[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[A. Introductory; Initiating Consideration and Debate]
[Â§ 6. Questions Not Subject to Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9519-9565]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
        A.  INTRODUCTORY;  INITIATING  CONSIDERATION  AND DEBATE
 
Sec. 6. Questions Not Subject to Debate

    The relevant standing rule and the precedents relating to each 
motion or question must be consulted in order to determine whether 
debate thereon is allowable.(1) Thus, the motion to go into 
Committee of the Whole is not de

[[Page 9520]]

batable (and therefore not subject to the motion to lay on the 
table).(2) Nor is a motion to go into secret session 
debatable.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Cannon's Procedure in the House of Representatives 148, 149, H. 
        Doc. No. 122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. (1959) for a list of 
        nondebatable questions arranged in the order of their 
        frequency. The list is not exclusive; see, for example, Rule I 
        clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1995) (1971 
        amendment to the rule providing for a nondebatable motion that 
        the Journal be read in full).
 2. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 726.
 3. For discussion of secret sessions, see Sec. 85, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unless otherwise provided by a standing rule or by order of the 
House, a question brought before the House is debated under the hour 
rule.(4) The motions for the previous question 
(5) and to lay on the table (6) are not 
debatable. The previous question closes debate and brings the House to 
an immediate vote on the pending proposition unless ordered on a 
proposition on which there has been no debate, in which event 40 
minutes of debate are permitted.(7) The motion to lay on the 
table also precludes further debate and, if agreed to, provides a final 
adverse disposition of the matter to which applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. 68, infra, for discussion of the hour rule.
 5. See Sec. 6.35 infra.
 6. See Sec. 6.9, infra.
 7. See Sec. 6.37, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XXV (8) provides that all questions of the priority 
of business shall be decided by a majority without debate. In applying 
the rule, the Speaker has stated that the language precludes debate on 
motions to go into Committee of the Whole, on questions of 
consideration, and on appeals from the Chair's decisions on priority of 
business.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 900 (1995).
 9. Appeals from other rulings of the Chair may be debatable under the 
        hour rule. See Sec. 68.71, infra.
            Rule XXV should not be utilized 
        to permit a motion directing the Speaker to recognize Members 
        in a certain order or to otherwise establish an order of 
        business. See Sec. 9.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the question of consideration is not 
debatable,(10) a motion to postpone further consideration of 
a privileged resolution (to censure a Member) is debatable for one hour 
controlled by the Member offering the motion.(11) Under Rule 
XVI, clause 4, the motion to postpone indefinitely is normally 
debatable; but where such a motion is offered pursuant to provisions of 
a statute, enacted under the rulemaking power of the House and Senate, 
such as statutes relating to consideration of resolutions disapproving 
certain executive actions, the motion by the terms of the statute may 
not be debatable.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2447.
11. See Sec. 24.14, infra.
12. See Sec. 2.42, supra, for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Member having the floor in Committee of the Whole may dis

[[Page 9521]]

play charts or exhibits by permission of the Committee, but if 
objection is made, the question is put, without debate, as to whether 
such Member should be permitted to use displays.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Rule XXX, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 915-917 (1995); see 
        also Sec. Sec. 80-84, infra, for discussion of reading papers 
        and displaying exhibits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of course, agreements to limit debate may affect the question of 
what matters may be debated.(14) For example, when the 
Committee of the Whole has limited debate on the bill and all 
amendments thereto to a time certain, even a preferential motion 
(15) (such as a motion to strike the enacting clause) is not 
debatable if offered after the expiration of time for debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For discussion of limiting debate, and the effect of such 
        limitation, see Sec. Sec. 78, 79, infra.
15. See Sec. 79.27, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to a motion to recommit with instructions after the 
previous question has been ordered on the passage of a bill or joint 
resolution, it is in order to debate the motion for ten minutes before 
the vote is taken thereon, except that on demand of the floor manager 
for the majority it is in order to debate such motion for one hour. One 
half of any debate on such motion is given to debate by the mover of 
the motion and one half to debate in opposition to the 
motion.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Rule XVI, clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Discretionary debate on certain questions and motions, see Sec. 67, 
    infra.
Motions and debate thereon, see Ch. 23, supra.
Points of order, appeals, and parliamentary inquiries and debate 
    thereon, see Ch. 31, infra.
Power of Member in charge to cut off debate, see Sec. 7, infra.
Quorum calls and debate, see Ch. 20, supra.
Recognition to be sought before debate, see Sec. 8, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Right of Member-elect To Be Sworn

Sec. 6.1 No debate is in order on the right of a challenged Member-
    elect to be sworn 
    in, pending the swearing-in 
    of the remaining Members-elect.

    On Jan. 5, 1937, before the swearing-in en masse of Members-elect 
at the convening of the 75th Congress, Member-elect John J. O'Connor, 
of New York, arose to challenge the right of Member-elect Arthur B. 
Jenks, of New Hampshire, to be sworn in.(17) Mr.

[[Page 9522]]

Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, arose to object to the challenge and 
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that the challenged 
Member-elect should stand aside and that no debate on the challenge was 
in order until the remaining Members-elect had been sworn in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 81 Cong. Rec. 12, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resignation of Committee Chairman

Sec. 6.2 In response to parliamentary inquiries, the Speaker indicated 
    that the question of whether a member should be relieved from 
    committee service was debatable only within narrow limits and that 
    the Chair would take the initiative in enforcing that restriction.

    On June 16, 1975,(18) after the Speaker (19) 
laid before the House 
a letter of resignation from the chairman of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 19054, 19056, 19059, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker laid before the House the [resignation of Mr. 
    Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan] from the House Select Committee on 
    Intelligence. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is, shall the resignation be 
    accepted?
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Nedzi). . 
    . .
        Mr. Nedzi: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 minutes to the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'Hara).
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, before 
    proceeding, I wonder if I could address to the Chair a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the precedents and I 
    am somewhat uncertain as to the proper scope of the debate on such 
    a question. I would hope that the Chair could enlighten this 
    gentleman and the House.
        The Speaker: . . . The Chair will state that rule XIV, clause 
    1, requires that a Member confine himself to the question under 
    debate in the House, avoiding personalities. On January 29, 1855, 
    as cited in section 4510 of volume 4, Hinds' Precedents, Speaker 
    Boyd held that the request of a Member that he be excused from 
    committee service was debatable only within very narrow limits.
        The Chair trusts that debate on the pending question will be 
    confined within the spirit of that ruling and the Chair will 
    further state that he will strictly enforce the rule as to the 
    relevancy of debate. . . .
        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: . . . Under the germaneness test 
    that the Speaker recited at the commencement of this discussion did 
    the Speaker contemplate that on his own volition and initiative 
    that he would raise the question of germaneness; or must that 
    question of germaneness be raised by someone on the floor? . . .
        Does the Speaker [intend] to question the germaneness when in 
    his mind it appears to be nongermane?

[[Page 9523]]

        The Speaker: The Chair has so stated, and the Chair so intends.

Question of Consideration

Sec. 6.3 The question of consideration is not debatable.

    On June 1, 1934,(20) Mr. William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, called up on the same day reported House Resolution 410, from 
the Committee on Rules, making in order during the remainder of the 
session motions to suspend the rules and suspending the requirement of 
a two-thirds vote to consider reports from the Committee on Rules when 
called up on the same day reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 78 Cong. Rec. 10239-41, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Bankhead called for the consideration of the resolution and 
before the question of consideration could be voted upon, Mr. Clarence 
J. McLeod, of Michigan, made a point of order against ordering the yeas 
and nays on the question, ``because there has not been a chance to even 
explain the resolution under consideration.''
    Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that ``the question of 
consideration is not debatable.'' (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. The question of consideration is provided for in Rule XVI clause 3, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 778 (1995). The question has 
        formerly been held nondebatable; see 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2447.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rereference of Bill to Committee

Sec. 6.4 A motion to correct the reference of a public bill is not 
    debatable.

    On Apr. 2, 1935,(2) Mr. Emanual Celler, of New York, 
asked unanimous consent that H.R. 6547, 
authorizing the appointment of 
a commissioner for the United States Court of China, originally 
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, be rereferred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Sam D. McReynolds, of Tennessee, 
objected to the request and Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
stated that a motion for rereferral was in order since Mr. Celler was 
authorized by the Committee on the Judiciary to move for rereferral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 79 Cong. Rec. 4878, 4879, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Byrns advised Mr. McReynolds that the motion was not 
debatable. The House then voted against the motion of rereferral.
    On Jan. 10, 1941,(3) Mr. Andrew J. May, of Kentucky, 
offered a privileged motion to rerefer H.R. 1776, to promote the 
defense of the United States, originally referred to the Committee on 
For

[[Page 9524]]

eign Affairs, to the Committee on Military Affairs. Mr. John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to the 
reasons why Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, had referred the bill to the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Speaker suggested that a unanimous-
consent request might be granted for him to explain his reasons, but 
Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 87 Cong. Rec. 100-03, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the Speaker pursues that course, then in effect he has 
    opened this matter up to debate, and the Speaker himself has made a 
    speech against the motion. That can be done by unanimous consent, 
    but it does seem to me we should do these things according to the 
    rules. If we are going to have debate, let us have debate; if we 
    are not, let us not have one side only.

    After further debate, Mr. Albert J. Engel, of Michigan, asked 
unanimous consent that the subject be debated for 20 minutes. The 
Speaker responded that he would ``accept no time from the House on any 
conditions,'' and put the motion on the question of rereferral, which 
was rejected by the House.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Rule XXII clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 854 (1995): 
        ``[C]or-rection in case of error in reference may be made by 
        the House, without debate. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.5 While the rule with regard to rereference of bills on motion 
    of a committee prohibits debate, a Member may proceed by unanimous 
    consent for one minute before he makes such a motion.

