[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[D. Motions for the Previous Question]
[Â§ 15. Effect of Ordering Previous Question]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4585-4601]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                  D. MOTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
 
Sec. 15. Effect of Ordering Previous Question

Precluding Further Consideration

Sec. 15.1 Where the previous question is moved on a resolution and the 
    pending amendment thereto, no further debate is in order unless the 
    previous question is rejected.

    On Sept. 17, 1965,(4) the House was considering House 
Resolution 585, dismissing five Mississippi election contests. Mr. Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, had offered an amendment to the pending 
resolution. The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 24291, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    amendment and the resolution.
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I am on 
    my feet. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
        The Speaker: (5) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    rises in opposition. The Chair advises the gentleman that under the 
    rules he cannot be recognized unless time is yielded to him. The 
    gentleman from Oklahoma has moved the previous question on the 
    amendment and the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 4586]]

        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: Will this amendment foreclose the 
    resolution of Mr. Ryan being brought up by action of the House in 
    the affirmative on this resolution?
        The Speaker: That is a matter for the House to determine in 
    carrying out its will.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    ordering the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.

Sec. 15.2 The demand for the previous question precludes further debate 
    on the question of passing a bill over a Presidential veto.

    On June 16, 1948,(6) the House was considering the veto 
of H.R. 6355, providing supplemental appropriations for the Federal 
Security Agency for fiscal 1949. The following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 94 Cong. Rec. 8473, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) The unfinished business is 
    consideration of the President's veto of H.R. 6355.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the 
    bill, the objections of the President to the contrary 
    notwithstanding?
        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, the President 
    vetoed the bill H.R. 6355, which carries nearly $1,000,000,000 of 
    appropriations for functioning of the Social Security 
    Administration, some portions of the Public Health Service and the 
    United States Employment Service in the Department of Labor. This 
    is the question before the House.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rooney: Mr. Speaker, under the rules is not the majority 
    granted the privilege of discussing this message?
        The Speaker: If the gentleman from Wisconsin withdraws his 
    moving of the previous question it would be in order. Otherwise it 
    is not in order.

Sec. 15.3 Demanding the previous question on a measure precludes 
    further amendments thereto.

    On June 12, 1961,(8) the House was considering H.R. 
7053, relating to the admission of certain evidence in the courts of 
the District of Columbia. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 107 Cong. Rec. 10080, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John L.] McMillan [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question.
        Mr. [William C.] Cramer [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield for the purpose of offering an amendment?

[[Page 4587]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) Does the gentleman from 
    South Carolina yield to the gentleman from Florida for the purpose 
    of offering an amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the parliamentary 
    situation, I have moved the previous question. . . .
        Mr. Cramer: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cramer: Mr. Speaker, I have previously announced I would 
    offer an amendment to make it applicable nationwide in conformance 
    with a bill reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Could the 
    Chair advise me as to when and if such an amendment is in order and 
    under what circumstances?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    amendment can be offered only if the previous question is voted 
    down.
        Mr. Cramer: I thank the Chair.

Sec. 15.4 The motion to amend the Journal may not be admitted after the 
    previous question is demanded on the motion to approve.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(10) after the Clerk concluded reading 
the Journal the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 111 Cong. Rec. 23600, 23601, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    Journal be approved as read; and on that I move the previous 
    question.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    that motion be laid on the table; and I offer an amendment to the 
    Journal. The Speaker: (11) The Chair will state that the 
    motion to lay on the table is in order, but the amendment is not in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        What is the motion of the gentleman from Missouri?
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, during the reading of the Journal, 
    section by section, I asked at what time it might be amended; and 
    if I understood the distinguished Speaker correctly he said that if 
    such an amendment were submitted by the gentleman from Missouri or 
    any other person at any time it would be in order at the end of the 
    reading of the Journal.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri has a correct 
    recollection of what the Chair said at that time. However, the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert] has made a motion that the 
    Journal as read be approved and upon that he has moved the previous 
    question.

Sec. 15.5 After the previous question is moved, an amendment may be 
    offered to a pending resolution only if the previous question is 
    voted down.

