thereon, upon any succeeding
Wednesday until the other committees have been called in their turn
under this rule; Provided, That when, during any one session of
Congress, all of the committees of the House are not called under
the Calendar Wednesday rule, at the next session of Congress the
call shall commence where it left off at the end of the preceding
session.

The Calendar Wednesday procedure has been little utilized in recent
years due to its cumbersome operation and to the fact that
nonprivileged bills may be considered pursuant to a special order from
the Committee on Rules, under suspension of the ru]es, or by unanimous
consent.⁽¹⁴⁾ But the refusal of the House to consider a bill
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure does not preclude the bill's
being brought up under another procedure, such as pursuant to a rule
from the Committee on Rules.⁽¹⁵⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Calendar Wednesday procedure was last used in the 87th
Congress, when the House refused to consider a bill called up
under the rule (see Sec. 4.18, infra).
15. See Sec. 4.19, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The call of committees on Calendar Wednesday applies only to
nonprivileged public bills, and when a bill othervise unprivileged is
given a privileged status by unanimous-consent agreement or special
order, it is automatically rendered ineligible for consideration under
the Calendar Wednesday procedure.⁽¹⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 932935. See also Sec. 4.10,
infra, for the principle that the rule may not be used for the
consideration of private bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Calendar Wednesday business has not been dispensed with, such
business is highly privileged on Wednesdays, and takes precedence over
other business privileged under the rules; however, questions involving
the privileges of the House and veto messages privileged under the
Constitution take precedence over Calendar Wednesday
business.⁽¹⁷⁾ The call
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 4.3-4.8, infra. Where the Calendar Wednesday call of
committees is concluded, business otherwise in order may be
called up. See 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3829]]

of committees follows routine unanimous-consent requests and one-minute
speeches, but the Speaker may decline to recognize any such requests on
Calendar Wednesday.⁽¹⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 4.21-4.23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As indicated by Rule XXIV clauses 4 and 7, the standing committees
are called in regular alphabetical order, and then the select
committees (with legislative jurisdiction), and the call begins in a
new session (but not a new Congress) where it left off in the prior
session.⁽¹⁹⁾ A bill unfinished on Calendar Wednesday goes
over to the next Wednesday where the same committee has the call unless
the previous question has been ordered, in which case the bill becomes
the unfinished business on the next legislative day.⁽²⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 4.11, infra.
20. See Sec. Sec. 4.27-4.29, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calendar Wednesday business is usually dispensed with by unanimous
consent, pursuant to a request made by the Majority Leader during the
previous week.⁽¹⁾ If the request is objected to, Rule XXIV
clause 7 provides for a highly privileged motion to dispense with such
business, which motion requires a two-thirds vote and is debatable for
10 minutes, equally divided.⁽²⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. Sec. 4.40-4.42, infra.
2. See Sec. Sec. 4.30-4.39, infra. The motion was made in the 93d
Congress when a unanimous-consent request was objected to (see
Sec. 4.33, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dispensing with Calendar Wednesday business by less than a two-
thirds vote (in the absence of unanimous consent) is one of the
specified kinds of orders not permitted to be reported by the Committee
on Rules, under Rule XI.⁽³⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morning Hour Call of Committees

Sec. 4.1 Where a motion that the House take a recess was defeated on
the last day of the session, the Chair directed the Clerk to call
the committees under the morning hour rule (Rule XXIV clause 4).

On Mar. 3, 1931,⁽⁴⁾ which was the last day of the third
session of the 71st Congress, the House rejected a motion that the
House recess (there was being awaited a report of a committee of
conference). Speaker Nicholas Long
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 74 Cong. Rec. 7242-44, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3830]]

worth, of Ohio, directed the call of committees under the morning hour
rule and the place of that largely obsolete procedure in the order of
business was discussed:

The Speaker: This is the morning hour, and the Clerk will call
the committees.
The Clerk began the call of committees.
Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry. The House has refused to recess, and that
leaves us in the same position as we were in the Sixty-first
Congress. I know the Speaker remembers that Uncle Joe Cannon said
that a majority can do anything it desires. Is it not within the
power of the House now to instruct the conferees to agree to the
Senate amendment on the hospitalization bill, provided the Speaker
will recognize anyone to make that motion?
The Speaker: That is not in the power of the House.
Mr. Sabath: Does the Chair rule that we can not instruct the
conferees?
The Speaker: The Chair so rules. . . .
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Speaker, the House has not adjourned or recessed from Tuesday. We
are still in the legislative day of Tuesday.
Mr. [Fiorello H.] LaGuardia [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to address the House for five minutes.
The Speaker: The gentleman from New York asks unanimous consent
to address the House for five minutes. Is there objection?
Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. I made a
parliamentary inquiry that has not been answered. The House has
been legislating in Tuesday and it has not adjourned or recessed.
It is still in Tuesday. There is no Wednesday and therefore how can
the call of the committees be made?
The Speaker: This is the legislative day of Tuesday. We have
been transacting business according to the rules. First, we had
prayer by the Chaplain on Tuesday. Second, we had the reading and
approving of the Journal. Third, we have had the reference of
public bills--that has been passed over. Next, we have disposed of
business on the Speaker's table, and next we have disposed of many
public bills. Now is the morning hour for the consideration of
bills called up by committees.

Mr. Rayburn: Does the Chair hold that this is Tuesday or
Wednesday?
The Speaker: The legislative day of Tuesday. . . .
Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker and my
colleagues, the Speaker correctly ruled tonight when he directed
the Clerk to call the committees under the morning hour. That is in
the rule book. It is obsolete as far as the practical consideration
of measures under the rules of the House is concerned. This is the
first time the Speaker has called that since he has been Speaker;
but he was correct. Under the rules, it was in order

Sec. 4.2 The Speaker directed the Clerk to call the committees under
the morning hour rule and indicated that a Member calling up a bill
under the morning hour must be au

[[Page 3831]]

thorized by the committee to do so.

On June 12, 1933,⁽⁵⁾ the morning hour call of committees
was conducted as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 77 Cong. Rec. 5816, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [William P.] Connery [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker,
a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: ⁽⁶⁾ The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Connery: What is the regular order at this time, Mr.
Speaker?
The Speaker: The calling of the committees.
The Chair notes the time is now 3:33 o'clock p.m. The Clerk
will call the committees.
Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois] (when Committee on
Elections No. 2 was called): Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Sabath: Mr. Speaker, as I understand, there are several
contests pending before the Committee on Elections No. 2. I wonder
whether the chairman or some other member of the committee is
present and can give the House some information relative to these
contests.
The Speaker: There has been nothing reported by the committee.
Mr. Connery: Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Clerk will call the next committee.
Mr. [Gordon] Browning [of Tennessee] (when the Committee on the
Judiciary was called): Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on the Judiciary, I call up the bill (H.R. 5909) to transfer
Bedford County from the Nashville division to the Winchester
division of the middle Tennessee judicial district.
Mr. [Edward W.] Goss [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve a
point of order. Did I understand the gentleman to say he is
directed by the committee to call this up?
Mr. Browning: Yes.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That Bedford County of the Nashville
division of the middle district of the State of Tennessee is
hereby detached from the Nashville division and attached to and
made a part of the Winchester division of the middle district
of such State.

