[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[D. Motions for the Previous Question]
[Â§ 14. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4573-4585]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                  D. MOTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
 
Sec. 14. In General


    A motion for the previous question is used to close debate and 
bring the pending matter to a vote.(5) It is also used to 
foreclose further amendments and bring the House to a decision on the 
pending question. It is not in order in the Committee of the 
Whole.(6)

 5. Rule XVII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 804 (1981); 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2662; and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 5456.
 6. See Sec. 14.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The previous question is considered a fundamental rule of 
parliamentary procedure, and as such it is in order even before the 
rules of the House have been adopted.(7) The motion takes 
precedence over all other motions except the motion to adjourn and the 
motion to lay on the table,(8) but once moved, the motion 
itself is not subject to a motion to table.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 14.1, infra.
 8. Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1981).
 9. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5410, 5411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The defeat of the motion for the previous question has two general 
effects. It throws the main question open to further consider

[[Page 4574]]

ation (10) and it transfers the right of recognition to 
those Members who opposed the motion.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See generally Sec. 22, infra.
11. See generally Sec. 23, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion is neither debatable (12) nor, according to 
Jefferson's Manual, amendable.(13) Jefferson's Manual also 
makes it clear that the motion for the previous question is not subject 
to a motion to postpone.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1981).
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 452 (1981).
14. Id. at Sec. 451.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion may not be moved on a proposition against which a point 
of order is pending.(15) Further consideration of a measure 
has been permitted by unanimous consent after the previous question had 
been ordered (16) although the precedents are not uniform in 
this regard.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2681, 3433.
16. See Sec. 14.13, infra.
17. See Sec. 15.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The previous question may be demanded by the Member in charge of 
debate on a particular measure.(18) If the Member in charge 
of a measure claims the floor in debate, another Member may not demand 
the previous question.(19) The Member controlling debate may 
be recognized to move the previous question even after he has 
surrendered the floor in debate.(20) If the Member 
controlling the floor on a measure yields to a second Member to offer 
an amendment, a third Member may move the previous question before the 
second Member is recognized to offer his amendment.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 16.1, infra.
19. House Rules and Manual Sec. 807 (1981); and 2 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 1458.
20. House Rules and Manual Sec. 807 (1981); and 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2682.
 1. See Sec. 18.3, infra, and House Rules and Manual Sec. 807 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any Member properly recognized on the floor may offer the motion 
although the effect may be to deprive the Member in charge of control 
of his measure.(2) Any Member having the floor may move the 
previous question after debate if the Member in charge of the measure 
does not so move.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. 807 (1981); 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2685; and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5476.
 3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 807 (1981); and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 5475.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Forty minutes of debate are allowed when the previous question is 
ordered on a debatable proposition on which there has been no 
debate.(4) However, if there has been any debate at all 
prior to the

[[Page 4575]]

ordering of the previous question, there is no right to 40 minutes of 
debate.(5) Such prior debate must have been on the merits of 
the proposition in order to preclude the 40 minutes permissible under 
Rule XXVII clause 3.(6) The 40 minutes of debate may not be 
demanded on a proposition which has been debated in the Committee of 
the Whole (7) nor on a conference report if the subject 
matter of the report was debated before being sent to 
conference.(8) If the previous question is ordered solely on 
an amendment which has not been debated, the 40 minutes are permitted 
(9) but they are not permitted if the previous question 
covers both an amendment and the main proposition, which has been 
debated.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Rule XXVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1981). See 
        Sec. Sec. 21.2-21.4, infra.
 5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 805 (1981); and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5499-5501.
 6. House Rules and Manual Sec. 805 (1981); and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 5502.
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 805 (1981); and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 5505.
 8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 805 (1981); and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5506, 5507.
 9. House Rules and Manual Sec. 805 (1981); and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 5503.
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 805 (1981); and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 5504.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Motion Prior to Adoption of the House Rules

Sec. 14.1 The previous question is applicable in the House prior to the 
    adoption of rules.

    On Jan. 10, 1967,(11) prior to the formal adoption of 
the rules of the House, the House was considering House Resolution 1, 
relating to the right of Adam Clayton Powell to take the oath of office 
as a Representative from New York. Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of 
Louisiana, rose to his feet and posed a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of whatever time 
    the gentleman from Arizona chooses to use in the consideration of 
    this matter, under the rules of the House will the House have the 
    usual privilege of voting up or down the previous question?

