[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 6, Chapter 21]
[Chapter 21. Order of Business; Special Orders]
[B. Motions to Suspend the Rules]
[Â§ 12. Seconding the Motion; Recognition to Demand Second]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 3952-3971]
 
                               CHAPTER 21
 
                   Order of Business; Special Orders
 
                    B. MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
 
Sec. 12. Seconding the Motion; Recognition to Demand Second

    Rule XXVII clause 2 (2) formerly required a second, if 
demanded, on all motions to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 906 (1973). second where printed copies 
        of the measure as proposed to be passed have been available for 
        at least one legislative day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All motions to suspend the rules shall, before being submitted 
    to the House, be seconded by a majority by tellers, if demanded.

    Clause 2 was amended in the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 
1979) to delete the requirement for a second where printed copies of 
the measure as proposed to be passed have been available for at least 
one legislative day.

    The majority vote required on a second is a majority of those 
present and voting, and, if a sec

[[Page 3953]]

ond is ordered, the motion itself still requires, for adoption, a two-
thirds vote of those present and voting.(3) If a second is 
demanded and is not considered as ordered by unanimous consent, the 
failure of a majority to order the second precludes the consideration 
of the motion to suspend the rules.(4) But if a second is 
not even demanded, the Chair may put the question immediately on the 
adoption of the motion, since the absence of the demand for a second 
indicates that no Member wishes to oppose or debate the 
motion.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 12.1, 12.3, infra.
 4. See Sec. 12.2, infra.
 5. See Sec. 12.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule specifies that the vote on a second is taken by tellers 
and not by recorded vote; however, if objection is made to the teller 
vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present, and the point of 
order is made that a quorum is not present, an automatic roll call may 
occur pursuant to Rule XV clause 4.(6)
    The demand for a second is utilized to indicate opposition to the 
motion; the Member who is recognized to demand a second is entitled to 
control debate in opposition to the motion, amounting to 20 minutes 
under Rule XXVII clause 3.(7) Usually, a second is then 
considered as ordered without the necessity of a vote on ordering a 
second; where the unanimous-consent request that a second be ordered is 
objected to, the Chair appoints tellers on the question of a 
second.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 773 (1979). See Sec. 12.4, infra.
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1979). See Sec. Sec. 12.7, 12.8, 
        infra. For further discussion of debate on motions to suspend 
        the rules, see Sec. 13, infra.
            Only one Member may be recognized to demand a second, and 
        another request to demand a second comes too late after a 
        second has been ordered (see Sec. 12.9, infra).
 8. See Sec. 12 .5, infra. The Member who objects to the request that a 
        second be considered as ordered is not entitled to control the 
        debate in opposition to the motion (unless the same Member was 
        recognized to demand the second). See Sec. 12.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to qualify for recognition to demand a second, a Member 
must indicate his opposition to the proposition being brought up under 
suspension; in current practice, no distinction is made between degrees 
of opposition, it being sufficient that the Member seeking recognition 
state that he is opposed to the motion.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. Sec. 12.10-12.13, infra. If no Member qualifies as being 
        opposed to the motion, the Speaker may recognize a Member in 
        favor of the motion to demand the second (see Sec. 12.20, 
        infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recognizing a qualified Member to demand a second, the

[[Page 3954]]

Speaker grants priority of recognition to a member of the minority. If 
two minority members seek recognition, the Speaker may recognize the 
most senior member, and if a majority member opposed to the motion 
seeks recognition he will be recognized over a minority member who is 
not opposed to the bill.(10) Other factors governing 
recognition being equal, priority of recognition will be given to a 
member of the committee with jurisdiction over the subject 
matter.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. Sec. 12.14-12.20, infra.
11. See Sec. 12.17, infra. But see Sec. 12.16 (an opposed minority 
        member has priority of recognition to demand a second over a 
        majority member of the reporting committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once a second is ordered on a motion to suspend the rules, it is 
not in order (except b.y unanimous consent) to have the proposition 
sought to be passed read to the House.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 12.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requirement for a Second

Sec. 12.1 Rule XXVII clause 2 provides that all notions to suspend the 
    rules shall be seconded by a majority (of those present and voting) 
    by tellers, if demanded by any Member, before being submitted to 
    the House.