The Speaker: The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Browning] is
recognized for 1 hour. . . .
Mr. Goss: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Goss: Do I understand this time is alloted for general
debate, or is the debate confined to the bill. under the rule?
The Speaker: In the House debate must be confined to the bill
under consideration.

After debate, the House passed the bill and then adjourned without
further business.

Precedence of Calendar Wednesday Business

Sec. 4.3 The call of committees on Calendar Wednesday takes

[[Page 3832]]

precedence of consideration of privileged business reported by the
Committee on Accounts.

On June 5, 1946,⁽⁷⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
sustained a point of order as to the order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 92 Cong. Rec. 6351, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Frank W.] Boykin [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Accounts, I offer a resolution and ask for its
immediate consideration.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: This is Calendar Wednesday, Mr. Speaker. I
submit that the only business before the House that may be
considered is the call of committees.
The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.⁽⁸⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The former Committee on Accounts was merged into the Committee on
House Administration by the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.4 A subpena duces tecum served upon the Clerk of the House and
transmitted by the Clerk to the Speaker was held to be a matter of
the highest privilege and to supersede the continuation of the call
of committees under the Calendar Wednesday rule.

On Feb. 8, 1950,⁽⁹⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
overruled a point of order against the consideration of highly
privileged business on Calendar Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 96 Cong. Rec. 1695, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, this is Calendar Wednesday, and I
ask that the business of Calendar Wednesday proceed. I submit that
the regular order is the continuation of the call of committees by
the Clerk.
The Speaker: The Chair at this time is going to lay before the
House a matter of highest privilege.

The Speaker laid before the House a communication from the Clerk
transmitting a subpena issued to trim by a federal district court and
directing the production of committee executive session material. There
was offered and adopted a resolution in response to the subpena.

Sec. 4.5 A privileged report of the Committee on Un-American Activities
dealing with the contempt of a witness was considered on a Calendar
Wednesday.

On June 26, 1946,⁽¹⁰⁾ which was Calendar Wednesday under
the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 7589-91, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3833]]

rule, Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, called up a privileged report from
the Committee on Un-American Activities, dealing with the contempt of a
witness before the committee.

The report and accompanying resolution were considered as a
privileged matter and were not called up under the Calendar Wednesday
procedure. Although the House had not dispensed with Calendar Wednesday
business on that day, the House did not consider such business,
adjourning after disposition of the report from the Committee on Un-
American Activities.

Sec. 4.6 The consideration of a veto message is in order on Calendar
Wednesday.

On May 11, 1932,⁽¹¹⁾ the House agreed to the motion to
dispense with Calendar Wednesday business on that day, a veto message
having been laid before the House. Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas,
indicated that the motion was not necessary, due to the constitutional
privilege of a veto message:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 75 Cong. Rec. 10035-40, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The Chair lays before the House the following
message from the President of the United States.
Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, this
being Calendar Wednesday, ought not further business be dispensed
with before we consider any other business?
The Speaker: Not necessarily.
Mr. Stafford: This is holy Wednesday.
Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Is there any other
business under Calendar Wednesday?
Mr. Stafford. No.

Mr. Crisp: Mr. Speaker, to save any question, I move that
further business under Calendar Wednesday be dispensed with.
The motion was agreed to.
The Speaker: Let the Chair say, however, in connection with
this Calendar Wednesday rule, that it does not suspend the
Constitution of the United States, which provides that a veto
message of the President shall have immediate consideration. The
Clerk will read the message.

Sec. 4.7 The Speaker held that special orders from the Committee on
Rules were not privileged for consideration on Calendar Wednesday.

On Aug. 21, 1935,⁽¹²⁾ which was Calendar Wednesday under
Rule XXIV clause 7, there was called up a resolution from the Committee
on Rules, giving privilege to a motion to recess and waiving the two-
thirds voting requirement for consideration of certain reports from the
Committee on Rules. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 79 Cong. Rec. 14038, 14039, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3834]]

objected that the resolution was not privileged on Calendar Wednesday
and Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, sustained the objection.

Sec. 4.8 If the House dispenses with Calendar Wednesday business it can
consider what it pleases on that day.

On June 5, 1946,⁽¹³⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
responded to an inquiry on the effect of dispensing with Calendar
Wednesday business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 6357, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: My inquiry is
this: In the event that the House were to agree to dispense with
further proceedings under Calendar Wednesday, would it then be in
order for the remainder of the day for the other business on the
House program for the week and especially the river and harbor
bill, which was under consideration when the House adjourned
yesterday afternoon to be taken up immediately if so desired by the
leadership, including the Speaker and the chairmen of the
committees concerned?
The Speaker: If the House dispenses with further proceedings
under Calendar Wednesday, then the House can do what it pleases.

Calendar Wednesday Bills Generally

Sec. 4.9 A motion that a Union Calendar bill be considered in the House
as in the Committee of the Whole is not in order, and if unanimous
consent is not granted for this purpose, the House automatically
resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole on Calendar
Wednesday.

On July 12, 1939,⁽¹⁴⁾ the House proceeded as follows on
a Calendar Wednesday bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 84 Cong. Rec. 8945, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: ⁽¹⁵⁾ This is Calendar Wednesday. The
Clerk will call the roll of committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky] (when the Committee on
Military Affairs was called): Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Military Affairs, I call up the bill (H.R. 985) to
authorize the Secretary of War to furnish certain markers for
certain graves, and ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, will the gentleman explain the bill
before we grant this request?
Mr. May: This is a bill to authorize the Secretary of War to
furnish certain markers for graves of persons who are entitled to
have them. Under the statute they are bronze markers or stone
markers.
Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I object.

[[Page 3835]]

Mr. May: To what is the gentleman objecting?
Mr. Hobbs: I am objecting to the consideration of the bill.
Mr. May: Then I move, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be considered
in the House as in Committee of the Whole.
The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that could not be
permitted under the rules of the House. The gentleman may submit a
unanimous consent request, but not a motion.
The gentleman from Kentucky asks unanimous consent to consider
the bill in the House as in Committee of the Whole. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
Mr. Hobbs: I object, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: This bill is on the Union Calendar.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 985) to authorize the Secretary of War to furnish
certain markers for certain graves, with Mr. Tarver in the chair.

Sec. 4.10 Calendar Wednesday business is confined strictly to
consideration of public bills and a committee may not call up a
private bill when business of that committee is in order.

On June 5, 1940,⁽¹⁶⁾ Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, declined to recognize a member of the Committee on Immigration
and Naturalization to call up a private bill under the Calendar
Wednesday procedure:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 86 Cong. Rec. 7629, 7630, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Samuel] Dickstein [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have one
more bill, which I have designated the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Lesinski] to handle, and I ask the Chair to recognize the gentleman
at this time.
Mr. [John] Lesinski [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, by authority of
the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization I call up the bill
(H.R. 9766) to authorize the deportation of Harry Renton Bridges.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the bill.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of Labor be, and is
hereby, authorized and directed to take into custody and deport
to Australia, the country of which he is a citizen or subject,
the alien, Harry Renton Bridges, in the manner provided by
sections 155 and 156, title 8, United States Code.

The Speaker: The Chair feels that it is solemn duty of the
presiding officer of the House to enforce the rules of the House
under all circumstances. There is no question about bills that may
and may not be called up on Calendar Wednesday. The rules
specifically provide that on a call of committees under this rule
bills may be called up from either the House or the Union
Calendars, except bills which are privileged under the rules. This
bill which the gentleman from Michigan has called up is on the
Private Calendar, and in the opinion of the Chair, under the rules,
it is not eligible for consideration on Calendar Wednesday.

