[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[D. Motions for the Previous Question]
[Â§ 22. Rejection of Motion as Permitting Further Consideration]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4620-4630]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                  D. MOTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
 
Sec. 22. Rejection of Motion as Permitting Further Consideration

[[Page 4621]]



Effect Prior to Adoption of House Rules

Sec. 22.1 Prior to the adoption of the rules, if the motion for the 
    previous question is rejected, a pending resolution is open to any 
    germane amendment.

    On Jan. 10, 1967,(7) the House was considering House 
Resolution 7, adopting the rules for the 90th Congress. After Mr. Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, moved the previous question on the resolution, Mr. 
Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 28, 31-33, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is not 
    ordered, would it then be in order to move to amend the rules of 
    the House to provide for a Select Committee on Standards and 
    Conduct?
        The Speaker: (8) If the previous question is voted 
    down, any germane amendment would be in order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 9. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 23-25, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.2 If the motion for the previous question on a resolution is 
    voted down, the resolution is subject to amendment.

    On Jan. 3, 1949,(10) the House was considering House 
Resolution 5, relating to the adoption of the rules for the 81st 
Congress. After offering the resolution, Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of 
Illinois, moved the previous question thereon. Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, then rose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 95 Cong. Rec. 10, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I offer a substitute.
        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Sabath] has moved the previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin. Mr. Speaker, we have a right to be heard.
        The Speaker: The previous question is not debatable.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary 
    inquiry is, If the previous question should be voted down, then 
    would it be possible to offer other amendments to the rules than 
    the one proposed in the pending motion?
        The Speaker: It would be.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is voted 
    down, then my substitute would be in order?
        The Speaker: An amendment would be in order.

Resolutions Being Considered by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 22.3 A resolution considered in the House by unanimous

[[Page 4622]]

    consent is subject to amendment if the previous question is 
    rejected on the resolution.

    On Oct. 9, 1973,(12) the House was considering House 
Resolution 582, relating to a sense of the House deploring the outbreak 
of hostilities in the Middle East. The Majority Leader, Thomas P. 
O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, on behalf of himself and the Minority 
Leader, Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, had offered the resolution and 
asked unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. The following 
then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 119 Cong. Rec. 33348, 33349, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Massachusetts? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, is this resolution subject to 
    amendment?
        The Speaker: If the unanimous-consent request for consideration 
    of the resolution is granted and the previous question is not 
    ordered, it is subject to an amendment being offered. . . .
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts?
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

Resolution Authorizing Administration of Oath

Sec. 22.4 A resolution authorizing the Speaker to administer the oath 
    of office to a Representative-elect may be open to amendment if the 
    House refuses to order the previous question thereon.

    On Jan. 3, 1969,(14) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1, authorizing the Speaker to administer the oath of office 
to Representative-elect Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., of New York. Mr. H. 
R. Gross, of Iowa, proposed the following question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 15, 22, 23, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: If I may proceed further, is the resolution subject 
    to amendment, or must the previous question be voted down?
        The Speaker: (15) The Chair will state, in reply to 
    the inquiry of the gentleman from Iowa, that the resolution is not 
    subject to amendment unless the gentleman from New York should 
    yield for that purpose during the hour's time and, in the absence 
    of that, then the previous question would have to be voted down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution From Committee on Rules

Sec. 22.5 In response to a parliamentary inquiry the Speaker advised 
    that if the previous question on a privileged resolution reported 
    by the Committee on Rules were voted down, the resolution

[[Page 4623]]