    On June 29, 1972,(13) Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass H. R. 14896, to amend the National 
School Lunch Act. A second was demanded and ordered (pursuant to Rule 
XXVII clause 2):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 23415, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (14) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert H.] Quie [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: No, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Iowa opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I simply objected to the unanimous 
    consent for a second; that is all.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman insists, the vote on ordering a 
    second will be taken by tellers.
        Mr. Gross: That is exactly right, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Iowa objects to ordering a 
    second; and the Chair appoints the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
    Perkins) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross) as tellers.

[[Page 3955]]

        The question was taken; and the tellers reported that there 
    were--ayes 120, noes 10.
        So a second was ordered.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky 
    for 20 minutes and the gentleman from Minnesota for 20 minutes 
    each.

Sec. 12.2 Under Rule XXVII clause 2, the failure of a majority to order 
    a second by tellers precludes consideration of the motion to 
    suspend the rules.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(15) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
answered an inquiry on the effect of failure to order a second on a 
motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 119 Cong. Rec. 43261, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, under [rule 
    XXVII, clause 2], I demand a second by a majority by tellers.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from California, (Mr. Hosmer) 
    demands a second, and the Chair appoints as tellers the gentleman 
    from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) and the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Hosmer).
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: If 
    this second fails, then this resolution cannot be considered; is 
    that correct?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman is 
    correct.
        Will the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman from 
    California please take their places as tellers.

Voting on Second

Sec. 12.3 Motions to suspend the rules must be seconded by a majority 
    by tellers, if demanded, although the motion itself requires a two-
    thirds vote for passage.

    On June 5, 1939,(16) where a second was demanded on a 
motion to suspend the rules, the second was ordered by a majority vote 
but the motion failed to pass by a two-thirds vote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 6622-28, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kent E.] Keller [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the resolution (S.J. Res. 118) to 
    provide for the establishment and maintenance of the Franklin D. 
    Roosevelt Library, and for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the Senate joint resolution, as follows: . . .
        The Speaker: (17) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Allen T.] Treadway [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker. I 
    demand a second.
        Mr. Keller: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second 
    be considered as ordered.
        The Speaker: Is there objection?
        Mr. [Stephen] Bolles [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I object.

[[Page 3956]]

        The Speaker: The Chair appoints as tellers the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts, Mr. Treadway, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
    Keller, to act as tellers.
        The House divided; and the tellers reported there were--ayes 
    133 and noes 114.
        So a second was ordered. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is, Shall the rules be suspended and 
    the resolution passed.
        The question was taken; and on a division there were ayes 161 
    and noes 131.
        Mr. Keller: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 229, nays 139, not 
    voting 62 as follows: . . .

Sec. 12.4 While Rule XXVII clause 2 requires the vote on seconding a 
    motion to suspend the rules to be taken by tellers and precludes 
    the demand for a recorded vote, the failure of a quorum to vote by 
    tellers on ordering a second may precipitate an automatic roll call 
    under Rule XV clause 4.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(18) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
answered an inquiry, pending a demand for a second on a motion to 
suspend the rules, on the procedure for voting on ordering a second:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 119 Cong. Rec. 43261, 43262, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, under my reservation would it be possible to 
    inquire whether or not a record vote could be demanded on the 
    demand for a second?
        The Speaker: The rule provides for tellers, under the 
    provisions of clause 5, rule I.
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the 
    right to object, is a recorded teller vote in order under that 
    procedure?
        The Speaker: The answer to the gentleman is that under the 
    rules this would not be in order.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi?
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]. Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Rhodes: What would be the effect, Mr. Speaker, if the 
    motion of the gentleman from West Virginia were not agreed to?
        The Speaker: Then the motion could not be considered.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi?
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object further, the Chair has just ruled that no 
    electronic vote can be taken on a demand for a second, but if a 
    quorum fails to vote by tellers, cannot then a yea and nay vote be 
    demanded?
        The Speaker: If a quorum fails to vote by tellers, an objection 
    can be

[[Page 3957]]

    made to the result of the vote, and when the objection is made or a 
    point of order is made an automatic rollcall can be had based upon 
    the absence of a quorum.