    On Mar. 9, 1967,(12) the House was considering House 
Resolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 6035-42, 6048, 6049, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4588]]

376, providing special counsel for the House, the Speaker, and other 
Members named in the action brought by Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., former 
Representative from the State of New York. After debating the 
resolution for one hour, Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, the proponent of 
the resolution, moved the previous question thereon. Mr. Joe D. 
Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, rose with a parliamentary inquiry.

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, is the House of Representatives 
    considering this resolution as a privileged resolution?
        The Speaker: (13) This concerns the privileges of 
    the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack [Mass.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: Will there be opportunity to amend this 
    resolution if the previous question is not voted down?
        The Speaker: That depends on the action taken by the House in 
    connection with the previous question.
        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: If we vote down the previous question, 
    then we have the resolution before us and we can then amend it; can 
    we not?
        The Speaker: The resolution will be before the House for such 
    action as the House desires to take.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 19, 20, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1965; 
        and 107 Cong. Rec. 10080, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., June 12, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 15.6 The stage of disagreement having been reached and the 
    previous question having been demanded on the motion to recede [the 
    motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment having been 
    divided], the Chair informed a Member seeking recognition to offer 
    ``a substitute'' motion that the previous question had been 
    demanded.

    On May 14, 1963,(15) the House was considering H.R. 
5517, providing supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1963. The 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 109 Cong. Rec. 8508, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I used the 
    wrong terminology a little while ago. I am going to move the 
    previous question and then the vote, as I understand it, will come 
    on the motion to recede and we should recede and I hope the 
    membership will vote ``aye.'' When we do that, then I will offer a 
    motion to concur with an amendment.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer 
    a substitute for the Barry motion.
        The Speaker: (16) The gentleman from Texas has moved 
    the previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 15.7 The ordering of the previous question prevents fur

[[Page 4589]]

    ther debate and the offering of amendments.

    On May 31, 1932,(17) the House was considering House 
Resolution 235, authorizing an investigation of government competition 
with private enterprise. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 75 Cong. Rec. 11681, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward W.] Pou [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The question is on the 
    passage of the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Loring M. Black [N.Y.].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Burton L.] French [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment which I send to the desk.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The previous question has been 
    ordered. The previous question having been ordered, no amendment is 
    in order at this time.
        Mr. French: Mr. Speaker, let me make inquiry. I understand that 
    all debate is cut off on the resolution, but a Member has the 
    privilege of offering an amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rules of the House, not only 
    is debate cut off but all power to offer amendments is cut off by 
    the ordering of the previous question.
        Mr. French: The Speaker is quite right. I have confused the 
    motion for the previous question with the common motion to close 
    debate. I desired to offer an amendment which would limit the 
    expenditure.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman might have opposed the 
    previous question.

Effect on Amendments Between the Houses

Sec. 15.8 After the previous question has been ordered on a motion to 
    recede and concur, no further debate is in order on that motion.

    On Aug. 26, 1960,(19) the House had agreed to the 
conference report on H.R. 12619, providing appropriations for the 
mutual security program for fiscal 1961, and had begun considering 
amendments in disagreement when the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 17869, 17870, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Otto E.] Passman [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Passman moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter proposed by said amendment, insert ``, including not 
        less than $35,000,000 for Spain.''

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: (20) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Conte: To object to the amendment.
        Mr. Passman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.

[[Page 4590]]

        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman just asked for a vote on it.
        Mr. Conte: Can we debate it?

        The Speaker: Not after the previous question is 
    ordered.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also 104 Cong. Rec. 19618, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 23, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect on Motion to Reconsider

