[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[A. General Principles]
[§ 5. District of Columbia Business]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 3860-3871]
CHAPTER 21
Order of Business; Special Orders
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Sec. 5. District of Columbia Business
Rule XXIV clause 8(4) sets apart two days per month for
the consideration of business called up by the Committee on the
District of Columbia:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 899 (1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the
disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the
disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires
reference only, shall, when claimed by the Committee on the
District of Columbia, be set apart for the consideration of such
business as may be presented by said committee.
The consideration of District business on the specified days is of
qualified privilege, and is of equal privilege with a special order
created for that day.(5) District business yields to
privileged reports from the Committee on Rules,(6) motions
to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business,(7) questions
of the privileges of the House,(8) conference
reports,(9) and motions to resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for the consideration of revenue or appropriation
bills.(10) Moreover, as indi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 5.1, infra. See also 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 877,
878.
6. See Sec. 5.4, infra.
7. See Sec. 5.6, infra.
8. See Sec. 5.3, infra.
9. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3292.
10. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 716718; 7 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. Sec. 876, 1123. When the 21-day discharge rule relating to
the Committee on Rules was in effect, such motions to discharge
had precedence over District business (see Sec. 5.2, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3861]]
cated by Rule XXIV clause 8, motions to discharge committees (in order
on the second and fourth Mondays, like District business) and reference
of matters on the Speakers table take precedence over District
business.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Bills reported by the Committee on the District of Columbia do not
have such privilege as to prevent their being called up on
Calendar Wednesday during the call of committees. See 7
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia business may be considered in the House as in
Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent,(12) and private
bills may be called Up.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. Sec. 5.7, 5.8, infra.
13. See Sec. Sec. 5.8, 5.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfinished business on District Day does not come again before the
House until the next District Day unless the previous question has been
ordered; and unfinished District bills must be affirmatively called up
by the Member in charge.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 5.13, 5.14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Day may be transferred to another day not specified in the
rule, either by unanimous consent or by a special order.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 5.12, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precedence of District Business
Sec. 5.1 When a Member seeks recognition to call up District of
Columbia business on the fourth Monday (privileged under Rule XXIV
clause 8) and another Member seeks recognition to move to suspend
the rules and agree to a Senate joint resolution amending the
Constitution (privileged pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement
making it in order on the fourth Monday for the Speaker to
recognize Members to move suspension and passage of bills), it is
within the discretion of the Speaker as to which of the two Members
he shall recognize.
On Aug. 27, 1962,(16) which was the fourth Monday of the
month and therefore a day eligible for District of Columbia business,
under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
recognized Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, to move to suspend the
rules and pass a joint resolution (to amend the Constitution to
prohibit the use of a poll tax as a qualification for voting) pursuant
to a previous unanimous
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654-70, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3862]]
consent request making in order on that day motions to suspend the
rules. The Speaker overruled a point of order against prior recognition
for the motion to suspend the rules:
Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
Senate Joint Resolution on 29, proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relating to qualifications of
electors.
Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a
point of order.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that this
is District Day, that there are District bills on the calendar, and
as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia I
respectfully demand recognition so that these bills may be
considered.
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard on
the point of order?
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule, but the gentleman
may be heard.
Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, suspensions were
transferred to this day, and under the rules the Speaker has power
of recognition at his own discretion.
Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully call the attention
of the chairman to clause 8, rule XXIV, page 432 of the House
Mamal. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I submit that rule is clear that when the time is
claimed and the opportunity is claimed the Chair shall permit those
bills to be considered.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit my point of order
is well taken, and that I should be permitted to call up bills
which are now pending on the calendar from the Committee on the
District of Columbia.
Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to be heard on the point of order.
The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House on
some things are very clear, and the rules of the House either mean
something or they do not mean anything.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Abernethy],
has just called to the Chair's attention clause 8 of rule XXIV.
Nothing could be clearer; nothing could be more mandatory. I want
to repeat it because I hope the Chair will not fall into an error
on this proposition:
The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the
disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the
disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires
reference only--
And that is all; that is all that you can consider--disposition
of motions to discharge committees--
and after the disposal of such business on the Speaker's table
as requires reference only--
That is all that the Chair is permitted to consider.
