[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 7, Chapters 22 - 25]
[Chapter 23. Motions]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 4517-4524]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions


[[Page 4517]]



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Commentary and editing by Alan Scott Frumin, J.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Introductory

    Sec. 1. In General
    Sec. 2. Offering, Modifying, and Withdrawing Motions; Form
    Sec. 3. Precedence of Motions
    Sec. 4. Dilatory Motions

B. Motions to Postpone

    Sec. 5. In General
    Sec. 6. When in Order
    Sec. 7. Postponement to a Day Certain
    Sec. 8. Postponement for Indefinite Period

C. Motions to Lay on the Table

    Sec. 9. In General; Application and Effect
   Sec. 10. Offering Motion
   Sec. 11. When in Order
   Sec. 12. As Related to Other Motions; Precedence
   Sec. 13. Taking From the Table

D. Motions for the Previous Question

   Sec. 14. In General
   Sec. 15. Effect of Ordering Previous Question
   Sec. 16. Offering Motion; Who May Offer
   Sec. 17. Rights of Proponent of Motion
   Sec. 18. Time for Motion
   Sec. 19. Relation to Other Matters

[[Page 4518]]

   Sec. 20. Relation to Other Motions
   Sec. 21. Debate
   Sec. 22. Rejection of Motion as Permitting Further Consideration
   Sec. 23. Rejection of Motion as Affecting Recognition
   Sec. 24. Effect of Adjournment

E. Motions to Refer or Recommit

   Sec. 25. In General
   Sec. 26. Purpose and Effect
   Sec. 27. Priorities in Recognition
   Sec. 28. Offering the Motion; Procedure
   Sec. 29. Time for Motion
   Sec. 30. Debating the Motion
   Sec. 31. As Related to Other Motions; Precedence
   Sec. 32. Motions to Recommit With Instructions

F. Motions to Reconsider

   Sec. 33. In General
   Sec. 34. Purpose and Effect; Pro Forma Motion
   Sec. 35. Who May Offer; Calling Up
   Sec. 36. Withdrawing the Motion
   Sec. 37. Requirement for a Quorum
   Sec. 38. As Related to Other Motions
   Sec. 39. Scope and Application of Motion
   Sec. 40. Precedence of Motion
   Sec. 41. Debate on Motion

G. Unanimous-consent Requests

   Sec. 42. In General; Effect
   Sec. 43. Stating the Request; Withdrawal
   Sec. 44. Recognizing Members for Requests

   Sec. 45. Objecting to Requests
   Sec. 46. Reservation of Objection
   Sec. 47. Scope and Application of Request
   Sec. 48. Limitations on Requests

[[Page 4519]]

  
                         DESCHLER'S PRECEDENTS


                           INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
                                     

Adjournment, effect of, after previous question ordered, Sec. 24.2
Adjournment, effect of, when previous question is moved on Calendar 
    Wednesday, Sec. 24.1
Adjourn sine die, resolution to, as subject to motion to table, 
    Sec. 9.10
Conference report as subject to amendment after defeat of previous 
    question, Sec. 22.15
Conference report, divisibility of motion to recommit with 
    instructions, Sec. Sec. 25.12, 32.30
Conference report, motion to recommit, after previous question, 
    Sec. 30.6
Conference report, motion to recommit as subject to amendment, 
    Sec. Sec. 22.16
Conference report, time for motion to recommit, Sec. Sec. 29.7, 29.8
Consent Calendar, bill on, as subject to motion to table, Sec. 9.13
Delay, intent to, as basis for holding motion dilatory, Sec. 4.2
Dilatory motion, discretion of Chair as to, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.4
Dilatory, time for point of order that a motion is, Sec. 4.8
Discharge committee, motion to, as subject to motion to table, 
    Sec. Sec. 9.15, 9.16
Discharge, resolution brought up under motion to, Sec. 14.12
Dispense with further proceedings under a call, motion to, as subject 
    to motion to table, Sec. Sec. 9.26, 12.4
Division, demand for, as dilatory, Sec. 4.7
Impeachment, resolution of, as subject to motion to table, Sec. 9.14
Inquiry, resolutions of, and the motion to table, Sec. Sec. 9.17-9.19
Instruct conferees, motion to, as subject to motion to table, 
    Sec. Sec. 9.7-9.9
Instructions, motion to recommit with
    amendment of, Sec. Sec. 32.2, 32.3
    amendment rejected in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 32.22
    committee, instructions to, Sec. Sec. 32.10, 32.11, 32.16
    conference report, Sec. Sec. 32.29-32.31
    divisibility, Sec. Sec. 25.12, 32.29
    ``forthwith,'' report back, Sec. Sec. 32.23-32.28
    germaneness, requirement of, Sec. Sec. 32.5-32.8, 32.15
    modifying amendment in the nature of a substitute, Sec. Sec. 32.20, 
        32.21
    modifying amendment previously agreed to, Sec. Sec. 32.17-32.21
    not to report back until occurrence of a condition, Sec. 32.12
    precedence, Sec. 32.1
    propriety of, determined by Speaker, Sec. 32.13
Majority, right to offer motion to reconsider, Sec. 35.1
Modifications of motions, Sec. 1
Motion to strike out last word to explain motion to recommit, 
    Sec. 25.10
Order of business, motions relating to as subject to motion to table, 
    Sec. Sec. 9.27, 9.28
Point of order against motion to recommit, time for, Sec. Sec. 25.3, 
    30.3
Point of order on amendment reported from Committee of the Whole, after 
    ordering of previous question, Sec. 15.21
Point of order, second motion to recommit after first ruled out on, 
    Sec. 32.14