    The vote on ordering a second then proceeded as follows:

        The Speaker: . . . On this vote all those in favor of ordering 
    the second will continue to pass through the tellers. The committee 
    divided, and the tellers reported that there were--ayes 109, noes 
    20.
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, under the 
    provisions of rule XXVII, clause 2, I demand the regular order that 
    the Chamber be closed and that the roll be called.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman object to the vote on the 
    ground that a quorum is not present?
        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will count. The Chair will count all 
    Members. (After counting) 182 Members are present, not a quorum. A 
    rollcall is automatic. So many as are in favor of ordering the 
    second will vote ``aye''; those opposed, ``no.''
        Members will record their vote by electronic device. . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    148, nays 113, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 170, as follows:
        So a second was ordered.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

    Following debate on the motion to suspend the rules, two-thirds 
failed to vote in the affirmative and the motion was rejected.
    Similarly, an automatic roll call under Rule XV clause 4, ensued on 
ordering a second on a motion to suspend the rules on Feb. 3, 1936, 
when objection was made to the teller vote thereon on the ground that a 
quorum was not present (Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
presiding): \(19)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 80 Cong. Rec. 1404, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        Mr. [Thomas F.] Ford of California: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that a second be considered as ordered.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California?
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speakar, I object.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering a second.
        The Chair appointed Mr. Ford of California and Mr. Taber to act 
    as tellers.
        The House divided; and the tellers reported there were ayes 63 
    and noes 31.
        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 
    there is not a quorum present.
        The Speaker: The Chair will count. [After counting.] Evidently 
    there is not a quorum present. The Doorkeeper will close the doors, 
    the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members, and the Clerk will 
    call the roll.

[[Page 3958]]

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 199, nays 106, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 124, as follows: . . . 

Sec. 12.5 When objection is raised to a unanimous-consent request that 
    a second be considered as ordered on a motion to suspend the rules 
    and pass a bill, the Chair im- mediately appoints tellers on the 
    question of a second, not on the suspension and passage of the 
    bill.

    On Sept. 1, 1959,\(20)\ Speaker pro tempore Hale Boggs, of 
Louisiana, proceeded as follows where a second was demanded on a motion 
to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 105 Cong. Rec. 17600, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that a second be considered as ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Arkansas?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair appoints the gentleman from 
    A:kansas [Mr. Mills] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] as 
    tellers. . . .
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mills: The question before the House, the Speaker having 
    appointed tellers' is on ordering a second, is it not?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        The House divided, and the tellers reported that there were--
    ayes 146, noes 1.
        So a second was ordered.

Where Second is Not Demanded

Sec. 12.6 Where no Member demands a second on a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass a bill, the Speaker may immediately put the question 
    on the motion.

    On Aug. 1, 1955,\(1)\ the House (Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
presiding) proceeded as follows on a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 101 Cong. Rec. 12663, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Blatnik [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2552) to authorize the 
    modification of the existing project for the Great Lakes connecting 
    channels above Lake Erie.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted, etc., That the project for improvement of 
        the Great Lakes connecting channels above Lake Erie is hereby 
        modified to provide controlling depths of not less than 27 
        feet,

[[Page 3959]]

        the work to be prosecuted under the direction of the Secretary 
        of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers in 
        accordance with plans approved by the Chief of Engineers, in 
        the report submitted in Senate Document No. 71, 84th Congress 
        1st session.
            Sec. 2. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 
        as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act.

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded? [After a pause.] The 
    question is on suspending the rules and passing the bill.
        The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
    thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.

Member Demanding Second Is Entitled to Debate

Sec. 12.7 The Member demanding the second and not the Member objecting 
    to a unanimous-consent request that a second be considered as 
    ordered is entitled to recognition for debate against the motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass a bill.

    On Sept. 1, 1959,\(2)\ Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri, demanded 
a second on a motion to suspend the rules and Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, 
objected to the unanimous- consent request that a second be considered 
as ordered. Speaker pro tempore Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, answered an 
inquiry on who would be recognized to control time in opposition to the 
motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 17600, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Under this procedure does the gentleman 
    from Iowa control the time or does the gentleman from Missouri who 
    demanded the second have control of the time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Missouri demanded a 
    second, and the gentleman from Missouri will control the time.

Sec. 12.8 A demand for a second by a Member opposed to a motion to 
    suspend the rules does not exist where the House has previously 
    adopted a resolution fixing control of debate on such motion.

    On Sept. 20, 1943,\(3)\ the House passed (under suspension of the 
rules) a resolution providing for four hours of debate on a motion to 
suspend the rules, such time to be divided by the proponents and 
opponents of the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646-55, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend 
        the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be 
        extended to 4 hours, such time to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Foreign Affairs; and said motion to suspend the 
        rules shall be the continuing order of business of the House 
        until finally disposed of.