Sec. 15.9 Where a resolution (providing for the order of business) had 
    been agreed to without debate and without the ordering of the 
    previous question, a motion to reconsider the vote thereon was 
    ruled debatable.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(2) the House had voted to adopt House 
Resolution 506, providing for consideration of H.R. 10065, the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Act of 1965. Mr. William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, 
rose to his feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 23608, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, was the previous question ordered 
    on the question to adopt the resolution that has just been voted 
    on?
        The Speaker: (3) It was not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, having voted in the affirmative, I 
    now move that the vote by which House Resolution 506 was adopted be 
    now reconsidered.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    motion be laid upon the table.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert].
        Mr. [Melvin R.] Laird [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The Chair is in the process of counting.
        Evidently a sufficient number have risen, and the yeas and nays 
    are ordered.
        Mr. Laird: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Laird: Mr. Speaker, on the resolution just passed no one 
    was allowed to debate that resolution on behalf of the minority or 
    the majority. If this motion to table, offered by the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert] is defeated, then there will be time to 
    debate the resolution just passed.
        The question of reconsideration is debatable, and it can be 
    debated on the merits of the legislation which has not been debated 
    by the House.
        The Speaker: What part of the gentleman's statement does he 
    make as a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Laird: Mr. Speaker, if the motion to debate is defeated, 
    the motion to reconsider will give us an opportunity to debate the 
    question on the resolution.
        The Speaker: Under the present circumstances, the motion to 
    reconsider would be debatable.

[[Page 4591]]

Debate on Amendment to Resolution

Sec. 15.10 Where a member of the Committee on Rules calling up a 
    resolution reported by that committee offers an amendment to such a 
    resolution, the amendment is not debatable if the previous question 
    has been moved and ordered.

    On Mar. 11, 1941,(4) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, 
called up House Resolution 120, providing for investigation of national 
defense. After the Clerk read the resolution, the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 87 Cong. Rec. 2189, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, I have stated that the language proposed 
    by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Wadsworth] is an improvement to 
    this bill, and I offer it as an amendment to the bill, and, Mr. 
    Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and the 
    resolution.
        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the resolution is not subject to amendment 
    until the previous question has been disposed of.
        The Speaker: (5) After the previous question is 
    ordered amendments are not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. May: Certainly not.
        The Speaker: It is in order for the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
    Cox] to offer the amendment. The Clerk will report the amendment. . 
    . .
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] moves the 
    previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, I desire to inquire whether or not the 
    amendment as offered is debatable before the previous question is 
    voted upon.
        The Speaker: The previous question has been moved. If the 
    previous question is voted down, the amendment would be subject to 
    debate. The question is on ordering the previous question.

Sec. 15.11 Where the House had ordered the previous question on an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute for a resolution and on the 
    resolution, the Speaker indicated that no further amendment to the 
    resolution would be in order.

    On June 13, 1973,(6) the House was considering House 
Resolution 437, providing for consideration of H.R. 8410, which would 
permit a temporary increase in the public debt limitation. Mr. John B. 
Anderson, of Illinois, offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to the pending resolu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 119 Cong. Rec. 19343, 19344, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4592]]

tion. After the amendment had been read and debated for one hour the 
following occurred:

        Mr. [John] Anderson [of Illinois]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question of the amendment and on the resolution. . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    254, nays 160, not voting 19. . . .
        So the previous question was ordered. . . .
        The Speaker:(7) The question is on the amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Anderson). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    248, nays 163, not voting 22. . . .
        So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to. .
        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Leggett: We have now had one amendment to the rule. I am 
    wondering at this point would another amendment for tax reform, as 
    suggested by Mr. Reuss, be in order?
        The Speaker: The answer is ``no'', because the previous 
    question has been ordered on the resolution.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 5036, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1967; 
        and 113 Cong. Rec. 28, 31-33, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 
        1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 

     5.12 When the previous question is ordered on an amendment and the 
    resolution to which it is offered, following acceptance or 
    rejection of the amendment, the vote recurs immediately on the 
    resolution.

    On Mar. 1, 1967,(9) the House was considering House 
Resolution 278, relating to the right of Representative-elect Adam C. 
Powell, Jr., of New York, to be sworn in. Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of 
Missouri, offered an amendment to the resolution and the previous 
question was ordered on both the amendment and the resolution. After a 
brief discussion, Mr. Charles E. Goodell, of New York, rose with a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 113 Cong. Rec. 5036, 5037, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Goodell: Mr. Speaker, if the Curtis amendment which is now 
    pending is defeated, then is it in order to move the previous 
    question on the committee resolution?
        The Speaker: (10) If the amendment is defeated, the 
    original resolution will be before the House for a vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Goodell: For an immediate vote?
        The Speaker: Yes, for an immediate vote.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: If the amendment of the gentleman from 
    Missouri

[[Page 4593]]

    prevails as a substitute for the committee resolution, then there 
    will be an opportunity for a further vote, however?
        The Speaker: Then the question will occur on the adoption of 
    the resolution, as amended.