Mr. Speaker, after that is done the day--
shall when claimed by the Committee on the District of
Columbia,
[[Page 3863]]
be set apart for the consideration of such business as may be
presented by said committee.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the majority leader bases his defense
upon the theory that the House having given unanimous consent to
hear suspensions on this Monday instead of last Monday when they
should have been heard--and I doubt if very many Members were here
when that consent order was made and I am quite sure that a great
number of them had no notice that it was going to be made, and
certainly I did not--now the majority leader undertakes to say that
having gotten unanimous consent to consider this motion on this day
to suspend the rules, therefore, it gives the Speaker carte blanche
authority to do away with the rule which gives first consideration
to District of Columbia matters.
Mr. Speaker, there was no waiver of the rule on the District of
Columbia. That consent did not dispose or dispense with the
business on the District of Columbia day. The rule is completely
mandatory. The rule says that on the second and fourth Mondays, if
the District of Columbia claims the time, that the Speaker shall
recognize them for such dispositions as they desire to call.
The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule.
Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to
transfer the consideration of business under suspension of the
rules on Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the
consideration of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the
rules today is a privileged motion. The matter is within the
discretion of the Chair as to the matter of recognition.
Sec. 5.2 When the ``21-day rule'' for the discharge of Committee on
Rules resolutions was in effect in the 89th Congress, business
called up under that rule was of the highest privilege and took
precedence over District of Columbia business on District of
Columbia Monday.
On Sept. 13, 1965,(17) which was District of Columbia
Monday, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered a
parliamentary inquiry propounded by the Chairman of the Committee on
the District of Columbia:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 23606, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John L.] McMillan [of South Carolina]: A parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, now that the Journal has been read
and other business has been dispensed with, is it in order to call
up District bills under the rules of the House?
The Speaker: If the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] yields
for that purpose.
Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, has the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Powell] been recognized?
The Speaker: The Chair is going to recognize the gentleman from
New
[[Page 3864]]
York [Mr. Powell] because the gentleman from New York has the
privileged matter.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Powell was recognized to call up, pursuant to then Rule XI
clause 23 [Rule XI clause 4(b) in the 1979 House Rules and Manual], a
resolution providing an order of business which had been pending before
the Committee on Rules for more than 21 calendar days without being
reported by that committee.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 18076, 18087, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July
26, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 5.3 A question of the privileges of the House may be raised
pending the consideration of legislation called up by the Committee
on the District of Columbia on the second and fourth Mondays of the
month.
On Dec. 14, 1970,(19) which was District of Columbia
Monday, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr.
Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri, to raise a question of the privileges
of the House (relating to a restraining order issued by a federal court
against the printing and publishing of a report by the Committee on
Internal Security) before recognizing Chairman John L. McMillan, of
South Carolina, of the Committee on the District of Columbia, to call
up District of Columbia business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 41355, 41374, 91st Cong.2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 5.4 On a District Day, the Speaker recognized a member of the
Committee on Rules to call up a privileged resolution relating to
the order of business, and later recognized the chairman of another
committee to call up the business made in order thereby, prior to
recognizing the Chairman of the Committee on the District of
Columbia to call up District business under Rule XXIV clause 8.
On Sept. 24, 1962,(20) which was District of Columbia
Day under Rule XXIV clause 8, Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, first recognized Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi,
to call up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 804,
making in order and providing for the consideration of Senate Joint
Resolution 224, authorizing the President to call up armed forces
reservists. The House having agreed to the resolution, the Speaker rec
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 108 Cong. Rec. 20489-94, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3865]]
ognized Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services and manager of the joint resolution, to move that the House
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of
the joint resolution, which was, after debate, agreed to by the House.
The Speaker then stated that it was District of Columbia Day and
recognized Chairman John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, of the
Committee on the District of Columbia, for District
business.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Id. at p. 20521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 5.5 A privileged motion to dispense with Calendar Wednesday
business preceded District of Columbia business under Rule XXIV
clause 8.
On June 11, 1973,(2) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 119 Cong. Rec. 19028-30, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration Generally
Sec. 5.6 Before the adoption of the requirement of a three-day layover
for committee reports, the Speaker held that a bill reported by the
Committee on the District of Columbia was privileged for
consideration on the second and fourth Mondays irrespective of
whether the report had been printed.
On July 8, 1968,(3) which was District of Columbia
Monday, Mr. John V. Dowdy, of Texas, called up for consideration a
District of Columbia bill which had been reported out the same day by
the committee and on which the committee report was not yet printed.
Under a reservation of the right to object, Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa,
inquired whether it was in order to consider the bill. Speaker John W.
McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded that in view of the fact that
the committee had filed its report, it was in order to consider the
bill. After the reading of the bill in the House as in the Committee of
the Whole, Mr. Dowdy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 114 Cong. Rec. 20057, 20058, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3866]]
withdrew the bill from consideration.
Parliamentarian's Note: The decision of the Chair predated the 1971
amendment to the rules of the House in order to implement the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. Rule XI clause 27(d)(4) [Rule
XI clause 2(l)(6) in the House Rules and Manual (1979)] now requires a
three-day layover of committee reports before their consideration by
the House, in order that printed reports be available to Members.
Sec. 5.7 District of Columbia bills, called up on District Day, if on
the Union Calendar, may be considered by unanimous consent in the
House as in Committee of the Whole or in the Committee of the
Whole.
On Aug. 11, 1964,(4) which was District of Columbia Day,
Mr. John V. Dowdy, of Texas, asked unanimous consent that a District of
Columbia bill, pending on the Union Calendar, be considered in the
House as in the Committee of the Whole; the request was objected to. He
then moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole for consideration of the bill and, pending that motion, asked
unanimous consent that general debate on the bill be limited to one
hour. The request was objected to, Speaker John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, put the question on the motion, and the motion was
rejected by the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 110 Cong. Rec. 18949, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: General debate in Committee of the Whole on
District of Columbia bills is under the hour rule unless limited by the
House or Committee of the Whole; on one occasion where such debate had
not been limited in the House, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole recognized five Members successively for one hour of debate
each.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 87 Cong. Rec. 3917-39, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., May 12, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 5.8 District of Columbia bills called up on District Day, if on
the Private Calendar, may be considered by unanimous consent in the
House as in Committee of the Whole.
On Apr. 24, 1972,(6) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request for the consideration of a District of Columbia bill
pending on the Private Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 118 Cong. Rec. 14000, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Williamson Sylvester] Stuckey [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr.
Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the District of Columbia,
I call up the
[[Page 3867]]
bill (H.R. 2895) to provide for the conveyance of certain real
property in the District of Columbia to the National Firefighting
Museum and Center for Fire Prevention, Incorporated, and ask
unanimous consent that the bill be considered in the House as in
the Committee of the Whole.
The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Georgia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: Private Calendar bills, when called up by
unanimous consent, are considered under the five-minute rule in the
Committee of the Whole House, and the form of the request in this
instance was unnecessary.
The Journal properly indicated in this instance that the Committee
of the Whole House was discharged from consideration of the private
bill when the bill was considered by unanimous consent in the House as
in the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 5.9 A bill called up by the Committee on the District of Columbia
was refused consideration twice on the same day (by negative votes
on the motion to resolve into Committee of Whole to consider the
bill).
On June 14, 1937,(8) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, announced that it was District of Columbia Monday. Mr. Vincent
L. Palmisano, of Maryland, twice offered and the House twice rejected,
motions that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole
for the consideration of H.R. 7472, to provide additional revenue for
the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 81 Cong. Rec. 5667, 5668, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 5.10 The House struck out the enacting clause of a bill called up
on District of Columbia Day being considered in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole.
On Apr. 28, 1941,(9) H.R. 4342, to authorize black-outs
in the District of Columbia, was being considered in the House as in
the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Dewey Short, of Missouri, moved that
the enacting clause be stricken from the bill, which was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 87 Cong. Rec. 3352, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to strike out the enacting
clause of a bill is classified among those motions applicable only in
the Committee of the Whole [Rule XXIII clause 7], although the motion
was in earlier times utilized in the House as well [see House Rules and
Manual Sec. 876 (1979)]. The motion is in order in the
[[Page 3868]]
House only during the amendment stage [i.e., in the House as in the
Committee of the Whole] and takes precedence only over the motion to
amend [see also Rule XVI clause 4 for other privileged motions in the
House].
Private Bills
Sec. 5.11 It is in order on District of Columbia Monday for the
Committee on the District of Columbia to call up bills on the
Private Calendar which have been reported by that committee.
On May 26, 1930,(10) which was District of Columbia
Monday, Mr. Clarence J. McLeod, of Michigan, of the Committee on the
District of Columbia asked unanimous consent to take up a bill; Speaker
pro tempore Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, ruled, in response to a
reservation of the right to object, that unanimous consent was not
required and that the matter was privileged:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 72 Cong. Rec. 9607, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Reserving the right
to object, I note that the bill bears Calendar No. 672 on the
Private Calendar. On Saturday last we got as far as Calendar No.