[[Page 3960]]

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, then indicated, when the motion so 
provided for was called up, that a demand for a second (to gain 
recognition to control time in opposition to the motion) was not 
necessary, the House having fixed by resolution the control of time in 
opposition: \(4)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at p. 7655.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
    the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 with an 
    amendment, which I send to the Clerk's desk.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the Congress hereby expresses itself as 
        favoring the creation of appropriate international machinery 
        with power adequate to establish and to maintain a just and 
        lasting peace, among the nations of the world, and as favoring 
        participation by the United States therein through its 
        constitutional processes.

        Mr. [Charles A.] Eaton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. Bloom: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second 
    may be considered as ordered.
        Mr. [Clark E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: May a second be demanded by one who is not opposed 
    to the resolution?
        The Speaker: That was practically cured by the resolution just 
    passed, which provides that the time shall be in control of the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom] and the gentleman from New 
    Jersey [Mr. Eaton]. The formality was gone through.
        Mr. [John M.] Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Robston of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I raise the point that 
    the time now provided is in the control entirely of four Members.
        The Speaker: The House decided by a vote of 252 to 23 that that 
    was to be the program.
        Mr. Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Robsion of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the 
    Speaker ruled that a second is ordered, and then the same persons 
    who control the time controlled the 40 minutes.
        The Speaker: The House ordered that by unanimous consent. The 
    gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Eaton] demanded a second, and a 
    second was ordered by unanimous consent. However, that was a 
    formality, because the time was already controlled by the terms of 
    the resolution under which the House suspended the rules.

Requesting Recognition to Demand Second

Sec. 12.9 A request for recognition to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules

[[Page 3961]]

    comes too late after a second has been ordered (or considered as 
    ordered).

    On May 15, 1961,\(5)\ a second having been considered ordered, the 
Speaker ruled that a request for recognition to demand a second (or a 
point of order against such recognition) came too late:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 7988-91, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: \(6)\ Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Mailliard [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a second.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Armistead I.] Selden [Jr., of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    yield such time as he may require to the gentleman from Florida 
    [Mr. (Dante B.) Fascell].
        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which is before us 
    expresses the sense of Congress that the President exercise his 
    authority under acts which are named to expend funds for assistance 
    to certain Cuban refugees, namely students who need this assistance 
    because of the authoritarian restrictions placed on the activities 
    of those citizens by the Cuban Government or because they are 
    refugees in the United States from the present Government of Cuba. 
    . . . 
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from California [Mr. Mailliard].
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second, and I make that demand to keep the record straight. The 
    gentleman did not qualify.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California demanded 
    a second and it has been already ordered.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: The gentleman did not qualify. He did 
    not say he was opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I 
    demand that the Chair ask if the gentleman is opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California is 
    recognized.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: What is the ruling on my demand?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's demand is too late.

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, made a similar ruling 
on May 1, 1967: \(7)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 11282, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [William L.] Springer [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a second.
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [Jr., of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    the point of order that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Springer] 
    is not opposed to the joint resolution.
        The Speaker: The Chair will ask the gentleman from Illinois 
    [Mr. Springer], is the gentleman opposed to the joint resolution?

[[Page 3962]]

        Mr. Springer: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the joint 
    resolution.
        Mr. Moss: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is any other member of the committee on the 
    Republican side opposed to the joint resolution?
        Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Theodore R.] Kupferman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a second. I am opposed to the joint resolution.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's demand comes too late.

Member Opposed Is Entitled to Recognition

Sec. 12.10 On a motion to suspend the rules, a Member opposed to the 
    bill has prior right to recognition to demand a second over a 
    Member who favors the motion.

    On Feb. 21, 1949,\(8)\ Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as 
follows on recognition to demand a second on a motion to suspend the 
rules and pass a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 95 Cong. Rec. 1444, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Samuel K.] McConnell [Jr., of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I demand a second.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, is it not the rule of the House 
    that in order for a Member to demand a second he must qualify by 
    being opposed to the bill?
        The Speaker: If there is opposition to the bill, a Member who 
    is opposed to it may claim the right to demand a second.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill and I 
    demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McConnell] 
    opposed to the bill?
        Mr. McConnell: No; I am not, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Without objection a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.