[[Page 3836]]

Order of Call on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.11 Under the Calendar Wednesday rule, where all the committees
have been called during a session of Congress, then at the
commencement of a new session the call begins with the head of the
committee list.

On Nov. 24, 1937,⁽¹⁷⁾ Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, made a statement on the order of business under the Calendar
Wednesday rule, where the calendar was being called for the first time
during the session:

The Speaker: Under the rules of the House this is Calendar
Wednesday. The Chair directs the Clerk to call the list of
committees, beginning with the head of the list, and in order that
there may be no confusion about the matter of what committee shall
be called first on this call, the Chair directs attention of the
House to the last proviso of the Calendar Wednesday rule, in the
following language:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 82 Cong. Rec. 357, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provided, That when, during any one session of Congress,
all of the committees of the House are not called under the
Calendar Wednesday rule, at the next session of Congress the
call shall commence where it left off at the end of the
preceding session.

The fact is, as disclosed by the Record, that during the last
session of Congress not only were all of the committees of the
House called once but at least twice. Under this proviso, which the
Chair is bound to follow, the Chair directs the Clerk to call the
committees beginning at the head of the list.
The Clerk called the following committees: Committee on
Elections No. l, Committee on Elections No. 2, Committee on
Elections No. 3, Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on
Appropriations, Committee on the Judiciary.

Parliamentarian's Note: The committees were called in the order
listed in the Rules of the House (Rule X, clause 1) of the 75th
Congress.

Authority and Recognition to Call Up Calendar Wednesday Business

Sec. 4.12 Any member of a committee, and not only the chairman thereof,
may call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday if authorized to do so by
the committee.

On Dec. 13, 1963,⁽¹⁸⁾ Speaker pro tempore John J.
Rooney, of New York, answered a parliamentary inquiry on who may call
up Calendar Wednesday business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 24570, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Oliver P. Bolton [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, may I address that
question to the Chair: If a committee chairman does not choose to
call a bill up on Cal

[[Page 3837]]

endar Wednesday, may a member of the committee then call up a bill
which has been passed out by the committee?

The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is possible if the chairman has
been specifically authorized by the members of his committee to do
so.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: I am sorry I did not understand the
Speaker's reply. My question was: If the chairman chooses not to
call up a bill, may a member of that committee then call it up?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Only if the committee has specifically
authorized that member to do so.
Mr. Oliver P. Bolton: I thank the Speaker.

Sec. 4.13 On one occasion, a letter from the chairman of a committee
was evidence of the authority of another member of the committee to
call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday.

On July 10, 1946,^(l9) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the requirement that a Member be
authorized by the committee to call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 92 Cong. Rec. 8590, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: As I understand the rules, the person who
calls up a bill from a committee must be authorized and directed by
the committee to call up the bill.
The Speaker: That is correct.
Mr. Marcantonio: I now propound the parliamentary inquiry as to
whether or not the gentleman from Mississippi was actually directed
by his committee to call up this bill.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi so stated when he
called up the bill.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Yes; and I have a letter
from the chairman to that effect.
The Speaker: The bill, being on the Union Calendar, the House
automatically resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 4.14 Only the member authorized by the committee reporting a bill
may call up such bill on Calendar Wednesday and where a committee
designates a member thereof to call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday
no other Member may take such action.

On Feb. 24, 1937,⁽²⁰⁾ Speaker pro tempore William J.
Driver, of Arkansas, answered an inquiry during Calendar Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 1562, 1563, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there any further business from the
Committee on the Judiciary?
Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: No, Mr. Speaker.

[[Page 3838]]

Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, this is the
Judiciary Committee's day, and the committee instructed its
chairman to call up the bill (H.R. 2260) providing for appeals when
constitutional questions are raised, which is a part of the
President's proposal.
This bill was introduced in the Congress January 8, before the
President made any suggestions. It was given thorough consideration
by the Committee on the Judiciary and was to be considered on our
last Calendar Wednesday day, when suddenly the House was adjourned
in the middle of the afternoon. This is our next day, and it is
possibly the last day we will get this session. I hope the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walter] will call up this bill
that the President wants considered. It has the approval of the
committee and would have passed the House on last Calendar
Wednesday if the majority leader had not adjourned the House.
Mr. Walter: Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The regular order is demanded. The
Clerk will call the roll of committees.
Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, where a bill has been reported
favorably by a committee, and the chairman of the committee is
authorized to call the bill up on Calendar Wednesday, when the
chairman absents himself from the floor, and when other members of
the committee are present, is it proper for one of the other
members to call up the bill?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman
that under the rules only the chairman or the member designated by
the committee is authorized to call up a bill.⁽¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See also 78 Cong. Rec. 2138, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 7, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.15 Only a member authorized to do so by a committee may call up
a bill on Calendar Wednesday and this matter is entirely within the
discretion of the committee.

On June 11, 1941,⁽²⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
answered an inquiry on the operation of the Calendar Wednesday rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 87 Cong. Rec. 5047, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, the
Committee on Agriculture has had the call today. There are other
bills on the calendar that the committee has reported out and that
are very important, but which have not been called up. For
instance, there is the Coffee sugar bill, in which a great many
people are interested and upon which the beet-sugar industry is
looking for aid during the coming year. This is the Agriculture
Committee's day. The rules intend that the committee shall call up
all its bills on the calendar. There is not a rule of the House,
and the Committee on Rules cannot even bring in a resolution,
taking away from a legislative committee the right to call up its
bills on the calendar on its Calendar Wednesday. The Agriculture
Committee calendar has not been completed today, and the

[[Page 3839]]

committee has the remainder of the day. Is it in order for any
member of the committee to call up a bill reported by the committee
in order that the democratic processes of the House shall obtain?
That is, can a chairman of a committee thwart the will of a
committee and refuse to exhaust the calendar of eligible bills?
The Speaker: That matter is not in the hands of the Chair.
However, the Chair may state that no member of a committee may call
up a bill on Calendar Wednesday unless he has been specifically
authorized by the committee to do so. The Chair would not know
whether or not the committee has instructed another member of the
committee to call up any other hill.
Mr. Michener: The one sacred day of all calendar days is
Calendar Wednesday. The rights of people of the country repose in
these committees. Calendar Wednesday is known as the people's day
because no arbitrary power can deprive a committee from the
privilege of calling up its bills on this day. It can only be
dispensed with by unanimous consent. Even the leadership of the
House cannot take away from a committee the right of the people to
have their legislation considered on this day. Now, a majority of
the Committee on Agriculture have reported out that sugar bill
favorably, and they are asking for its consideration. Is it
possible that somebody within that committee which has reported the
bill favorably can deny the people their right to have their
legislation considered? A rule is not necessary today. If that
Coffee sugar bill is not brought up today when there is plenty of
time, the fault certainly rests, not with the Speaker, not with the
majority leadership, not with the Rules Committee, but with a
recalcitrant Committee on Agriculture or the controlling members
thereof. Why should the sugarbeet interests be discriminated
against in this arbitrary way?
The Speaker: The Chair answered the gentleman's parliamentary
inquiry some time ago.

Sec. 4.16 Section 133(c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946,
now incorporated in Rule XI, providing that it shall be the duty of
the chairman of each committee to report or cause to be reported
promptly any measure approved by his committee and to take or cause
to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote, is
sufficient authority to call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday.

