[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 24. Bills, Resolutions, and Memorials]
[A. Introductory; Various Types of Bills, Resolutions, and Other Mechanisms for Action]
[§ 7. Resolutions of Approval or Disapproval of Executive Plans; the "Legislative Veto"]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 4839-4865]
CHAPTER 24
Bills, Resolutions, Petitions, and Memorials
A. INTRODUCTORY; VARIOUS TYPES OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS, AND OTHER
MECHANISMS FOR ACTION
Sec. 7. Resolutions of Approval or Disapproval of Executive Plans; the
``Legislative Veto''
Congress has, from time to time, provided procedures whereby it has
by statute reserved to itself the right to disapprove certain executive
actions. These procedures envision some form of congressional action on
a simple or concurrent resolution of disapproval or
approval.(8) This prac
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Resolutions of approval or disapproval fall into three categories:
those in which the resolution must be acted upon by either or
both Houses and which are privileged for consideration; those
in which the resolution must be acted upon by either or both
Houses but which are not privileged; and those in which the
resolution need only be acted upon by designated committees of
either or both Houses. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 1013
(1981). All three types are in a sense ``nonlegislative'' in
that none are presented to the President for his approval or
disapproval pursuant to Art. I, Sec. 7 of the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4840]]
tice has come to be known as the ``legislative (or congressional)
veto,'' and has been used extensively as a congressional device to
maintain control over executive plans and actions authorized by
statute. This procedure has been employed only when it has been
authorized by a specific statute and for the specific purpose stated in
such statute, there being no inherent power under the Constitution by
which the Congress may nullify a duly authorized function of the
executive branch. The procedure prescribed by a given statute in this
respect varies according to the extent of control the Congress wished
to exercise.
The constitutionality of these legislative veto provisions has been
questioned since their earliest use.(9) The Supreme Court
has in fact invalidated the one-House legislative veto mechanism
contained in section 244(d)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
in Immigration and Naturalization Service v Chadha et al. decided June
23, 1983.(10) The opinion of the Court is to the effect that
the constitutional requirement of bicameral consideration and
presentment to the President is an absolute requirement for all
exercises of legislative power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See President Carter's message on the subject of legislative
vetoes, June 21, 1978, H. Doc. 95-357.
10. 462 U.S.----.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The precedents contained in this section must be considered in
light of the Court's ruling. They are retained because of their
historic significance and because they may yet have precedential value
in other contexts and in the event future legislative mechanisms are
devised to overcome the constitutional infirmities recognized in
Chadha.
Under some statutes enacted prior to the Chadha decision, the
branch or agency of the government affected must submit certain of its
decisions or plans to the Houses of Congress or directly to the
appropriate congressional committees for a stated period, and such
decisions or plans will not go into effect if the Congress passes a
concurrent resolution stating in substance that it does not favor the
proposed action.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For example, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC Sec. 2074)
provides that the Atomic Energy Commission must submit to the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, for a period of 60 days
before becoming effective, its determination as to the
distribution of certain ``special nuclear material''. The
proposals do not become effective if the Congress passes a
concurrent resolution expressing its disapproval thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4841]]
Such provisions are to be distinguished from those statutes under
which Congress is entitled to receive periodic reports from an agency
on its plans or programs, but does not have direct authority to
disapprove of them.(12) However, the congressional committee
receiving reports under such a statute may exercise an informal
negotiating procedure with the agency involved in order to bring its
decisions into conformity with the views of the committee. The Internal
Revenue Code, for example, provides that whenever the Internal Revenue
Service determines that a taxpayer is entitled to a tax refund or
credit in excess of $100,000 it shall not award the money to the
taxpayer until 30 days after it has submitted a report of its decision
to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 18 USC Sec. 3771 and 28 USC Sec. 2072. The Supreme Court
approved, by way of dictum, the validity of the waiting period
requirement regarding the adoption of new court rules in
Sibbach v Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 15 (1941).
13. 26 USC Sec. 6405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The staff of the joint committee then reviews each report it
receives from the Internal Revenue Service to decide whether or not it
agrees with the service's determination. Frequently a tax refund or
credit case will not become final until the joint committee and the
service have through consultation agreed on the proper determination.
In addition to expressing its disapproval by resolution the
Congress may choose to amend the law under which the decision or plan
was submitted, or by statute suspend the action of the reporting
agency. For example, during the 83d Congress the Supreme Court drafted
and submitted to the Congress under a mandatory 90-day waiting period
new rules of evidence for federal courts and amendments to the federal
rules of civil and criminal procedure.
Under other statutes, the agency involved must come into agreement
with the appropriate congressional committees regarding the final terms
of such plan. Thus, a 1949 statute authorizing the establishment of a
joint long-range proving ground for guided missiles contained the
following language:
. . . Prior to the acquisition under the authority of this
section of any
[[Page 4842]]
lands or rights or other interests pertaining thereto, the
Secretary of the Air Force shall come into agreement with the Armed
Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives
with respect to the acquisition of such lands, rights, or other
interests.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Pub. L. No. 81-60, Sec. 2, 63 Stat. 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``come-into-agreement'' clause was used during and after World
War II, but in recent years it has fallen into disuse because of strong
Presidential protest. For example, in 1954 President Eisenhower vetoed
a bill (H.R. 7512, 83d Cong.) authorizing the transfer of federally
owned land within Camp Blanding Military Reservation, Florida, to the
State of Florida after the Secretary of the Army had come into
agreement with the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House
of Representatives regarding the terms of such transfer. In his veto
message the President said:
The purpose of this clause is to vest in the Committees of
Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives power to
approve or disapprove any agreement which the Secretary of the Army
proposes to make with the State of Florida pursuant to section
2(4). The practical effect would be to place the power to make such
agreement jointly in the Secretary of the Army and the members of
the Committees on Armed Services. In so doing, the bill would
violate the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of
powers prescribed in articles I and II of the Constitution which
place the legislative power in the Congress and the executive power
in the executive branch.