    On Apr. 21, 1942,(5) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
was granted unanimous consent to address the House for one minute 
following the reading of the Journal. At the conclusion of his address, 
he moved that the bill H.R. 6915 be rereferred from the Committee on 
the Judiciary to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 88 Cong. Rec. 3571, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made a point of order against 
the motion on the ground that Mr. Dickstein could only ask for 
rereferral by unanimous consent. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
overruled the point of order and read Rule XXVII clause 4, providing 
for a motion to correct reference of bills, to be determined without 
debate.
    Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, made a further point of order that Mr. 
Dickstein's motion was not in order since ``there was debate by the 
distinguished gentleman from New York for 1 minute immediately 
preceding the submission of the motion, where as the opposition is 
denied that right by the rule.''

[[Page 9525]]

    Speaker Rayburn overruled the point of order:

        The Chair did not know what the gentleman from New York was 
    going to talk about. The Chair cannot look into the mind of a 
    Member when he asks unanimous consent to address the House for 1 
    minute and see what he intends to talk about.

After Discharge of Rules Committee Resolution

Sec. 6.6 Under the former practice, where the Committee on Rules was 
    discharged from further consideration of a resolution providing a 
    special order of business, the vote occurred immediately on the 
    adoption of the resolution without debate; Rule XXVII, clause 3, 
    has since been amended to permit debate on a resolution discharged 
    from the Committee on Rules.

    On June 11, 1945,(6) Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, 
called up a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further 
consideration of House Resolution 139, providing for the consideration 
of H.R. 7, making unlawful the requirement for the payment of a poll 
tax as a prerequisite to voting in a primary or other election for 
federal officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892, 5895, 5896, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After 20 minutes' debate on the motion, the House agreed to the 
motion and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, immediately put the question 
on the resolution, after ruling that a motion to lay the resolution on 
the table was not in order.
    Parliamentarian's Note: After the ruling cited above, the House did 
not proceed to the consideration of H.R. 7 until the following day, 
since House Resolution 139 provided for consideration of said bill on 
``the day succeeding the adoption of this resolution.''
    Rule XXVII, clause 3, was amended by H. Res. 5, 102d Cong. 1st 
Sess., Jan. 3, 1991, to permit debate on a resolution discharged from 
the Committee on Rules.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. For the earlier version of the rule, see Rule XXVII, clause 4, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1988): ``If the motion (motion 
        to discharge committee from bill or resolution) prevails to 
        discharge the Committee on Rules from any resolution pending 
        before the committee, the House shall immediately vote on the 
        adoption of said resolution, the Speaker not entertaining any 
        dilatory or other intervening motion except one motion to 
        adjourn . . . .'' The present rule states: ``If the motion 
        prevails . . . the House shall immediately consider such 
        resolution . . . .'' Rule XXVII, clause 3, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 908 (1995).

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

[[Page 9526]]

Discharge of Privileged Resolution of Inquiry

Sec. 6.7 When a committee to which has been referred a privileged 
    resolution of inquiry has not reported that resolution within 
    fourteen (formerly seven) legislative days, a motion to discharge 
    that committee from further consideration of that resolution is 
    privileged and not debatable.

    On Sept. 29, 1975,(8) the principle described above was 
demonstrated in the House as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 30748, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. Note: At the time of the 
        proceedings below, the rules required resolutions of inquiry to 
        be reported within seven days. The rule now requires reporting 
        within fourteen days. See Rule XXII, cl. 5, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 855 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Collins of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged motion to discharge the Committee on Education and Labor 
    from consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 718).
        The Speaker: (9) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the motion as follows:

            Mr. Collins of Texas moves to discharge the Committee on 
        Education and Labor from consideration of House Resolution 718.

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 718

            Resolved, That the Secretary of Health, Education, and 
        Welfare, to the extent not incompatible with the public 
        interest, is directed to furnish to the House of 
        Representatives, not later than sixty days following the 
        adoption of this resolution, any documents containing a list of 
        the public school systems in the United States which, during 
        the period beginning on August 1, 1975, and ending on June 30, 
        1976, will be receiving Federal funds and will be engaging 
        in the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance, and 
        any documents respecting the rules and regulations of the 
        Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with respect to 
        the use of any Federal funds 
        administered by the Department 
        for the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance.

        The Speaker: The question is on the privileged motion to 
    discharge.
        The motion was agreed to.

Debate on Resolution of Inquiry

Sec. 6.8 A resolution of inquiry is debatable for one hour, controlled 
    by the Member calling it up.

    During consideration of a privileged resolution (H. Res. 745, in 
the matter of Billy Carter) in the House on Sept. 10, 
1980,(10) Mr. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey, manager 
of the resolution,

[[Page 9527]]

made a statement concerning procedure for debate, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 24948, 24949, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, I call up a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 745) of inquiry in the matter of Billy Carter, and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 745

            Resolved, That the President, to the extent possible, is 
        directed to furnish to the House of Representatives, not later 
        than seven days following the adoption of this resolution, full 
        and complete information on the following:
            (1) any record and date of all conversations and actions of 
        the President with Billy Carter relating to the latter's role 
        as an official or unofficial agent of the Government of Libya. 
        . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino), the chairman of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary.
        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to yield to Members 
    whom I have already designated, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    McClory), the ranking minority member on the Committee on the 
    Judiciary, for 15 minutes, for purposes of debate only; the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield), the ranking minority 
    member on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for 10 minutes, for 
    purposes of debate only; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki), the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for 2 
    minutes; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland), 
    chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for 2 
    minutes.

Motion To Lay on the Table

Sec. 6.9 A motion to lay on the table is a preferential motion and is 
    not debatable.

    On June 16, 1947,(11) certain words used in debate 
characterizing a committee report as containing ``lies and half-
truths'' were demanded to be taken down. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., 
of Massachusetts, ruled that the words used were unparliamentary and 
Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, moved to strike the entire 
statement from the Record. On that motion he asked for recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 93 Cong. Rec. 7065, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, moved to lay the motion to 
strike words on the table. Mr. Rankin objected that he had already been 
recognized. Speaker Martin ruled that the motion to table was 
``preferential and not debatable.'' The House rejected the motion to 
table.
    On Feb. 20, 1952,(12) the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
adversely reported a resolution of inquiry. Mr. James P. Richards, of 
South Carolina, moved that the resolution of inquiry be laid on the 
table. Speaker Sam Rayburn,

[[Page 9528]]

of Texas, ruled in response to a parliamentary inquiry that no debate 
could be had on the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 98 Cong. Rec. 1205-07, 1215, 1216, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of very considerable 
    importance. Does the making of this motion at this time preclude 
    all debate, or may we expect that the chairman of the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs will yield time to those who may want to discuss 
    this matter?
        The Speaker: The motion to lay on the table is not debatable. 
    The gentleman from South Carolina cannot yield time after he has 
    made a motion to lay on the table.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, if the chairman of the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs could see fit not to make such a motion at this 
    time, then would this resolution as well as the report be 
    debatable?
        The Speaker: The resolution would be debatable and the time of 
    1 hour would be under the control of the gentleman from South 
    Carolina.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from South 
    Carolina.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 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). . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Dispense With Reading of Amendment

Sec. 6.10 A motion under Rule XXIII clause 5(b) to dispense with the 
    reading of an amendment which has been printed in the Congressional 
    Record and submitted in the required manner to the reporting 
    committee is not subject to debate.

    On May 6, 1981,(14) during consideration of House 
Concurrent Resolution 115 (revising the congressional budget for fiscal 
year 1981 and setting forth the congressional budgets for 1982, 1983, 
and 1984) in the Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 127 Cong. Rec. 8716, 8721, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: (15) Has the gentleman's amendment 
    been printed in the Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Martin Frost (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Latta: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it has been printed in the 
    Record.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Latta (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.

[[Page 9529]]

        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Ohio? . . .
        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Latta: Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The motion was agreed to.

Point of Order

Sec. 6.11 Debate on a point of order is within the discretion of the 
    Chair.

    On Apr. 13, 1951,(16) Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, made 
a point of order that an amendment offered by Mr. Antoni N. Sadlak, of 
Connecticut, to a pending bill was not in order since not germane to 
the bill. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, inquired of Mr. Sadlak 
whether he desired to be heard on the point of order. Mr. Sadlak 
inquired ``how much time will be allotted to me for that purpose?'' The 
Chair responded that the time allotted ``was in the discretion of the 
Chair.'' (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 97 Cong. Rec. 3909, 3910, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Points of order on which the Chair has announced his readiness to 
        rule are not debatable, such debate being at all times within 
        the discretion of the Chair. See Sec. 6.36, infra; 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 6919, 6920.
            Points of order generally, see Ch. 31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point of Order of No Quorum

Sec. 6.12 A point of order that a quorum is not present is not 
    debatable.

    On Apr. 15, 1940,(18) Speaker Pro Tempore Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, ruled that since a point of order of no quorum is not 
debatable, remarks made after the point of order should not be 
included in the Congressional Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 4517, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a little while ago 
    the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] made a point of order 
    that no quorum was present, and thereafter he said:

            You are not going to raid the veterans of the World War and 
        pass these other pension bills and run over the House that way. 
        I make the point of order there is no quorum present.

        Now, the gentleman was not recognized for that purpose; and 
    then thereafter the gentleman from Mississippi further stated:

            And there will be a quorum and a vote on every other bill 
        from now on today.

        The gentleman was not recognized for that purpose, and that 
    should not be in the Record. I make the point of order that the 
    language should not be contained in the Record.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York makes the 
    point of order that certain remarks

[[Page 9530]]

    made in the House should not be included in the Record. The Chair 
    is prepared to rule.
        Under the rules of the House, remarks should only be included 
    in the Record that are made in order. After a point of order is 
    made, which is not debatable, any further remarks should not be 
    included in the Record. Therefore the Chair rules that any remarks 
    that may have been made after the point of order that a quorum was 
    not present was made should not be included in the Record.

    On Apr. 24, 1956,(19) while Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, 
had the floor and was speaking under a special order, Mr. William M. 
Colmer, of Mississippi, made the point of order that a quorum was not 
present. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, sought recognition to be 
heard on the point of order and Speaker Rayburn ruled that the point of 
order that a quorum was not present was not debatable. The Speaker 
declined to hold that the point of order was dilatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 102 Cong. Rec. 6891, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following Announcement of No Quorum

Sec. 6.13 The Chair refuses to recognize Members after the absence of a 
    quorum has been announced and no debate is in order until a quorum 
    has been established.