On Feb. 22, 1950,⁽³⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
overruled a point of order against recognition of a committee chairman
to call up a bill on Calender Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 2162, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: This is Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will call
the committees.
Mr. [John] Lesinski [of Michigan] (when the Committee on
Education and Labor was called): Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Edu

[[Page 3840]]

cation and Labor I call up the bill (H.R. 4453) to prohibit
discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, or
national origin.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. [Tom] Pickett [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Pickett: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the
chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor has not been
properly directed to call up the bill under the rules and
precedents that are required to be followed in keeping with the
practice on Calendar Wednesday, and on that I should like to be
heard.
The Speaker: The gentleman has been heard.
Mr. Lesinski: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of
order?
The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman briefly.
Mr. Lesinski: Mr. Speaker, I was authorized by the committee to
use all parliamentary means to bring the bill before the House.
Mr. Pickett: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on the point of order?
The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman very briefly.
The Chair has the most recent rules of the House before him and
desires to read them. The Chair feels that possibly their reading
will satisfy the gentleman.
Mr. Pickett: If I am not satisfied with what the Speaker reads
may I be heard on the point of order?
The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman briefly now.

Mr. Pickett: My point of order is based on the precedents of
the House annotated on page 460, paragraph 898, of the House Rules
and Manual, where it is stated that authority to call up a bill on
Calendar Wednesday must have been given by the committee, and a
member not authorized to do so may not call up such bill. The
annotations refer to Hinds' Precedents, volume 4, paragraphs 3127
and 3128; and [Cannon's] Precedents, volume 7, paragraphs 928 and
929. I wish to call these paragraphs to the attention of the
Speaker.
The Speaker: Those paragraphs have already been called to the
attention of the Speaker.
Mr. Pickett: Mr. Speaker, further in reference to the point of
order, if it be contended that the Reorganization Act of 1946 which
became effective on January 3, 1947, at section 133 thereof,
paragraph (c), empowers the chairman of this committee to call up
the bill, in view of the language that it directs him to take or
cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote,
then my response to that would be that one of the necessary steps
to cause this bill to be brought to the attention of the House for
a vote is to comply with the requisites and get his committee to
give him specific directions to call this bill up on Calendar
Wednesday.
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Lesinski] has already stated
that the committee did give him this authority. The present
occupant of the chair has read the minutes of the committee and
thinks the gentleman from Michigan is correct.
Also the latest rule on this matter is section 133, paragraph
(c), of the Leg

[[Page 3841]]

islative Reorganization Act, and there is very good reason for this
rule because in times past the chairmen of committees have been
known to carry bills around in their pockets for quite a while and
not present them.
The rule is as follows:

It shall be the duty of the chairman of each such committee
to report or cause to be reported promptly to the Senate or
House of Representatives, as the case may be, any measure
approved by his committee and to take or cause to be taken
necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote.

The Chair overrules the point of order.

Parliamentarian's Note: Section 133(c) of the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1946, cited by the Speaker, was adopted as part
of the rules of the House in 1953 [Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A)
Sec. 713(a), in the 1979 House Rules and Manual].

Sec. 4.17 The Speaker, on a Calendar Wednesday, recognized the chairman
of a committee to call up a bill in spite of repeated motions to
adjourn.

On Feb. 15, 1950,⁽⁴⁾ which was Calendar Wednesday,
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, declined to recognize for motions to
adjourn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 96 Cong. Rec. 1811, 1812, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The Clerk will call the committees.
The Clerk called the Committee on the District of Columbia.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The Chair does not yield to the gentleman for a
parliamentary inquiry at this time.
Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The Speaker: The Clerk has called the Committee on the District
of Columbia. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina
[Mr. McMillan].
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do
now adjourn. That motion is always in order.
The Speaker: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from South
Carolina [Mr. McMillan].
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a preferential motion.
The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan]
has been recognized.
Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan]
has been recognized.
Mr. [John L.] McMillan of South Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I call
up the bill (H.R. 6670) to incorporate the Girl Scouts of the
United States of America, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.

Parliamentarian's Note: Repeated roll calls were had on this day,
in an attempt to delay business under the Calendar Wednes

[[Page 3842]]

day rule. The ``filibuster'' attempt was not actually designed to delay
District of Columbia bills but to delay the call of the Committee on
Education and Labor the following Wednesday, when the Federal Fair
Employment Practices bill was to be called up.

Question of Consideration on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.18 The question of consideration may be demanded in the House on
a bill called up under the Calendar Wednesday rule.

On May 4, 1960, Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, of the Committee on
Banking and Currency called up a bill from that committee under the
Calendar Wednesday rule when the committee was called. Mr. Charles A.
Halleck, of Indiana, raised the question of consideration against the
bill and on a yea and nay vote the House agreed to consider
it.⁽⁵⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 106 Cong. Rec. 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Aug. 30, 1961, Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, called up under
authority from the Committee on Education and Labor, H.R. 8890 (the
Emergency Educational Act of 1961) when the committee was called under
the Calendar Wednesday rule. Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, raised
the question of consideration and the House refused to consider the
bill on a yea and nay vote.⁽⁶⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 107 Cong. Rec. 17577, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.19 The refusal of the House to consider a bill called up under
the Calendar Wednesday rule would not prevent the reporting of a
resolution by the Committee on Rules making the bill a special
order of business.

On May 4, 1960,⁽⁷⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
answered an inquiry on the status of a bill should the House refuse to
consider it if called up under the Calendar Wednesday rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 106 Cong. Rec. 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: In the event that the
motion to consider the bill should not prevail in the House, would
it still be possible if a rule were reported by the Rules Committee
for the bill to be brought before the House at a later date under a
rule?
The Speaker: The Chair would think the House could adopt any
rule reported by the Committee on Rules.

Sec. 4.20 When a bill is called up by a committee under the Calendar
Wednesday rule, the question of consideration

[[Page 3843]]

is properly raised after the Clerk has read the title of the bill;
and if the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative,
when raised against a bill on the Union Calendar, the House
automatically resolves itself into the Committee of the Whole.

On May 4, 1960,⁽⁸⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
answered parliamentary inquiries on consideration of Calendar Wednesday
business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 106 Cong. Rec. 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: One further
parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Halleck: In the event that the motion to consider the bill
should not prevail in the House, would it still be possible if a
rule were reported by the Rules Committee for the bill to be
brought before the House at a later date under a rule?
The Speaker: The Chair would think the House could adopt any
rule reported by the Committee on Rules.
The Chair will state to the gentleman from Indiana and to the
House that when we reach the point of approving the Journal, the
Chair will then order a call of the committees; and when the
Committee on Banking and Currency is recognized and the gentleman
from Kentucky [Mr. Spence] presents his bill, when the title of the
bill is read the House automatically resolves itself into the
Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Halleck: But is a motion necessary to consider the bill?
The Speaker: The question of consideration can always be
raised.
Mr. Halleck: And on that, of course, it would be possible to
have a record vote in the House.
The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, that would be
correct.
Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: The Chair has just stated--I believe I
understood it this way--that when the bill is called up by the
chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency and the title is
read the House automatically resolves itself into the Committee of
the Whole.
The Speaker: That is the rule.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: But the motion raising the question must
come before the title of the bill is read.
The Speaker: After the title is read.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: Sir?
The Speaker: After the title is read.
Mr. Davis of Georgia: There would still be time enough for it
before the House automatically goes into the Committee of the
Whole.
The Speaker: That is correct.

