[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[B. Right to Recognition]
[Â§ 15. Of Opposition After Rejection of Essential Motion]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9855-9875]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                    B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
 
Sec. 15. -- Of Opposition After Rejection of Essential Motion

    Right of recognition to offer a motion to recommit pending final 
passage, which is the prerogative of the minority if opposed, should be 
distinguished from the right of recognition for a motion to refer under 
Rule XXIII clause 7 pending a vote in the House on a motion to strike 
out the enacting clause. In the latter case, a Member seeking 
recognition need not be opposed to the bill, since the motion to refer 
in this case is a measure designed to avert final adverse disposition 
of the bill. As stated by Speaker Frederick H. Gillett, of 
Massachusetts, on May 19, 1924,(15) ``apparently the 
provision for a motion to refer was inserted so that the friends of the 
original bill might avert its permanent death by referring it again to 
the committee, where it could again be considered in the light of the 
action of the House.'' By the same reasoning, Speaker Gillett pointed 
out, rejection of the motion to refer should not give the right of 
recognition to sponsors of the bill, but to one supporting the motion 
to strike the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The right to recognition upon rejection of the previous question is 
not necessarily a prerogative of the minority.

                            Cross References
Distribution and alternation of time between proponent and opposition, 
    see Sec. 25, infra.
Effect of special orders on control of opposing time, see Sec. 28, 
    infra.
Losing or surrendering control to opposition, see Sec. Sec. 33, 34, 
    infra.
Practice of House committees as to time for opposition, see Sec. 26, 
    infra.
Rights of opposition on specific questions and motions, see 
    Sec. Sec. 16 et seq., infra.
Time for opposition in debate, see Sec. Sec. 67 et seq., infra 
    (duration of debate in the House) and Sec. Sec. 74 et seq., infra 
    (duration of debate in the Committee of the Whole).
Yielding time by or to opposition, see Sec. Sec. 29-31, infra.

[[Page 9856]]

                          -------------------Generally

Sec. 15.1 When an essential motion made by the Member in charge of a 
    bill is decided 
    adversely, the right to prior recognition passes to the Member 
    leading the opposition to the motion.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For the rule and its application, see House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 755 (1995). For an exception to the rule, as related to 
        intervening adjournment, see Sec. 15.22, infra.
            Voting down the previous question on a conference report 
        merely extends the time for debate and does not afford the 
        opportunity to amend the report. See 84 Cong. Rec. 8459, 76th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1939; and 84 Cong. Rec. 2085, 2086, 
        76th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1939. Generally, see Ch. 33, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Postpone Consideration to Day Certain Not ``Essential'' 
    Motion

Sec. 15.2 A motion to postpone consideration to a day certain (of a 
    vetoed bill) is not an essential motion whose defeat requires 
    recognition to pass to a Member opposed.

    On June 2, 1930,(17) the House was considering the 
passage of a vetoed bill. A motion to postpone consideration of the 
bill had been made by the chairman of the committee managing the bill 
and had been rejected. Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry whether that motion was an essential motion whose 
defeat required recognition to pass to the minority. Speaker Nicholas 
Longworth, of Ohio, discussed the principle raised and ruled that 
the motion to postpone consideration was not an essential motion within 
the meaning of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 72 Cong. Rec. 9913, 9914, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Garner: Mr. Speaker, the only issue involved was the 
    question of whether the consideration of the President's veto 
    should be postponed until Thursday. Does the Chair agree with the 
    gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] that a motion for the previous 
    question being defeated, transfers the right of recognition?
        The Speaker: It does; but that is not the question.
        Mr. Garner: Then may I follow that up with this statement? That 
    was the motion of the gentleman from South Carolina. If he is 
    recognized now, he will move the previous question on the matter of 
    consideration.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not know what the gentleman from 
    South Carolina would do.
        Mr. Garner: He did not have the opportunity to do that, but the 
    Chair recognized the gentleman from Minnesota. He moved to postpone 
    until next Thursday, and moved the previous question. The previous 
    question was ordered. The House overwhelmingly declined to let the 
    matter go over until Thursday, indicating that it

[[Page 9857]]

    wants to vote on the matter immediately. And now the Chair proposes 
    to continue the recognition of the gentleman from Minnesota?
        The Speaker: Precisely. The House has indicated its desire to 
    vote immediately, but the gentleman from Minnesota is the chairman 
    of the Committee on Pensions, and it seems to the Chair that he is 
    entitled as chairman of the committee to discuss the matter on the 
    merits. We have had no vote that has gone to the merits of the bill 
    at all.
        Mr. Garner: I understand that, but that is not the question 
    involved in recognizing the gentleman from Minnesota. The question 
    is, under the practice and rules of the House, Does this vote 
    automatically transfer to the opposition the right of recognition?
        The Speaker: The Chair does not think so in this case.