Effect on Motion to Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 15.13 A motion in the House to strike out the enacting clause is 
    not in order where the previous question has been ordered on the 
    bill and amendments thereto to final passage.

    On Apr. 16, 1970,(11) the House was considering H.R. 
16311, the Family Assistance Act of 1970. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (12) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the 
    bill.
        [The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, 
    and was read the third time.]
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        Mr. [Omar T.] Burleson [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Burleson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential 
    motion which was not permitted to be made in the Committee of the 
    Whole. The preferential motion is to strike the enacting clause. Is 
    it in order in the House at this time?
        The Speaker: Due to the fact that the previous question has 
    been ordered on the bill to final passage, the motion is not in 
    order at this time.

Effect When Ordered on Resolution and Pending Amendment

Sec. 15.14 A special rule reported by the Committee on Rules is subject 
    to amendment unless the previous question is ordered.

    On Apr. 15, 1936,(13) the House was considering House 
Resolution 475 providing for the consideration of S.J. Res. 234, to 
create a special committee to investigate lobbying activities. Mr. John 
J. O'Connor, of New York, offered an amendment to the resolution, which 
was read by the Clerk. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, asked Mr. 
O'Connor to yield, and the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 80 Cong. Rec. 5535, 5536, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        How can the gentleman present an amendment now if it is not a 
    committee amendment?
        Mr. O'Connor: I am presenting it on my own responsibility, the 
    gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox], in charge of the rule, having 
    yielded to me for that purpose.

[[Page 4594]]

        Mr. Snell: Then the rule is open for amendment.
        Mr. O'Connor: The gentleman from Georgia yielded to me for this 
    purpose, to offer an amendment.
        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. [Byron B.] Harlan [of Ohio]: A parliamentary inquiry. Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Joseph W. Burns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harlan: Is the previous question ordered on the amendment 
    or on the resolution?
        The Speaker: On both.
        Mr. Snell: How can the previous question apply to both?
        The Speaker: That was the motion of the gentleman from Georgia. 
    . . .
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I have always understood that when a 
    rule is presented on the floor and the Member in charge of the rule 
    opens it up for amendment, that it is then open to amendment on the 
    part of anyone who desires to offer an amendment.
        The Speaker: That is true, until the previous question has been 
    ordered, and the previous question has here been ordered.
        Mr. Snell: It has now, but when I originally asked the question 
    it had not been ordered. I wanted to offer an amendment.
        The Speaker: The Chair would have been glad to recognize the 
    gentleman at that time, but the previous question which has been 
    ordered prevents that now.
        Mr. Snell: I know that when a rule is opened up for amendment 
    anybody else can offer an amendment.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's amendment would have been in order 
    if the previous question had not been ordered, provided the 
    amendment were germane.

Effect When ``Considered as Ordered'' Pursuant to Special Rule

Sec. 15.15 Where the House has agreed by unanimous consent to a request 
    that debate shall be limited in time and confined to a resolution 
    disposing of an election contest, and that the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered at the conclusion of such debate, a 
    substitute amendment is not in order.

    On Aug. 19, 1937,(15) the House was considering House 
Resolution 309, dealing with the election contest of Roy v Jenks. The 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 9356, 9374, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (16) The gentleman from North Carolina 
    modifies his request and now asks unanimous consent that debate on 
    the pending resolution shall be confined to the resolution,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4595]]

    shall continue for 2 hours and 30 minutes, one-half to be 
    controlled by himself and one-half by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts; that at the conclusion of this time the previous 
    question shall be considered as ordered.

        Is there objection?
        Mr. [Charles L.] Gifford [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, may I be allowed to file a 
    substitute motion during that period?
        Mr. [John H.] Kerr [of North Carolina]: I do not agree to that.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from North Carolina?
        There was no objection.