    The Speaker (12) held that under the precedents 
applicable prior to the adoption of the rules, the previous question 
could be offered.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
13. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 19, 20, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of Motion

Sec. 14.2 The previous question may be asked and ordered upon a single 
    motion, a series of motions, or an amend

[[Page 4576]]

    ment or amendments, or may be made to embrace all motions or 
    amendments pending, and if not otherwise specified it applies to 
    all pending motions or amendments.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Rule XVII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 804 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 14, 1942,(15) the House was considering 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement on H.R. 6709, 
appropriations for agriculture for 1943. Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of 
Georgia, offered a motion that the House insist on its disagreement to 
Senate amendments numbered 83, 85, and 86. Mr. Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, then offered the preferential motion that the House recede 
from its disagreement to amendment No. 85, and concur therein with an 
amendment. At the conclusion of the ensuing debate, Mr. Tarver moved 
and the House ordered the previous question. When a quorum failed on 
Mr. Cannon's motion, the House adjourned. The next day,(16) 
the House rejected Mr. Cannon's motion and the question recurred on Mr. 
Tarver's motion. At this point, Mr. John Taber, of New York, rose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 88 Cong. Rec. 6155-58, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. Id. at pp. 6194, 6195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker:(17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Has the previous question been ordered upon this 
    particular motion?
        The Speaker: The previous question was ordered on both motions 
    on yesterday.
        Mr. Taber: The Record indicates that the gentleman from Georgia 
    [Mr. Tarver] moved the previous question, but it does not say on 
    what the previous question was ordered. I assumed it meant that the 
    gentleman had moved the previous question upon the Cannon motion.
        The Speaker: Unless otherwise specified, the previous question 
    is ordered on all motions pending at the time.

Divisibility

Sec. 14.3 A motion for the previous question on an amendment to a 
    resolution and the adoption of the resolution is not divisible.

    On April 25, 1940,(18) the House was considering House 
Resolution 289, providing for consideration of H.R. 5435, amendments to 
the wage-hour law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 5051, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phil] Ferguson [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(19) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

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

[[Page 4577]]

        Mr. Ferguson: Did I understand the Chair to say that the motion 
    was on ordering the previous question on the amendment and the 
    adoption of the rule?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Georgia moves the 
    previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to have separate 
    votes on the two propositions?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: A motion for the previous question 
    cannot be divided.

Renewing the Motion

Sec. 14.4 The previous question, although moved and rejected, may be 
    renewed after intervening business.

    On Jan. 3, 1969,(20) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1 offered by Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, dealing with 
certain fines and punishments proposed against Mr. Adam C. Powell, of 
New York. After the previous question had been defeated, Mr. Clark 
MacGregor, of Minnesota, offered a resolution which the Chair ruled out 
on a point of order. Mr. Celler once again moved the previous question 
on the resolution and uncertainty arose as to the parliamentary 
situation. Mr. Albert W. Watson, of South Carolina, rose with a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 25-27, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be alone in my lack of 
    understanding as to exactly what is transpiring at the moment, but, 
    perhaps, there may be some others who might be in a similar 
    situation.
        My parliamentary inquiry is this: Once the previous question 
    has been rejected as it was a moment ago on the original Celler 
    resolution, is it not in order for a substitute resolution to be 
    offered by another Member of this body?
        The Speaker: (21) The Chair will state in response 
    to the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry that an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute was offered and a point of order was made 
    against it. The Chair sustained the point of order, and at this 
    point a motion to move the previous question is again in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Watson: Further, Mr. Speaker, there having been no further 
    business having transpired between that vote which we took a moment 
    ago, and by a vote of almost 2 to 1 rejected the previous question, 
    is it not in order for another substitute to be offered?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that business has been 
    transacted during that period of time.

Application of Motion to Private Bills

Sec. 14.5 It is in order to move the previous question on indi

[[Page 4578]]

    vidual private bills on the calendar.