    Mr. Garner attempted to appeal the Speaker's ruling on recognition 
but the Speaker ruled that an appeal did not lie to a decision on 
recognition.

Motion To Table Resolution of Inquiry

Sec. 15.3 Where a motion to lay a resolution on the table is made by 
    the Member in charge of the resolution, and that motion is 
    defeated, the right to prior recognition passes to the Member 
    leading the opposition to the motion.

    On Feb. 20, 1952,(18) Mr. James P. Richards, of South 
Carolina, called up, by direction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
a resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 514) directed to the Secretary of 
State. Mr. Richards had sent to the Clerk's desk an adverse report 
of the committee, recommending that the resolution not pass. Mr. 
Richards immediately moved the privileged and nondebatable motion to 
lay the resolution on the table. The motion was defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 98 Cong. Rec. 1205-07, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. John M. Vorys, of Ohio, the Member leading the opposition to 
the motion, was then recognized by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, who 
explained the parliamentary situation:

        The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vorys] is in charge of the time, 
    the gentleman being with the majority in this instance, and on that 
    side of the issue which received the most votes.

    Mr. Vorys controlled debate on the resolution, which was agreed to 
by the House.
    Parliamentarian's Note: If the manager's motion to table is 
defeated and no other Member seeks recognition, the manager may retain 
control over the remaining time for debate.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 125 Cong. Rec. 15027, 15029, 15030, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., June 
        15, 1979, discussed in Sec. 34.2, infra.

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

[[Page 9858]]

Sec. 15.4 The Member calling up for consideration a privileged 
    resolution of inquiry reported adversely from committee is 
    recognized for one hour and may move to lay the resolution on the 
    table at any time; and where the Member calling up the resolution 
    uses part of his hour of debate and then offers a motion to table 
    the resolution which is defeated, the Chair will normally recognize 
    another Member for an hour of debate but may recognize the Member 
    who called up the resolution to control the remainder of his hour 
    of debate, if no other Member seeks recognition.

    On June 15, 1979,(20) during consideration of House 
Resolution 291 (a resolution of inquiry directing the President to 
provide Members of the House with certain information) the following 
proceedings occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 15027, 15029, 15030, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    resolution (H. Res. 291), a resolution of inquiry directing the 
    President to provide Members of the House with information on the 
    energy situation, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 291

            Resolved, That the President, to the extent possible, is 
        directed to furnish to the House of Representatives, not later 
        than fifteen days following the adoption of this resolution, 
        full and complete information on the following:
            (1) the existence and percentage 
        of shortages of crude oil and refined petroleum products within 
        the United States and administrative regions; . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently in the proceedings, Mr. Dingell made a motion to table 
the resolution:

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, at this time I move to table the 
    resolution of inquiry now before the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to table 
    offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: 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--yeas 
    4, nays 338, not voting 92, as follows: . . .
        So the motion to table was rejected. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time 
    remains?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman 
    that he has 48 minutes remaining.

[[Page 9859]]

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I will, then, at this time yield 24 
    minutes to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Devine), for purposes of debate only.

Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendment

Sec. 15.5 Where a motion is made by the Member in charge of a bill to 
    recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment and the 
    motion is defeated, recognition for a motion to further insist on 
    disagreement passes to a Member opposed.

    On June 26, 1942,(2) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, 
the Member in charge of a general appropriations bill reported from 
conference with amendments in disagreement, moved that the House recede 
and concur with an amendment to one of the Senate amendments in 
disagreement. The motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 88 Cong. Rec. 5642, 5643, 77th Cong. 2d Sess. Generally, see Ch. 
        33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, a Member opposed to the motion, 
then arose to make the motion to further insist on its disagreement to 
the Senate amendment; at the same time, Mr. Tarver arose to make the 
same motion. After the question of recognition was discussed, Speaker 
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Cannon to make the motion:

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit a parliamentary 
    inquiry. It was my purpose to offer a motion as I have done in 
    connection with the same subject matter on previous occasions. I 
    had risen for the purpose of offering a motion to further insist 
    upon the disagreement of the House to Senate amendments Nos. 90 and 
    91. I wish to inquire whether or not I am privileged, as chairman 
    of the House conferees, to offer that motion?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, my motion is to further 
    insist.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet before the gentleman 
    from Missouri rushed over between me and the microphone and offered 
    his motion.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, it is a long-established 
    rule of procedure that when a vital motion made by the Member in 
    charge of a bill is defeated, the right to prior recognition passes 
    to the opposition. That is the position in which the gentleman 
    finds himself. He has made a major motion. The motion has been 
    defeated. Therefore the right of recognition passes to the 
    opposition, and I ask to be recognized to move to further insist.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard with regard to that 
    statement?
        The Speaker: The Chair will hear the gentleman.