The making of such a contract or agreement on behalf of the
United States is a purely executive or administrative function,
like the negotiation and execution of Government contracts
generally. Thus, while Congress may enact legislation governing the
making of Government contracts, it may not delegate to its Members
or committees the power to make such contracts, either directly or
by giving to them a power to approve or disapprove a contract which
an executive officer proposes to make. Moreover such a procedure
destroys the clear lines of responsibility for results which the
Constitution provides.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Doc. No. 403, 83d Cong. 2d Sess. (May 26, 1954). See also the
memorandum of Mr. J. V. Rankin of the Department of Justice
expressing disapproval of a come-into-agreement clause in
proposed amendments to the Public Building Act of 1949. 100
Cong. Rec. 4878, 4879, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 8, 1954.
President Eisenhower made even stronger objection in his
budget message of 1960 to another come-into-agreement statute:
``In the budget message for 1959, and again for 1960, I
recommended immediate repeal of section 601 of the Act of
September 28, 1951 (65 Stat. 365). This section prevents the
military departments and the Office of Civil and Defense
Mobilization from carrying out certain transactions involving
real property unless they come into agreement with the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives. As I have stated previously, the Attorney
General has advised me that this section violates fundamental
constitutional principles. Accordingly, if it is not repealed
by the Congress at its present session, I shall have no
alternative thereafter but to direct the Secretary of Defense
to disregard the section unless a court of competent
jurisdiction determines otherwise.'' Budget Message of the
President for fiscal year 1961. H. Doc. No. 255, 86th Cong. 2d
Sess., and 106 Cong. Rec. 674, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 18,
1960. That same year the Congress amended the statute that the
President found objectionable by changing the come-into-
agreement clause to one permitting a committee resolution of
disapproval of military real estate transactions. Act of June
8, 1960, Pub. L. No. 86-500, title V, Sec. 511(1), 74 Stat.
186; 10 USC Sec. 2662.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4843]]
Another procedural device found in agency authorization statutes is
the clause providing that the agency charged with general executive
authorization under a statute must consult the committees of both
Houses that have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the statute
before taking certain of the specific actions authorized under it. For
example, the statute pertaining to the disposition of naval petroleum
reserves declares that:
The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives must be consulted and the President's approval must
be obtained before any condemnation proceedings may be started
under this chapter. . . .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 10 USC Sec. 7431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still other statutes provide that an affirmative resolution of
approval must be adopted by the congressional committees having
jurisdiction of the subject matter before a plan drafted under the
provisions of such statute by an executive agency shall go into effect.
This affirmative approval procedure has usually been tied to the
appropriation process. Thus, a statute will read that ``no
appropriation shall be made'' until the particular projects authorized
under it have been drafted by an agency concerned, submitted to the
appropriate congressional committees, and approved by them by means of
committee resolution.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 7 of the Public Building Act of 1959 (40 USC Sec. 606),
and Sec. 2 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Control Act of
1954, as amended (16 USC Sec. 1002). The Public Building Act of
1954 provided that if a project approved by committee
resolution receives no appropriation within a year the
committee may rescind their approval at any time thereafter
before an appropriation has been made. See House Rules and
Manual Sec. 1013 (1981) for compilation of ``Legislative Veto''
provisions contained in recent public laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4844]]
The legislative veto came into use in the modern practice of the
Congress with the passage of the Reorganization Act of
1939.(18) Under the act the President is authorized to draft
plans for the reorganization of the executive branch. Such plans will
go into effect upon their completion and 60 days after the President
has submitted them to the Congress. However, if during that 60-day
period (19) ``. . . either House passes a resolution stating
in substance that the House does not favor the reorganization
plan'',(20) the plan shall not go into effect. The act also
sets forth the procedure by which such resolutions shall be considered
in the House and Senate as exceptions to the regular rules of
procedure.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Apr. 3, 1939, Ch. 36, 53 Stat. 561; 5 USC Sec. Sec. 901-913.
19. The 60-day period must be continuous during a session of the
Congress. It is broken only by an adjournment of the Congress
sine die, and it does not include adjournments of more than
three days within a session of Congress. 5 USC Sec. 906(b).
20. 5 USC Sec. 906(a). The act originally provided that disapproval
must be expressed by concurrent resolution (53 Stat. 562, 563).
However, the requirement was changed to a simple resolution by
the 1949 amendments (June 20, 1949, Ch. 226, Sec. 6, 63 Stat.
205).
Under provisions contained in a reorganization plan, any
provision thereof may be effective at a time later than the
date on which the plan otherwise is effective or, if both
Houses have defeated a resolution of disapproval, may be
effective at a time earlier than the expiration of the 60-day
period mentioned above. 5 USC Sec. 906(c).
21. 5 USC Sec. Sec. 908-913.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of the resolution of disapproval has not been limited to
reorganization plans of the President. It is found in other statutes as
well, as illustrated by the following examples.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 provides that when the
Attorney General determines that certain classes of aliens are to be
deported he may suspend the deportation after reviewing the petitions
filed by the individuals affected. Such suspensions, however, will not
become final until the Attorney General has reported his determination
to the Congress and neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives
has passed a simple resolution, before the end of the session following
the session in which the report is received, disapproving such
determination. The law further provides that in cases involving certain
classes of aliens sus
[[Page 4845]]
pension of deportation may be finalized before the end of the following
session of Congress by the adoption of a concurrent resolution
approving the Attorney General's findings.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 8 USC Sec. 1254 (1970 ed.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution of disapproval may take the form of a committee
resolution. For example, the Small Projects Reclamation Act of 1956
(2) provides that no appropriation shall be made for
participation in certain projects under the act prior to 60 days after
the Secretary of the Interior has submitted his findings and approval
for such projects to the Congress, ``. . . and then only if, within
said sixty days, neither the House nor the Senate Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee disapproves the project proposal by committee
resolution.'' (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 70 Stat. 1044.
3. 70 Stat. 1045, Sec. 4(c), 43 USC Sec. 422d(d) (1970 ed.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some statutes have provided that the entire authority granted
therein may be terminated by a concurrent resolution of the Congress
prior to the stated expiration date of the act, if one is provided.