[[Page 4520]]

Postpone consideration of privileged resolution, unanimous consent to, 
    Sec. 47.8
Postpone indefinitely, resolution to, Sec. 8.1
Postpone, motion to
    discharge committee, motion to, Sec. 6.4
    previous question ordered, effect of, Sec. 6.1
    resolution of disapproval, Sec. 6.3
    veto message, consideration of, Sec. Sec. 6.2, 7.1-7.3
Previous question considered as ordered, as barring substitute 
    amendment, Sec. 15.15
Previous question, motion for
    administration of House oath, as related to, Sec. 19.3
    applicable in House prior to adoption of rules, Sec. 14.1
    debate, 40 minutes of, after ordering, Sec. Sec. 21.2-21.6
    debate on, not in order, Sec. 21.1
    demand for, effect of, on amendments, Sec. Sec. 15.3-15.6
    demand for, effect of, on debate, Sec. Sec. 15.1, 15.2
    divisibility of, Sec. 14.3
    effect of, Sec. Sec. 15.7, et seq.
    effect of, on amendment to resolution, Sec. Sec. 15.10, 15.11
    effect of, on amendment to special rule, Sec. 15.14
    effect of, on amendments between the Houses, Sec. 15.8
    effect of, on bills reported from Committee of the Whole, 
        Sec. Sec. 15.16, 15.17
    effect of, on motion that House resolve into Committee of the 
        Whole, Sec. 15.20
    effect of, on motion to recommit, Sec. 15.23
    effect of, on motion to reconsider, Sec. 15.9
    effect of, on motion to strike out enacting clause, Sec. 15.13
    effect of, on point of order on amendment reported from Committee 
        of the Whole, Sec. 15.21
    in Committee of the Whole, Sec. Sec. 14.8, 14.9
    in House as in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 14.10
    Member controlling debate may offer, Sec. 16.1
    Member recognized to debate amendment may not be removed from floor 
        by, Sec. 20.7
    Member yielding floor for amendment and right to move, 
        Sec. Sec. 16.2-16.4
    Member yielding floor for debate recognized to move, Sec. 16.5
    preamble of resolution, applicable to, Sec. 14.7
    precedence of, relative to amendment to motion to instruct 
        conferees, Sec. 20.5
    precedence of, relative to amendment to motion to recommit, 
        Sec. 20.4
    precedence of, relative to motion to amend, Sec. Sec. 18.3, 20.2, 
        20.3
    precedence of, relative to motion to amend Journal, Sec. 20.6
    priority of, relative to amendment to resolution, Sec. 19.2
    private bills, application to, Sec. 14.5
    rejection of motion, effect of, as permitting amendment of 
        resolution, Sec. 22.10
    rejection of motion, effect of, as subjecting concurrent resolution 
        to amendment, Sec. 22.8
    rejection of motion, effect of, on motion to concur, Sec. 22.14
    rejection of motion, effect of, on motion to instruct conferees, 
        Sec. 22.12
    rejection of motion, effect of, on motion to recede and concur with 
        amendment, Sec. 22.13

[[Page 4521]]