    Speaker Rayburn delivered a similar ruling on May 1, 1950: \(9)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 96 cong. rec. 6093, 81st Cong. 2d sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Edward H.] Rees [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman is not opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: The Chair was just about to interrogate the 
    gentleman about that.
        Is the gentleman from Kansas opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Rees: No, I am not, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.

[[Page 3963]]

        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Marcantonio: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.

    On July 23, 1956, recognition to demand a second was extended as 
follows by Speaker Rayburn: \(10)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 102 Cong. Rec. 14113, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel A.] Reed of New York rose.
        Mr. [Hamer H.] Budge [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        A parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Budge: The committee report says the bill came from the 
    committee by unanimous action. I am opposed to the bill and demand 
    a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from New York opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. Reed of New York: I am not opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York does not qualify. The 
    gentleman from Idaho qualifies.
        Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.\(11)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 104 Cong. Rec. 4788, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 19, 1958; 
        102 Cong. Rec. 14108, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 1956; 102 
        Cong. Rec. 1575-77, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., May 21, 1956; and 101 
        Cong. Rec. 12694, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 1, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.11 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass a bill, the Speaker gives preference to 
    a Member who qualifies as being opposed to the bill.

    On Dec. 6, 1971,\(12)\ Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, extended 
recognition as follows on a demand for a second on a motion to suspend 
the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 44951, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Thomas M.] Pelly [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [David H.] Pryor of Arkansas: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman 
    from Washington opposed to the bill?
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Washington opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. Pelly: Mr. Speaker, I voted to report the bill to the floor 
    of the House.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Arkansas opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. Pryor of Arkansas: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I demand a second.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Arkansas qualifies.
        Without objection a second will be considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.

    Also on Aug. 27, 1962,\(13)\ Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachuses, granted recognition as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 108 Cong. Rec. 17671, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?

[[Page 3964]]

        Mr. [William L.] Springer [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a second.
        Mr. [William Fitts] Ryan of New York: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois has demanded a second.

        Mr. Ryan of New York: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from 
    Illinois opposed to the bill?
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Illinios [Mr. Springer] 
    opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Springer: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ryan] opposed 
    to the bill?
        Mr. Ryan of New York: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill and 
    I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.

    On July 20, 1959,(14) recognition was extended as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 105 Cong. Rec. 13719, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) Is second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Russell V.] Mack of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Is the gentleman from Washington opposed to the 
    bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from Washington 
    opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Mack of Washington: I am not, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Iowa qualifies, and 
    without objection a second will be considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16.  See also 109 Cong. Rec. 19947, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 21, 
        1963; and 111 Cong. Rec. 20689, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 17, 
        1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.12 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules, the Speaker does not distinguish between a 
    Member opposed to the bill ``in its present form'' and a Member 
    unqualifiedly opposed.

    On Feb. 7, 1972,(17) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
ruled as follows on recognition to demand a second on a motion to 
suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 118 Cong. Rec. 2881, 2882, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Fred] Schwengel [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Schwengel: In its present form, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the 
    bill without the reservation ``in its present form.''

[[Page 3965]]

        THE SPEAKER: If a Member is opposed to the bill at any point, 
    he is opposed to the bill.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under prior practice, the Chair would give 
priority of recognition, to demand a second on a motion to suspend the 
rules, to a Member who was unqualifiedly opposed to the bill sought to 
be passed, rather than to a Member who was opposed qualifiedly (as for 
example having objections to a portion of the bill or to the method of 
its consideration). (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See, for example, 80 Cong. Rec. 2239, 2240, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Feb. 17, 1936 (Member opposed to the way the bill was brought 
        up was not recognized); and 91 Cong. Rec. 5513, 5514, 79th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., June 4, 1945 ( Member opposed to certain 
        provisions in a bill not recognized).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    But under current practice, the Speaker does not inquire into the 
degree of a Member's opposition to the bill, it being sufficient that 
he be opposed to the motion to qualify to demand a second.

Sec. 12.13 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules the Speaker recognizes a Member opposed to the 
    proposition, and where no Member on the minority side qualifies, 
    the Speaker recognizes any Member of the House who qualifies as 
    being opposed.

    On Aug. 5, 1948,(19) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, extended recognition as follows to demand a second on a 
motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 9892, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Bloom: No.
        The Speaker: The gentleman does not qualify. Is anyone on the 
    Democratic side opposed to the resolution? [After a pause.] Is 
    anyone opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. [Frederick C.] Smith of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to 
    the resolution and I demand a second.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.