    On June 8, 1960,(20) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
made the point of order that a quorum was not present. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, counted the Members and announced that a quorum was 
not present. Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, moved a call of the 
House and it was so ordered. Mr. Hoffman then attempted to deliver some 
remarks. The Speaker ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 106 Cong. Rec. 12142, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman because a point of 
    order of no quorum has been made, and the Chair announced that 
    there was no quorum.

Motion To Dispense With Proceedings Under a Call

Sec. 6.14 A motion to dispense with further proceedings un-der a call 
    of the House is not debatable.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, directed the Clerk to read the Journal of the last day's 
proceedings. Mr. John Bell Williams, of Mississippi, made the point of 
order that a quorum was not present and a call of the House was 
ordered. The reading of the Journal was interrupted by three quorum 
calls and two record

[[Page 9531]]

votes on dispensing with further proceedings under the quorum 
calls.(2) When the motion to dispense with further 
proceedings under the call was first made by Mr. Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, Mr. Williams moved to lay that motion on the table. The 
Speaker ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 108 Cong. Rec. 17651-54, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. Parliamentarian's Note: The quorum calls, record votes on motions 
        to 
        dispense with further proceedings under the call, and demand 
        that the Journal be read in full interrupted the reading of the 
        Journal and delayed the Speaker's recognition of a Member to 
        move to suspend the rules and pass Senate Joint Resolution 29, 
        proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish use of the poll 
        tax as a qualification for voting in elections of federal 
        officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion to dispense with further proceedings under the call 
    is not debatable and not subject to amendment, and, therefore, the 
    motion to lay on the table is not in order.

    On Dec. 18, 1970,(3) Speaker McCormack ruled that a 
motion to dispense with further proceedings under a call of the House 
was not debatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 42505, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion to dispense with further proceedings under the call 
    is not debatable and is not amendable. The Chair rules that the 
    motion of the gentleman from Missouri is not in order. [Mr. Hall 
    had moved to table the motion.]

Questions as to Disorderly Words

Sec. 6.15 The question whether words taken down violate the rules is 
    for the Speaker to decide and is not debatable.

    On Jan. 15, 1948,(4) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
referred in debate to a statement by Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, 
as ``damnable.'' Mr. Rankin demanded that the words be taken down. 
After the words were read to the House, Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., 
of Massachusetts, inquired of Mr. Rankin whether the word ``damnable'' 
was the word objected to. Mr. Rankin responded and Mr. Celler 
interjected the inquiry ``Mr. Speaker, may I be heard?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 94 Cong. Rec. 205, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker ruled ``That is not debatable. The Chair will pass on 
the question.''
    On Mar. 9, 1948,(5) after Mr. Rankin had demanded that 
certain words used in debate be taken down and Speaker Martin had ruled 
them not a breach of order, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Id. at p. 2408.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard.

[[Page 9532]]

        The Speaker: It is a matter for the Chair to determine.
        Mr. Rankin: I understand; but I would like to be heard on the 
    matter. We have a right to be heard.

        The Speaker: The Chair has held that the words are not 
    unparliamentary. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] is merely 
    expressing his own opinion. The gentleman from New York will 
    proceed.

Sec. 6.16 Words objected to in debate may be withdrawn by unanimous 
    consent, but no debate is in order pending such a request.

    During consideration of the foreign aid authorization bill (H.R. 
12514) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 2, 1978,(6) the 
following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 23944, 23945, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cavanaugh [of Nebraska]: . . . I am highly 
    offended and irritated by much of the language presented here by 
    Mr. Bauman and by our colleague from Minnesota concerning the 
    administration support.
        [Mr. Cavanaugh further characterized Mr. Bauman's language as 
    ``outrageous,'' the characterization in question.]
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order against the language of the gentleman from Nebraska 
    if he cannot conduct himself civilly in debate. . . . I demand his 
    words be taken down. . . .
        Mr. Cavanaugh: Mr. Chairman, insofar as the characterization 
    that I used regarding the gentleman's language could in any way be 
    construed to impugn the gentleman's character, I would ask 
    unanimous consent to withdraw it. It was an attempt to simply 
    convey my feelings of the inappropriateness of the language that 
    the gentleman had used in putting forth his argument.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman will state his point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Is not the only request the gentleman from Nebraska 
    (Mr. Cavanaugh) can make, under the rules of the House, a 
    unanimous-consent request to withdraw his remarks, and not to make 
    a speech?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is 
    correct.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Nebraska?
        There was no objection.

--Motion To Permit Offending Member To Proceed

Sec. 6.17 After words taken down in debate have been reported to the 
    House and ruled out of order by the Speaker, a privileged motion 
    that the Member whose words were ruled out of order be permitted to 
    proceed in order may be made and is debatable.

    In the proceedings of Oct. 8, 1991, the Chair indicated that the 
motion to permit a Member to

[[Page 9533]]

proceed in order is debatable under the hour rule, and that debate is 
limited to the question of whether to permit the Member to proceed in 
order. The proceedings of that date are discussed in Sec. 52.13, infra.

Consent for Reading Papers

Sec. 6.18 Under a former rule, when objection was made to the reading 
    of a paper, it should be determined without debate by a vote of the 
    House.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See, for example, 98 Cong. Rec. 8175, 8176, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., 
        June 26, 1952 (in Committee of the Whole); 92 Cong. Rec. 1729, 
        79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 27, 1946; and 88 Cong. Rec. 8237, 
        77th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 15, 1942.
            Rule XXX, House Rules and Manual Sec. 915 (1991) provided 
        that the vote on permission to read should be taken without 
        debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Close Debate Under Five-minute Rule

Sec. 6.19 A motion to close debate under the five-minute rule in the 
    Committee of the Whole is not debatable.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(9) Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, ruled that a motion to close debate under the five-minute 
rule is nondebatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 111 Cong. Rec. 6098, 6099, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on this title and all amendments thereto close now. . . 
    .
        Mrs. [Edith S.] Green of Oregon: Mr. Chairman . . . I rise in 
    opposition to this motion.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] 
    withdraw his motion?
        Mr. Powell: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. [Robert P.] Griffin [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Griffin: Mr. Chairman, I understand the chairman of the 
    full committee to move that debate on title II be cut off at this 
    time. Was that the motion by the gentleman from New York?
        The Chairman: The motion, as the Chair understood it, was that 
    all debate on section 202 of title II close.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from New York.
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    Mississippi rise?
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Chairman, do I understand the ruling of the 
    Chair to be that a motion to close debate is not debatable?
        The Chairman: That is correct.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also 75 Cong. Rec. 11453, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., May 27, 1932; 
        and 75 Cong. Rec. 2749, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 26, 1932. For 
        the basis of the ruling, see Rule XXIII clause 6, House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 874 (1995): ``The committee may, by the vote of 
        a majority of the members present, at any time after the five 
        minutes' debate has begun upon proposed amendments to any 
        section or paragraph of a bill, close all debate upon such 
        section or paragraph or, at its election, upon the pending 
        amendments only (which motion shall be decided without 
        debate).''

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

[[Page 9534]]

Sec. 6.20 A motion to fix the closing of debate under the five-minute 
    rule in the Committee of the Whole is not debatable.

    On Mar. 30, 1950,(11) Chairman Oren Harris, of Arkansas, 
responded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 4423, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Kee [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on title I and all amendments thereto close in 30 
    minutes.
        Mr. [Compton I.] White of Idaho: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. White: I would like to know if this motion is debatable.
        The Chairman: The motion is not debatable.

    Similarly, Chairman Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, ruled on Jan. 19, 
1944,(12) that a motion that ``all debate on section 2 and 
all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes'' was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 90 Cong. Rec. 418, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.21 The motion to close debate is not subject to debate.

    An illustration of the principle described above was demonstrated 
in the Committee of the Whole on June 5, 1975,(13) as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 17187, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the committee amendment and all amendments thereto 
    conclude at 5:15 o'clock.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        The Chairman: (14) The motion is not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Bob Wilson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan.
        The motion was agreed to.

Amendments Offered After Expiration of Debate Time

Sec. 6.22 Although Members may offer amendments to a title of a bill 
    after a time limitation for debate thereon has expired, such 
    amendments may not be debated.

    On May 21, 1959,(15) the House had agreed to close 
debate on a

[[Page 9535]]

title of the bill and amendments thereto at a certain time (3:35 p.m.). 
Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, stated in response to 
parliamentary inquiries that following the expiration of the time 
Members could offer amendments to the title but could not debate such 
amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 8828, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Is it not a fact that an 
    amendment may be offered after debate has concluded? Any one has a 
    right to offer an amendment even after debate has concluded.
        The Chairman: The Member may offer an amendment after time for 
    debate has expired; and the amendment may be reported and voted on, 
    but it may not be debated.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Suppose a Member has an amendment which might or 
    might not be offered depending on the action taken on the pending 
    amendment and he had informed the Chair of the situation, could not 
    his time be allotted to him after the pending amendment is disposed 
    of?
        The Chairman: If debate goes beyond 3:35, then, of course, he 
    could not be recognized for debate.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXIII, clause 6,(16) as 
amended in 1971, permits 10 minutes' debate on an amendment which has 
been printed in the Congressional Record in accordance with provisions 
of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 874 (1995). For further discussion 
        of the rule, see Sec. 79, infra. See also Sec. 6.25, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.23 Where time for debate on an amendment and amendments thereto 
    has expired, the Chair may still recognize Members to offer 
    amendments, but not for further debate.