        Mr. Tarver: The question has never been raised so far as I have 
    known in the course of my experience of some 16 years upon an 
    appropriation bill conference report, but if as the gentleman

[[Page 9860]]

    states the right of making the motion passes to the opposition, it 
    should pass to my Republican colleague the gentleman from Kansas 
    [Mr. Lambertson] with whom the gentleman from Missouri has been 
    associated in the defeat of the motion offered by the chairman of 
    the subcommittee. I have desired to offer the motion myself in the 
    absence of the exercise of that privilege by the gentleman from 
    Kansas.
        Mr. [William P.] Lambertson: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 
    recognition.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia has the floor.
        Mr. Tarver: I have completed all I desire to say except that I 
    desire to offer the motion if it is permissible; otherwise, I 
    insist that the right should pass to the opposition and to the 
    gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Lambertson].
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman 
    from Missouri has been properly recognized to offer a motion. The 
    gentleman will state his motion.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
    further insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendments.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 15.6 Where a vital motion made by the Member in charge of a bill 
    is defeated, the right to prior recognition passes to a Member 
    opposed; thus, where a motion made by the Member in charge of a 
    bill to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment 
    had been defeated, recognition for a motion to recede and concur 
    with another amendment passed to a Member opposed to the defeated 
    motion.

    During consideration of H.J. Res. 1131, a further continuing 
appropriation for fiscal year 1975, in the House on Oct. 7, 
1974,(3) the proceedings described above were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 120 Cong. Rec. 34151, 34157-59, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (4) The Clerk will report the first 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 3: On page 2, line 9, strike out: ``to 
        the Government of Turkey until the President certifies to the 
        Congress that substantial progress toward agreement has been 
        made regarding military forces in Cyprus'' and insert ``or for 
        the transportation of any military equipment or supplies to any 
        country which uses such defense articles or services in 
        violation of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Foreign 
        Military Sales Act, or any agreement entered into under such 
        Acts.''

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mahon moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter stricken 
        out and inserted by said amendment, insert: ``or for the trans

[[Page 9861]]

        portation of any military equipment or supplies to the 
        Government of Turkey unless and until the President determines 
        and certifies to the Congress that the Government of Turkey is 
        in compliance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the 
        Foreign Military Sales Act, or any agreement entered into under 
        such Acts by making good faith efforts to reach a negotiated 
        settlement with respect to Cyprus.''

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Cederberg) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a word and 
    then I will yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Rosenthal). . . .
        The Speaker: The question pending is on the motion of the 
    gentleman from Texas. Those in favor of it will vote ``yea.''
        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Is this vote on the 
    previous question?
        The Speaker: The vote is on the motion.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    69, nays 291, not voting 74. . . .
        So the motion was rejected. . . .
        Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rosenthal moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to Senate amendment numbered 3 and concur therein 
        with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to 
        be inserted by Senate amendment numbered 3, insert the 
        following: ``or for the transportation of any military 
        equipment or supplies to Turkey until and unless the President 
        certifies to the Congress that the Government of Turkey is in 
        compliance with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Foreign 
        Military Sales Act, and any agreement entered into under such 
        Acts, and that substantial progress toward agreement has been 
        made regarding military force in Cyprus.''

        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1 
    hour.
        Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the 
    distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. du Pont), pending which 
    I yield myself 5 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Rosenthal).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b), time 
for debate on a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment reported from 
conference in disagreement is equally divided between majority and 
minority parties. When the Mahon motion 
was defeated and Mr. Rosenthal 
was recognized for one hour, he yielded one-half of his time to a

[[Page 9862]]

minority party Member pursuant to that rule.

Sec. 15.7 Where a motion to dispose of an amendment reported from 
    conference in disagreement, offered by the manager of the 
    conference report, is rejected, the Speaker recognizes a Member 
    leading the opposition to offer another motion to dispose of the 
    amendment.