    On Apr. 7, 1936,(1) during the call of the Private 
Calendar, the House was considering S. 2682 for the relief of Chief 
Carpenter William F. Twitchell of the U.S. Navy, when the following 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 5075, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Connor: Would a motion to move the previous question on 
    the bill preclude the offer of (an) amendment?
        The Speaker: The ordering of the previous question would 
    prelude the offering of amendments and serve to close debate.

Approval of Journal

Sec. 14.6 The motion for the previous question applies to the question 
    of the approval of the Journal.

    On June 25, 1949,(3) after the Clerk finished the 
reading of the Journal, the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 10092, 10093, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the Journal as read stand approved; and on that motion I move 
    the previous question.
        The Speaker: (4) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the yeas and nays on ordering the previous question.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.

Preamble of Resolution

Sec. 14.7 Ordering the previous question on a pending resolution does 
    not cover the preamble thereto; and a motion to order the previous 
    question on the preamble is in order following the vote whereby the 
    resolution is agreed to.

    On Mar. 1, 1967,(5) the House was considering House 
Resolution 278, relating to the right of Representative-elect Adam 
Clayton Powell to be sworn. A motion by Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of 
Missouri, for the previous question on his amendment to the resolution 
and on the resolution itself was adopted, after which the amendment and 
resolution were ap

[[Page 4579]]

proved. The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 5038, 5039, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    adoption of the preamble.
        Mr. [Phillip] Burton of California: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman from California will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Burton of California: The gentleman from Missouri is urging 
    a motion that duplicates an action already taken by the House. The 
    House already has had a motion to close debate on the preamble and 
    on the resolution as amended.
        We have already had that vote. I make the point of order that 
    the gentleman's request and/or motion is out of order. I think the 
    record of the proceedings of the House will indicate that the point 
    being advocated reflects accurately the proceedings as they have 
    transpired.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the previous question 
    was ordered on the amendment and the resolution but not on the 
    preamble.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The previous question could apply to the 
preamble of a resolution if the proponent of the motion so specifies in 
offering the motion. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5469, 5470.

Committee of the Whole

Sec. 14.8 The motion for the previous question is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On Nov. 17, 1967,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13893, dealing with foreign aid appropriations for 
fiscal 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 32964, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul C.] Jones of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, is it in order to move the previous question on 
    this amendment now, inasmuch as we have had considerable debate on 
    it, and I have been trying to receive recognition for approximately 
    half an hour, but now I am willing to forgo my time.
        The Chairman: (8) The Chair will state that the 
    moving of the previous question is not in order in the Committee of 
    the Whole.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
 9. See also 112 Cong. Rec. 18111, 18112, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 3, 
        1966 (H.R. 14765); and 110 Cong. Rec. 457, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Jan. 16, 1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.9 The previous question may be moved on a number of amendments 
    reported from the Committee of the Whole leaving certain other 
    amendments reported from such Committee for further consideration 
    in the House.

    On Dec. 10, 1937,(10) the Committee of the Whole had 
consid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 82 Cong. Rec. 1285-88, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4580]]

ered H.R. 8505, a farm bill, and had reported that bill to the House 
along with certain amendments. The following then occurred:

        Mr. [Marvin] Jones [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question on all amendments except the Boileau amendment.
        The previous question on all amendments except the Boileau 
    amendment was ordered.
        The Speaker: (11) Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Boileau: Will there be an opportunity for a separate vote 
    on the Boileau amendment?
        Mr. Jones: I may say to the gentleman I am about to ask for a 
    separate vote on it.
        Mr. Boileau: I confess I am not familiar with the procedure in 
    the situation now before the House as to the effect of ordering the 
    previous question on all amendments except the Boileau amendment.
        The Speaker: The previous question has already been ordered by 
    the House, thus bringing to an immediate vote all amendments except 
    the so-called Boileau amendment. The gentleman from Texas is now 
    demanding a separate vote upon certain amendments. The Chair will 
    recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin to demand a separate vote 
    upon his amendment if the gentleman from Texas does not do so. . . 
    .
        Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a separate vote on four 
    amendments.
        I ask first for a separate vote on the so-called Ford 
    amendment, striking out and inserting language on page 6, lines 5 
    to 17, inclusive. I also ask for a separate vote on a similar 
    amendment which was offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
    Ford], on page 4, line 21. This is a corrective amendment, and, 
    inasmuch as it is a technical amendment made necessary by the other 
    Ford amendment, I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that the two 
    amendments may be considered together.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I ask also for a separate vote on the 
    so-called Boileau amendment, inserting language on page 9, line 4.
        I also ask for a separate vote on the so-called Coffee 
    amendment, which struck out part III of title III, relating to 
    marketing quotas on wheat.
        The Speaker: Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Scott W.] Lucas [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    separate vote on the Jones amendment.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois demands a separate 
    vote on the Jones amendment, which he has described heretofore. For 
    the purpose of the Record, will the gentleman cite to the Chair the 
    page to which the amendment was offered?
        Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, my amendment strikes out, beginning 
    with line