    On Feb. 10, 1964,(17) the Committee of the Whole voted 
to close debate on a title of a pending bill and on all amendments 
thereto. Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New York, subsequently responded 
to a parliamentary inquiry on the effect thereof as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 2706, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, in light of 
    the limitation on time may I inquire what amendments will be voted 
    upon when the time expires? I have two amendments at the desk which 
    I may or may not offer, depending upon developments. I would like 
    to be advised whether I will be recognized to offer the amendments 
    and if so when that time will occur.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Virginia that up to 1 o'clock the Chair will undertake to recognize 
    such Members as he can. After 1 o'clock the Chair will recognize 
    those Members desiring to offer

[[Page 9536]]

    amendments and the question on each amendment will be put 
    immediately without debate.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 2719. See also 110 Cong. Rec. 18583, 18608, 88th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Aug. 7, 1964. For further discussion of debate on 
        amendments offered after expiration of debate time, see 
        Sec. 79, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.24 Where all time expires for debate on a paragraph of a bill 
    and on amendments thereto, further amendments may be offered but 
    are not debatable.

    On June 29, 1959,(19) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a unanimous-consent request to lim-it debate on the pending 
paragraph and amendments thereto. In response to parliamentary 
inquiries, Chairman Paul J. Kilday, of Texas, stated that when all time 
had expired pursuant to that agreement, further amendments could be 
offered but not debated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 105 Cong. Rec. 12122-24, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joel T.] Broyhill [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, when could 
    I offer this other amendment?
        The Chairman: To this paragraph?
        Mr. Broyhill: Yes.
        The Chairman: After the disposition of the pending amendment. 
    The Chair would point out that under the arrangement made, the 
    gentleman might find himself in the position of not being permitted 
    to debate the other amendment.

Sec. 6.25 While a perfecting amendment may be offered pending a motion 
    to strike out a title, it is not debatable, except by unanimous 
    consent, if offered after expiration of all debate time under a 
    limitation unless printed in the Record.

    On July 29, 1983,(20) during consideration of H.R. 2957 
(International Monetary Fund authorization) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 21678, 21679, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William N.] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (1) Is the amendment printed in the 
    Record?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: Yes, it is.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Patman: Strike line 13 on page 18 
        and all that follows through line 8 on page 28. . . .

                perfecting amendment offered by mr. gonzalez

        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    perfecting amendment to title III at the desk which I offer.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Gonzalez: On line 18, 
        page 19, strike out ``5,310.8 million Special

[[Page 9537]]

        Drawing Right'' and insert in lieu thereof ``1,750 million 
        Special Drawing Rights''. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from 
    Texas whether this perfecting amendment has been printed in the 
    Record.
        Mr. Gonzalez: No, Mr. Chairman, it has not been printed in the 
    Record.
        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: I have a point 
    of order, Mr. Chairman. I think that the amendment is not in order.
        The Chairman: The Chair would state that the amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) is a perfecting 
    amendment to title III. As such, it takes precedence over a motion 
    to strike. It is in order. . . .
        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, is it not the 
    case that when a Member offers a perfecting amendment to an 
    amendment such as is the case before us now, he should be 
    recognized for 5 minutes to explain his amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the rules do not 
    provide for any debate after a limitation of time on any amendment 
    which has not been previously printed in the Record. . . .
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, without 
    pressing a disputation upon an interpretation of the rules, for an 
    opportunity not to exceed 5 minutes to explain this perfecting 
    amendment to the pending amendment, as well as on title III, which 
    was printed in the Record.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas? . . .
        Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.

Motion To Strike Enacting Clause After Closure of Debate

Sec. 6.26 A motion having been adopted in the Committee of the Whole to 
    close debate on a bill, a preferential motion that the Committee 
    rise and report back to the House a recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken is not debatable.

    On June 11, 1959,(2) Mr. Harold D. Cooley, of North 
Carolina, moved and the Committee of the Whole agreed to close all 
debate on the pending bill and on all amendments thereto. Chairman 
Joseph L. Evins, of Tennessee, then ruled that a preferential motion on 
the bill was not debatable since debate had been closed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 10560, 10561, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Chairman: The Chair must inform the gentleman from Michigan 
    that the motion is not debatable.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Is this a Senate bill?
        The Chairman: This is a House bill.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: This is a Senate bill and the Chair 
    holds that it is not debatable at this time?

[[Page 9538]]

        The Chairman: All debate on the bill has been ordered closed.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: This is not on the bill. This is on a 
    motion to strike out the enacting clause on the ground that the 
    first amendment has been denied to the minority here, the right of 
    free speech in debate, and this being the greatest deliberative 
    body in the world and the accusation having been made the other day 
    that the minority was intimidated, or the majority was being 
    intimidated.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan is a very beloved and 
    very distinguished and very able parliamentarian, but the majority 
    have ruled and ordered that all debate is concluded at this time.

Sec. 6.27 A preferential motion to strike the enacting clause is not 
    debatable after all time for debate on the bill and amendments 
    thereto has expired.

    On July 9, 1965,(3) while the Committee of the Whole was 
considering the Voting Rights Act of 1965, H.R. 6400, Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, ruled that a motion that the Committee rise with 
the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken was not 
debatable, all time having expired on the bill and amendments thereto:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 16280, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. For similar rulings, see 
        119 Cong. Rec. 24961, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., July 19, 1973; and 
        123 Cong. Rec. 17719, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., June 7, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: All time has expired.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I was on the 
    list, but the time has expired. I have a preferential motion [to 
    strike the enacting clause].
        The Chairman: All debate is concluded even with a preferential 
    motion. The agreement was that all debate would conclude at 7:20 
    p.m. The hour is now 7:20 p.m. There is no further time.
        The question is on the committee amendment, as amended.

--After Closure of Debate on Amendments Only

Sec. 6.28 The preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
    and report the bill back to the House with the recommendation that 
    the enacting clause be stricken has been held not to be debatable 
    when all time for debate has expired; however, where debate has 
    been closed on all amendments to a bill, but not on the bill 
    itself, a Member offering the preferential motion to report to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken 
    is entitled to five minutes to debate that motion.

[[Page 9539]]

    On Aug. 8, 1966,(4) while the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act of 1966, Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, ruled that where all time had expired on the 
title being considered, a motion that the Committee rise and report 
back the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken was not 
debatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 112 Cong. Rec. 18490, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired. All time 
    has expired.
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion [that the Committee rise and report the bill 
    back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause 
    be stricken].
        The Chairman: All debate on this title has been concluded, and 
    that would include the preferential motion insofar as this title is 
    concerned. The preferential motion will not obtain the gentleman 
    time.

    A different situation was presented on May 20, 1975,(5) 
during consideration of H.R. 6674 (the military procurement 
authorization), when time for debate on amendments, but not on the bill 
itself, had expired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 121 Cong. Rec. 15458, 15465, 15466, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto, and on further 
    amendments to the bill, end in 20 minutes.
        The Chairman: (6) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired. All time 
    has expired.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bauman moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken out. . . .

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I only offer this motion in order to 
    obtain time since I was not able to receive any time from the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) who offered what he claimed to be 
    the Bauman amendment. I have read his amendment very carefully. It 
    is not the same amendment which I offered to the National Science 
    Foundation authorization bill because this new amendment covers 
    subcontracts and contracts. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas R.] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to 
    the preferential motion. . . .
        If the offices of other Members are like mine, whenever they 
    get one of these letters they begin to wonder, and people begin to 
    ask the Members, just what it is we do to take care of these 
    situations. If we pass this routine au

[[Page 9540]]

    thorization bill for the Defense Department for $32 billion in the 
    usual manner, we will have to answer to our constituents if we 
    choose to be honest about it.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I demand regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman speaks on the preferential motion.
        The Chair would like to make the observation that any portion 
    of the bill is open to debate.

Motion That Committee of the Whole Rise

Sec. 6.29 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is not 
    debatable.

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(7) the proposition described above was 
demonstrated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 11530, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stewart B.] McKinney [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have serious feelings for the lives that have been involved in the 
    past and are involved in the present. I move that the Committee do 
    now rise, and for that purpose I demand a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman from Connecticut has 
    made a preferential motion that the Committee do now rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    oppose the motion.
        The Chairman: I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the 
    motion is not debatable.

Sec. 6.30 A motion to rise in the Committee of the Whole is not 
    debatable.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(9) Chairman Phillip M. Landrum, of 
Georgia, advised Mr. Ben F. Jensen, of Iowa, who had moved that the 
Committee of the Whole rise, that the motion was not debatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 110 Cong. Rec. 7298, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
    Jensen].
        Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise 
    out of further respect for one of the greatest Americans, Gen. 
    Douglas MacArthur.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Jensen].
        Mr. Jensen: Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. It is disgraceful 
    to have this sort of thing going on while General MacArthur is 
    lying here in the Capitol.
        The Chairman: The chair will inform the gentleman that a vote 
    on his motion is being taken. He is not recognized to make a 
    speech.

Motion To Limit Debate

Sec. 6.31 The motion under Rule XXIII clause 6 to limit debate in 
    Committee of the Whole is not debatable.

    During consideration of H.R. 6096 (10) in the Committee 
of the

[[Page 9541]]

Whole on Apr. 23, 1975,(11) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 11534, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. The Vietnam Humanitarian and Evacuation Assistance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: . . . It is my 
    intention at this time to seek a time limit on the debate if I can 
    obtain the permission of the House.
        Mr. Chairman, I move that the debate on the bill and all 
    amendments thereto be concluded at 11:30.
        Mr. [Paul S.] Sarbanes [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a question?
        The Chairman: (12) This motion is not a debatable 
    question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.32 A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule in 
    Committee of the Whole is not subject to debate.

    On May 18, 1977,(13) during debate in the Committee of 
the Whole on the Federal Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977 
(H.R. 10), Mr. William Clay, of Missouri, made the following motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 15418, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Clay: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the bill and 
    all amendments thereto close at 9 o'clock.
        The Chairman: (14) . . . Does the Chair understand 
    the gentleman's motion to be that all debate on the committee 
    amendment and all amendments thereto cease at 9 o'clock?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James R. Mann (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Clay: And the bill is a part of the motion.
        The Chairman: That is the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Daniel R.] Glickman [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, under this 
    type of motion is it true that no Member of the body is allowed to 
    speak for or against the motion?
        I would like to speak against the motion. Is that possible?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the motion is not 
    debatable.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Sec. 6.33 A motion to limit debate under the five-minute rule in 
    Committee of the Whole is not subject to debate.