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 7554 (Housing 
and Urban Development and independent agencies appropriations for 
fiscal year 1978) in the House on July 19, 1977,(5) the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 123 Cong. Rec. 23668, 23669, 23678, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Clerk will report 
    the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 24: Page 17, line 11, strike out 
        ``$2,943,600,- 000'' and insert ``$3,013,000,000''.

        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts] [manager of the 
    conference report]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Boland moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        sum proposed by said amendment insert ``$2,995,300,000''.

        The  Speaker  Pro  Tempore:  The gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Boland) is recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) is recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Boland).
        Mr. Boland: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume. . . .
        Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
    to amendment No. 24. . . .
        [After debate, the motion was rejected.]
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua) 
    is recognized for 60 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 15.8 While a motion offered by the manager of a conference report 
    to dispose of an amendment reported from conference in disagreement 
    is debatable for one hour, equally divided between the majority and 
    minority parties (under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)), rejection of that 
    motion causes recognition to pass to a Member opposed thereto to 
    offer another motion to dispose of the amendment, and that Member 
    controls the entire hour of debate on his motion.

[[Page 9863]]

    During consideration of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7797) in the House on Oct. 18, 1977,(7) a motion was 
offered and the proceedings that followed were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 123 Cong. Rec. 34108, 34109, 34111, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Long of Maryland moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 47 and 
        concur therein.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) Without objection, the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) will be 
    agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, if objection is heard to agreeing to the 
    Senate amendment, then 1 hour would be allotted to the manager of 
    the bill (Mr. Long of Maryland), half of which time would be 
    yielded to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Is that correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: There would be 30 minutes allotted to 
    each party, the Chair would advise the gentleman.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) is recognized for 30 
    minutes.
        [The motion was rejected.]
        Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Young of Florida moves that the House insist on its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate No. 47.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Florida (Mr. Young) for 1 hour.

Sec. 15.9 The House having rejected a motion offered by the manager of 
    a conference report in disagreement to recede and concur with an 
    amendment in the Senate amendment reported from conference in 
    disagreement, a Member who has opposed that motion may be 
    recognized to offer a motion to recede and concur with a different 
    amendment, and the hour of debate on said motion is pursuant to 
    clause 2(b), Rule XXVIII, divided 
    between the majority and minority parties.

    On May 29, 1980,(9) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 126 Cong. Rec. 12678, 12680, 12709, 12710, 12712, 96th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 
    307) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. Government 
    for the fiscal years

[[Page 9864]]

    1981, 1982, and 1983 and revising the congressional budget for the 
    U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1980, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
        The Speaker: (10) The Clerk will read the conference 
    report. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rule, the Senate amendment is considered as 
    having been read.
        The Senate amendment reads as follows:

            Strike out all after the resolving clause, and insert:
        That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to 
        section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that: . 
        . .

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

            Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the Senate amendment and to concur therein with 
        an amendment, as follows: . . .

        Mr. Giaimo: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo).

    [The motion was rejected.]

        Mr. [Leon E.] Panetta [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Panetta moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the Senate amendment to House Concurrent 
        Resolution 307 and to concur therein with two amendments, as 
        follows:
            In the engrossed Senate amendment to House Concurrent 
        Resolution 307, strike out section 1 and sections 14-20 and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: . . .

        The Speaker: The gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta) will 
    be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Panetta).

Where Manager Had Not Offered the Rejected Motion

Sec. 15.10 A preferential motion to concur in a Senate amendment 
    reported from conference in disagreement having been rejected, and 
    a motion to disagree to the Senate amendment being then in order, 
    the manager of 
    the conference report maintained the prior right to recognition 
    where he had not been the one to offer the motion to concur.

    On Nov. 3, 1977,(11) the proceedings relating to 
consideration of H.R. 7555 (the Departments of Labor and Health, 
Education, and Welfare appropriations for fiscal

[[Page 9865]]

1978) in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 36959, 36966, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. K. Gunn McKay (Utah).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the resolution just agreed to, I call up the conference report 
    on the amendment of the Senate to the amendment of the House to the 
    amendment of the Senate numbered 82 to the bill (H.R. 7555) making 
    appropriations for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, 
    and Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
    September 30, 1978, and for other purposes. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment in 
    disagreement.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 28: Sec. 209. None of the funds 
        contained in this Act shall be used to perform abortions except 
        where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
        were carried to term. . . .