Thus, the Lend-Lease Act provided:
After June 30, 1943, or after the passage of a concurrent
resolution by the two Houses before June 30, 1943, which declares
that the powers conferred by or pursuant to subsection (a) are no
longer necessary to promote the defense of the United States,
neither the President nor the head of any department or agency
shall exercise any of the powers conferred by or pursuant to
subsection (a); except that until July 1, 1946, any of such powers
may be exercised to the extent necessary to carry out a contract or
agreement with such a foreign government made before July 1, 1943,
or before the passage of such concurrent resolution, whichever is
the earlier.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Act of Mar. 11, 1941, Ch. 11, Sec. 3(c), 55 Stat. 32. See also the
Selective Service Extension Act of Aug. 18, 1941, Ch. 362,
Sec. 2, 55 Stat. 626; the Emergency Price Control Act of June
30, 1942, Ch. 26, Sec. 1(b), 56 Stat. 24; the Economic
Cooperation Act of Apr. 3, 1948, Ch. 169, title I, Sec. 122, 62
Stat. 155; the ``Gulf of Tonkin Resolution'' of Aug. 10, 1964,
Pub. L. No. 88-408, Sec. 3, 78 Stat. 384; and the War Powers
Resolution of Nov. 7, 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-148, Sec. 5(c), 87
Stat. 556-557.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt objected to the inclusion
of such a concurrent resolution disapproval provision in the
Lend-Lease Act. However, he did not make his objections public
because he felt the measure was urgently needed and he feared
endangering its passage by his own pronouncement. R. H.
Jackson, A Presidential Legal Opinion, 66 Harv. L. Rev. 1353,
at 1356 (1953).
For a compilation of the views of a number of Presidents on
the various forms of the legislative veto, see Hearings on the
Separation of Powers Doctrine Before the Subcommittee on
Separation of Powers of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
90th Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 215-228 (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4846]]
Collateral References
Congressional Adaptation: The Come-into-Agreement Provision. 37 Geo.
Wash. L. Rev. 387 (1968).
Cooper, Joseph and Ann. The Legislative Veto and the Constitution. 30
Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 467 (1962).
Harris, Joseph P. Congressional Control of Administration, CH. 8, The
Legislative Veto. The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
(1964).
Jackson, Robert H. A Presidential Legal Opinion. 66 Harv. L. Rev. 1353
(1953). -------------------
Terminating Authority by Concurrent Resolution
Sec. 7.1 The House adopted a joint resolution relating to preservation
of peace in Southeast Asia, authorizing the President to repel
aggression by North Vietnam, and providing that the Congress may
terminate such authority by concurrent resolution.
On Aug. 7, 1964,(5) the House considered and passed the
following joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1145):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 110 Cong. Rec. 18538, 18539, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas naval units of the Communist regime in Vietnam, in
violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations
and of international law, have deliberately and repeatedly attacked
United States naval vessels lawfully present in international
waters, and have thereby created a serious threat to international
peace; and
Whereas these attacks are part of a deliberate and systematic
campaign of aggression that the Communist regime in North Vietnam
has been waging against its neighbors and the nations joined with
them in the collective defense of their freedom; and
Whereas the United States is assisting the peoples of Southeast
Asia to protect their freedom and has no territorial, military or
political ambitions in that area, but desires only that these
peoples should be left in peace to work out their own destinies in
their own way: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress
approves and supports the determination of the President, as
Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any
armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent
further aggression.
Sec. 2. The United States regards as vital to its national
interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace
and security in Southeast Asia. Consonent with the Constitution of
the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in
accordance with obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective
Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the
President determines, to take all necessary steps, including
[[Page 4847]]
the use of armed force, to assist any member of protocol state of
the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance
in defense of its freedom.
Sec. 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall
determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably
assured by international conditions created by action of the United
Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by
concurrent resolution of the Congress.
Approval of Executive Plan
Sec. 7.2 The House passed a Senate joint resolution expressing approval
of a report of the Department of the Interior on the construction
of a dam and reservoir, and then tabled a similar House concurrent
resolution called up on the Consent Calendar.
On Aug. 18, 1958,(6) Mr. Wayne N. Aspinall, of Colorado,
sought and obtained unanimous consent that a Senate joint resolution be
considered in lieu of a similar House concurrent resolution on the
Consent Calendar.(7) The Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res.
190) was passed, and the House concurrent resolution was laid on the
table. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 104 Cong. Rec. 18290, 18291, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
7. H. Con. Res. 301, 85th Cong. 2d Sess. (1958).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk called the resolution (H. Con. Res. 301) to approve
the report of the Department of the Interior on Red Willow Dam and
Reservoir in Nebraska.
The Speaker Pro Tempore [John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts]:
Is there objection to the present consideration of the concurrent
resolution?
Mr. Aspinall: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a
similar Senate resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 190, be
considered in lieu of the House Concurrent Resolution.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Colorado?
There being no objection, the Clerk read the Senate joint
resolution, as follows:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the report
of the Secretary of the Interior demonstrating economic
justification for construction and operation of the Red Willow
Dam and Reservoir is hereby approved.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Parliamentarian's Note: Pub. L. No. 84-505 (70 Stat. 126), provided
that there should be no expenditure of funds for construction
of the Red Willow Dam until the Secretary of the Interior, with
the approval of the President, had submitted to the Congress a
report and the Congress had approved such report. Following
research as to the meaning of the word ``Congress'' in the
statute, it was decided that the approval should take the form
of a joint resolution for Presidential signature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changing Effective Date of Executive Plan
Sec. 7.3 The House adopted a House joint resolution chang
[[Page 4848]]
ing the effective date of a reorganization plan.
On May 23, 1940,(9) the House considered and passed the
following joint resolution (H.J. Res. 551):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 86 Cong. Rec. 6713, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, etc., That the provisions of Reorganization Plan No.
V, submitted to the Congress on May 22, 1940, shall take effect on
the tenth day after the date of enactment of this joint resolution,
notwithstanding the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1939.
Sec. 2. Nothing in such plan or this joint resolution shall be
construed as having the effect of continuing any agency or function
beyond the time when it would have terminated without regard to
such plan or this joint resolution or of continuing any function
beyond the time when the agency in which it was vested would have
terminated without regard to such plan or this joint resolution.
Sec. 7.4 The House passed a Senate joint resolution changing the date
when certain reorganization plans of the President would go into
effect.
