[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[H. Duration of Debate in the House]
[Â§ 72. Closing Debate; Senate Cloture]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11010-11017]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                   H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 72. Closing Debate; Senate Cloture

    In the House, secondary motions--to lay on the table or for the 
previous question--can be used to cut off debate.(6) Debate 
can, of course, be limited or closed by unanimous consent. When the 
House is operating ``as in the Committee of the Whole,'' both the 
motion for the previous question and the motion to limit debate can be 
utilized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 72.1 et seq., infra, for the previous question and 
        its effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast to the House, where the hour rule limits debate, Mem

[[Page 11011]]

bers of the Senate may retain the floor for indefinite periods of time, 
unless the Senate limits debate either by unanimous consent or by 
invoking cloture.(7) Thus, a Senator may retain the floor 
for extremely long periods of time, engaging in a ``filibuster'' to 
prevent Senate action on a measure.(8) On June 12 and 13, 
1935, Senator Huey Long, of Louisiana, in a remarkable demonstration of 
physical endurance, set a new record in the Senate when he spoke 
continuously for 15\1/2\ hours in favor of the Gore amendment to the 
proposed extension of the National Industrial Recovery Act. But the 
amendment was finally tabled. Again, in 1953, a prolonged debate took 
place on the so-called tidelands offshore oil bill. It began Apr. 1 and 
ended May 5. The debate lasted for 35 days, one of the longest on 
record. During this debate Senator Wayne Morse, of Oregon, established 
a new record for the longest single speech. On Apr. 24 and 25 he spoke 
for 22 hours and 26 minutes.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure, S. Doc. No. 101-28, 101st 
        Cong. 2d Sess. (1992).
 8. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2866.
 9. See 103 Cong. Rec. 173, 174, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Closing debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. Sec. 76 (general 
    debate) and 78 (five-minute debate), infra.
Closing and opening debate generally, see Sec. 7, supra.
Motions which close debate, see Ch. 23, supra (previous question, lay 
    on the table).
Order of recognition determines who may close debate, see Sec. Sec. 12 
    et seq., supra.
Question of consideration to close debate, see Sec. 5, supra.
Role of manager and management by reporting committee in closing 
    debate, see Sec. Sec. 24, 26, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Previous Question; Used Before Adoption of Rules

Sec. 72.1 The Member controlling debate on a proposition in the House 
    may move the previous question and cut off further debate.

    On Jan. 4, 1965,(10) at the convening of the 89th 
Congress and before the adoption of the rules, Mr. Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, offered a resolution and after some debate moved the previous 
question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 20, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 2) and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H. Res. 2

            Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and 
        directed to administer the oath of office to the

[[Page 11012]]

        gentleman from New York, Mr. Richard L. Ottinger.

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, again this is a resolution involving a 
    Member whose certificate of election in due form is on file in the 
    Office of the Clerk. I ask for the adoption of the resolution.
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, will 
    the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Albert: I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Cleveland: If this resolution is adopted, will it be 
    impossible for me to offer my own resolution pertaining to the same 
    subject matter, either as an amendment or a substitute?
        The Speaker: If the resolution is agreed to, it will not be in 
    order for the gentleman to offer a substitute resolution or an 
    amendment, particularly if the previous question is ordered.
        Mr. Cleveland: Is it now in order, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman from Oklahoma yields to 
    the gentleman for that purpose. . . .
        Mr. Cleveland: Will the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for that 
    purpose?
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I yield for a question and a very 
    brief statement. I do not yield for a speech.
        Mr. Cleveland: May I inquire if the gentleman will yield so 
    that I may ask for unanimous consent that certain remarks of mine 
    pertaining to this matter be incorporated in the Record?
        Mr. Albert: No, Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield to the 
    gentleman from Mississippi for the purpose of submitting a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 2177, 2178, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving the Previous Question

Sec. 72.2 The motion for the previous question is not debatable.