    During consideration of the foreign aid authorization bill (H.R. 
12514) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 1, 1978,(15) 
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 23716, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the pending amendments and all amendments 
    thereto conclude at 4:30. . . .
        Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, is the 
    motion now before the House debatable?
        The Chairman: (16) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman that it is not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Limit Debate on Disapproval Resolution

Sec. 6.34 Pursuant to section 21(b) of the Federal Trade

[[Page 9542]]

    Commission Improvements Act, a motion to limit debate on a 
    concurrent resolution disapproving a Federal Trade Commission 
    regulation in Committee of the Whole is privileged and is not 
    debatable.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on May 26, 
1982,(17) during consideration of a motion that the House 
resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 60 (disapproving Federal Trade Commission regulations 
regarding the sale of used motor vehicles):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 12027, 12029, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    the provisions of section 21(b) of Public Law 96-252, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the Senate 
    concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 60) disapproving the Federal 
    Trade Commission trade regulation rule relating to the sale of used 
    motor vehicles; and pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    general debate on the Senate concurrent resolution be limited to 
    not to exceed 2 hours, 1 hour to be controlled by the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) and 1 hour to be controlled by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee). . . .
        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell) made the motion that the debate be limited to 2 hours. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that the motion to limit debate is not 
    debatable.
        Mr. [Toby] Moffett [of Connecticut]: I cannot yield, Mr. 
    Speaker?
        The Speaker: The motion is pending.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to resolve into Committee of the 
Whole for consideration of a concurrent resolution disapproving an 
agency action is highly privileged and may be offered before the third 
day on which a report thereon is available since, under an exception 
contained in Rule XI, the requirement of clause 2(l)(6) of that rule 
that committee reports be available to Members for three days is not 
applicable to a measure disapproving a decision by a government 
agency.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 2.44, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion for Previous Question

Sec. 6.35 The motion for the previous question is not debatable.

    On Jan. 3, 1949,(20) 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 of

[[Page 9543]]

fered the resolution, moved the previous question. Mr. John E. Rankin, 
of Mississippi, offered a substitute and answered that he had a ``right 
to be heard.'' Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, held that the previous 
question was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 10, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(1) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
moved that the Journal be approved as read and moved the previous 
question on the motion. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
declared:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 23601, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 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) . . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Points of Order and Inquiries After Demand for Previous Question

Sec. 6.36 Although incidental questions of order arising after a demand 
    for the previous question are not debatable, the Chair may in his 
    discretion permit a Member to address a point of order or may 
    entertain a parliamentary inquiry.

    On Mar. 27, 1926,(3) Mr. John McDuffie, of Alabama, 
offered a motion to instruct conferees and the previous question was 
moved thereon. Mr. McDuffie then propounded a parliamentary inquiry and 
Speaker Pro Tempore Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, entertained the 
inquiry. Several points of order and inquiries intervened and the 
Speaker Pro Tempore allowed debate thereon. When Mr. Cassius C. Dowell, 
of Iowa, made the point of order that a parliamentary inquiry was not 
in order pending a vote on ordering the previous question, the Speaker 
Pro Tempore overruled the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 67 Cong. Rec. 6468, 6469, 69th Cong. 1st Sess.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual 
(1995) provides that incidental questions of order arising after a 
motion is made for the previous question, and pending such motion, 
shall be decided, whether on appeal or otherwise, without debate.
    The rule does not however deprive the Chair of his discretionary 
power, under the precedents, over debate on a point of

[[Page 9544]]

order or a parliamentary inquiry.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. For the Chair's discretion over debate on a point of order, see 
        Sec. 6.11, supra. For parliamentary inquiries, see Ch. 31, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

40 Minutes Debate After Previous Question Ordered; Motion To Approve 
    Journal

Sec. 6.37 Where the previous question is ordered on a debatable motion 
    without debate, a Member may demand the right to debate; and the 40 
    minutes permitted under the rule is divided between the person 
    demanding the time and some Member who represents the opposing view 
    of the question.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(5) the previous question was ordered, 
without debate, on the motion to 
approve the Journal, as read. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. 
Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, that pursuant to Rule XXVII, clause 
2,(6) any Member could demand the right to debate the motion 
since it was debatable and since the previous question had been ordered 
without debate. The Speaker recognized Mr. Hall for 20 minutes and then 
recognized a Member in opposition, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, for 20 
minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 111 Cong. Rec. 23602, 23604-06, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Rule XXVII, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995) 
        provides that ``whenever the previous question has been ordered 
        on any proposition on which there has been no debate,'' it 
        shall be in order ``to debate the proposition to be voted upon 
        for forty minutes, one-half of such time to be given to debate 
        in favor of and one-half to debate in opposition to, such 
        proposition.'' For further discussion of this rule, see 
        Sec. 69, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although, as indicated above, the motion to 
approve the Journal as read is debatable, Rule I, clause 1 
(7) provides for a nondebatable motion that the Journal be 
read, where the Speaker's approval of the Journal has not been agreed 
to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion That Journal Be Read

Sec. 6.38 Under a former practice, a privileged motion, pursuant to 
    Rule I, clause 1, that the Journal be read, could be made pending 
    the Speaker's announcement of his approval of the Journal and prior 
    to approval of the Journal by the House, and was not debatable; the 
    present

[[Page 9545]]

    rule provides that it is in order to offer one motion that the 
    Journal be read only if the Speaker's approval of the Journal is 
    not agreed to, such motion to be determined without 
    debate.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See the present Rule I, clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 621 
        (1995).

    On Apr. 23, 1975,(9) after Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, announced his approval of the Journal, a Member moved that 
the Journal be read. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 11482, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair has examined the Journal of the last 
    day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
        Is there objection to dispensing with the reading of the 
    Journal?
        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move, 
    pursuant to the rules of the House, that the Journal be read.
        The Speaker: The question is, shall the Journal be read?
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. John L. Burton: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
    ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order 
    that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    16, nays 386, not voting 30. . . .
        So the motion was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the Speaker's approval of the Journal is 
rejected, a motion to amend takes precedence of a motion to approve 
(10) and a Member offering an amendment is recognized un-der 
the hour rule.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2760; 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 633.
11. See 136 Cong. Rec. 4488, 101st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 19, 1990.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion To Recommit

Sec. 6.39 A simple motion to recommit may not be described by its 
    proponent after the previous question has been ordered, since such 
    description would amount to debate which is not then in order.

    On July 2, 1958,(12) the previous question was ordered 
on the final passage of H.R. 13192, making appropriations for mutual 
security and other related purposes. Mr. John Taber, of New York, 
offered a motion to recommit and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated 
in response to a parliamentary in

[[Page 9546]]

quiry that no debate was in order on the motion, the previous question 
having been ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 104 Cong. Rec. 12974, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to recommit offered by Mr. Taber 
was a motion to recommit with instructions, but the Speaker ruled that 
the motion could not be described since the rules in effect in the 85th 
Congress and the precedents of the House prohibited any debate on any 
motion to recommit offered after the previous question had been 
ordered. In the 92d Congress, Rule XVI clause 4 was amended to allow 10 
minutes' debate on a motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution with 
instructions offered after the ordering of the previous 
question.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995).

Sec. 6.40 The 10 minutes of debate on a motion to recommit with 
    instructions applies on-ly to bills and joint resolutions and is 
    not in order on a motion to recommit a concurrent resolution with 
    instructions.

    On May 7, 1975,(14) during consideration of Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 23 (15) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding debate on a 
motion. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 1366, 1367, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. Authorizing printing of additional copies of ``The Congressional 
        Program of Economic Recovery and Energy Sufficiency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit with instructions.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bauman moves to recommit Senate Concurrent Resolution 
        23 to the Committee on House Administration with instructions 
        to report the resolution back forthwith with the following 
        amendment: Page 1, line 3 and 4 strike the word 
        ``Congressional'' and insert in lieu thereof the word 
        ``Democrat''.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) Is the gentleman 
    opposed to the Senate concurrent resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form or in any 
    other form.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Am I not permitted time to discuss the motion?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: I would inform the gentleman from 
    Maryland that it is not a debatable motion on a concurrent 
    resolution.

Sec. 6.41 A motion to recommit 
    a simple resolution with 


[[Page 9547]]

    instructions, the previous question having been ordered, is not 
    debatable, clause 4 of Rule XVI only permitting 10 minutes of 
    debate on a motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution with 
    instructions.

    On Oct. 13, 1978,(17) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 37009, 37016, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Flynt [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 1416) and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1416

            Resolved, That Representative Edward R. Roybal be censured 
        and that the House of Representatives adopt the Report of the 
        Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated October 6, 
        1978, In the matter of Representative Edward R. Roybal. . . .

        Mr. Flynt: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. Bob Wilson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit.
        The Speaker: (18) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bob Wilson: I am.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bob Wilson moves to recommit the resolution, House 
        Resolution 1416, to the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct with instructions to report the same back forthwith 
        with the following amendment. Strike all after the resolving 
        clause and insert:
        That Edward R. Roybal be and he is hereby reprimanded.

        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered on the motion to recommit.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Bruce F.] Caputo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Caputo: Is time allowed for debate?
        The Speaker: The motion is not debatable.
        The question is on the motion to recommit with instructions.

Sec. 6.42 Where the previous question has been ordered on a resolution 
    prior to adoption of the rules, the motion to commit (with or 
    without instructions) is not debatable, but is itself subject to 
    the motion for the previous question to cut off amendment.

    On Jan. 5, 1981,(19) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 98, 111-13, 97th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 57 Cong. 
        Rec. 79, 63d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 7, 1913.

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

[[Page 9548]]

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 5

            Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of 
        the Ninety-sixth Congress, including all applicable provisions 
        of law which constituted the Rules of the House at the end of 
        the Ninety-sixth Congress, be, and they are hereby, adopted as 
        the Rules of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-seventh 
        Congress, with the following amendments included therein as 
        part thereof, to wit:
            (1) In Rule I, clause 4 is amended by adding at the end 
        thereof the following new sentence: ``The Speaker is authorized 
        to sign enrolled bills whether or not the House is in 
        session.''. . . .