On June 1, 1939,(10) by direction of the Select
Committee on Government Organization, Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri,
called up a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 138) which the House considered
and passed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 6527, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, etc., That the provisions of reorganization plan No.
I, submitted to the Congress on April 25, 1939, and the provisions
of reorganization plan No. II, submitted to the Congress on May 9,
1939, shall take effect on July 1, 1939, notwithstanding the
provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1939.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 86 Cong. Rec. 6712, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 23, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disapproval of Executive Plan
Sec. 7.5 Formerly, a privileged concurrent resolution was used to
express disapproval of an executive reorganization plan.
On May 3, 1939,(12) the House considered and rejected
the following concurrent resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 5085, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Concurrent Resolution 19
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Congress does not favor the Reorganization
Plan No. I, transmitted to Congress by the President on April 25,
1939.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 93 Cong. Rec. 7252, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., June 18, 1947;
93 Cong. Rec. 6898, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., June 12, 1947; and 86
Cong. Rec. 6027-49, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 14, 1940. The
Reorganization Act of 1949 changed from concurrent to simple
the form of resolution used in disapproving reorganization
plans. June 20, 1949, Ch. 226, Sec. 6, 63 Stat. 205; 5 USC
Sec. 906(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4849]]
Discharge by Unanimous Consent
Sec. 7.6 The Select Committee on Reorganization was discharged from
further consideration of a resolution disapproving a reorganization
plan by unanimous consent.
On May 7, 1940,(14) Mr. Clarence F. Lea, of California,
moved to discharge the Select Committee on Government Organization from
further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 60 (disapproving
Reorganization Plan No. IV): (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 86 Cong. Rec. 5676, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
15. 5 USC Sec. 911(a) at that time provided that a motion to discharge
a committee from further consideration of a resolution
disapproving a reorganization plan of the President was
privileged when the resolution had been before the committee
for 10 calendar days. 5 USC Sec. 911 at present provides that
if the committee to which is referred a resolution as specified
has not reported such resolution or identical resolution at the
end of 45 calendar days of continuous session of Congress after
its introduction, such committee shall be deemed to be
discharged from further consideration of such resolution and
such resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of
the House involved. Pub. L. No. 81-109 as amended by Pub. L.
No. 95-17 and extended by Pub. L. No. 96-230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (16) The Clerk will report the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
House Concurrent Resolution 60
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Congress does not favor the
Reorganization Plan No. IV transmitted to Congress by the
President on April 11, 1940.
Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, the majority
members of the Select Committee on Organization are in accord with
the gentleman from California, and I ask unanimous consent that the
motion of the gentleman from California to discharge the select
committee be considered as having been agreed to.
The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Parliamentarian's Note: The motion here was privileged, but was
agreed to by unanimous consent to avoid debate and a vote on the
discharge motion.
Qualification to Offer Motion to Discharge Resolution
Sec. 7.7 A Member must qualify as being in favor of a resolution
disapproving a reorganization plan in order to move to discharge a
committee from further consideration thereof.
[[Page 4850]]
On Aug. 3, 1961,(17) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, offered
the following motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 107 Cong. Rec. 14548, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross moves to discharge the Committee on Government
Operations from further consideration of House Resolution 335,
introduced by Mr. Monagan, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 6,
transmitted to Congress by the President on June 12, 1961.
The Speaker: (18) Is the gentleman in favor of the
resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the disapproving
resolution, yes.
The Speaker: The gentleman is entitled to 30
minutes.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 5 USC Sec. 911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate on Motion to Discharge
Sec. 7.8 Debate on a motion to discharge a committee from further
consideration of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan is
limited to one hour and is equally divided between the Member
making the motion and a Member opposed thereto.
On Aug. 3, 1961,(20) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, offered a
privileged motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 14548, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Gross moves to discharge the Committee on Government
Operations from further consideration of House Resolution 335,
introduced by Mr. Monagan, disapproving Reorganization Plan No.
6, transmitted to Congress by the President on June 12, 1961.
The Speaker: (1) Is the gentleman in favor of the
resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross. Mr. Speaker, I am in favor of the disapproving
resolution, yes.
The Speaker: The gentleman is entitled to 30 minutes.
The gentleman from Florida will be recognized for 30
minutes.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See 5 USC Sec. 911(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The Member opposed must also qualify.
Sec. 7.9 Debate on a motion to discharge the Committee on Government
Operations from consideration of a resolution disapproving a
reorganization plan was, by unanimous consent, extended from one to
two hours to be controlled and divided by the proponent of the
motion and a Member designated by the Speaker.
On July 18, 1961,(3) Mr. John W. McCormack, of
Massachusetts, made the following unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 107 Cong. Rec. 12774, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the
event a
[[Page 4851]]
motion is made to discharge the Committee on Government Operations
on the resolution disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 7, that the
time for debate be extended from 1 hour to 2 hours, one-half to be
controlled by the proponent of the motion and one-half by a Member
designated by the Speaker.
The Speaker: (4) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Debate on motions to discharge resolutions disapproving
reorganization plans is limited to one hour (63 Stat. 207, 5
USC Sec. 911(b)) rather than 20 minutes under the normal
discharge procedure (Rule XXVII clause 4, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 908 (1981)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. Sec. 7.10 The Presiding Officer ruled that in the Senate the one
hour of debate on a motion to discharge a committee from further
consideration of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan is
inclusive of time consumed by quorum calls, parliamentary
inquiries, and points of order.
On Feb. 20, 1962,(6) during consideration of a motion to
discharge the Committee on Government Operations from further
consideration of Senate Resolution 288, opposing Reorganization Plan
No. 1 of 1962, Senator Mike Mansfield, of Montana, raised a
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 108 Cong. Rec. 2528, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President, I should like to raise a parliamentary inquiry
of my own: I should like to have a ruling from the Chair as to the
appropriate procedure for a motion of this kind.
The Vice President: (7) The understanding of the
Chair is that debate on the motion is limited to 1 hour, to be
equally divided. If a point of order is made or if there is a
quorum call or if the Senator from Montana or any other Senator
obtains the floor and speaks, the time available under the motion
will be running.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Lyndon B. Johnson (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: The ruling in the House would be to the
contrary. Under the precedents, since debate is not set by the clock,
votes, quorum calls, etc., do not come out of the time.
