[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[D. Motions for the Previous Question]
[Â§ 20. Relation to Other Motions]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4611-4615]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                  D. MOTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
 
Sec. 20. Relation to Other Motions

Relation to Motion to Table

Sec. 20.1 The motion to lay on the table takes precedence over the 
    motion for the previous question, and if the motion to table is 
    rejected, the question recurs on the motion for the previous 
    question which was pending when the motion to table was offered.

    On May 11, 1972,(11) the House was considering S. 659, 
the higher education amendments. Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of 
Louisiana, offered a motion to instruct the House managers at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and was 
recognized for one hour, after which the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 118 Cong. Rec. 16838-42, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question 
    and ask that we instruct the conferees.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the motion of the gentleman from Louisiana to instruct the 
    conferees be laid on the table.
        The Speaker: (12) The question is on the motion to 
    table offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 126, nays 273, not 
    voting 32. . . .
        So the motion to table was rejected. . . .
        The previous question was ordered.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 41372-74, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 14, 
        1970; 111 Cong. Rec. 23600, 23601, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 
        13, 1965; and 107 Cong. Rec. 14947, 14958, 15001, 87th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Aug. 8, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relation to Motions to Amend

Sec. 20.2 The motion for the previous question takes precedence over a 
    motion to amend.

    On Nov. 8, 1971,(14) the House was considering House 
Joint Resolution 191, proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
relating to nondenominational prayer in public buildings. Mr. Chalmers 
P. Wylie, of Ohio, was controlling the floor, having called up the 
joint resolution following a successful motion to discharge the 
Judiciary Committee, when the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 117 Cong. Rec. 39945, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wylie: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama 
    (Mr. Bu

[[Page 4612]]

    chanan) for the purpose of offering an amendment.
        Mr. [John H.] Buchanan [Jr.]: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment 
    at the desk.
        The Speaker: (15) Does the gentleman realize he will 
    lose control of the time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wylie: The gentleman realizes he loses control of the time. 
    I do yield to the gentleman from Alabama for the purpose of 
    offering an amendment.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has yielded the floor.

                        Motion Offered by Mr. Celler

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on House Joint Resolution 191.
        The Speaker: The motion is completely and highly privileged and 
    is in order.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 5038, 5039, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 
        1967; 98 Cong. Rec. 9697, 82d Cong. 2d Sess., July 5, 1952; 91 
        Cong. Rec. 8377-465, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 6-10, 1945; 
        and 89 Cong. Rec. 7516, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 8, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.3 If the motion for the previous question on a resolution is 
    voted down, the resolution is subject to amendment; but if the 
    amendment is ruled out on a point of order, the previous question 
    may again be moved and takes precedence over the offering of 
    another amendment.

    On Jan. 3, 1969,(17) the House voted down the previous 
question on a resolution offered by Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York. 
Mr. Clark MacGregor, of Minnesota, was then recognized to offer an 
amendment to the resolution, but that amendment was ruled out on a 
point of order. Mr. Celler once again moved the previous question on 
his resolution and Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, rose with a 
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 25-27, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: . . . At the time the Chair recognized the 
    gentleman from Minnesota, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
    MacGregor), sought to offer a resolution, but the Chair has just 
    now ruled against the germaneness of the resolution. I ask the 
    question does the gentleman from Minnesota under this set of 
    circumstances lose the right to offer a substitute and also to have 
    1 hour's time?
        The Speaker: (18) The Chair will state in response 
    to the parliamentary inquiry that at this point the motion on the 
    previous question takes precedence over the motion to amend, and if 
    the House wants to consider further amendment, the House can vote 
    down the previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. . . .

[[Page 4613]]

        Mr. [H. R. ] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Iowa will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, is the Celler resolution now not 
    subject to a substitute?
        The Speaker: Not if the previous question is ordered.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer a substitute which I 
    have at the Clerk's desk.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler ] has 
    moved the previous question and the question now pending is on 
    ordering the previous question.

Relation to Amendment to Motion to Recommit

Sec. 20.4 The motion for the previous question takes precedence over an 
    amendment to a motion to recommit.

    On Aug. 11, 1969,(19) the House was considering H.R. 
12982, the District of Columbia Revenue Act of 1969. After the bill was 
read for a third time, Mr. Alvin E. O'Konski, of Wisconsin, offered a 
motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the District of 
Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 115 Cong. Rec. 23143, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I have an 
    amendment to the motion to recommit.
        Mr. [John L.] McMillan [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question on the motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (20) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question on the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Adams) there were--ayes 104, noes 65.
        So the previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
        The motion to recommit was rejected.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        The bill was passed.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also 91 Cong. Rec. 2725, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relation to Amendment to Motion to Instruct Conferees

Sec. 20.5 The motion for the previous question takes precedence over an 
    amendment to a motion to instruct conferees.

    On July 24, 1973,(2) the House was considering S. 1888, 
to amend and extend the Agricultural Act of 1970. Mr. Robert D. Price, 
of Texas, offered a motion to instruct the House conferees at the con
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 119 Cong. Rec. 25539, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4614]]

ference on disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill. The 
following then occurred:

        Mr. Price of Texas: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question on the motion.
        The Speaker: (3) . . . The question is on ordering 
    the previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have 
    an amendment to the preferential motion.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that ordering the previous 
    question is the business before the House at this time.
        The question is on ordering the previous question. . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device; and there were--yeas 
    244, nays 155, present 1, not voting 33. . . .
        So the previous question was ordered.

Relation to Motion to Amend Journal

Sec. 20.6 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,(4) after the Clerk concluded the 
reading of the Journal, a motion was made that the Journal be approved 
as read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 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: (5) The Chair will state that the 
    motion to lay on the table is in order, but the amendment is not in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relation to Member Recognized for Debate

Sec. 20.7 While the motion for the previous question takes precedence 
    over the offering of an amendment, a Member recognized to debate an 
    amendment may not be taken from the floor by the motion for the 
    previous question.

    On May 18, 1972,(6) the House was considering H.R. 
14718, to provide public assistance to the mass transit bus companies 
in the District of Columbia. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Mr. Thomas G. Abernethy, of Mississippi:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 118 Cong. Rec. 16154, 16157, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Abernethy: Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5 
    minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Earle] Cabell [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, would a motion be 
    in order to

[[Page 4615]]

    move the previous question on the amendment at this time in order 
    to dispose of it?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that the 
    gentleman from Mississippi has been recognized.
        Mr. Cabell: Mr. Speaker, would a motion to vote on the pending 
    amendment be in order, since the discussion is not on the 
    amendment?
        The Speaker: The Chair has control of the House and the Chair 
    has recognized the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Abernethy).(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 12262, 12263, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 8, 
        1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relation to Motion to Strike Out Enacting Clause

Sec. 20.8 A motion for the previous question takes precedence over a 
    motion to strike out the enacting clause.

    On May 28, 1934,(8) the House was considering H.R. 5043, 
the District of Columbia taxicab insurance bill, and the following 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 78 Cong. Rec. 9743, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vincent L.] Palmisano [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question on the bill and amendment thereto to final 
    passage.
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, would a motion to 
    strike out the enacting clause now be in order?
        The Speaker: (9) Such a motion is not now in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: Mr. Speaker, is not a motion to strike out the 
    enacting clause a privileged motion?
        The Speaker: It does not have preference over a motion for the 
    previous question.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: We can vote down the 
    previous question.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.

Relation to Motion to Adjourn

Sec. 20.9 The Speaker has refused to recognize for a motion to adjourn 
    after the previous question has been ordered on a bill to final 
    passage under a special rule prohibiting any intervening motion 
    (see 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 3211-3213).