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur in the amendment of 
        the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of 
        the Senate numbered 82.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) 
    will be recognized for 30 minutes, 
    and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) will be recognized for 
    30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon). . . 
    .
        So the preferential motion was rejected. . . .
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Flood moves that the House disagree to the amendment of 
        the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of 
        the Senate numbered 82.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Flood) is recognized for 30 minutes.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had Mr. Flood offered the motion to concur, 
recognition would have passed to the opponents upon rejection of that 
motion.

Previous Question Rejected

Sec. 15.11 Where the previous question was voted down 
    on a resolution before the House, recognition passed to the 
    opponents of the resolution, and the Speaker declared that a 
    minority Member was entitled to recognition, if opposed.

    On July 20, 1939,(13) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
managing on behalf of the Committee on Rules a resolution to authorize 
an investigation, moved the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page 9866]]

 Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, then answered parliamentary 
inquiries on the order of recognition to be followed should the 
previous question be rejected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 9591, 9592, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: If the previous question 
    is voted down, will that open up the resolution to amendment?
        The Speaker: Undoubtedly.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: If I understand the situation correctly, 
    if the previous question is voted down, the control of the measure 
    would pass to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Keller]; and the 
    resolution would not be open to amendment generally, but only to 
    such amendments as the gentleman from Illinois might yield for. Is 
    my understanding correct, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down it would 
    not necessarily pass to the gentleman from Illinois; it would pass 
    to the opponents of the resolution. Of course a representative of 
    the minority would have the first right of recognition.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A majority Member could be recognized, 
after defeat of the previous question, to offer a preferential motion, 
such as to table, postpone or recommit (the prohibition against 
dilatory motions on a privileged resolution from the Committee on Rules 
no longer applying).

Sec. 15.12 A minority Member, who had led the opposition, was 
    recognized after the House had refused to order the previous 
    question on a resolution offered by the majority and providing for 
    the seating of a Member-elect.

    On Mar. 1, 1967,(14) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, a 
Member of the majority, moved the previous question on House Resolution 
278, which he had offered, and which provided for the seating of 
challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New York. The previous 
question was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 5019, 5020, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then recognized Thomas 
B. Curtis, of Missouri, a Member of the minority, to offer a substitute 
amendment excluding Member-elect Powell from membership in the House.

Sec. 15.13 The motion for the previous question on a resolution being 
    voted down, recognition for control of debate on the resolution 
    passes to a Member opposed.

    On Mar. 13, 1939,(15) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
called

[[Page 9867]]

up at the direction of the Committee on the District of Columbia House 
Resolution 113, authorizing an investigation of the milk industry in 
the District of Columbia. Mr. Smith moved the previous question on the 
resolution. After the motion was rejected, Speaker William B. Bankhead, 
of Alabama, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 2663, 76th Cong. 1st Sess. Parliamentarian's Note: 
        Pending a vote on ordering the previous question, the Chair may 
        decline to indicate whom he might recognize or what form of 
        amendment might be in order if the previous question were 
        rejected. 115 Cong. Rec. 29219, 29220, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Oct. 8, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rules of procedure, the recognition passes to the 
    gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Mapes] if he desires to claim it.

    The Speaker declared, in response to parliamentary inquiries, that 
Mr. Carl E. Mapes, who had been leading the opposition to the 
resolution, would control one hour of debate and would lose the floor 
if he yielded to another Member to offer an amendment.

Qualification of Member as Opposed

Sec. 15.14 After determining that a Member was qualified as opposed to 
    the pending resolution, the Speaker recognized him to offer a 
    motion to table the resolution after the previous question had been 
    rejected.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(16) the House rejected the previous 
question moved by Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, the Member in 
control of a resolution from the Committee on Rules (establishing a 
Select Committee on Standards and Conduct). Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, then recognized Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of 
Louisiana, to offer a motion to lay the resolution on the table, after 
determining whether Mr. Waggonner was entitled to recognition as being 
opposed to the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Louisiana opposed to the 
    resolution?
        Mr. Waggonner: I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Has the gentleman participated actively in the 
    debate in opposition?
        Mr. Waggonner: I did, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Waggonner moves to lay House Resolution 1013 on the 
        table.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Normally, the Speaker determines opposition 
from his observations of

[[Page 9868]]

debate and not by requiring a Member to ``qualify''.

Resolution Called Up Prior to Adoption of Rules

Sec. 15.15 Recognition to offer an amendment to a resolution called up 
    prior to the adoption of rules passes to a Member leading the 
    opposition to the resolution if the previous question is rejected.