Bills Reported From the Committee of the Whole

Sec. 15.16 Where the Committee of the Whole reports a bill to the House 
    pursuant to a resolution which specifies that the ``previous 
    question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, etc.'' the 
    bill is not open to further amendment in the House.

    On Sept. 29, 1965,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 4644, providing home rule for the District of 
Columbia. After the bill was reported back to the House the following 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 25438, 25439, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (18) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment.
        Mr. [Abraham J.] Multer [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Multer: I am about to ask for the yeas and nays on the 
    Multer amendment, as amended by the Sisk amendment. If that 
    amendment is rejected on the rollcall vote, which I will ask for, 
    will the pending business before the House then be H.R. 4644?
        The Speaker: As introduced.
        Mr. Multer: Mr. Speaker, on the amendment I demand the yeas and 
    nays.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: If the Multer amendment as amended is 
    defeated, we then go back to H.R. 4644. Is there an opportunity 
    after that to amend or to further consider?
        The Speaker: The response to that would be in the negative, 
    because the previous question has been ordered.

Sec. 15.17 Unless the previous question is ordered on an amendment 
    reported from the Committee of the Whole such amendment is subject 
    to further consideration and debate in the House.

    On Dec. 10, 1937,(19) the Committee of the Whole having 
had under consideration the bill, H.R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 82 Cong. Rec. 1285, 1286, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4596]]

8505, the farm bill, reported that bill back to the House 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. . . .
        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. The Speaker: (20) The gentleman 
    will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.

Unanimous Consent to Offer Amendment

Sec. 15.18 When the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports a 
    bill back to the House pursuant to a resolution providing that the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered, further debate or 
    amendments in the House are thereby precluded; and the Speaker has 
    declined to entertain unanimous-consent requests that further 
    amendments be in order.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. But see Sec. 14.13, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 31, 1960,(2) the Committee of the Whole rose to 
report a price support bill to the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 106 Cong. Rec. 18748, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) There being no amendments, under 
    the rule the Committee rises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed 
    the chair, Mr. Keogh, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee having had 
    under consideration the bill (S. 2917) to establish a price support 
    level for milk and butterfat, pursuant to House Resolution 636, he 
    reported the bill back to the House.

[[Page 4597]]

        The Speaker: (4) Under the rule the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
        The bill was read a third time.
        Mr. [Carl H.] Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Andersen of Minnesota: Would it be possible by unanimous 
    consent to return to the amendment stage?
        The Speaker: It would not. The previous question has already 
    been ordered. All amendments and all debate are exhausted.

        The question is on the passage of the bill.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Fulton) there were yeas 171, noes 32.
        So the bill was passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on 
    the table.

Effect Where Several Amendments Are Pending

Sec. 15.19 Where the previous question is ordered on some of the 
    amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole, they must be 
    disposed of before further consideration of the remaining 
    amendments may be had.

    On Dec. 10, 1937,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 8505, the farm bill. After the Committee rose and 
reported back to the full House the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 82 Cong. Rec. 1285, 1286, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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: (6) Is a separate vote demanded on any 
    amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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. . . .
        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it. . . .
        Mr. Boileau: If a motion for the previous question were made 
    and the

[[Page 4598]]

    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.

Effect on Motions to Resolve Into Committee of the Whole

Sec. 15.20 After the previous question is ordered on a bill to final 
    passage, it is not in order to move that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole for the further consideration of 
    such bill.

    On July 8, 1937,(7) the Committee of the Whole reported 
back to the House H.R. 3408 with an amendment to amend the Civil 
Service Act. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 81 Cong. Rec. 6944, 6951, 6952, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (8) Under the rule the previous 
    question is ordered on the bill and amendment to final passage. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the 
    bill.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Speaker, would a motion be in order at this 
    time that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
    the bill H.R. 3408?
        The Speaker: The Chair replies in the negative to that 
    parliamentary inquiry.

Effect on Point of Order Against Amendment

Sec. 15.21 After the previous question has been ordered in the House, 
    it is too late to interpose a point of order against an amendment 
    reported from the Committee of the Whole.