500. I do not question but that this bill will be reached in the
regular order on call of that calendar.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that while the
gentleman from Michigan asked unanimous consent to take up the
bill, the Chair did not put the request in that manner. The
gentleman is privileged on District day to call up a bill on the
Private Calendar.
Mr. Stafford: I hope that the gentleman will not press it for
the reason that it has not been the practice for a committee on the
day it has to bring up legislation to bring up private bills. I
would like to have the matter go over.
Mr. McLeod: I called up the bill by agreement with several
Members of the House.
The Speaker pro tempore cited 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3310 for the
proposition that unanimous consent was not required and that the bill
could be brought up by motion.
Transferring District of Columbia Day
Sec. 5.12 By unanimous consent (or by a special order) the House may
make in order on certain days, which are not District of Columbia
days under Rule XXIV clause 8, the consideration of District of
Columbia bills, such consideration to be either under the general
rules of the House or under the normal procedures for District of
Columbia business.
[[Page 3869]]
On Dec. 3, 1970,(11) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request relating to the order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 39843, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that it shall be in order, on Wednesday or any following
day next week, to call up for consideration under the general rules
of the House the bill (H.R. 19885) to provide additional revenue
for the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.
The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The following unanimous-consent request was agreed to on May 25,
1960:
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that on Wednesday of next week it may he in order
for the Speaker to recognize the chairman of the Committee on the
District of Columbia or any member thereof to consider as under
District of Columbia Day, one bill, H.R. 12063, to authorize the
Commissioners of the District of Columbia to plan, construct,
operate, and maintain a sanitary sewer to connect the Dulles
International Airport to the District of Columbia system.
This has been cleared with the ranking member of the Committee
on the District of Columbia and the minority leader.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 11116, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On one occasion, District of Columbia business was by unanimous
consent transferred from Monday to the following day due to the death
of a Member (John Bennett, of Michigan).(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 110 Cong. Rec. 18854, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfinished Business
Sec. 5.13 Business unfinished on District of Columbia Day does not come
up until the next day on which that business is in order.
On June 26, 1939,(15) the Committee of the Whole was
considering District of Columbia business brought up on District of
Columbia Day. Chairman Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, answered a
parliamentary inquiry as to the effect on the pending bill should the
Committee rise without completing the bill on that day:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 7927, 7928, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committee do now rise.
Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Keller: Mr. Chairman, what would be the effect on this bill
if we should vote to rise?
[[Page 3870]]
The Chairman: It would be the unfinished business of the
Committee on the District of Columbia on the next day that
committee is called.
Mr. Keller: What day would that be?
The Chairman: The second and fourth Monday of each month are
District days.
Mr. Keller: If we want present consideration of this bill we
will have to vote against the motion?
The Chairman: I think the membership is sufficiently informed
with reference to the motion. The question is on the motion to
rise.
Sec. 5.14 Unfinished business on a District of Columbia Monday does not
come up automatically when that class of business is again in order
but may be called up by a Member in charge of the legislation.
On May 9, 1932,(16) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas,
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of business on District
of Columbia Monday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 75 Cong. Rec. 9836, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to call up concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res.
27), and yield five minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. (Byron
B.) Harlan to offer an amendment thereto.
Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Stafford: Mr. Speaker, on the last day given over to
District business, House Joint Resolution 154, providing for a
merger of the street-railway systems in the District of Columbia,
was the unfinished business. As this joint resolution was the
unfinished business when the District Committee last had the call,
is it not the unfinished business when the House resumes
consideration of District business?
The Speaker: The Chair thinks not, because a motion to consider
it is necessary. Wherever a motion is required, the unfinished
business has no precedence over any other business.
Form of Special Rule
Sec. 5.15 Form of special rule providing for the consideration of a
District of Columbia bill in the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union, waiving points of order, closing general
debate on the bill, waiving the second reading, opening all
sections of the bill for amendment, and limiting debate under the
five-minute rule to an hour and a half.
The following resolution was considered on Apr. 17, 1936:
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 5634, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Resolution 489
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House
[[Page 3871]]
shall resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for the consideration of H.R. 11563, a bill
declaring an emergency in the housing condition in the District of
Columbia; creating a Rent Commission for the District of Columbia;
prescribing powers and duties of the commission, and for other
purposes; and all points of order against said bill are hereby
waived. General debate on said bill shall be considered as closed,
and the bill shall be considered as having been read the second
time. Amendments may be offered to any section of the bill, but
debate under the 5-minute rule shall be closed within one hour and
a half. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for
amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and the
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion,
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.