        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The Speaker: (20) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
    nays 179, not voting 25, as follows: . . .
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Michel moves to commit the resolution (H. Res. 5) to a 
        select committee to be appointed by the Speaker and to be 
        composed of nine members, not more than five of whom shall be 
        from the same political party, with instructions to report the 
        same back to the House within 7 
        calendar days with the following amendment:
            On page 10, after line 8, add the following:
            (19) In rule X, clause 6(a) is amended by adding the 
        following new subparagraph:
            ``(3) The membership of each committee and of each 
        subcommittee, task force or subunit thereof, shall reflect the 
        ratio of majority to minority party members of the House at the 
        beginning of this Congress. . . .

        Mr. Michel (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
    Record.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (21) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, I will not object except to ask the distinguished 
    Republican leader to explain the motion. . . .
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, as indicated, this motion is not a 
    debatable motion. Most of my colleagues have been conversant with 
    motions to recommit. This is a motion to commit to a select 
    committee of nine members, five of whom would be Members of the 
    majority party, to accomplish several goals.
        Let me briefly--while I am no better reader than the reading 
    clerk--outline for my colleagues what these things are. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Without objection, the 
    previous question is ordered on the motion to commit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Bill Alexander (Ark.).

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

[[Page 9549]]

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to 
    commit. . . .
        So the motion to commit was rejected.

Motion To Refer Resolution Offered as Question of Privileges of House

Sec. 6.43 When a resolution is offered as a question of privilege and 
    is debatable under the hour rule, a motion to refer is in order 
    before debate begins and is debatable for one hour under the 
    control of the offeror of the motion.

    On Mar. 4, 1985,(2) during consideration of House 
Resolution 97 (to seat Richard D. McIntyre as a Member from Indiana) in 
the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 131 Cong. Rec. 4277, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of privilege.
        Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 97) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 97

            Whereas a certificate of election to the House of 
        Representatives always carries with it the presumption that the 
        State election procedures have been timely, regular, and fairly 
        implemented; and . . .
            Whereas the presumption of the validity and regularity of 
        the certificate of election held by Richard D. McIntyre has not 
        been overcome by any substantial evidence or claim of 
        irregularity: Now, therefore be it
            Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and 
        directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from 
        Indiana, Mr. Richard D. McIntyre.
            Resolved, That the question of the final right of Mr. 
        McIntyre to a seat in the 99th Congress is referred to the 
        Committee on House Administration.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The gentleman states a 
    valid question of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander).
        Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the resolution be referred to the Committee on House 
    Administration.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, for what period of time am I 
    recognized?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is entitled to 1 hour 
    under that motion, during which time the gentleman from Arkansas 
    controls the time.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, does the minority wish time on the 
    motion?
        Mr. Michel: Yes.

[[Page 9550]]

        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would yield 30 minutes for 
    purposes of debate only, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel).

Sec. 6.44 The motion to refer a resolution offered as a question of the 
    privileges of the House, which is in order pending the demand for 
    the previous question or after the previous question is ordered, is 
    not subject to debate; and a Member offering the motion need not 
    qualify as stating his opposition to the resolution since it has 
    not been reported from committee but has been offered as an 
    original proposition on the floor of the House.

    On Apr. 28, 1983,(4) the House had under consideration a 
resolution,(5) presented as a question of the privileges of 
the House, of refusal to comply with a subpena duces tecum issued by a 
U.S. District Court served on the Clerk for the production of records 
in his custody (documents of a select committee from a prior Congress).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 129 Cong. Rec. 10417, 10423, 10424, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H. Res. 176, concerning privileges of the House related to 
        investigative records of the Select Committee on Aging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Foley) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question on the resolution.
        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I offer a motion to refer.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Sensenbrenner moves to refer the resolution to the 
        Committee on the Judiciary.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered on the motion to refer.
        There was no objection.
        [The motion to refer was rejected.]

Amendments to Title of Bill After Bill Is Passed

Sec. 6.45 Amendments to the title of a bill are not in order until 
    after passage of the bill, and are then voted upon without debate, 
    under Rule XIX.

    The principle described above was demonstrated on Dec. 2, 
1975,(7) during consideration of the Intergovernmental 
Emergency Assistance Act (H.R. 10481) in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 38193, 38194, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) The question is on the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute, as amended, offered by the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. J. William Stanton).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Bauman) there were--ayes 71, nays 31.

[[Page 9551]]

        So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was 
    agreed to.
        Mr. J. William Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    technical amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Ohio 
    that inasmuch as the amendment in the nature of a substitute has 
    been agreed to, no further amendments are in order at this time. 
    The amendment sent to the desk by the gentleman from Ohio would be 
    in order in the House after the committee has risen. . . .
        Under the rule, the Committee rises.
        Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. O'Hara, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
    under consideration the bill (H.R. 10481) to authorize emergency 
    guarantees of obligations of States and political subdivisions 
    thereof; to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that 
    income from certain obligations guaranteed by the United States 
    shall be subject to taxation; to amend the Bankruptcy Act; and for 
    other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 865, he reported the 
    bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee 
    of the Whole.
        The Speaker: (9) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    213, nays 203, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 16, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the bill was passed.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. J. William Stanton: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to 
    the title.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. J. William Stanton to the title: 
        Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to authorize the 
        Secretary of the Treasury to provide seasonal financing for the 
        City of New York.''

        The title amendment was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Sec. 6.46 Committee amendments to the title of a bill are automatically 
    reported by the Clerk after passage of the bill, but an amendment 
    to a committee amendment to the

[[Page 9552]]

    title may be offered from the floor and is voted on without debate 
    under Rule XIX.

    On Sept. 23, 1977,(10) the House having under 
consideration the Age Discrimination In Employment Act Amendments (H.R. 
5383), the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 30573, 30574, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the bill was passed.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The Clerk will report 
    the title amendment to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Richard Nolan (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Title amendment: Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to 
        amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to 
        provide that Federal employees who are 40 years of age or older 
        shall be protected by the provisions of section 15 of such Act, 
        and for other purposes.''.

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    an amendment to the title amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Hawkins to the title amendment: 
        Page 7, strike out the matter following line 5 and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following:
            Amend the title so as to read as follows: ``A bill to amend 
        the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to extend the 
        age group of employees who are protected by the provisions of 
        such Act, and for other purposes.''.

        The amendment to the title amendment was agreed to.
        The title amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Sec. 6.47 Amendments to the title of a bill are presented after the 
    bill is passed and are not debatable.

    On Dec. 11, 1947,(12) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, ruled that an amendment to the title of a bill (or other 
measure), properly offered after the bill is passed, is not debatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 11307, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles J.] Kersten of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I have an 
    amendment to change the title of the bill, which I understand is 
    proper.
        The Speaker: That will come after the passage of the bill.
        Mr. Kersten: I should like to inform the membership that this 
    is an important amendment and I should like to speak on it.
        The Speaker: It is not debatable.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 76 Cong. Rec. 867, 72d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 21, 1932; 75 
        Cong. Rec. 12097, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., June 6, 1932.
            Rule XIX House Rules and Manual Sec. 822 (1995) furnishes 
        the basis for the Speaker's ruling: ``Amendments to the title 
        of a bill or resolution shall not be in order until after its 
        passage, and shall be decided without debate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Reconsider

Sec. 6.48 The motion to reconsider is not debatable unless

[[Page 9553]]

    the question proposed to be reconsidered is debatable.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(14) the House adopted, without 
debate, House Resolution 506, which was pending in the Committee on 
Rules and was called up under the ``21-day rule'' in effect in the 89th 
Congress; the resolution made in order the consideration of H.R. 10065, 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1965. Mr. William M. McCulloch, 
of Ohio, who had voted in the affirmative on the adoption of the 
resolution, moved to reconsider the vote whereby the resolution was 
adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 111 Cong. Rec. 23608, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to parliamentary inquiries, Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, stated that the motion to reconsider, under the 
circumstances, would be debatable:

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, on the 
    resolution just passed no one was allowed to debate that resolution 
    on behalf of the minority or the majority. If this motion to table, 
    offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert] is defeated, 
    then there will be time to debate the resolution just passed.
        The question of reconsideration is debatable, and it can be 
    debated on the merits of the legislation which has not been debated 
    by the House.
        The Speaker: What part of the gentleman's statement does he 
    make as a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Laird: Mr. Speaker, if the motion to table is defeated, the 
    motion to reconsider will give us an opportunity to debate the 
    question on the resolution.
        The Speaker: Under the present circumstances, the motion to 
    reconsider would be debatable.
        Mr. Laird: I thank the Speaker.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, what time would be allowed to 
    debate the question and how would it be divided?
        The Speaker: It will be under the 1-hour rule and the gentleman 
    from Ohio would be entitled to the control of the entire 
    hour.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For debate on the motion to reconsider, see House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 819 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.49 A motion to reconsider is not debatable where the question 
    proposed to be reconsidered was not debatable; and where the 
    previous question had been ordered on a debatable motion before the 
    vote on adoption, the motion to reconsider the motion is not 
    debatable.

    On May 29, 1980,(16) proceedings occurred pertaining to

[[Page 9554]]

House Resolution 660, in the matter of Representative Charles H. 
Wilson. A motion was made to reconsider a motion to postpone that had 
been defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 126 Cong. Rec. 12663, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. For further discussion of 
        the proceedings, see Sec. 6.51, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to reconsider the vote to postpone. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, does a motion to reconsider admit of debate?
        The Speaker: (17) There is no debate on this 
    reconsideration motion, since the previous question was ordered on 
    the motion to postpone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The above precedent represents the modern 
practice. An earlier precedent (18) had considered the 
previous question to be ``exhausted by the vote on the motion on which 
it is ordered, and consequently a motion to reconsider the vote on the 
main question is debatable.'' Under current rulings, the motion to 
reconsider is not debatable unless the previous question is also 
reconsidered.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5494.
19. See also 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Adoption of Motion To Reconsider

Sec. 6.50 Under the modern practice, where the House adopts a motion to 
    reconsider a vote on a question on which the previous question has 
    been ordered, the question to be reconsidered is neither debatable 
    nor amendable (unless the vote on the previous question is 
    separately reconsidered).