    would be open to further consideration, amendment, and debate.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(16) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1013, establishing a Select Committee on Standards and 
Conduct. Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, posed the following parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is refused, is 
    it true that then amendments may be offered and further debate may 
    be had on the resolution?
        The Speaker: (17) If the previous question is 
    defeated, then the resolution is open to further consideration and 
    action and debate.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
18. See also 97 Cong. Rec. 11394, 11397, 11398, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Sept. 14, 1951; 97 Cong. Rec. 9, 16-18, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Jan. 3, 1951; and 81 Cong. Rec. 3283-90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Apr. 8, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.6 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated 
    that if the previous question were voted down on a resolution 
    providing a special rule for the consideration of a bill, any 
    germane amendment offered to the resolution would be in order.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(19) the House was preparing to consider 
House Resolution 1315, which provided for the consideration of Senate 
Joint Resolution 175, to suspend for the 1968 Presidential campaign the 
equal-time requirements of section 315 of the Communications Act of 
1934. Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, rose to the parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 114 Cong. Rec. 30092, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: If the previous question is defeated and 
    the rule is opened up, could an amendment be made to the rule to 
    provide in the rule for the consideration of the clean elections 
    bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) If that amendment were 
    germane to the resolution it would be in order to consider it, 
    yes.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
 1. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 19750, 19751, 19755, 19758, 19759, 87th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 15, 1961; 90 Cong. Rec. 5465-71, 5473, 
        78th Cong. 2d Sess., June 7, 1944; and 86 Cong. Rec. 5035-46, 
        76th Cong. 3d Sess., Apr. 25, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 22.7 The House having defeated the motion for the previous 
    question on a resolution reported by the Committee on Rules then 
    voted to table that resolution.

    On Mar. 11, 1941,(2) the House was considering House 
Resolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 87 Cong. Rec. 2189, 2190, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4624]]

120, providing for investigation of the national defense. Mr. Edward E. 
Cox, of Georgia, offered an amendment to the resolution and moved the 
previous question on the amendment and the resolution. Mr. Andrew J. 
May, of Kentucky, then made the following parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (3) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the 
    ``ayes'' seemed to have it.
        Mr. Cox. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 112, nays 252, not 
    voting 65. . . .
        So the motion for the previous question was rejected. . . .
        Mr. May: Mr. Speaker, I move that House Resolution 120 be laid 
    on the table.
        The motion was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 3283-301, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 
        8, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concurrent Resolution Providing for Adjournment

Sec. 22.8 A concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of the 
    Congress to a day certain is subject to amendment if the previous 
    question is not ordered.

    On Sept. 22, 1950,(5) Mr. J. Percy Priest, of Tennessee, 
offered House Concurrent Resolution 287, providing for the adjournment 
of Congress until Nov. 27, 1950. After the Clerk read the resolution 
the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 15635, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Priest: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        Mr. [John W.] Heselton [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Heselton: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to offer an amendment 
    to the resolution at this point?
        The Speaker: Inasmuch as the previous question has been moved, 
    it is not in order; and, of course, if the previous question is 
    ordered, it is not in order to offer amendments to the resolution.
        Mr. Heselton: If the previous question is not ordered, then 
    would an amendment be in order?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is not ordered, then if 
    the gen

[[Page 4625]]

    tleman is recognized he may offer an amendment.

Amending Amendments to Resolutions

Sec. 22.9 A pending amendment to a resolution under consideration in 
    the House is subject to further amendment if the proponent of the 
    amendment yields for that purpose or the previous question is voted 
    down.

    On Jan. 3, 1969,(7) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1, offered by Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, authorizing 
the Speaker to administer the oath of office to Adam C. Powell, Jr., of 
New York, to which Mr. Clark MacGregor, of Minnesota, offered a 
substitute. Mr. H.R. Gross, of Iowa, rose with a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 115 Cong. Rec. 27-29, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, is the Celler resolution as proposed, 
    if amended by the MacGregor amendment, subject to substitution at 
    this point?
        The Speaker:(8) Does the gentleman inquire whether 
    or not it is in order to offer an amendment to the MacGregor 
    amendment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Whether it is in order to offer a substitute, Mr. 
    Speaker, for the Celler resolution and the pending amendment.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that such an amendment is not 
    in order at this time unless the gentleman from New Jersey yields 
    for that purpose, or unless the previous question is defeated.
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. MacGregor: I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
    Thompson) only for the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, in the event that, 
    following the hour's debate on the MacGregor motion, the previous 
    question is defeated, would there not be another opportunity for 
    another Member to offer an amendment to the Celler resolution?
        The Speaker: The answer is that it would be in order, assuming 
    that those things happened, to offer another amendment to the 
    Celler resolution.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 6035-42, 6048, 6049, 90th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Mar. 9, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Ruled Out on Point of Order

Sec. 22.10 If the motion for the previous question on a resolution is 
    voted down, the resolution is subject to amendment; and if an 
    amendment to a resolution is ruled out on a point of order, and the 
    previous question on the resolution is moved and voted

[[Page 4626]]

     down, the offering of another amendment is in order.