Motion to Consider Resolution of Disapproval
Sec. 7.11 A motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of
the Whole for the consideration of a resolution disapproving a
reorganization plan is highly privileged and may be called up by
any Member.
On June 8, 1961,(8) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, raised a
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 107 Cong. Rec. 9775-77, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4852]]
Mr. Speaker, is it in order and proper at this time to submit a
highly privileged motion?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) If the matter to which
the gentleman refers is highly privileged, it would be in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: Then, Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of section
205(a) Public Law 109, the Reorganization Act of
1949,(10) I submit a motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Section 205 of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (68 Stat. 207, 5 USC
Sec. 912(a)) provided ``When the Committee has reported, or has
been discharged from further consideration of, a resolution
with respect to a reorganization plan, it is at any time
thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the same
effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the
consideration of the resolution. The motion is highly
privileged and is not debatable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Gross moves that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of H. Res. 303 introduced by Mr. Monagan
disapproving Reorganization Plan No 2 transmitted to the
Congress by the President on April 27, 1961.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 107 Cong. Rec. 9777, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consideration of Resolution of Disapproval
Sec. 7.12 The following procedure was employed in the House in
considering a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan of the
President.
On June 10, 1947,(12) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
made the following statement regarding a resolution disapproving the
President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1947:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 6722, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 49; and pending that
motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate be
limited to 3 hours, the time to be equally divided and controlled
by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Manasco] and myself.
The Speaker: (13) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan?
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 7.13 After a committee has reported a resolution disapproving a
reorganization plan, any Member may move that the House proceed to
consideration thereof, and a Member is not required to qualify as
being in favor of the resolution in order to move that the House
resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider it.
[[Page 4853]]
On July 19, 1961,(14) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida,
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the resolution
(H. Res. 328) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 5 transmitted to the
Congress by the President on May 24, 1961. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa,
raised a parliamentary inquiry based on his contention that a Member so
moving must qualify as being in favor of such resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 107 Cong. Rec. 12905, 12906, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Gross: . . . Is the gentleman from Florida in favor of the
resolution, or does he disfavor the resolution?
The Speaker: (15) Under the rules, the gentleman
does not have to qualify in that respect on this particular
motion.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
16. See 5 USC Sec. 912(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precedence of Consideration
Sec. 7.14 Consideration of resolutions disapproving reorganization
plans of the President does not take precedence over a grant of
unanimous consent for the consideration of an appropriation bill,
unless the Committee on Appropriations yields for that purpose.
On May 9, 1950,(17) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan,
raised a point of order against the consideration of the general
appropriation bill of 1951 (H.R. 7786):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 6720-24, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order
that the House is not proceeding in the regular order because under
section 205a of the Reorganization Act, which is Public Law 109 of
the Eighty-first Congress, first session, any Member of the House
is privileged, and this is a highly privileged motion, to make the
motion that the House proceed to the consideration of House
Resolution 516.
The gentleman from Michigan being on his feet to present this
highly privileged motion, the regular order is that he be
recognized for that purpose that the motion be entertained and the
question put before the House, and my motion is that the House
proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 516.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) That is the resolution
disapproving one of the reorganization plans?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: That is right, House Resolution 516
disapproving plan No. 12. . . .
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Texas desire
to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, on April 5,
1950, as shown at page 4835 of the daily record of that day, the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gen
[[Page 4854]]
tleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] asked and received unanimous
consent that the appropriation bill should have the right-of-way
over other privileged business under the rules until disposition,
with the exception of conference reports. Therefore, I believe the
regular order would be to proceed with the further consideration of
H.R. 7786.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Record would speak for itself.
. . .
Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Under the established rules of
practice of the House, when a special order like that is granted,
like that which was granted at the request of the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Cannon], if those in charge of the bill do not
present on any occasion a motion to go into Committee of the Whole,
it is in order for the Speaker to recognize other Members for other
items that are in order on the calendar. That does not deprive the
holder of that special order of the right, when those items are
disposed of, to move that the bill be considered further in
Committee of the Whole.
Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Rich: If the 21 resolutions that were presented to the
House by the President, a great many of which have been considered
by the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments--of
which the chairman is a member, and which have been acted on by
that committee--are not presented to the House before the twenty-
fourth of this month, they become law. The general appropriation
bill does not necessarily have to be passed until the 30th of June,
but it is necessary that the 21 orders of the President be brought
before the House so they can be acted on by the twenty-fourth of
this month, and it seems to me that they ought to take precedence
over any other bill.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has made a statement of
fact, not a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, may I be
heard on the point of order?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. Rankin: I was going to say that if this is of the highest
constitutional privilege it comes ahead of the present legislation.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order, the
substance of which is that the motion he desires to make or that
someone else should make in relation to the consideration of a
disapproving resolution of one of the reorganization plans takes
precedence over the appropriation bill insofar as recognition by
the Chair is concerned. The gentleman from Michigan raises a very
serious question and the Chair feels at this particular time that
it is well that he did so.
The question involved is not a constitutional question but one
relating to the rules of the House and to the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1949 which has been alluded to by the
gentleman from Michigan and other Members when addressing the Chair
on this point of order. The Chair calls attention to the language
of paragraph
[[Page 4855]]
(b) of section 201 of title II of the Reorganization Act of 1949
which reads as follows: ``with full recognition of the
constitutional right of either House to change such rules so far as
relating to procedure in such House at any time in the same manner
and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of such
House.''
It is very plain from that language that the intent of Congress
was to recognize the reservation to each House of certain inherent
powers which are necessary for either House to function to meet a
particular situation or to carry out its will.
On April 5, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, submitted a unanimous-consent
request to the House, which was granted, which has the force of a
rule, and which relates to the rules of the House governing the
consideration of the omnibus appropriation bill while it is before
the House and, of course, incidentally affecting other legislation.
The consent request submitted by the gentleman from Missouri was
``that the general appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1951 have
right-of-way over all other privileged business under the rules
until disposition, with the exception of conference reports.''