    On Jan. 10, 1967,(17) at the convening of the 90th 
Congress and before the adoption of standing rules, Mr. Morris K. 
Udall, of Arizona, called up a resolution (H. Res. 1) authorizing 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, to administer the oath of 
office to challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New York, and 
referring the question of his final right to a seat to a select 
committee. Pending debate on the resolution, Speaker McCormack answered 
parliamentary inquiries on the procedure of consideration and 
recognition for the resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    previous question is voted down would, then, under the rules of the 
    House, amendments or substitutes be in order to the resolution 
    offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Udall]?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Louisiana [Mr. Waggonner] that any germane amendment [would] be in 
    order. . . .
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, one further parliamentary inquiry. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House would the option or 
    priority or a subsequent amendment or a substitute motion lie with 
    the minority?
        The Speaker: The Chair will pass upon that question based upon 
    the rules of the House. That would be a question that would present 
    itself to the Chair at that particular time.
        . . . However, the usual procedure of the Chair has been to the 
    effect that the Member who led the fight against the resolution 
    will be recognized.

Sec. 15.16 The motion for the previous question on a resolution having 
    been rejected before the adoption of rules, the Speaker recognized 
    the Minority Leader to offer an amendment to the resolution.

    On Jan. 10, 1967,(18) at the convening of the 90th 
Congress and before the adoption of the rules, Mr. Morris K. Udall, of 
Arizona, moved the previous question on House Resolution 1, which he 
had called up and which related to the right of Member-elect Adam C. 
Powell, of New York, to be sworn. The previous question was rejected. 
Speaker John W. McCor

[[Page 9869]]

mack, of Massachusetts, then recognized Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, 
the Minority Leader, to offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 24-26, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rejection of Previous Question on Privileged Resolution

Sec. 15.17 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised 
    that if the previous question on a privileged resolution reported 
    by the Committee on Rules were voted down: (1) the resolution would 
    be open to further consideration, amendment, and debate; (2) the 
    resolution would be subject to a motion to table; and (3) the 
    Chair, under the hour rule, would recognize the Member who appeared 
    to be leading the opposition.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(19) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1013, 
establishing a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Mr. Pepper 
was recognized for one hour and offered a committee amendment to the 
resolution, which amendment was agreed to. Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, then answered a series of parliamentary inquiries on 
the order of recognition should Mr. Pepper move the previous question 
and should the motion be defeated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, if the previous 
    question is refused, is it true that then amendments may be offered 
    and further debate may be had on the resolution?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the 
    resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, un-der the rules of the House, is 
    it not equally so that a motion to table would then be in order?
        The Speaker: At that particular point, that would be a 
    preferential motion. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    previous question is refused and the resolution is then open for 
    amendment, under what parliamentary procedure will the debate 
    continue? Or what would be the time limit?
        The Speaker: The Chair would recognize whoever appeared to be 
    the leading Member in opposition to the resolution.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: What would be the time for debate?
        The Speaker: Under those circumstances the Member recognized in 
    opposition would have 1 hour at his

[[Page 9870]]

    disposal, or such portion of it as he might desire to exercise.

Sec. 15.18 Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
    resolution report-ed from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to 
    the Member leading the fight against the previous question, who may 
    offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for 
    debate thereon.

    The proceedings of May 29, 1980, relating to House Resolution 682, 
providing for consideration of H.R. 7428 (public debt limit extension) 
are discussed in Sec. 34.6, infra.

Sec. 15.19 Where the House rejects the previous question, the Member 
    who led the opposition thereto is entitled to one hour of debate 
    and 
    is entitled to close debate where he has yielded half of his time 
    to another Member.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 25, 
1981,(20) during consideration of House Resolution 169 
(providing for consideration of H.R. 3982, Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1981):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 127 Cong. Rec. 14065, 14078, 14079, 14081, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 169 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 169

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, any rule of the House to the 
        contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3982) to provide for 
        reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1982. . . .

        The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After debate, Mr. Bolling moved the previous question on the 
resolution.

        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        [The previous question was rejected.]
        Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .

[[Page 9871]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Latta) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield to 
    my good friend, the Speaker of the House. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the Chair inquire of the gentleman 
    from Ohio, did he . . . yield 30 minutes of the hour to the 
    Speaker?
        Mr. Latta: Right. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: I reserve my 
    right until such time as the gentleman wants to move the previous 
    question.
        Mr. Latta: We have the right under the rules of procedure to 
    close debate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Latta: We have the right to close debate on this issue.
        Mr. O'Neill: I have no requests for time on this side.