    On Jan. 3, 1969,(10) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1, offered by Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, authorizing 
the Speaker to administer the oath of office to Adam C. Powell, Jr., of 
New York. Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, rose from his seat:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 25-27, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, the House just a few moments 
    ago defeated the previous question on the resolution offered by the 
    gentleman from New York, and under the rules of the House and under 
    the discretion given to the Speaker, the Speaker has the right to 
    recognize the principal opponent of the resolution for 1 hour.
        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: (11) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect on Amendment Procedure in House After Committee of the Whole 
    Rises

Sec. 22.11 During consideration of an appropriation bill in the 
    Committee of the Whole, a Member announced that he would attempt in 
    the House to defeat the previous question on the bill to final 
    passage so that another Member might offer (and obtain a roll call 
    vote on) an amendment rejected in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Feb. 19, 1970,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 15931, appropriations for fiscal 1970 for the 
Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare. Mr. James G. 
O'Hara, of Michigan, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 4036, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
    of words.
        Mr. Chairman, as the one who made the point of order against 
    the language on page 28, I want to assure the Members that the 
    point of order was directed only to the second proviso on page 28 
    beginning at line 18. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. William D.

[[Page 4627]]

     Ford) is correct. If any reduction is made in impacted area funds 
    by the motion to recommit it would, under the language remaining on 
    page 28, have to come entirely out of category B and would take out 
    much of the amount that Mr. Steed put in.
        That is not why I rose, Mr. Chairman. I rose to inform the 
    Members that an effort will be made to defeat the ordering of the 
    previous question, after the Committee rises, so that the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Cohelan) will have an opportunity to reoffer 
    his amendments in the House, his amendments that would insert at 
    the beginning of the two Whitten provisions the words, ``except as 
    required by the Constitution.''

Motion to Instruct Conferees

Sec. 22.12 If the previous question is voted down on a motion to 
    instruct conferees, the motion is subject to germane amendment.

    On May 29, 1968,(13) Mr. James A. Burke, of 
Massachusetts, offered a motion to instruct the conferees on the part 
of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
Houses on the bill, H.R. 15414, the Revenue and Expenditure Act of 
1968. After the Clerk read the motion Mr. Burke moved the previous 
question. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 114 Cong. Rec. 15499, 15500, 15511, 15512, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (14) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from New York rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William F.] Ryan [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I was on my 
    feet and seeking recognition.
        The Speaker: The Chair is recognizing the gentleman.
        Mr. Ryan: To propound a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ryan: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is voted down 
    would it be in order to move that the managers on the part of the 
    House, at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
    on the bill H.R. 15414, be instructed not to agree to any 
    limitation on budget outlays--expenditures and net lending--during 
    the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from New 
    York in response to his parliamentary inquiry that if the previous 
    question had been voted down any motion that is germane would be in 
    order.

Motion to Recede and Concur With Amendment

Sec. 22.13 A motion to recede and concur with an amendment to a Senate 
    amendment in disagreement is subject to amendment if the previous 
    question is voted down.

    On Dec. 11, 1967,(15) the House was considering the 
conference re
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 35811-33, 35841, 35842, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4628]]

port on H.R. 7977, the Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967. 
Mr. Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New York, offered a motion that the House 
recede and concur with an amendment, and Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, rose 
to a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, would the Senate amendment be subject 
    to amendment if this motion is adopted, or prior to the adoption of 
    this amendment?
        The Speaker: (16) The motion is to recede from 
    disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur therein with an 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: With an amendment?
        The Speaker: Yes.
        Mr. Gross: Would that be subject to an amendment, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: It would be, if the previous question on the 
    motion is voted down.

Motion to Concur (or Agree)

Sec. 22.14 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated 
    that if the previous question were voted down on a resolution 
    providing for agreeing to Senate amendments to a House bill, the 
    resolution would be open to amendment.