Priorities of Recognition

Sec. 12.14 A minority member opposed to a motion to suspend the rules 
    is recognized to demand a second over a majority member.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(20) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized, to demand a second on a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 43285, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3966]]

motion to suspend the rules, a member of the minority party over a 
member of the majority:

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to suspend the rules and agree to House resolution (H. Res. 
    761) to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill S. 921, to 
    amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, with a Senate amendment to 
    the House amendment thereto, and agree to the Senate amendment to 
    the House amendment with an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                  H. Res. 761

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the bill S. 921, with the Senate amendment to the 
        House amendment thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from 
        the Speaker's table to the end that the Senate amendment be, 
        and the same is hereby, agreed to.

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second, and I demand tellers.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Bauman: I am.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) 
    will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) will be recognized for 20 minutes.

    Recognition was similarly granted to the minority over the majority 
on Aug. 27, 1962:(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 108 Cono. Rec. 17655, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(2) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohiol: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
    know if the gentleman qualifies. I believe that the opposition has 
    the right to demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] opposed 
    to the resolution?
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the resolution.
        The Speaker: The gentleman does not qualify.
        Mr. [John H.] Ray [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Ray: Mr. Speaker, I am.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.15 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass a bill, the Speaker gives preference to 
    a minority member.

    On Aug. 4, 1958,(3) Speaker pro tempore John W. 
McCormack, of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 104 Cong. Rec. 16096, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 3967]]

Massachusetts, ruled as follows on recognition to demand a second on a 
motion to suspend the rules:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Victor L.] Anfuso [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second. I am opposed to the bill.
        Mr. [Ralph] Harvey [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: A second is demanded by the gentleman 
    from Indiana, a member of the minority.
        Without objection, a second is considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.16 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules, the Speaker gives priority of recognition to a 
    minority member opposed to the bill over a majority member of the 
    reporting committee.

    On Apr. 15, 1946,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized a member of the minority over a majority member of the 
reporting committee to demand a second on a motion to suspend the 
rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 92 Cong. Rec. 3722, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Kansas opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Hope: No; I am not, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Ralph E.] Church [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Church: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: I thought the gentleman on the majority side was 
    entitled to demand a second.
        The Speaker: If anyone on the minority claims the right, he is 
    entitled to it.

Sec. 12.17 A minority member of the committee who is opposed to a bill 
    has prior right to recognition to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules.

    On Dec. 1, 1941,(5) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, gave 
priority of recognition, to demand a second on a motion to suspend the 
rules, to a minority member on the committee reporting the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 87 Cong. Rec. 9276, 9277, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fritz G.] Lanham [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6128) to amend the act 
    entitled `` An act to expedite the provision of housing in 
    connection with national defense, and for

[[Page 3968]]

    other purposes,'' approved October 14, 1940, as amended.
        The Clerk read the bill as follows: . . .
        Mr. [J. Harry] McGregor [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [Pehr G.] Holmes [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. Holmes: I am not opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Ohio opposed to the bill?
        Mr. McGregor: I am a member of the committee, and I am opposed 
    to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.
        Without objection, a second is considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 12.18 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules and pass a bill, the Speaker gives preference to 
    a majority member opposed to the bill over a minority member who 
    does not qualify as being opposed.

    On Sept. 20, 1965,(6) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized, to demand a second on a motion to suspend 
the rules, a member of the majority when no minority member who was 
opposed to the bill sought recognition for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 111 Cong. Rec. 24347, 24348, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [William S.] Mailliard [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Mailliard: I am not opposed to the resolution.
        The Speaker: The gentleman does not qualify. Does any other 
    Member on the minority side who is opposed to the resolution demand 
    a second?
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
         Hays: I am.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.
        Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.

    Speaker pro tempore William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, followed the 
same priority of recognition on Dec. 21, 1970 :(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 43087, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is a second demanded?
        [John W.] Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Is the gentleman from Wisconsin opposed to 
    the bill, and does he qualify as a second?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    opposed to the bill?

[[Page 3969]]

        Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I am not.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from New York opposed 
    to the bill?
        Mr. Bingham: I am, Mr. Speaker, and I demand a second.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York qualifies.
        Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.