[[Page 4581]]

    14, on page 14, the remaining part of the paragraph down to and 
    including line 9, on page 15.
        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Jones] 
    has moved the previous question on all amendments except the 
    Boileau amendment. I do not recall a similar situation since I have 
    been a Member of the House, and I frankly confess I do not know the 
    effect of the motion of the gentleman from Texas. I would 
    appreciate it if the Speaker would explain to the Members of the 
    House the present status of the Boileau amendment.
        Am I correct in my understanding of the present situation that 
    because of the previous question having been ordered on all 
    amendments other than the Boileau amendment there is no longer 
    opportunity for debate on such amendments, but that, the previous 
    question not having been ordered on the Boileau amendment, there is 
    opportunity for debate on it unless the previous question is 
    ordered?
        The Speaker: Unless the previous question is ordered on the 
    Boileau amendment, if a Member should seek recognition to debate 
    the amendment the Chair would recognize that right.
        Mr. Boileau: If a motion for the previous question were made 
    and the previous question ordered on the Boileau amendment, would 
    that amendment then be in the same position before this body as the 
    other amendments?
        The Speaker: It would, except the previous question has already 
    been ordered on the other amendments, and under the present 
    situation the amendments upon which the previous question is 
    ordered will be put to a vote and disposed of before the Boileau 
    amendment is before the House for consideration.

House as in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 14.10 Debate in the House as in the Committee of the Whole may be 
    closed by ordering the previous question.

    On July 28, 1969,(12) the House was proceeding as in 
Committee of the Whole to consider H.R. 9553, amending the District of 
Columbia Minimum Wage Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 20855, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Dowdy [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question.
        The Speaker: (13) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Suspend the Rules Not Subject to Demand for Previous Question

Sec. 14.11 The motion for the previous question is not applicable where 
    a motion is made to suspend the rules and agree to a resolution.

    On June 18, 1948,(14) the House was considering S. 2655, 
the Se
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 8829, 8830, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4582]]

lective Service Act of 1948, when the following occurred:

        Mr. [Walter G.] Andrews [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the resolution, House Resolution 690, 
    which I send to the desk.
        The Speaker: (15) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendment to S. 
        2655, ask a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing 
        votes, and that the Speaker immediately appoint conferees.

    A discussion arose as to how to insist on certain provisions of the 
House amendments to the Senate bill. Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, then offered the following advice to Mr. Vito Marcantonio, 
of New York:

        Mr. Rankin: I wish to say that if the gentleman wishes to do 
    so, as soon as the previous question is ordered it is in order to 
    offer a motion to instruct conferees. That is the rule of the House 
    that has always been followed.
        The Speaker: The Chair will inform the gentleman from 
    Mississippi that there is no previous question to be ordered, that 
    the House is now considering under a suspension of the rules House 
    Resolution 690, which carries the following provision:

            That the House insist upon its amendments to the bill of 
        the Senate, S. 2655, ask for a conference with the Senate on 
        the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Speaker 
        immediately appoint conferees.

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Marcantonio: I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
        Mr. Rankin: It has always been the rule and it is the rule now.
        The Speaker: But this is under a suspension of the rules and it 
    would not be in order after the adoption of the pending resolution 
    to offer such a motion.

Application to Nondebatable Resolutions

Sec. 14.12 The motion for the previous question may not be applied to a 
    resolution brought up under a motion to discharge where the 
    resolution itself is not debatable under the discharge rule.

    On Sept. 27, 1965,(16) Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New 
York, called up discharge motion No. 5, to discharge the Committee on 
Rules from the further consideration of House Resolution 515, providing 
for the consideration of H.R. 4644, to provide an elected mayor, city 
council, and nonvoting Delegate to the House of Representatives for the 
District of Columbia. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, and the 
Speaker, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 25180-85, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4583]]

discussed the procedure for the consideration of the resolution.