    On Jan. 3, 1949,(12) at the convening of the 81st 
Congress, the House was considering House Resolution 5, amending the 
rules of the House. Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, who had offered 
the resolution, moved the previous question. Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, sought recognition to offer an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute and objected that he had a ``right to be heard.'' Speaker 
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, held that the previous question was not 
debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 10, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(13) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
moved that

[[Page 11013]]

the Journal be approved as read and moved the previous question on the 
motion. Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, stated a parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 23601, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is not debate in order on this motion inasmuch as under [the 
    House rules] there has been no debate on ordering the previous 
    question?
        The Speaker: (14) The Chair will state that the 
    motion on the previous question is not debatable. The question is 
    on ordering the previous question on the motion to approve the 
    Journal.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
15. See Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995): 
        ``When a question is under debate, no motion shall be received 
        but to adjourn, to lay on the table, for the previous question 
        (which motions shall be decided without debate).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Hall's reference was to clause 3 (now 
clause 2) of Rule XXVII, providing 40 minutes' debate after the 
previous question has been ordered, if the proposition on which the 
motion has been made is debatable but has not been 
debated.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Rule XXVII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995).
            The debate comes after and not 
        before the previous question itself 
        is ordered, the motion itself not being debatable. See 111 
        Cong. Rec. 23602-06, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., where Speaker 
        McCormack held, after the previous question was ordered, that 
        Mr. Hall then had the right to demand 40 minutes' debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Previous Question Where Debate Limited by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 72.3 Where the House by unanimous consent fixed the time and 
    control of debate, it was held that the Members in control were not 
    required to consume or to yield all the time provided for.

    On Mar. 11, 1941,(17) the House was considering House 
Resolution 131 under the terms of a unanimous-consent agreement 
providing two hours of debate and dividing control of debate between 
Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, 
and providing that the previous question be considered as ordered at 
the conclusion of debate. Mr. Bloom asked for a vote prior to the 
expiration of the two hours' time, and Mr. Martin J. Kennedy, of New 
York, objected on the ground that the unanimous-consent agreement  was 
not being complied with in that the previous question had been demanded 
prematurely. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the Members in 
control were not required to consume or to yield all the time provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 87 Cong. Rec. 2177, 2178, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 11014]]

Vacating the Previous Question

Sec. 72.4 The House by unanimous consent vacated the ordering of the 
    previous question in order to permit further debate.

    On Aug. 26, 1960,(18) the House was considering Senate 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement on H.R. 12619, 
making appropriations for the mutual security program. Mr. Silvio O. 
Conte, of Massachusetts, arose 
to object to a motion to concur 
with an amendment in a Senate amendment, and Mr. Otto E. Passman, of 
Louisiana, moved the previous question on the motion, which was ordered 
without objection. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, advised Mr. Conte 
that no further debate was in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 106 Cong. Rec. 17869, 17870, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A call of the House was ordered, and the House then agreed to a 
unanimous-consent request by Mr. Passman that ``the action of the House 
by which the previous question was ordered be vacated.'' Mr. Passman 
then yielded two minutes of debate to Mr. Conte.
    On Oct. 3, 1989,(19) the House had under consideration a 
motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement. Time for debate on 
the motion was divided equally among the majority and minority managers 
(both of whom supported the motion), and a Member 
opposed.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 135 Cong. Rec. 22835, 22836, 22842, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. 
        (Proceedings relating to H.R. 2788, Interior and Related 
        Agencies Appropriations for 1990.)
20. For discussion of so allocating debate time, see Sec. 26, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Madam Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 153 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed 
        by said amendment, insert the following: ``: Provided, That--
            A. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the 
        National Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for 
        the Humanities may be used to promote . . . materials which in 
        the judgment of the National Endowment for the Arts or the 
        National Endowment for the Humanities may be considered 
        obscene. . . .''

        Mr. [Dana] Rohrabacher [of California]: Madam Speaker, I would 
    ask to be recognized in opposition to the motion for 20 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The Chair will inquire 
    is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] opposed to the motion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Patricia Schroeder (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: No, I am not, Madam Speaker.

[[Page 11015]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Then the gentleman from California 
    [Mr. Rohrabacher], who is opposed to the motion, would be entitled 
    to 20 minutes.
        The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], then, would have 20 
    minutes, 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] would have 20 
    minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] would have 20 
    minutes on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Yates]. . . .
        Mr. Yates: . . . Madam Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois moves the 
    previous question on this motion. Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered.
        All those in favor of the gentleman's motion will say ``aye,'' 
    those opposed say ``no.'' The gentleman's amendment is hereby 
    agreed to.
        The Clerk will designate the next amendment in disagreement. . 
    . .
        Mr. Rohrabacher: Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. 
    . . .
        Did I not have 1 minute of debate left?
        Mr. Yates: Madam Speaker, the gentleman was on his feet and he 
    knew that the Chair proposed the question. He made no effort to ask 
    for any kind of a rollcall. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's motion for the 
    previous question was not in order unless 
    the gentleman from California yielded back his time. . . .
        Mr. Yates: I misunderstood the gentleman. I thought the 
    gentleman had used up his time. I am sorry if I cut the gentleman 
    off. I did not mean to do that. I have no reason to do that. . . .
        Mr. Rohrabacher: . . . I would just like 1 minute's worth of 
    time.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California is 
    recognized for 1 minute and the previous action of the House in 
    disposing of the motion is vacated.