    On July 21, 1956,(9) the Committee of the Whole reported 
back to the House the bill H.R. 7992, to enact certain provisions 
included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act and the Civil 
Functions Appropriations Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 102 Cong. Rec. 13857, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (10) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank T.] Bow [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 4599]]

        Mr. Bow: The Committee has adopted an amendment which changes 
    the rules of the House. My parliamentary inquiry is this: Is it 
    proper at this time to again interpose a point of order against the 
    report of the Committee on the ground that the rules have been 
    changed in the Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker: The Committee of the Whole has reported an 
    amendment. The Chair would be forced to hold that the point of 
    order comes too late and will not lie at this time.

Effect on Bill Considered on Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 15.22 A bill considered under the Calendar Wednesday rule becomes 
    unfinished business if the House adjourns after ordering the 
    previous question thereon.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(11) the House was considering H.R. 
4453, the Federal Employment Practice Act. The bill was ordered to be 
engrossed and read a third time, after which the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 96 Cong. Rec. 2254, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.

        Mr. [Andrew J.] Biemiller [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    a reading of the engrossed copy of the bill. . . .
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Is a motion to recommit in order at 
    this time?
        The Speaker: Not until after the third reading of the bill.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, that means the House will have to stay 
    in session until the engrossed copy is secured?
        The Speaker: It does not.
        Mr. Rankin: We cannot take a recess on Calendar Wednesday?
        The Speaker: The House can adjourn.
        Mr. Rankin: We can adjourn but that ends Calendar Wednesday.
        The Speaker: The previous question has been ordered and the 
    next time the House meets, whether this week or any other week, it 
    is the pending business. . . .
        The Chair wants all Members to understand that on the convening 
    of the House at its next session, the final disposition of this 
    matter is the pending business.

Effect on Motion to Recommit

Sec. 15.23 The Member offering a motion to recommit a bill with 
    instructions may, at the conclusion of the 10 minutes of debate 
    thereon, yield to another Member to offer an amendment to the 
    motion if the previous question has not been ordered on the motion 
    to recommit.

[[Page 4600]]

    On July 19, 1973,(13) the House was considering House 
Resolution 8860, to amend and extend the Agriculture Act of 1970. Mr. 
Charles M. Teague, of California, offered a motion to recommit and 
controlled the floor for five minutes of debate in favor of his motion. 
Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, then controlled the floor for five 
minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of 
Michigan, sought to have Mr. Poage yield the floor to him for the 
purpose of offering an amendment to the motion to recommit. The 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 119 Cong. Rec. 24967, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poage: Certainly I will yield, but I would like to hear the 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: (14) The gentleman is not in order. The 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Teague) has control of the motion to 
    recommit and can yield for that purpose if he desires to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Texas now has the floor.
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I will not yield for a pig in a poke. I 
    want to know what the gentleman is proposing.
        The Speaker: The gentleman cannot yield for that purpose. The 
    gentleman from California can yield for that purpose. . . . The 
    time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I do not 
    believe the gentleman from California can yield for this purpose 
    without getting unanimous consent.
        The Speaker: The gentleman can yield for the purpose of an 
    amendment, since he has the floor.
        Mr. Teague of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
    distinguished minority leader for the purpose of offering an 
    amendment.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Moss: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the time of 
    the gentleman from California had expired.
        The Speaker: That does not keep him from yielding.
        Mr. Moss: He has not got the floor.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from California has the right to 
    yield for an amendment, since he still has the floor as the 
    previous question has not been ordered on the motion to recommit.

Ordered Prior to Motion to Recommit Conference Report

Sec. 15.24 A motion to recommit a conference report is not in order 
    until the previous question has been ordered on the conference 
    report.

    On Dec. 15, 1970,(15) the House was considering the 
conference re
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 41502, 41503, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4601]]

port on H.R. 17755, appropriations for the Department of Transportation 
for fiscal 1971. Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, rose with a 
parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, as I understand, in order to have 
    specific instructions given to the conferees it is necessary that 
    the previous question be voted down; is that correct? I mean on the 
    motion to recommit?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Illinois is in error. The previous question on the 
    conference report has to be ordered before there can be a motion to 
    recommit.