That request was granted by unanimous consent. On the next day
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon], in correcting and
interpreting the consent request granted on April 5, submitted a
further unanimous-consent request.
The daily Record shows, on page 4976, April 6, that the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] said:
Mr. Speaker, on page 4835 of the daily Record of yesterday,
the first column carrying the special order made by the House
last night reads that the general appropriation bill shall be a
special order privileged above all other business of the House
under the rule until disposition. The order made was until
final disposition. I ask unanimous consent that the Record and
Journal be corrected to conform with the proceedings on the
floor of the House yesterday.
The Record further shows that the Speaker put the request and
there was no objection.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the Chair finish.
Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to propound a
parliamentary inquiry at this time.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is in the process of making
a ruling.
Mr. Rankin: That is the reason I want to propound the inquiry
right at this point.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
Mr. Rankin: We for the first time this year have all the
appropriations in one bill. Now, if they drag out consideration
under the 5-minute rule beyond the 24th, would that not shut the
Congress off entirely from voting on any of these recommendations?
So we do have a constitutional right to consider these propositions
without having them smothered in this way.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the House
always has a constitutional right and power to refuse to go into
the Committee of the Whole on any motion made by any
[[Page 4856]]
Member, so that the House is capable of carrying out its will,
whatever may be the will of the majority of the House.
Continuing, the Chair will state that in the opinion of the
present occupant, in view of the unanimous-consent request made by
the gentleman from Missouri and granted by the House if any member
of the Appropriations Committee moves that the House resolve itself
into the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union to
consider the appropriation bill, that motion has preference over
any other preferential motion. It is a matter that the House
decides when the motion is made as to what it wants to do and it
has an opportunity when that motion is made to carry out its will.
Mr. [Arthur L.] Miller of Nebraska: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Miller of Nebraska: I understood the statement of the
gentleman from Missouri on April 6 was that the appropriation bill
would take precedence over all legislation and special orders until
entirely disposed of. Does that include conference reports?
The Speaker Pro Tempore: A conference report is in a privileged
status in any event.
Mr. Taber: They were specifically exempted.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: They were specifically exempted. In
relation to the observation made by the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Hoffman] that because other business has been brought up and
that therefore constitutes a violation of the unanimous-consent
request, the Chair, recognizing the logic of the argument,
disagrees with it because that action was done through the
sufference of the Appropriations Committee and, in the opinion of
the Chair, does not constitute a violation in any way; therefore
does not obviate the meaning and effect of the unanimous-consent
request heretofore entered into, and which the Chair has referred
to.
For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a further point of order.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: The point of order is the same as I
raised before; but, to keep the Record clear, I wish to make the
same point of order regarding House Resolution 522, House
Resolution 545, and House Resolution 546, that is, that the House
proceed to the consideration of each of those resolutions in the
order named, assuming, of course, that the ruling will be the same,
but making a record.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will reaffirm his ruling in
relation to the several resolutions the gentleman has referred to.
Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Eberharter: I believe I am correct, Mr. Speaker, in stating
that since the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Cannon] was granted, that the House took up a measure
under the new 21-day rule. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker,
[[Page 4857]]
whether or not that was taken up because of its high privilege or
whether it was taken up because of the sufference of the chairman
of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Cannon).
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present occupant of the Chair, of
course, is unable to look into the mind of the Speaker who was
presiding at the time. But from the knowledge that the Chair has,
which, of course, is rather close, it was because the chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations permitted it to be done through
sufference. In other words, if the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations had insisted on going into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union, and if the present occupant
of the chair had been presiding, there is nothing else that could
have been done under the unanimous-consent request, in the Chair's
opinion, but to recognize the motion.
Mr. Eberharter: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Eberharter: As I understand the unanimous-consent request
of the gentleman from Missouri, it was that the appropriation bill
would take preference over any other matters having a high
privilege. My understanding of the new 21-day rule is that that is
a matter of the highest privilege, and therefore I am wondering
whether the same rule applies.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct, but that
rule can be changed just like any other rule of the House can be
changed.
Mr. Eberharter: But the gentleman from Missouri did not insist
on all matters having the highest privilege. According to the
Record, he only made his request with respect to motions having a
high privilege.
The Speaker Pro Tempore: The unanimous-consent request, I might
advise the gentleman from Pennsylvania, appears in the Record of
April 6, that the general appropriation bill shall be a special
order privileged above all other business of the House under the
rule until disposition. The order made was ``until final
disposition.''
Sec. 7.15 The Speaker permitted consideration and debate on a
conference report to intervene between consideration of two
resolutions disapproving of two Presidential reorganization plans
where the original papers accompanying the conference report were
messaged from the Senate before consideration of the second
resolution had begun.
On Sept. 28, 1970,(19) the Speaker (1)
recognized a Member to call up a conference report on a bill dealing
with railroad safety (S. 1933) after consideration of the first of two
reorganization plans and before debate was to begin on the
second.(2) He announced his intention to do so as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 33870, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
2. The House was considering H. Res. 1209, disapproving of
Reorganization Plan No. 3 and H. Res. 1210, disapproving of
Plan No. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4858]]
The Chair has been informed and understands that the original
papers on the next conference report have not been messaged over to
the House as yet. They will be here shortly.
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from California (Mr.
Holifield) in connection with the first reorganization plan, and if
the papers [on the conference report] arrive between consideration
of the first and second reorganization plans, the Chair will
recognize the gentleman from West Virginia at that time.
Limitations on Time for Debate
Sec. 7.16 Debate on resolutions disapproving reorganization plans
is fixed by statute, and the Senate rule relative to the time for
debate on usual propositions does not apply.
On May 14, 1940,(3) the Senate considered a concurrent
resolution (S. Con. Res. 43) disapproving a Presidential reorganization
plan. The Vice President (4) made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 86 Cong. Rec. 6027, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
4. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the Chair make a statement with reference to the statutory
and parliamentary situation. The statute, as the Chair understands
it, and as it was interpreted by the President pro tempore
yesterday--and the Chair thinks he was correct--divides the time
equally between those for and those against the pending resolution.
The Parliamentarian advises the Chair that those favoring the
resolution have 2 hours and 4 minutes and those opposed to it have
1 hour and 56 minutes. Ordinarily, under the rules of the Senate,
when a Senator is recognized he may continue to address the Senate
indefinitely. In this case, however, the statute limits the time.