    On June 17, 1970,(1) the House was considering House 
Resolution 914, concurring in Senate amendments to H.R. 4249, extending 
the Voting Rights Act of 1965. After Mr. Spark M. Matsunaga, of Hawaii, 
moved the previous question on the resolution, Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of 
Michigan, rose with a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 20159, 20198-200, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, a ``no'' vote on the previous 
    question does give an opportunity for one of those who led the 
    fight against the resolution to amend the resolution now pending 
    before the House?
        The Speaker: (2) The Chair will state in response to 
    the parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Michigan that if 
    the previous question is voted down, the resolution is open to 
    amendment. The Chair's response is the same response as given to 
    the gentleman from Hawaii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conference Report

Sec. 22.15 The voting down of the previous question on a conference 
    report merely extends time for debate and does not afford an 
    opportunity to amend the report.

    On Mar. 1, 1939,(3) the House was considering the 
conference report on the bill H.R. 3743, to provide appropriations for 
certain independent offices for 1940. The following discussion 
regarding the parliamentary situation occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 2085, 2086, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: I understand from the 
    Parliamentarian

[[Page 4629]]

    that a vote against the previous question would simply prolong the 
    debate and that the only way we can get at this situation is to 
    vote down the conference report completely. . . .
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, there is 
    some confusion about the parliamentary situation. I ask unanimous 
    consent to be permitted to submit a parliamentary inquiry, and that 
    it not be taken out of the time that has been allotted for the 
    consideration of the conference report.
        The Speaker: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Virginia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, it has been stated upon 
    the floor by myself, and I think it was the general understanding 
    of the rest of us, that in the event the previous question on the 
    conference report were voted down the Senate amendments would then 
    be open for separate consideration. Pursuant to the statement just 
    made a few moments ago by the gentleman from New York, I discussed 
    the matter with the Parliamentarian, and, as I understand the 
    matter now, it appears that the only way the House could get a vote 
    on this amendment would be to vote down the conference report; that 
    then each Senate amendment would be before the House for separate 
    consideration. My parliamentary inquiry is whether or not that is 
    correct.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of opinion that the gentleman has 
    very clearly stated the parliamentary situation. The mere voting 
    down of the previous question would not afford an opportunity to 
    the House to open up a conference report for amendments. In other 
    words, the Chair, under the precedents, is clearly of the opinion 
    that the only way in which a separate vote could be obtained upon 
    any Senate amendment would be to vote down the conference report; 
    that voting down the previous question would not afford an 
    opportunity for such consideration.
        Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: So nothing will be gained by voting 
    down the previous question.
        The Speaker: It would merely extend the time for debate on the 
    conference report.

Motion to Recommit Conference Report

Sec. 22.16 A motion to recommit a conference report is subject to 
    amendment if the previous question is voted down.

    On Aug. 16, 1950,(5) the House was considering the 
conference report on H.R. 6000, the Social Security Act amendments. 
After the previous question had been moved on the conference report Mr. 
Walter A. Lynch, of New York, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 12672, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lynch: As I understand the situation, the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin [Mr. Byrnes] having made a motion to recommit, and the 
    previous question being put, if the motion for the previous 
    question is voted down, an amendment could be offered to the mo

[[Page 4630]]

    tion to recommit? Is my understanding correct?
        The Speaker: (6) If the motion for the previous 
    question is not adopted, an amendment to the motion would be in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Renewing Rejected Motion

Sec. 22.17 The previous question, although moved and rejected, may be 
    renewed after intervening business.

    On Jan. 3, 1969,(7) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1, relating to Representative-elect Adam C. Powell, Jr., of 
New York, taking the oath of office. Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
the proponent of the resolution, had earlier moved the previous 
question on the resolution, but the previous question was rejected. At 
that time Mr. Clark MacGregor, of Minnesota, offered a substitute for 
the resolution, but the substitute was ruled out on the point of order. 
The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 115 Cong. Rec. 25, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (8) The gentleman from Michigan will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, the House just a few moments 
    ago defeated the previous question on the resolution offered by the 
    gentleman from New York, and under the rules of the House and under 
    the discretion given to the Speaker, the Speaker has the right to 
    recognize the principal opponent of the resolution for 1 hour.
        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: 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.