Previous Question and Motion To Lay Resolution on Table Rejected

Sec. 15.20 The previous question and a motion to lay a resolution on 
    the table having been rejected, the Chair, under the hour rule, 
    recognized a Member in opposition to the resolution.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(3) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1013, 
establishing a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Mr. Pepper 
moved the previous question and the motion was rejected. Mr. Joe D. 
Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana who assured Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, of his opposition to the resolution, was recognized to 
move to lay the resolution on the table. The motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 112 Cong. Rec. 27713-26, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then recognized, for one hour of debate, Mr. Wayne L. 
Hays, of Ohio, who opposed the resolution.

Motion in House May Be Amended if Member in Control Yields or Previous 
    Question Rejected

Sec. 15.21 A pending motion being considered in the House is not 
    subject to amendment unless the Member in control specifically 
    yields for that purpose or unless the previous question is 
    rejected.

    On Oct. 31, 1983,(4) during consideration of a motion to 
instruct conferees on H.R. 3222 (Departments of Commerce, State, and 
Justice appropriations for fiscal 1984) in the House, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 129 Cong. Rec. 29963, 29964, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George M.] O'Brien [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.

[[Page 9872]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. O'Brien moves that the managers on the part of the 
        House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
        Houses on the bill, H.R. 3222, be instructed to insist on the 
        House position on the amendment of the Senate numbered 93.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. O'Brien) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Robert A. Roe (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.
        Mr. Speaker, this motion instructs the House conferees to 
    insist on the House position on Senate amendment 93, which earmarks 
    $70,155,000 in 
    the bill for the juvenile justice program. . . .
        Mr. [Hank] Brown of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. O'Brien: I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
    Colorado.
        Mr. Brown of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk 
    that I would like to offer in order to amend the motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    O'Brien) yield for that purpose?

        Mr. O'Brien: I yield not for the purposes of amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman yield for debate 
    only?
        Mr. O'Brien: For debate only, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Brown of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was yielded to 
    without that limitation, and I would like to offer my amendment No. 
    1 as an amendment to the motion to instruct.
        Mr. O'Brien: In my naivete, I did not anticipate the amendment, 
    Mr. Speaker. However my statement still prevails. I yielded only 
    for comment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes that the 
    gentleman yielded only for comment, so the 
    Chair is going to sustain the position 
    of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. O'Brien). . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Colorado wishes 
    to offer his amendment as an amendment to the instructions offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. O'Brien), could that be done by 
    defeating the previous question on the motion, thereby giving the 
    gentleman from Colorado an opportunity to offer an amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the previous question is voted 
    down, an amendment would be in order. . . .
        Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        [The previous question was defeated and Mr. Brown offered an 
    amendment.]

--Effect of Adjournment Following Intervention of Other Business After 
    Rejection of Previous Question

Sec. 15.22 The rule that recognition passes to the opposition after 
    rejection of the previous question was once held subject to the 
    following exception: where other business intervenes and occupies

[[Page 9873]]

    the remainder of the day immediately after defeat of the previous 
    question, the bill on which the previous question was rejected must 
    be subsequently called up as unfinished business by a Member 
    directed by his committee to call up that special class of business 
    on a day when that business is in order, since the Speaker does not 
    lay such special bills before the House as unfinished business. 
    Once that Member has called up the bill, however, the Speaker would 
    recognize a Member opposed if he immediately seeks to offer an 
    amendment.