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 2, 
1980,(20) during consideration of H.R. 7452 (supplemental 
appropriations and rescission bill for fiscal year 1980):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 18348, 18349, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The motion offered by 
    the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) has been divided at the 
    request of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is, Will the House recede from its disagreement to 
    Senate amendment No. 95? . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    198, nays 196, not voting 39, as follows: . . .
        So the House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment 
    No. 95. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is, will the House concur 
    in Senate amendment No. 95 with an amendment? . . .
        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 9555]]

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 118 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed by said amendment, insert: . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I want to 
    commend the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) for the 
    warning that he gave to this House a few minutes ago regarding the 
    Long amendment on foreign aid. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, could there be a reconsideration of 
    the vote on which the Long amendment passed?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Such a motion would be in order at the 
    proper time.
        Mrs. [Margaret M.] Heckler [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to reconsider the vote by which--and I voted on the prevailing 
    side--the vote on the Long amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That motion is not in order to be 
    voted on at this time, since another motion is pending. . . .
        Mrs. Heckler: I would like to know, then, what time such a 
    motion would be in order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: When there is no other motion pending 
    before the House, that motion would be in order. . . .
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the amendment be 
    withdrawn.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi 
    withdraws his motion. . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Then is it my 
    understanding that a motion to reconsider the past amendment is in 
    order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: There is no motion pending.
        Mrs. Heckler: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by 
    which the motion to concur with the amendment of Mr. Long was 
    passed by the House. I think great confusion surrounded that 
    amendment and the position of the House, and I was one Member who 
    was misled by it. I would like to move reconsideration, and I voted 
    on the prevailing side.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman from Massachusetts 
    vot-ed on the prevailing side.
        The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mrs. Heckler moves to reconsider the vote by which the 
        motion to concur with an amendment by Mr. Long of Maryland was 
        passed by the House.

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I will ask, is the motion to reconsider debatable?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the previous 
    question had been ordered on the entire motion to recede and concur 
    with an amendment, and so the motion is not debatable. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Could the Chair describe on what motion the next 
    vote will come.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: We are about to vote on the motion of 
    the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Heckler) on the motion to 
    reconsider.
        Mr. Bauman: To reconsider what, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: To reconsider the motion to concur 
    with an amendment to Senate amendment 95

[[Page 9556]]

    offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long).
        Mr. Bauman: If that motion prevails, what will be the situation 
    as far as the Long amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House will vote immediately on the 
    Long motion.
        Mr. Bauman: Will that amendment be debatable at that time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It will not. The previous question has 
    been ordered.
        Mr. Bauman: So the vote would occur first on reconsideration 
    then on the Long amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: In the event that this 
    motion prevails, will it be in order to amend the Long amendment to 
    reduce the amount of money equivalent?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would not be. The House would then 
    vote on the Long amendment.
        Mr. McCormack: A further parliamentary inquiry.
        Would it then be in order to submit a substitute for the Long 
    amendment reducing it by the amount necessary to pass the revenue-
    sharing measure?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the Long motion is defeated, the 
    Senate amendment is still before the House for disposition by 
    motion.
        Mr. McCormack: I thank the Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to 
    reconsider offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. 
    Heckler).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    243, nays 124, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 65, as follows: . 
    . .

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under the earlier practice, when a vote 
taken under operation of the previous question was reconsidered, the 
main question stood divested of the previous question, and could be 
debated and amended without reconsideration of the motion for the 
previous question.(2) Under the modern practice, however, 
the question being reconsidered should not be debatable nor amendable 
unless the House votes separately to reconsider the vote whereby the 
previous question was ordered. Thus, if the reason for reconsideration 
is merely to permit the House to vote again immediately without further 
debate, the modern practice would permit this, but if further debate or 
amendment were desired, the House would first have to reconsider the 
ordering of the previous question. (As indicated in the above 
proceedings, rejection, upon reconsideration, of a motion to concur in 
a Senate amendment with an amendment would permit

[[Page 9557]]

the offering of another debatable motion to dispose of the Senate 
amendment.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 5 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 5491, 5492, 5700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.51 The House having voted to reconsider a motion on which the 
    previous question had been ordered when first voted upon, no debate 
    on the motion is in order except by unanimous consent.

    During consideration of House Resolution 660 (in the matter of 
Representative Charles H. Wil-son) in the House on May 29, 
1980,(3) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 126 Cong. Rec. 12663-65, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I was in 
    the House when the previous speaker . . . evidently brought in 
    material which was not in the record before the committee, which in 
    my judgment means there has been surprise to the defense in this 
    case in the fact that the gentleman brought up evidence, which is a 
    document from the State of California. . . .
        I would ask the Chair, is there any procedure where I can make 
    a motion, so that we can handle this in a fair and expeditious 
    manner and give him the opportunity to respond to that and to get 
    the evidence from California? . . .
        The Speaker: (4) The only motion available that the 
    Chair would know of, unless the gentleman from Florida would yield, 
    would be the motion for reconsideration, if the gentleman voted on 
    the prevailing side of the motion of the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Rousselot). That was a motion to postpone to a day certain, 
    which was defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ertel: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote to 
    postpone. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, does a motion to reconsider admit of debate?
        The Speaker: There is no debate on this reconsideration motion, 
    since the previous question was ordered on the motion to postpone. 
    . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ertel moves that the House reconsider the vote on the 
        motion to postpone to a day certain. . . .

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by Mr. Ertel 
    to reconsider the vote on the motion offered by Mr. Rousselot to 
    postpone consideration. . . .
        So the motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to postpone 
    was agreed to. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) to postpone to June 10.
        Mr. [Wyche] Fowler [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
    to ask unanimous consent from this body for 10 minutes, to be 
    equally divided between the opposition and the majority party, to 
    debate the motion now before us by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Rousselot). . . .

[[Page 9558]]

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the 10 minutes' debate?
        The Chair hears none.
        The gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) is recognized for 
    5 minutes, and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Fowler) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The above precedent represents the modern 
practice. Earlier precedents (5) supported the view that 
``when a vote taken under the operation of the previous question is 
reconsidered, the main question stands divested of the previous 
question, and may be debated and amended without reconsideration of the 
motion for the previous question.'' In current practice, separate 
reconsideration of the motion for the previous question would be 
required for debate and amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5491, 5492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion or Resolution To Adjourn

Sec. 6.52 A concurrent resolution providing for adjournment of Congress 
    to a day certain 
    is not debatable, but the Speaker may in his discretion permit some 
    discussion where no point of order is raised.

    On Aug. 28, 1967,(6) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
called up House Concurrent Resolution 497, providing for an adjournment 
to a day certain of the two Houses of Congress. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that the resolution was not 
debatable, but permitted Mr. Albert to yield to another Member for a 
brief statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 24201, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the 
    last word.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that this is not a debatable 
    resolution.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Albert: I yield to the gentleman from Iowa for the purpose 
    of making a brief statement.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the distinguished 
    majority leader why the adjournment resolution was not made 
    effective as of the first of this week, and why the recess was not 
    planned to take in this week as well as next week?
        Mr. Albert: We have discussed this matter with the leadership 
    on both sides, and it was determined it would be impractical to do 
    so. . . .
        The concurrent resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 6.53 A privileged concurrent resolution providing for an 
    adjournment of the House for more than three days to a day certain 
    is not subject to debate, except by unanimous consent.

[[Page 9559]]

    On Aug. 16, 1978,(7) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 26437, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 696) and ask for its 
    immediate consideration and pending that, Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I may proceed for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this concurrent 
    resolution is to permit adjournment for our August district work 
    period. . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the concurrent resolution.
        The Clerk read the concurrent resolution as follows:

                                H. Con. Res. 696

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That when the House adjourns on Thursday, August 
        17, 1978, it stands adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian on 
        Wednesday, September 6, 1978.

Sec. 6.54 A concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of more 
    than three days for the House and Senate is not debatable, but the 
    Chair may in his discretion recognize for debate under a 
    reservation of the right to object (to adoption of the resolution).

    On Aug. 27, 1980,(9) the following proceedings occurred 
in 
the House during consideration 
of Senate Concurrent Resolution 118:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 126 Cong. Rec. 23459, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker laid before the House the privileged Senate 
    concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 118) providing for a recess of 
    the Senate from August 27 to September 3, 1980, and an adjournment 
    of the House from August 28 to September 3, 1980.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
        The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:

                                S. Con. Res. 118

            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That when the Senate completes its business on 
        Wednesday, August 27, 1980, it stand in recess until 10 o'clock 
        a.m. on Wednesday, September 3, 1980, and that when the House 
        completes its business on Thursday, August 28, 1980, it stand 
        adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on Wednesday, September 3, 
        1980.

        The Speaker: (10) Without objection, the Senate 
    concurrent resolution is concurred in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, are we 
    permitted to debate this matter?
        The Speaker: No, it is not debatable.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I 
    wondered whether

[[Page 9560]]

    any Member intended to explain the necessity for the recess, in 
    view of the fact there has been some objection quite obviously from 
    the minority about recessing at all because of the announced 
    lameduck session. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that this is a long-announced 
    recess, since the beginning of the year, and Members from both 
    sides of the aisle expect to be home, of course, and in their 
    district through Labor Day. . . .
        The leadership, I am sure, was in agreement with this earlier 
    in the year when the schedule for the year was printed.
        The question comes on adoption of the Senate concurrent 
    resolution. Without objection----
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I would further reserve the right to 
    object, unless the Chair wants to put the question.
        The Speaker: The Chair would like to put the question unless 
    the gentleman desires to say something further. Does the gentleman 
    reserve the right to object to adopting the concurrent resolution 
    by unanimous consent?
        Mr. Bauman: I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.
        I am only saying, Mr. Speaker, that the legislative schedule 
    has been changed before. We have been told that we will recess on 
    October 4, as opposed to staying and completing our work, and then 
    we will come back into further session after the election. If that 
    kind of a major change can be made, it seems to me there is still 
    time for us to consider the possibility of staying in session, as 
    has been suggested by the minority leader, the gentleman from 
    Arizona (Mr. Rhodes).
        The Speaker: The Chair will put the question, and the Members, 
    if they desire to vote on it, may vote as they see fit.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the Chair and I urge a vote against the 
    recess so that we can stay here and finish our business and avoid a 
    lameduck session.
        The Speaker: The question is on the Senate concurrent 
    resolution.