On Apr. 14, 1937,⁽⁹⁾ the House proceeded as follows on
the question of consideration raised
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 81 Cong. Rec. 3455, 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3844]]

against a Calendar Wednesday bill:

The Speaker: ⁽¹⁰⁾ Today is Calendar Wednesday. The
Clerk will call the roll of committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Clarence F.] Lea [of California] (when the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce was called): Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I
call up the bill (H.R. 1668) to amend paragraph (1) of section 4 of
the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended February 28, 1920 (U.S.C.,
title 49, sec. 4).
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I
raise the question of consideration.
The Speaker: The gentleman from North Carolina raises the
question of consideration of the bill. The question is, Will the
House consider the bill H.R. 1668.
The question was taken: and on a division (demanded by Mr. Lea)
there were--ayes 152, noes 73.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I demand
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The Speaker: The question is, Will the House consider the bill
(H.R. 1668) to amend paragraph (1) of section 4 of the Interstate
Commerce Act, as amended February 28 1920 (U.S.C., title 49, sec.
4)?
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 278, nays 97,
answered ``present'' 1, not voting 54, as follows:
The Speaker: The House automatically resolves itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the
consideration of the bill.

Unanimous-consent Requests on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.21 Calendar Wednesday business follows the one-minute speeches
and special orders granted to take place before the business of the
day.

On May 22, 1946,⁽¹¹⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
answered an inquiry on the order of business where a Member had been
granted a special order to address the House prior to business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 5439, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to
revise and extend my remarks.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry. Will that vitiate the call of the calendar
on Calendar Wednesday, if the Speaker recognizes Members for 1-
minute speeches?
The Speaker: The Chair is going to recognize Members to proceed
for a minute and to extend their remarks and then will recognize
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bland], who has an hour for
Maritime Day.

[[Page 3845]]

Mr. Marcantonio: I understand that after that the call of the
Calendar of Committees under the Calendar Wednesday rule will be in
order.
The Speaker: Then the Chair will announce the call of the
Calendar of Committees.
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.

Sec. 4.22 Objection was made to any extension of remarks, one-minute
speeches, or any business except the call of committees under the
Calendar Wednesday rule.

On Feb. 1, 1950,⁽¹²⁾ objection was made to the
delivering of speeches or the transaction of business before the call
of committees under the Calendar Wednesday rule (Speaker Sam Rayburn,
of Texas, presiding):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 96 Cong. Rec. 1311, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, this is Calendar Wednesday. I
make a point of order against the transaction of any business
except the call of the committees.
The Speaker: The gentleman objects to any extension of remarks
or any other business except the call of the committees.

Sec. 4.23 In construing the Calendar Wednesday rule, the Speaker
announced the policy that he would follow in the future would be
not to recognize any Member to ask unanimous consent to speak prior
to business on Calendar Wednesday.

On Feb. 26, 1930,⁽¹³⁾ Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of
Ohio, announced some guidelines for recognition of Members on Calendar
Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 72 Cong. Rec. 4303, 4304, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chair is in some doubt as to whether it is his duty to
recognize, first, those gentlemen who have obtained unanimous
consent to address the House today, this being Calendar Wednesday,
or to direct the call of committees, Calendar Wednesday business
has not been formally dispensed with, either by unanimous consent
or, as it could be now, by a two-thirds vote of the House. The
present occupant of the Chair has made it a general practice not to
recognize for unanimous consent a request to address the House on
Calendar Wednesday. However, the consent has been given while some
one else was temporarily in the chair. The Chair thinks that under
the circumstances perhaps the best mode of procedure would be to
recognize those gentlemen who have obtained unanimous consent to
address the House, but the Chair states that he will not consider
this as a precedent in the future. . . .
The Chair desires to state that in recognizing the special
orders in this

[[Page 3846]]

instance he will not regard this as a precedent which should govern
his ruling on the subject on some future occasion.
Mr. [John N.] Garner [of Texas]: Then if I understand the
Speaker, in the future the Speaker would probably hold that in case
he should be absent from the chair and some other Speaker pro
tempore did not take care of Calendar Wednesday, as he so wisely
does, that he would hold that the special order made by the House,
in his absence, could be vacated by virtue of it being Calendar
Wednesday.
The Speaker: The Chair does not go so far as to say that, but
Calendar Wednesday from the beginning-and the Chair remembers when
it was adopted-was for the purpose of preventing any other business
being transacted on that day, leaving the day free for the call of
committees and the rule is very strong on that subject. The rule
provides--

On Wednesday of each week no business shall be in order
except as provided by paragraph 4 of this rule unless the House
by a two-thirds vote on motion to dispense therewith shall
otherwise determine.

Now, the Chair is in some doubt, where unanimous consent is
given to some Member to address the House on Calendar Wednesday,
whether that abolishes Calendar Wednesday to the extent of that
time or whether it abolishes altogether. The Chair wants to give
some consideration to that point, and therefore the Chair desires
to state that he will not feel that he will be bound by this
precedent in the future.

Debate on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.24 Debate on bills considered in the Committee of the Whole
under the Calendar Wednesday rule is limited to two hours, one hour
controlled by the Member in charge of the bill and one hour by a
Member in opposition; and in recognizing a Member to control the
time in opposition to the bill, the Chair recognizes minority
members on the committee reporting the bill in the order of their
seniority on the committee.

On Apr. 14, 1937,⁽¹⁴⁾ Chairman J. Mark Wilcox, of
Florida, answered a parliamentary inquiry in the Committee of the Whole
relative to the duration and distribution of debate on a bill called up
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure (H.R. 1668, to amend the
Interstate Commerce Act, called up by the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 81 Cong. Rec. 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chairman: Under the rules of the House, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Lea] is recognized for] hour.
Mr. [Pehr G.] Holmes [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 3847]]

The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Holmes: As I understand the rules of the House, in the
consideration of this bill 2 hours of general debate is allowed on
the bill?
The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
Mr. Holmes: Am I to understand that 1 hour will be extended me
in opposition to the bill as a minority member, of the committee?
The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts, opposed to
the bill?
Mr. Holmes: I am, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts the ranking
minority member of the committee?
Mr. Holmes: I am the ranking minority member opposed to the
bill.
The Chairman: The gentleman is entitled to recognition in
opposition to the bill unless a minority member of the committee
outranking the gentleman desires recognition.
Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Holmes] is the only minority member of the
committee who is opposed to the bill.
The Chairman: Then the gentleman from Massachusetts will be
recognized in opposition to the bill.
Mr. [Compton I.] White of Idaho: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary
inquiry.

The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. White of Idaho: It is my understanding an arrangement has
been made so that the opponents of the bill on the majority side
will be given 30 minutes of time. I should like to know if that
understanding is going to hold.
The Chairman: Under the rules of the House, general debate is
limited to 2 hours, l hour to be controlled by the chairman of the
committee and l hour to be controlled by a minority member in
opposition to the bill. These two gentlemen, of course, will have
control of the assignment of time, and I assume, of course, it will
be assigned to those in opposition to the bill.
Mr. White of Idaho: What opportunity will the opponents of the
bill on the majority side have to be heard on the measure?
The Chairman: The Chair has stated to the gentleman that under
the rules l hour of the debate will be controlled by the gentleman
from Massachusetts in opposition to the bill, the gentleman from
Massachusetts having been recognized for that purpose.
Mr. [Alfred L.] Bulwinkle [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Bulwinkle: I understand that if the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Holmes] should see fit to yield part of the time
to this side of the House to be used by those in opposition, he can
do so, and I should like to inquire of the gentleman from
Massachusetts about that.
The Chairman: That, of course, is within the discretion of the
gentleman from Massachusetts. He can yield the time as he sees fit,
and the Chair will recognize those who are designated by the
gentleman.

Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a similar parliamentary
inquiry on July 10, 1946: ⁽¹⁵⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 92 Cong. Rec. 8590, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3848]]

The Speaker: This is Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will call
the committees.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi] (when the Committee on
Rivers and Harbors was called): Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rivers and Harbors, I call up the bill (H.R. 6024)
relating to the prevention and control of water pollution, and for
other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: As I understand it, there are 2 hours of debate, l
hour on each side, to be controlled by the ranking majority and
minority members.
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.

Reconsideration Not in Order on Question of Consideration on Calendar
Wednesday

Sec. 4.25 It is not in order to reconsider the vote whereby the House
has declined to consider a proposition under the Calendar Wednesday
rule.

On Apr. 7, 1937,⁽¹⁶⁾ Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, ruled that the motion to reconsider was not in order on the
refusal of the House to consider a Calendar Wednesday bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 3253, 3254, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Hamilton Fish,
Jr.] raises the question of consideration.
The question is, Will the House consider the bill (H.R. 2251)
to assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the
equal protection of the laws, and to punish the crime of lynching?

The House refused to consider the bill.

Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the House refused to consider the bill and lay that motion on the
table.
The Speaker: The Chair thinks that that motion is not in order
on a vote of this character.

Unfinished Business on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.26 When the Committee of the Whole during consideration of a
bill on Calendar Wednesday votes to rise and the House then rejects
a motion to adjourn, Calendar Wednesday business is still before
the House, and if the chairman of the committee having the call
calls up the same bill, the House automatically resolves itself
into the Committee of the Whole and resumes consideration of the
bill where it left off.

On Feb. 22, 1950,⁽¹⁷⁾ the Committee of the Whole had
under consideration H.R. 4453, the Federal Fair Employment Practice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 2238-40, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3849]]

Act, which had been called up by the Committee on Education and Labor
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure. The Committee agreed to a
motion to rise, and the House rejected a motion to adjourn; pending a
demand for the yeas and nays on the motion to adjourn, Speaker Sam
Rayburn, of Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows:

Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Harris: As I understand, the roll call now is on the motion
to adjourn.
The Speaker: That is correct.
Mr. Harris: If the motion to adjourn is not agreed to, then
what will be the parliamentary situation?
The Speaker: It will be Calendar Wednesday business.
Mr. Harris: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Harris: Do we automatically then go back into Committee?
The Speaker: If the gentleman from Michigan calls the bill up
again, yes.

Following the rejection of the motion to adjourn, Mr. John
Lesinski, of Michigan, called up, by direction of the Committee on
Education and Labor, the same bill. After the House decided the
question of consideration in the affirmative, the Speaker directed that
the House automatically resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole
for the consideration of the bill.

Sec. 4.27 Where the House adjourns after ordering the previous question
on a bill and amendments thereto on a Calendar Wednesday, the bill
becomes the unfinished business the next day and separate votes may
be demanded on amendments the next day.

On May 17, 1939,⁽¹⁸⁾ Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of adjournment
on a pending Calendar Wednesday bill with amendments thereto, where the
previous question has been ordered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 84 Cong. Rec. 5682, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Joseph] Mansfield [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the
previous question on the bill and all amendments to final passage.
The previous question was ordered.
Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rayburn: Were the House to adjourn at this time, would the
present bill be the pending business tomorrow?
The Speaker: Answering the parliamentary inquiry of the
gentleman

[[Page 3850]]

from Texas, the Chair will state that the previous question having
been ordered on the bill and all amendments to final passage, it
would be the unfinished and privileged order of business tomorrow
morning.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: Can these individual amendments then be voted on?
The Speaker: A separate vote can be demanded on them when that
question is reached.

Sec. 4.28 The previous question having been ordered on a bill on
Calendar Wednesday, the bill becomes the unfinished business after
the reading of the Journal on the next legislative day or on any
day thereafter.

On Apr. 25, 1930,⁽¹⁹⁾ the previous question was ordered
on a Calendar Wednesday bill, and then a Member demanded the reading of
the engrossed copy, which was not yet prepared. Speaker Nicholas
Longworth, of Ohio, answered a parliamentary inquiry on when the bill
would come up as unfinished business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 72 Cong. Rec. 7774, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.
Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the
reading of the engrossed bill.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Minnesota demands the reading
of the engrossed bill. It is plainly impossible to read the
engrossed bill at this time.
Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Snell: As I understand the situation, there is a decision
by Speaker Gillett that, if the reading of the engrossed copy of
the bill at this time is demanded, it will be in order to take this
up on the next legislative day.
The Speaker: The Chair would consider it the unfinished
business.
Mr. Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand.
The Speaker: The Clerk will read the bill by title for the
third time.

Similarly, Speaker Longworth answered a parliamentary inquiry on
May 14, 1930, as to the status of Calendar Wednesday business as
unfinished business:

Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Crisp: Mr. Speaker, the previous question having been
ordered on the bill and amendments to final passage, if the House
adjourns now, ordinarily would not the matter come up the next day,
and tomorrow being set apart under special order for memorial

[[Page 3851]]

exercises, if the House adjourns now, will not this matter, the
previous question having been ordered, come up after the reading of
the Journal on Friday?
The Speaker: On Friday, tomorrow not being a legislative
day.⁽²⁰⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 8964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Feb. 22, 1950, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a
parliamentary inquiry after the House had ordered the previous question
on a Calendar Wednesday bill and after a Member had demanded the
reading of the engrossed copy thereof:

Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, that means the House will have to stay
in session until the engrossed copy is secured?
The Speaker: It does not.
Mr. Rankin: We cannot take a recess on Calendar Wednesday?
The Speaker: The House can adjourn.
Mr. Rankin: We can adjourn but that ends Calendar Wednesday.
The Speaker: The previous question has been ordered and the
next time the House meets, whether this week or any other week, it
is the pending business.
Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Colmer: Can the Speaker advise us when the engrossed copy
will be available and when the vote will be taken?
The, Speaker: Not until the gentleman from Massachusetts makes
a request about adjournment or offers a motion.
The Chair wants all Members to understand that on the convening
of the House at its next session, the final disposition of this
matter is the pending business.⁽¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 96 Cong. Rec. 2264, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.29 Where a quorum fails on ordering the previous question on a
bill under consideration on a Calendar Wednesday, and the House
adjourns, the vote goes over until the next Calendar Wednesday day
of the committee reporting the bill.

On Mar. 7, 1935,⁽²⁾ Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, answered an inquiry on the status of unfinished Calendar
Wednesday business on which the previous question was not ordered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 79 Cong. Rec. 3121, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Frederick R.] Lehlbach [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Lehlbach: Yesterday the previous question was moved on a
bill

[[Page 3852]]

then pending, and upon a division the vote was 36 to 16, whereupon
a point of no quorum was made. Under the rules of the House there
would follow an automatic roll call on the question of ordering the
previous question, but before proceedings could be had the
gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] moved that the House
adjourn, and the House accordingly adjourned. My inquiry is, is the
motion for the previous question still pending?
The Speaker: The motion is pending and the vote will again be
taken the next time the committee is called under the Calendar
Wednesday rule; that will be the first business in order when the
Judiciary Committee is again called on Calendar Wednesday.