    On July 27, 1946, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized, to 
demand a second on a suspension motion, a member of the majority when 
no minority member qualified as being opposed to the 
bill:(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 92 Cong. Rec. 10310, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Does any Member of the minority demand a second?
        Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: I demand a second, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the motion?
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: On the last suspension that rule 
    was not invoked. Both Members who controlled the time were in favor 
    of the bill.
        The Speaker: Since the question has been raised, the Chair 
    thinks the opposition is entitled to the time.
        Does the gentleman from Alabama demand a second?
        Mr. Hobbs: I do, Mr. Speaker.

Sec. 12.19 Where two minority members rise to demand a second on a 
    motion to suspend the rules and both qualify as being opposed to 
    the bill, the Speaker recognizes the Member with the most seniority 
    in the House if neither is a member of the committee reporting the 
    bill.

    On Feb. 7, 1972,(9)  Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized, to demand a second on a motion to suspend the rules, the 
more senior of two minority members seeking recognition, where neither 
of the two were on the Committee on the Judiciary, which reported the 
bill being brought up:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 118 Cong. Rec. 2881, 2882, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Fred] Schwengel [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Schwengel: In its present form, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the 
    bill without the reservation ``in its present form.''
        The Speaker: If a Member is opposed to the bill at any point, 
    he is opposed to the bill.

[[Page 3970]]

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: The bill, as I understand it, is brought up under 
    suspension of the rules and therefore is not subject to amendment. 
    Is that correct?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Gross: Then, in its present form, it cannot be amended.
        The Speaker: The gentleman to qualify, must be opposed to the 
    bill.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to it without reservation.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Gross), is 
    recognized.

Sec. 12.20 In recognizing Members to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules, the Speaker recognizes a Member in favor of the 
    motion if no one opposed demands recognition.

    On July 17, 1950,(10) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized a Member in favor of a bill to demand a second on a motion 
to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 10438, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Earl. C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        I am not opposed to the bill, but if no one is opposed, I would 
    demand a second.
        The Speaker: If no one else is opposed, the gentleman qualifies 
    if he desires.
        Mr. Michener: I demand a second, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: I ask unanimous consent, 
    Mr. Speaker, that the second be considered as ordered.
        Without objection, the second was ordered.

Reading and Rereading Measure Sought to Be Passed

Sec. 12.21 Where a motion to suspend the rules and agree to a 
    resolution providing for concurring in a Senate amendment with an 
    amendment consisting of the text of a numbered bill introduced in 
    the House was offered, the reading of the resolution was held 
    sufficient and its rereading pending a demand for a second by 
    tellers was in order only by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 21, 1973,(11) Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
moved to suspend the rules and agree to a resolution relating to the 
order of business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 43261, 43262, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  H. Res. 759

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the

[[Page 3971]]

        bill S. 921, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment 
        thereto, be, and the same is hereby, taken from the Speaker's 
        table to the end that the Senate amendment to the House 
        amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to with an 
        amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment, insert the text of the bill H.R. 12128.

    Mr. Craig Hosmer, of California, then demanded, pursuant to Rule 
XXVII clause 2, a second on the motion. Speaker Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, ruled on a point of order as follows:

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of this 
    Chamber who knows what is being voted on. None of the Speaker's 
    last statements were heard by the Members of the House, and the 
    House is entitled to know what the vote is being cast upon and what 
    the issue is.
        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I further 
    state that the motion was not read.
        The Speaker: The motion was read.
        The Chair will state again to the gentleman that a second was 
    demanded, and tellers were demanded.
        Those in favor of a second on the motion will pass between the 
    tellers.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, what is the motion?
        The Speaker: The motion is to suspend the rules and agree to 
    House Resolution 759.
        Mr. Waggonner: Then, Mr. Speaker, what is that resolution?
        The Speaker: The resolution has been reported.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, the House does not understand the 
    resolution as reported and I ask unanimous consent that it be 
    reported again.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Louisiana?
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object. A 
    vote is in process.

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 759 itself did not contain 
the text of the introduced bill, H.R. 12128, and so the text of that 
bill was not read by the Clerk as part of the resolution, but the text 
of the bill was printed separately in the Record. Pursuant to 
Sec. 14.4, infra, the Chair, in his discretion upon demand of a Member, 
could have required the Clerk to report the entire text of the House 
bill, since it had only been introduced that day and was not yet 
printed and available to Members. That demand was not made by any 
Member.