--Sine Die Adjournment

Sec. 6.55 While a concurrent resolution providing for sine die 
    adjournment is not debatable, a Member may, by unanimous consent, 
    be permitted to proceed for one minute during its consideration.

    On Dec. 20, 1974,(11) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized the Majority Leader, Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, to offer a privileged concurrent resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 120 Cong. Rec. 41815, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. 
    Con. Res. 697) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

                                H. Con. Res. 697

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That when the two Houses adjourn on Friday, 
        December 20, 1974, they

[[Page 9561]]

        shall stand adjourned sine die or until 12:00 noon on the 
        second day after their respective Members are notified to 
        reassemble in accordance with Section 2 of this resolution, 
        whichever event first occurs.
            Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
        President of the Senate or the President pro tempore of the 
        Senate shall notify the Members of the House and the Senate, 
        respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the 
        public interest shall warrant it, or whenever the majority 
        leader of the Senate and the majority leader of the House, 
        acting jointly, or the minority leader of the Senate and the 
        minority [leader] of the House, acting jointly, file a written 
        request with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the 
        House that the Congress reassemble for the consideration of 
        legislation.

        The Speaker: The question is on the concurrent resolution.
        The question was taken and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        (Mr. Ashbrook asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Sec. 6.56 A concurrent resolution providing for adjournment sine die is 
    not debatable except by unanimous consent.

    On occasion, unanimous consent has been given for debate on a 
concurrent resolution providing for adjournment sine die. Thus, on Oct. 
11, 1984,(12) debate was allowed on House Concurrent 
Resolution 377:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 130 Cong. Rec. 32232, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 377), and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

                                H. Con. Res. 377

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the two Houses of Congress shall adjourn on 
        Thursday, October 11, 1984, and that when they adjourn on said 
        day, they stand adjourned sine die.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Without objection, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, the resolution is quite clear.

Sec. 6.57 A concurrent resolution providing for a sine die adjournment 
    is not subject to debate.

    On July 30, 1954,(14) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that House 
Concurrent Resolution 266, providing for the adjournment sine

[[Page 9562]]

die of the Congress on July 31, 1945, was not debatable.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 100 Cong. Rec. 12810, 12811, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
15. Neither a resolution of adjournment (see 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 3372-3374) nor a motion to adjourn, whether a simple 
        adjournment or an adjournment to a time certain [see Rule XVI 
        clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995)], is 
        debatable.
            Adjournments and debate thereon generally, see Ch. 40, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 6.58 Although a concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment 
    sine die is not debatable, debate has been permitted where no point 
    of order was raised and where the legislative situation warranted 
    some discussion of the resolution.

    On Oct. 14, 1968,(16) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
called up Senate Concurrent Resolution 83, providing for an adjournment 
sine die of the Congress on Oct. 11, 1968. Mr. Albert moved to amend 
the resolution by striking out the date and inserting ``October 14, 
1968'' and then yielded five minutes' debate, without objection, to Mr. 
James G. O'Hara, of Michigan. Mr. O'Hara, who had previously expressed 
his intention to prevent the adjournment of Congress until the Senate 
took action on a legislative proposal permitting network TV debates 
among the major Presidential candidates, announced he would no longer 
persist in his efforts due to the likelihood of a failure of a quorum 
in the Senate. Mr. Albert resumed the floor to express support for Mr. 
O'Hara's statement and then moved the previous question on the 
amendment to the adjournment resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 114 Cong. Rec. 31312, 31313, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Debate may be conducted on the subject of 
adjournment resolutions by unanimous consent under the ``one-minute'' 
rule prior to offering of the resolution.

Return of Bill to Senate

Sec. 6.59 A request of the Senate for the return of a bill or 
    resolution is privileged, and the Chair immediately puts the 
    question on the request without debate, but debate may proceed 
    thereon under a reservation of the right to object to agreeing to 
    the request by unanimous consent when put in that form by the 
    Chair.

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(17) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 26538, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker pro tempore laid before the House the following 
    message from the Senate:

[[Page 9563]]

            Ordered, That the Secretary be directed to request the 
        House of Representatives to return to the Senate the concurrent 
        resolution (H. Con. Res. 317) entitled ``Concurrent resolution 
        providing for an adjournment of the House from August 5 until 
        September 7, 1977 and an adjournment of the Senate from August 
        6 until September 7, 1977.''

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) Without objection, the 
    request is agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
    right to object.
        I want to know what that last resolution was. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, what is the effect? Who is going to explain it or 
    did the Chair just lay it out? . . .
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Kazen: I yield to the distinguished Speaker.
        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, may I say with regard to the 
    concurrent resolution, as I understand, we have received a message 
    from the Senate regarding the concurrent resolution. As the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) knows, we passed a concurrent 
    resolution saying that we would conclude business on Friday night, 
    and the request of the Senate is now to return the concurrent 
    resolution. . . .
        Mr. Kazen: Mr. Speaker, I would inquire whether the Senate 
    concurred in the concurrent resolution?
        Mr. O'Neill: The Senate did and then there was a motion to 
    reconsider within the proper time in the Senate. The Senate had 
    sent the papers over before the reconsideration had been moved. In 
    view of the fact that the reconsideration has been moved, the House 
    has always proceeded in this fashion, and on that basis we will 
    send the concurrent resolution back.
        Mr. Kazen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts, and withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection the request is 
    agreed to.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 6.60 Where privileged resolutions of the Senate requesting the 
    return of a bill are laid before the House, a motion requesting 
    compliance with such return is not debatable.

    On June 28, 1932,(19) the following privileged order 
messaged from the Senate was laid before the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 75 Cong. Rec. 14181, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Ordered, That the House of Representatives be requested to 
    return to the Senate the bill (H.R. 11267) entitled ``An act making 
    appropriations for the legislative branch of the Government for the 
    fiscal year ending June 30, 1933, and for other purposes'', 
    together with all accompanying papers.

    Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, moved that the request of the 
Senate be complied with, and on that motion he moved the pre

[[Page 9564]]

vious question, which was ordered by the House.
    In response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. John J. Cochran, of 
Missouri, Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, ruled that the motion to 
comply with the Senate request was not debatable.

Nondebatable Questions in Senate--Motion To Lay Appeal on the Table

Sec. 6.61 In the Senate a motion to lay an appeal on the table is not 
    debatable.

    On Aug. 2, 1948,(20) President Pro Tempore Arthur H. 
Vandenberg, of Michigan, ruled that a motion to lay on the table a 
pending appeal from a decision of the Chair was not debatable:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 94 Cong. Rec. 9604, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth S.] Wherry [of Nebraska]: Mr. President, I 
    propound the following inquiry: If a motion is made to lay the 
    appeal on the table, is that motion subject to debate?
        The President Pro Tempore: No motion to table is ever subject 
    to debate.
        Mr. Wherry: Certainly.
        If the motion to table the appeal is agreed to, then, of 
    course, the result is to sustain the present occupant of the chair 
    in his decision.
        The President Pro Tempore: That is correct.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For a classification of questions not debatable in the Senate, see 
        Riddick, Senate Procedure, 421-24, S. Doc. No. 93-21, 93d Cong. 
        (1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion Requesting House To Return Engrossed Bill

Sec. 6.62 A motion in the Senate requesting the House to return an 
    engrossed bill is not debatable.

    On Aug. 26, 1963,(2) Senator Michael J. Mansfield, of 
Montana, entered a motion in the Senate to reconsider the votes by 
which S. 1914 and S. 1942 were passed. He also entered a motion that 
the House of Representatives be requested to return the papers (the 
engrossed bills) on those bills to the Senate. In response to a 
parliamentary inquiry, President Pro Tempore Carl Hayden, of Arizona, 
stated that the motion for return was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 109 Cong. Rec. 15849, 15850, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Concurrent Resolution Providing for Adjournment to Day Certain

Sec. 6.63 A concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment to a day 
    certain is not debatable in the Senate.

    On Aug. 7, 1948,(3) Senator Kenneth S. Wherry, of 
Nebraska, called up Senate Concurrent Reso

[[Page 9565]]

lution 63, providing for an adjournment to a day certain. In response 
to a parliamentary inquiry, the Presiding Officer stated that the 
resolution was not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 94 Cong. Rec. 10185, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Concurrent Resolution Providing for Three-week Adjournment of House

Sec. 6.64 A resolution providing for a three-week adjournment of the 
    House is not debatable in the Senate, nor is an appeal from the 
    Vice President's decision to that effect debatable.

    On Aug. 24, 1949,(4) House Concurrent Resolution 129 was 
laid before the Senate. The resolution provided for a three-week 
adjournment of the House. In response 
to parliamentary inquiries, Vice President Alben W. Barkley, of 
Kentucky, stated that the resolution was not debatable except 
by unanimous consent, and that 
such a unanimous-consent request would not be debatable. He also stated 
that an appeal from the Chair's decision on that point would not be 
debatable. The Senate adopted the resolution (and rejected an amendment 
thereto).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 95 Cong. Rec. 12137-39, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate Not in Order in Senate in Absence of Quorum

Sec. 6.65 No debate is in order in the Senate in the absence of a 
    quorum.

    On July 28, 1962,(5) the Senate met at 10 o'clock a.m., 
after having recessed the prior evening without a quorum. Vice 
President Lyndon B. Johnson, of Texas, stated that no business could be 
transacted without a quorum present. Following a roll call disclosing 
the lack of a quorum, a motion was agreed to directing the Sergeant at 
Arms to request the attendance of absent Senators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 14952, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, of Minnesota, attempted to debate a 
proposed motion to invoke the rule of arrest, and the Vice President 
advised him that no debate was in order.