Privileged Motion to Dispense With Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.30 The privileged motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday
business in order on a particular Wednesday may be made and
considered on a previous day.

On Monday, June 11, 1973,⁽³⁾ Speaker Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma, recognized Mr. John J. McFall, of California, to move that
the House dispense with Calendar Wednesday business in order on
Wednesday, June 13 (objection had been made to a unanimous-consent
request on June 8 to dispense with such business on June 13). The House
agreed to the motion by a two-thirds vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 119 Cong. Rec. 19028-30, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.; see also 7 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. 916 and Sec. 4.38, infra, for the proposition
that the motion may be made on a previous day. On one occasion,
the Speaker suggested that a Member withhold offering the
motion until the Wednesday in question. 96 Cong. Rec. 959, 960,
81st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 26, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentarian's Note: There is no prohibition in the rules
against repeating the motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday
business, whether made on the same or a succeeding day.

Sec. 4.31 The motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business is in
order at any time of the day on Wednesdays and need not be made
early in the day.

On June 5, 1946,⁽⁴⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled
that a motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business could be
made on Calendar Wednesday, after the call had begun, and that the
motion required a two-thirds vote. He answered a further inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 92 Cong. Rec. (6357, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The Chair will read the rule so that there will be
no misunderstanding:

On Wednesday of each week no business shall be in order
except as

[[Page 3853]]

provided by paragraph 4 of this rule unless the House, by a
two-thirds vote on motion to suspend therewith, shall otherwise
determine.

The question is on the motion to dispense with further
proceedings under Calendar Wednesday.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Does that motion not have to be made at the
very beginning of the day?
The Speaker: The Chair holds otherwise.

Similarly, on Aug. 17, 1949,⁽⁵⁾ Speaker Rayburn ruled
that the motion to dispense with further proceedings under the Calendar
Wednesday rule was in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 95 Cong. Rec. 11658, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [J. Percy] Priest [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that further call of the committees on Calendar
Wednesday today be dispensed with.
The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Tennessee?
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I object.
Mr. Priest: Mr. Speaker, I move that further call of the
committees on Calendar Wednesday for today be dispensed with.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, this is Calendar Wednesday and I
submit the motion offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Priest] is not in order, that it can only be dispensed with by
unanimous consent.
The Speaker: It would require a two-thirds vote, but the rules
provide for dispensing with further call of the committees by
motion.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
Tennessee.
The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 4.32 The Speaker is constrained to recognize on Wednesdays any
Member proposing a motion to dispense with further proceedings on
that day and a two-thirds vote is required to adopt the motion.

On June 5, 1946,⁽⁶⁾ the following discussion and ruling
by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, took place in relation to the motion
to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business, made on Calendar
Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 92 Cong. Rec. 6357, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [William M.] Whittington [of Mississippi]: That was my
inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore move that the House dispense with
further proceedings under Calendar Wednesday.
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, a
point of order. That can only be done by unanimous consent.

[[Page 3854]]

Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state the point of order.
Mr. Marcantonto: Mr. Speaker, that motion is not in order. To
dispense with Calendar Wednesday requires the unanimous consent of
the House.
Mr. Whittington: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, may I say
that I agree that to dispense with Calendar Wednesday entirely can
only be done by unanimous consent, but when there has been a call,
and the Committee on Banking and Currency has been called, I
respectfully submit that dispensing with the remainder of the
proceedings under Calendar Wednesday is in order and that the point
of order does not lie.
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Marcantonio: I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Michener: Without reference to the current controversy, may
I call the Speaker's attention to the fact that Calendar Wednesday
is presumed to be the people's day; that is, all committees are
called in order, and whether a bill comes up for consideration
rests entirely within the control of the committee having the call,
the majority leadership and the Rules Committee to the contrary
notwithstanding.
Calendar Wednesday is usually dispensed with only by unanimous
consent. There would be very little use for such a day if this were
not the case. General legislation on other days is programed by the
leadership; not so on Calendar Wednesday. It would, therefore, seem
fundamental if the purposes of the rule are to be carried out, that
the committees should be called in order. Were it otherwise, the
majority which controls other programs could control proceedings on
Calendar Wednesday.
It would seem fair to proceed with the call of committees, and
that no motion to dispense with further proceedings under the
Calendar Wednesday rule should be in order.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, may I say further that the motion
is not in order because the call of the calendar is mandatory. That
motion cannot have preference over the call of the Calendar. The
only motion that can be considered, as I understand, would be a
motion to adjourn, upon which the House has just voted.
Mr. Whittington: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I have no
disposition to delay proceedings, but permit me to say it has been
the general and practically universal practice with respect to
dispensing with further proceedings under Calendar Wednesday, that
motion has frequently been made when one committee of this House
has been called. I submit that to the recollection and to the
judgment not only of the Speaker but to the Members of the House.
I respectfully maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the point of order
does not lie.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Whittington: If I have the floor.
Mr. Rankin: If you will go back and search the Record of
Calendar Wednesday proceedings, you will find that time and time
again when one com

[[Page 3855]]

mittee has been called, then a motion has been made to dispense
with further proceedings under Calendar Wednesday, and that motion
carried.
Mr. Whittington: If further proceedings are dispensed with,
then the House can proceed to transact other business for the
remainder of the day, including the unfinished river and harbor
bill that is pending.
The Speaker: The Chair will state that the following was held
by Speaker Gillett, who has been quoted today, as follows:
The Speaker is constrained to recognize on Wednesdays any
Member proposing a motion to dispense with further proceedings in
order on that day.
The motion is in order, but it takes a two-thirds vote to pass
it.
Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennslyvania]: Mr. Speaker, does
that motion require a two-thirds vote?
The Speaker: It does.
Mr. Whittington; I did not understand the Speaker's answer.
The Speaker: The answer was that to suspend the call of the
calendar on Wednesday requires a two-thirds vote.
Mr. Whittington: Is a mere motion now to dispense with further
proceedings the same as a motion to suspend the rules altogether?
My motion is to simply-suspend further proceedings under the call
of Calendar Wednesday. I maintain there is a distinction between
dispensing with the call altogether and dispensing with further
proceedings under the call.
The Speaker: The Chair will read the rule so that there will be
no misunderstanding:

On Wednesday of each week no business shall be in order
except as provided by paragraph 4 of this rule unless the
House, by a two-thirds vote on motion to suspend therewith,
shall otherwise determine.

The question is on the motion to dispense with further
proceedings under Calendar Wednesday.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Does that motion not have to be made at the
very, beginning of the day?
The Speaker: The Chair holds otherwise.

Sec. 4.33 A privileged motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday
business preceded District of Columbia business under Rule XXIV
clause 8.

On June 11, 1973,⁽⁷⁾ which was District of Columbia
Monday, Mr. John J. McFall, of California, was first recognized by
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to offer the privileged motion (under
Rule XXIV clause 7) to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business,
before Chairman John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, of the Committee
on the District of Columbia was recognized to call up District
business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 119 Cong. Rec. 19028-30, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentarian's Note: Objection had been made on the pre

[[Page 3856]]

vious week, on June 8, to a unanimous consent request to dispense with
Calendar Wednesday business on June 13.