Any Senator recognized now can continue until the limitation of
time for his side would take him from the floor. The Chair is going
to recognize the Senator from Vermont. He has 2 hours and 4 minutes
on his side. When he ceases, some other Senator then will be
recognized. The Chair thought he ought to make this statement, so
that the Senate may understand the parliamentary situation.
Sec. 7.17 By unanimous consent, debate on a resolution
disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1959, was limited to two
hours in lieu of the 10 hours allowed under the Reorganization Act
of 1949.
On July 1, 1959,(5) Mr. Neal Smith, of Iowa, asked
unanimous consent that debate on House Resolution 295 disapproving
Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1959 scheduled for consideration on the
following Monday be limited to two hours, one-half of the time to be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 105 Cong. Rec. 12519, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4859]]
controlled by the majority and one-half of the time to be controlled by
the minority.
There was no objection.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Section 205 of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 207, 5 USC
Sec. 912) permits 10 hours of debate on such a resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.18 A resolution disapproving a reorganization plan was called up
and debated for two hours in the Committee of the Whole under a
previous unanimous-consent agreement.
On July 6, 1959,(7) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida,
moved that the House resolve itself under the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the resolution
(H. Res. 295) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1959. The
proceedings in the Committee of the Whole were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 105 Cong. Rec. 12740-46, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman: (8) Under the consent agreement of
Wednesday, July 1,(9) 2 hours of general debate are
allowed on the resolution, to be equally divided between the
majority and the minority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Stewart L. Udall (Ariz.).
9. 105 Cong. Rec. 12519, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the conclusion of debate Mr. Fascell moved:
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report
the resolution back to the House with the recommendation that it do
pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 7.19 A resolution disapproving a reorganization plan of the
President was, by unanimous consent, considered in the House as in
Committee of the Whole, debated for only five minutes, and passed.
On June 18, 1947,(10) the House considered a concurrent
resolution disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 3 of the President. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 93 Cong. Rec. 7252, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reorganization Plan No. 3
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House proceed to take up House Concurrent Resolution 51, which
does not favor Reorganization Plan No. 3 of May 27, 1947, and,
pending that motion, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
may be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole and
that general debate be limited to 5 minutes.
The Speaker: (11) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Michigan?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),
[[Page 4860]]
That the Congress does not favor the Reorganization Plan No. 3
of May 27, 1947, transmitted to Congress by the President on
the 27th day of May 1947.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is no objection to
this resolution.
I yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Manasco], ranking
minority member of the committee, to explain the resolution and any
opposition, if any there be.
Mr. [Carter] Manasco: Mr. Speaker, a similar plan was sent up
during the Seventy-ninth Congress and rejected by the House.
This plan reorganizes the housing agencies of the Government.
Our committee thinks these agencies should be reorganized but we do
not think the lending and insuring agencies should be placed in the
same organization with the construction agency.
I have no requests for time on this side. That is the only
issue involved.
Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
Sec. 7.20 In considering three resolutions disapproving three
reorganization plans of the President, the House agreed by
unanimous consent that the three resolutions be considered
together, that debate be limited to three hours, and that after
debate the resolutions be voted on separately.
On June 28, 1946,(12) Mr. Carter Manasco, of Alabama,
made the following unanimous-consent request regarding resolutions of
disapproval of the President's Reorganization Plans Nos. 1, 2, and 3:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 7886, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reorganization Plans No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3
Mr. Manasco: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Concurrent Resolution
155, and I ask unanimous consent that House Concurrent Resolutions
154 and 151 be considered; that the debate be limited on the three
resolutions to 3 hours, the time to be divided equally between
myself and the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Expenditures in the Executive Departments; that after 3 hours of
general debate on the resolutions, the resolutions be voted on
separately.
Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, as I understand it, in these 3 hours
a Member may talk about any one of the three resolutions.
The Speaker: (13) That is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: And that at the end of general
debate the resolutions will be voted on separately.
Mr. Manasco: Each resolution separately.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent also that the plans be
voted on in
[[Page 4861]]
their order, plan 1 first; plan 2, second; and plan 3, third.
Mr. [William A.] Pittenger [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker,
reserving the right to object, it is the resolutions that must be
voted on.
Mr. Manasco: That is correct.
Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Reserving the right
to object, the gentlemen have agreed on time, which is very
satisfactory. The only suggestion I have to make is that I hope
they do not use the entire 3 hours.
The Speaker: The gentleman from Alabama ask unanimous consent
that there be 3 hours of general debate on these resolutions, at
the end of which time the resolutions are to be voted on separately
in this order: Plan No. 1, plan No. 2, and plan No. 3.
Is there objection?
There was no objection.
Consideration Without Debate
Sec. 7.21 A resolution disapproving a reorganization plan was
considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole by
unanimous consent and agreed to by voice vote without debate.
On July 15, 1956,(14) Mr. William L. Dawson, of
Illinois, asked unanimous consent that House Resolution 534
disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 1 be considered in the House as in
the Committee as the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 102 Cong. Rec. 11886, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken.
The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, the resolution having
received an affirmative vote of a majority of the authorized
membership of the House, the resolution is agreed
to.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. A similar procedure was employed to adopt a resolution (H. Res.
541) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1956. See 102
Cong. Rec. 11886, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 5, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control of Time in Opposition
Sec. 7.22 The Member calling up a resolution disapproving a
reorganization plan announced that the majority and minority
members of the Committee on Government Operations (both in favor of
the plan) would yield half of their time to Members opposed to the
resolution, who would in turn control the time in opposition.
On Aug. 9, 1967,(17) the House resolved itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 21941, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4862]]
the Union for the consideration of House Resolution 512 disapproving
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967. The Chairman (18) then
made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William L. Hungate (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the unanimous-consent agreement of Thursday, August 3,
1967, general debate on the resolution will continue for not to
exceed 4 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Blatnik] and the gentlewoman from New
Jersey [Mrs. Dwyer].
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota. . . .