Effect of Motion To Table

Sec. 72.5 The adoption of the non-debatable motion to lay a resolution 
    on the table results in the final adverse disposition of the 
    resolution and closes further debate.

    On Dec. 14, 1970,(2) the previous question was moved on 
House Resolution 1306, asserting the privileges of the House in 
printing and publishing a report of the Committee on Internal Security. 
Mr. Louis Stokes, of Ohio, then offered the preferential motion to lay 
the resolution on the table. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 116 Cong. Rec. 41372, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert W.] Watson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    motion to table prevails, there can be no further consideration at 
    all of this matter. Is that not correct? Does it not apply the 
    clincher?
        The Speaker: If the motion to table is agreed to, then the 
    resolution is tabled.

[[Page 11016]]

        Mr. Watson: Then that ends it. All right.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to lay on the table takes 
precedence over the previous question and may be used to close all 
debate and adversely dispose of a proposition.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995); and 
        Ch. 23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Special Rule

Sec. 72.6 When the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports a 
    bill to the House pursuant to a resolution providing that the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered, further debate in 
    the House is thereby precluded.

    On Aug. 31, 1960,(4) there being no amendments to S. 
2917 being considered in the Committee of the Whole, the Committee rose 
and the bill was reported back to the House. Pursuant to the resolution 
under which the bill was being considered, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, stated that the previous question was ordered. In response to a 
parliamentary inquiry by Mr. H. Carl Andersen, 
of Minnesota, the Speaker stated that the previous question having been 
ordered by the resolution, 
no further debate or amendments were in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 106 Cong. Rec. 18748, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Rules, providing for the consideration of a bill in Committee of the 
Whole, typically provide that the previous question is ordered to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, when 
the Committee rises.

Closing Debate in House as in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 72.7 Debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole may be 
    closed by ordering the previous question.

    On July 28, 1969,(5) H.R. 9553, amending the District of 
Columbia Minimum Wage Act, was being considered under the five-minute 
rule in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. John Dowdy, of 
Texas, moved the previous question on the bill to final passage and 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry on the effect of that motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 115 Cong. Rec. 20855, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phillip] Burton of California: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 11017]]

        Mr. Burton of California: Mr. Speaker, is the motion before us 
    to close debate or will there be a vote subsequent to the pending 
    motion so that those of us who want a rollcall on this matter can 
    obtain a rollcall vote.
        The Speaker: The pending question is on ordering the previous 
    question.
        Mr. Burton of California: This is to close debate and not on 
    the passage of the matter? Will this be our last opportunity to 
    receive a rollcall on this matter?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question on the 
    passage of the bill will come later, if the previous question is 
    ordered.

Sec. 72.8 In the House as in the Committee of the Whole, a motion to 
    close debate on an amendment is in order.

    On June 26, 1973,(6) Mr. George H. Mahon, of Texas, 
called up House Joint Resolution 636, making continuing appropriations 
for fiscal 1974 and asked unanimous consent that the resolution be 
considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, to which 
request the House agreed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 21305-07, 21314, 21315, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During debate on the resolution under the five-minute rule, Mr. 
Mahon moved ``that all debate 
on the pending amendment and amendments thereto close in 20 minutes.'' 
Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, put the question on the motion and it 
was agreed to by a recorded vote.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Although it was formerly the practice to 
read bills considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole by 
sections for amendment, such bills are now considered as read and open 
for amendment at any point. Debate may be closed by ordering the 
previous question.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See 116 Cong. Rec. 28050, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1970, for 
        the current practice; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2433, 
        2434, for earlier practice as to reading bills for amendment in 
        the House as in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Jan. 22, 1930,(8) the House was considering under the 
five-minute rule in the House as in the Committee of the Whole a 
section of a bill for amendment. Mr. George S. Graham, of Pennsylvania, 
moved that all debate on the pending section and amendments thereto 
close in 10 minutes. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, put the 
question on the motion and it was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 72 Cong. Rec. 2144, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------