Debate on Motion to Dispense With Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.34 Ten minutes of debate (five minutes in favor and five minutes
in opposition) are permitted on a motion to dispense with Calendar
Wednesday business.

On June 11, 1973,⁽⁸⁾ Mr. John J. McFall, of California,
moved to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business; he was recognized
for five minutes and a Member in opposition was recognized for five
minutes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.119 Cong. Rec. 19028-30, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. McFall: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. McFall moves that business under clause 7, rule XXIV,
the Calendar Wednesday rule, be dispensed with on Wednesday,
June 13, 1973. . . .

The Speaker:⁽⁹⁾ The gentleman from California (Mr.
McFall) is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Gross) for five minutes. . . .
The motion was rejected.

Sec. 4.35 In recognizing a Member for the five minutes in opposition to
a motion to dispense with business under the Calendar Wednesday
rule the Speaker extends preference to a member of the committee
having the call.

On Feb. 22, 1950,⁽¹⁰⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
extended recognition as follows, in opposition to a motion to dispense
with Calendar Wednesday business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 2157-59, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rogers of Florida moves to dispense for the day with
the operation of clause 7, rule XXIV, providing for the call of
committees on Calendar Wednesday.

Mr. [Dwight L.] Rogers of Florida: Mr. Speaker, do the rules
provide for recognition on the motion?
The Speaker: Yes; 5 minutes for and 5 minutes against. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 5 minutes.

Sec. 4.36 A motion to dispense with business under the Calendar
Wednesday rule must be in writing if the point of order is made; on
such motion there is five minutes' debate for and five minutes
against the motion, and such motion may not be laid upon the table.

[[Page 3857]]

On Feb. 22, 1950,⁽¹¹⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
answered inquiries relative to debate on the motion to dispense with
Calendar Wednesday business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 2157-59, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Dwight L.] Rogers of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I move to
dispense for the day with the operation of clause 7, rule XXIV,
providing for the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday.
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Must not the motion be in writing?
Mr. Rogers of Florida: The motion is in writing.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Rogers of Florida moves to dispense for the day with
the operation of clause 7, rule XXIV, providing for the call of
committees on Calendar Wednesday.

Mr. Rogers of Florida: Mr. Speaker, do the rules provide for
recognition on the motion?
The Speaker: Yes; 5 minutes for and 5 minutes against. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Marcantonio: Is not that motion subject to a motion to
table?
The Speaker: The Chair would not think so.

Parliamentarian's Note: Motions relating to the order of business
are not subject to the motion to lay on the table. In the case of the
motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business, which requires a
two-thirds vote for adoption, it is clear that such motion should not
be subject to disposition by a motion to table, which requires only a
majority vote.

Vote on Motion to Dispense With Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.37 A two-thirds vote is required to adopt a motion to dispense
with business under the Calendar Wednesday rule.

On Jan. 25, 1950,⁽¹²⁾ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas,
indicated the vote required to adopt a motion to dispense with Calendar
Wednesday business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 920, 921, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: This is Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will call
the committees.
Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I move to
dispense with further proceedings under the Calendar Wednesday
rule.
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 3858]]

The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. McConmack: This motion in order to succeed must receive a
two-thirds vote, if I remember the rules correctly.
The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.

On Feb. 22, 1950,^(13~) Speaker Rayburn answered a
similar inquiry and the voting on the motion proceeded as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 2159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Florida.

Mr. [Tom] Pickett [of Texas]: On that motion, Mr.. Speaker. I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. [Donald W.] Nicholson [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Nicholson: Does it take a two-thirds vote on this motion?
The Speaker: It does.
The question was taken; and there were-yeas 121, nays 286, not
voting 25, as follows: . . .
So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof), the motion
was rejected.

On June 20, 1951,⁽¹⁴⁾ the House refused by division vote
to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 97 Cong. Rec. 6816, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Speaker: ⁽¹⁵⁾ The question is on the motion of
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack] that Calendar
Wednesday business be dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question was taken; and on a division (demand by Mr.
Rankin) there were--ayes 138, nays 72.
So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the motion
was rejected.
The Speaker: This is Calendar Wednesday. The Clerk will call
the committees.
The Clerk proceeded to call the committees.

Sec. 4.38 The House by a two thirds vote dispensed with business on
Calendar Wednesday.

On July 16, 1946,⁽¹⁶⁾ the House agreed to dispense with
Calendar Wednesday business in order to expedite certain legislation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 92 Cong. Rec. 9153, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, in view of the
experience we have had over the past several weeks on Calendar
Wednesdays and the delay in legislation resulting from the action
we have taken on those days and in view of the importance of the
legislation that is now pending, I believe it would he wise on the
part of the Membership if we dispense with the business in order on
Calendar Wednesday tomorrow and take up the atomic bomb bill for
general debate. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move that the business in
order on Calendar Wednesday be dispensed with.
The Speaker: ⁽¹⁷⁾ The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. May].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3859]]

The question was taken; and two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof, the motion was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 4.39 The House rejected the motion to dispense with Calendar
Wednesday business in order to consider conference reports.

On July 10, 1946,⁽¹⁸⁾ a motion to dispense with Calendar
Wednesday business (made on Calendar Wednesday) was rejected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 8588, 8589, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make a
preferential motion. Mr. Speaker, we have several conference
reports----
Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of
order; that is not a motion.
The Speaker: ⁽¹⁹⁾ The gentleman from Mississippi
will state his motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I move that proceedings under Calendar
Wednesday be dispensed with.
We have conference reports that should be considered.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion. . . .
So two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof, the motion was
rejected.

Unanimous Consent to Dispense With Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 4.40 Calendar Wednesday business is customarily dispensed with by
unanimous-consent request made at the conclusion of business on the
preceding week.

The Majority Leader or Majority Whip announces, at the conclusion
of the scheduled business for the week, the legislative program for the
following week. Also at that time he makes a unanimous-consent request
relative to Calendar Wednesday business on the following week:

Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar
Wednesday rule on Wednesday of next week be dispensed with.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: ⁽²⁰⁾ Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Neal Smith ( Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was no objection.⁽¹⁾
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 110 Cong. Rec. 11691, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., May 21, 1964 (request
made by the Speaker in the absence of the Majority Leader and
Whip).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4.41 The Majority Leader was recognized, prior to the approval of
the Journal, to ask unanimous consent to dispense with Calendar
Wednesday business on that day.

On Sept. 19, 1962,⁽²⁾ Majority Leader Carl Albert, of
Oklahoma,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 108 Cong Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3860]]

was recognized before the approval of the Journal by Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts. Mr. Albert asked unanimous consent ``that
the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule may be
dispensed with, today.''

The request was objected to.

Sec. 4.42 Calendar Wednesday business may be dispensed with by
unanimous consent but not by motion before the approval of the
Journal.

On Sept. 19, 1962,⁽³⁾ Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, the
Majority Leader, asked unanimous consent, before the reading and
approval of the Journal, that Calendar Wednesday business on that day
be dispensed with. Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, objected to the
request. Mr. Albert then moved that Calendar Wednesday business be
dispensed with, and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled
that the motion was not in order before the reading and approval of the
Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 108 Cong. Rec. 19940, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------