    On Feb. 8, 1932,(6) Mr. Vincent L. Palmisano, of 
Maryland, Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, called 
up as unfinished business S. 1306, to provide for the incorporation of 
the District of Columbia Commission on the George Washington 
Bicentennial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 75 Cong. Rec. 3548-50, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, raised an inquiry as to the 
parliamentary situation. He stated that the bill had previously been 
before the House (on the preceding District of Columbia Monday) and 
that the previous question had been rejected, requiring recognition to 
offer amendments or motions to pass to the opposition. [On the 
preceding District of Columbia Monday, the Chair had recognized another 
Member, immediately after rejection of the previous question on S. 
1306, to call up a general appropriation bill, which was considered 
until adjournment on that day.]
    Mr. LaGuardia and Mr. William H. Stafford, of Wisconsin, both 
asserted that the parliamentary situation remained the same as when the 
previous question was rejected, requiring the Chair to grant 
recognition to the opposition on the bill.
    Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, ruled that the 
chairman of the reporting committee was entitled to recognition since 
the bill could come before the House only by being called up as 
unfinished business.
    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. Palmisano: Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (S. 1306) to 
    provide for the incorporation of the District of Columbia 
    Commission, George Washington Bicentennial.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland calls up a 
    Senate bill, which the Clerk will report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. LaGuardia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 9874]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. LaGuardia: The bill which the gentleman calls up was before 
    the House two weeks ago.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is unfinished business. We have 
    had a second reading of the bill at the former meeting when the 
    bill was considered on last District day.
        Mr. LaGuardia: But the previous question was voted down.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The previous question was then voted 
    down. It is before the House now for further consideration, just 
    where we left off before.
        Mr. LaGuardia: I ask recognition in opposition.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
    Palmisano], who is the ranking majority member of the committee, is 
    entitled to recognition first to offer committee amendments, and 
    then the gentleman from New York will be recognized.
        Mr. Stafford: Mr. Speaker, I assume that when this bill is now 
    brought up we are brought back to the same legislative situation we 
    were in when it was last considered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is the situation.
        Mr. Stafford: The previous question was then voted down. At 
    that moment any person who wished to propose an amendment would 
    have had the privilege of being recognized. I claim that any person 
    who wishes to offer an amendment has prior recognition to the 
    gentleman from Maryland.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: But the previous question having been 
    voted down, it did not take off the floor the gentleman from 
    Maryland, who stands in the position of chairman of the committee, 
    so the parliamentarian informs the Chair.
        Mr. Stafford: The very fact that the previous question was 
    voted down granted the right to the opposition to offer an 
    amendment and have control of the time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is another date on this 
    legislation, and while it is in the same situation the Chair will 
    recognize the gentleman from Maryland first, as acting chairman of 
    his committee, and after that will recognize some Member who is 
    opposed to the bill.
        Mr. [LaFayette L.] Patterson [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    further parliamentary inquiry. Do we understand that the gentleman 
    from Maryland will be recognized for one hour and then the 
    opponents of the bill be recognized for one hour?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland, as acting 
    chairman of the committee, is recognized first to offer committee 
    amendments, and if some Member does not move the previous 
    question----
        Mr. Stafford: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I take issue with the ruling of 
    the Chair, because the House has affirmatively decided that the 
    opposition is entitled to recognition, the previous question having 
    been voted down. In the consideration of this bill we are placed in 
    the same situation as we were when it was last considered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state the parliamentary 
    situation. On a previous District day when this bill was up for 
    consideration, the previous question was moved

[[Page 9875]]

    and the House voted down that motion. Then the opposition clearly 
    was entitled to recognition. This is another legislative day; and 
    that being true, it is the duty of the Chair to recognize the one 
    standing as chairman of the committee, who is the gentleman from 
    Maryland, to offer committee amendments. Then the Chair will 
    recognize someone in opposition to the bill. The Chair is advised 
    by the parliamentarian that such is the correct procedure.
        Mr. LaGuardia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. LaGuardia: I can not follow the statement of the Chair that 
    the bill is coming before the House de novo. The Chair properly 
    stated that the bill now is the unfinished business. A bill can not 
    change its status because it is the unfinished business and carried 
    over to another day. The previous question having been voted down, 
    the bill is now open to the House for amendment, and on that I have 
    asked for recognition by the Chair to offer an amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that the one 
    acting for the committee in calling up the bill has a right to 
    first offer committee amendments. If the proceedings had continued 
    on the day the previous question was voted down, then any Member 
    opposing the bill gaining recognition could have offered an 
    amendment; but this being another legislative day, it is the duty 
    of the Chair to recognize the acting chairman of the committee in 
    calling up the bill to offer committee amendments, and the Chair 
    has done that. Regardless of his own opinion, the Chair is guided 
    by the parliamentarian. When a parliamentary situation arises 
    whereby the Chair can recognize some one opposed to the bill, the 
    Chair will do that.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Bills which are in order on certain days 
under the rules of the House do not automatically come before the 
House, but must be called up by an authorized committee member. 
Therefore, in this instance, the Chair recognized the Chairman of the 
Committee on the District of Columbia to bring the bill before the 
House. Once recognized for that purpose, the chairman of the committee 
could offer committee amendments not printed in the bill, but if an 
opposition Member immediately sought to offer an amendment, the Chair 
indicated that he would first be recognized if he immediately had 
stated his intention.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See also Ch. 21, Sec. 3, supra, for discussion of unfinished 
        business.

[[Page 9876]]