Mr. [Porter] Hardy [Jr., of Virginia]: I wonder if we could
have an understanding now so that there will not be any confusion
as to how the time will be divided. I am sure the gentleman from
Minnesota has already indicated what he plans to do, but I think it
might be well if we had that cleared up now, if the gentleman would
not mind?
Mr. [John A.] Blatnik: I will be pleased to do so and I think
the gentleman has made a very proper request.
What we have done by agreement of the leadership on both sides
of the House, and by agreement with the majority and minority
leadership of the House Committee on Government Operations and of
the Committee on the District of Columbia is that we have agreed to
divide the time equally between the proponents and the opponents as
follows:
The minority will divide their time with 1 hour allocated to
the opponents and 1 hour for the proponents.
The majority on our side have done the same thing, to allocate
1 hour to the proponents and 1 hour to the opponents.
The time for the opponents on the majority side will be handled
by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Hardy], and I shall handle the
time for the proponents.
I understand the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Erlenborn] will
handle the time on the minority side for the proponents on their
side and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Nelsen] will handle the
time for the opponents.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Under the law debate on a resolution disapproving a reorganization
plan is divided equally between the proponents and opponents of
the resolution. 5 USC Sec. 912(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment of Resolution
Sec. 7.23 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a
resolution to disapprove a reorganization plan back to the House,
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out,
was held not in order on the ground that there would be no
amendment stage during which to offer the motion.
On June 27, 1953,(20) during consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of a resolution (H. Res.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 99 Cong. Rec. 7482, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4863]]
295) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 6, Mr. W. Sterling Cole, of
New York, made the following motion:
Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cole of New York moves that the Committee do now rise
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that the motion is not in order.
The Chairman: (1) The Chair is compelled to agree
with the gentleman from Michigan. The resolution is not amendable
and, therefore, the preferential motion is not in
order.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Leslie C. Arends (Ill.).
2. See 5 U.S.C. 912(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Consideration of Report of Committee of the Whole
Sec. 7.24 When the Committee of the Whole has reported back to the
House its recommendation regarding the adoption or rejection of a
resolution disapproving a reorganization plan, the question in the
House recurs on the adoption of the resolution of disapproval and
not on concurring in the committee's recommendation.
On Feb. 21, 1962, (3) the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union considered a resolution (H. Res. 530)
disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 1 transmitted to the Congress by
the President on Jan. 30, 1962, and reported the resolution back to the
House with the recommendation that it not be agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 108 Cong. Rec. 2679, 2680, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker (4) ordered the resolution read by the Clerk
and announced that the question was on the adoption of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voting on Resolutions of Disapproval
Sec. 7.25 An affirmative vote of a majority of the authorized
membership of the House is required to adopt a resolution
disapproving a reorganization plan of the President, and such vote
may be had by viva voce, by division, or by the yeas and nays.
On Aug. 11, 1949,(5) during consideration in the House
of a resolution (H. Res. 301) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 2 of
1949 and adversely reported from the Committee on Expenditures in the
Executive Departments, Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, raised a
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 95 Cong. Rec. 11314, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, Mr. Speaker, do I understand correctly that under the
terms of
[[Page 4864]]
the Reorganization Act under which we are operating the proponents
of the resolution who by that resolution would seek to disapprove
Reorganization Plan No. 2 would have to have 218 votes actually
present and voting in order to carry the resolution?
The Speaker: (6) That is correct; that is the law,
and the Chair will take this opportunity to read the law:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 6. (a) Except as may be otherwise provided pursuant to
subsection (c) of this section, the provisions of the
reorganization plan shall take effect upon the expiration of
the first period of 60 calendar days of continuous session of
the Congress, following the date on which the plan is
transmitted to it; but only if, between the date of transmittal
and the expiration of such 60-day period there has not been
passed by either of the two Houses by the affirmative vote of a
majority of the authorized membership of that House, a
resolution stating in substance that that House does not favor
the reorganization plan.
Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Brown of Ohio: How will the Chair determine whether there
are 218 votes cast in favor of the resolution?
The Speaker: By the usual method: Either by a viva voce vote,
division vote, or a vote by the yeas and nays.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken.
The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair the resolution not
having received the affirmative vote of a majority of the
authorized membership of the House, the resolution is not agreed
to.
So the resolution was rejected.
Rejection by House as Affecting Senate Action
Sec. 7.26 Where the House disagrees to a reorganization plan submitted
by the President, it notifies the Senate of its action, and the
Senate may indefinitely postpone further consideration of a
resolution disapproving the same reorganization plan.
On July 20, 1961,(7) there was received in the Senate a
message from the House announcing that the House had agreed to a
resolution (H. Res. 328) disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 5
transmitted to Congress by the President on May 24, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 107 Cong. Rec. 13017, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Mike Mansfield, of Montana, subsequently moved that Senate
Resolution 158, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 5, be indefinitely
postponed.
The motion was agreed to.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Id. at p. 13027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 7.27 The House having agreed to a resolution disapproving a
reorganization plan, the Senate Committee on Government Operations
[[Page 4865]]
ordered reported, without recommendation, a resolution to the same
effect.
On June 16, 1961,(9) Senator John L. McClellan, of
Arkansas, made the following statement in the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 107 Cong. Rec. 10628, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President, on June 13, 1961, the Committee on Government
Operations, in executive session, ordered reported, without
recommendations, S. Res. 142, expressing disapproval of
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1961.
Under section 6 of the Reorganization Act of 1949, as amended,
a reorganization plan may not become effective if a resolution of
disapproval is adopted by a simple majority of either House. On
June 15, 1961, the House of Representatives adopted House
Resolution 303, to disapprove Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1961.
Since this action results in the final disposition of the matter,
it is no longer necessary either for the Committee on Government
Operations to file a report on S. Res. 142, or for the Senate to
take any further action.
I call attention to the fact, however, that hearings on that
resolution have been held and will be available shortly for the
information of Members of the Senate. Legislation to enact certain
provisions of Reorganization Plan No. 2 is now pending before the
Senate Committee on Commerce--S. 2034--and the House Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce--H.R. 7333--and the House committee
has now completed hearings on H.R. 7333.
I thought it proper to make this announcement in view of the
fact that the committee had voted to report the resolution as I
have indicated.