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, this motion to discharge is 
    directed at the Committee on Rules. If adopted, it will discharge 
    the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution 
    which has just been brought up; am I correct in 
    that?(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Motions to discharge are provided for in Rule XXVII clause 4, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The gentleman's statement is correct.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: And Mr. Speaker, after that happens, the 
    next question will be on the resolution itself, which has just been 
    referred to, which has just been called up?
        The Speaker: The gentleman's statement is correct.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Now, Mr. Speaker, that resolution waives 
    points of order. There are grave points of order in the bill that 
    is to be recognized. The question I want to ask is whether there 
    will be an opportunity in debate on the rule to advise the House of 
    the facts that it does waive the points of order and that there are 
    points of order with which the House ought to be made familiar.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that under the rule on the 
    question of discharge there is 20 minutes, 10 minutes to the side, 
    and that will close debate on the motion. The House will then vote 
    on the adoption of House Resolution 515 without debate or other 
    intervening motions.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: And, as I understand it, then there will 
    be no opportunity to discuss the resolution itself on which we are 
    about to vote?
        The Speaker: Not under the standing rules of the House.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Now, Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry. Will it be in order to move the previous 
    question on the resolution?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that under the rules of the 
    House in a matter of this kind there is no debate and the previous 
    question will not be in order.

Previous Question Vitiated by Unanimous-consent Request

Sec. 14.13 Unanimous consent was granted for the consideration of a 
    substitute for an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole, 
    even though the previous question had been ordered.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. But see Sec. 15.18, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 22, 1944,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5125, dealing with the disposal of surplus government 
property and plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 90 Cong. Rec. 7215, 7216, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

        The Chairman: (20) The question now recurs on the 
    adoption of the committee substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The committee substitute was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Committee will rise.

[[Page 4584]]

        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Thomason, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee 
    having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5125) to provide for 
    the disposal of surplus Government property and plants and for 
    other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 620, reported the same 
    back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
    Whole.

    [The special rule providing for the consideration of the bill 
specified that the committee substitute should be considered for 
amendment as an original bill, and that separate votes could be had in 
the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
bill or committee substitute.]

        The Speaker: (1) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule, also, the substitute being considered as an 
    original bill, any Member may ask for a separate vote on any 
    amendment to the substitute.
        Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
        Mr. [Carter] Manasco [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a 
    separate vote on the so-called Mott amendment.

    At the direction of the Speaker the Clerk read the amendment 
offered by Mr. James W. Mott, of Oregon. Mr. Warren G. Magnuson, of 
Washington, then rose.

        Mr. Magnuson: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman rise?
        Mr. Magnuson: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit at 
    this time a substitute for the Mott amendment. . . .
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Washington?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Magnuson: Mr. Speaker, I offer a substitute amendment.

    The Clerk then read the substitute offered by Mr. Magnuson.

        The Speaker: The question is on the substitute.
        The substitute was agreed to.

Sec. 14.14 An objection was raised to a unanimous-consent request to 
    permit one hour of debate on a motion to send a bill to conference, 
    on which motion the previous question had been ordered after brief 
    debate.

    On July 9, 1970,(2) Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of 
Pennsylvania, was recognized, and the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 116 Cong. Rec. 23518, 23524, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of clause 
    1, rule XX, and by direction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I 
    move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 15628) to 
    amend the Foreign Military Sales Act, with Senate amendments

[[Page 4585]]

    thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
    conference asked by the Senate.
        The Speaker: (3) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    (Mr. Morgan) is recognized for 1 hour on his motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to use any time and 
    there has been no request for any time, and in an effort to move 
    the legislation along I will move the previous question.

    However, a brief debate ensued, after which the following occurred:

        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question. 
    . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 247, nays 143, not 
    voting 41. . . .
        So the previous question was ordered. . . .
        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the 
    previous question has been ordered on my motion to go to 
    conference, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 1 hour of 
    debate, one-half to be controlled by myself and one-half by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Riegle) who has announced that he will 
    propose a motion to instruct the conferees.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan).
        The motion was agreed to.