    rejection of motion, effect of, on recognition, Sec. Sec. 23.1-23.8
    rejection of motion, effect of, on Rules Committee resolution, 
        Sec. Sec. 22.5-22.7
    rejection of motion, effect of, prior to adoption of rules, 
        Sec. Sec. 22.1, 23.3-23.5, 23.8
    rejection of motion, effect on debate of conference report, 
        Sec. 22.15
    relative to motion to table, Sec. 20.1
    renewing the motion, Sec. Sec. 14.4, 22.17
    rights of moving Member relative to question of personal privilege, 
        Sec. 17.2
    scope of motion, Sec. 14.2
    suspend the rules, motion to not subject to previous question, 
        Sec. 14.11
    time fixed for debate, offer of motion during, Sec. 18.1
    unanimous-consent request, relation to, Sec. Sec. 14.13, 14.14, 
        15.18
Privilege, motion having higher, put first, Sec. 3.1
Privileges of the House, resolution pertaining to, as subject to motion 
    to table, Sec. 9.25
Proponent of motion to recommit, yielding for amendment after debate, 
    Sec. 30.2
Recommit, motion to
    amendment of, Sec. Sec. 25.1, 25.2
    application to amendment reported in disagreement by conferees, 
        Sec. 26.19
    bill on Consent Calendar, Sec. 26.14
    conference report, motion to recommit, Sec. 30.6
    debate, time for, Sec. Sec. 30.1, 30.5
    election contest resolution, Sec. 26.3
    engrossment and third reading, time for motion after, Sec. 29.1
    floor manager of measure, recognition to offer, Sec. 27.26
    majority member opposed to measure, recognition to offer, 
        Sec. 27.25
    Member favoring measure, recognition to offer, Sec. 27.13
    member of committee reporting measure, recognition to offer, 
        Sec. Sec. 27.18-27.23
    Member opposed to measure ``in its present form,'' recognition to 
        offer, Sec. Sec. 27.8, 27.9, 27.17, 27.22
    Member opposed to some features of the measure, recognition to 
        offer, Sec. 27.7
    Member opposed without reservation, recognition to offer, 
        Sec. Sec. 27.10, 27.11
    minority opinion, expression of, relative to, Sec. 26.1
    minority preference, in recognition to offer, Sec. Sec. 27.15-
        27.20, 27.22
    modify amendment previously agreed to, Sec. Sec. 26.17, 26.18
    motion made after announcement of result of vote, Sec. 29.6
    motion made after yeas and nays ordered on passage, Sec. 29.5
    precedence as between straight motion and motion with instructions, 
        Sec. 31.2
    precedence of amendment to motion, and motion for previous 
        question, Sec. 31.1
    prerogative of Speaker in recognizing to offer, Sec. 27.1
    previous question, time for motion after, Sec. Sec. 29.4, 29.7
    privileged resolution from Committee on Rules, Sec. 25.11
    proponent of amendment to, as opposed to measure to be recommitted, 
        Sec. 27.14
    recognizing minority members in order of seniority, Sec. 27.20
    reference to committee, Sec. Sec. 25.4, 25.5
    resolution certifying contumacious conduct, Sec. 26.13

[[Page 4522]]

    second motion after first motion ruled out of order, Sec. 25.7
    special order, effect of, Sec. Sec. 25.8, 25.9, 26.5
    time for motion as to conference report, Sec. Sec. 29.7, 29.8
    use of, to instruct House committee, Sec. 26.2
    written, requirement that motion be, Sec. 28.1
Recommitted by unanimous consent
    bill on Private Calendar, 026.15
Recommittal of bill improperly reported to House, Sec. Sec. 26.11, 
    26.12
Recommittal of funding resolution, Sec. 26.16
Recommitted conference report, status of, Sec. Sec. 26.8-26.10
Reconsider, motion to
    calling up, Sec. 35.5
    Committee of the Whole, not in order in, Sec. Sec. 38.6, 39.10-
        39.13
    committee, use in, Sec. Sec. 39.1, 39.2
    debate on, Sec. Sec. 38.7, 41.1, 41.2
    laid on table, Sec. Sec. 34.1, 34.2
    majority, prerogative of, Sec. 35.1
    point of order against, timeliness of, Sec. 35.4
    question of consideration, not in order on, Sec. 39.14
    quorum, when required, Sec. 37.1
    recapitulation, demand for, relative to, Sec. 40.1
    second motion after consideration of first, Sec. Sec. 39.15, 39.16
    Senate, Sec. Sec. 39.8, 39.9
    table, motion to, as related to, Sec. Sec. 38.1-38.4
    tabling of motion, as precluding second motion to reconsider, 
        Sec. 34.5
    unanimous consent to table, Sec. 34.4
    unanimous consent to vacate tabling of, Sec. 38.5
    withdrawal of, Sec. 36.1
Reconsider vote on, motion to
    conference report, Sec. 39.4
    expunging speech from Congressional Record, Sec. 39.7
    House bill, in Senate, Sec. 39.8
    motion to recommit, Sec. Sec. 39.5, 39.6
    motion to table, Sec. 39.3
Rereading of motion, Sec. Sec. 2.4, 2.5
Rerefer bill, motion to, as subject to motion to table, Sec. 9.12
Rules, Committee on, resolution from, as subject to amendment, 
    Sec. Sec. 22.5, 22.6
Rules, Committee on, resolution from, as subject to motion to table, 
    Sec. Sec. 9.21-9.24
Senate, message from, after ordering of previous question, Sec. 19.4
Senate, motion to recommit with instructions in, Sec. Sec. 32.32, 32.33
Statement of motion by Chair as governing, Sec. 2.3
Strike out enacting clause, motion to, after previous question ordered, 
    Sec. 15.13
Strike out enacting clause, motion to, pending report of committee 
    pursuant to motion to recommit, Sec. 32.26
Suspend the rules, motion to not subject to previous question, 
    Sec. 14.11
Table, motion to lay on
    appeal of decision of Chair, Sec. Sec. 9.3, 9.4
    Committee of the Whole, use in, Sec. Sec. 9.29, 9.30
    debate, before Member recognized for, Sec. Sec. 11.1, 11.2
    debate on, in Senate, Sec. 9.31
    debate on, not allowed, Sec. 9.6
    dispensing with further proceedings under a call, as related to, 
        Sec. 12.4

[[Page 4523]]

    effect of, as adverse disposition of measure, Sec. 9.1
    order of business, as related to, Sec. Sec. 9.27, 9.28
    previous question, precedence of, relative to, Sec. Sec. 12.1-12.3
    question of consideration, raising, after, Sec. 9.20
    recommit, motion to, as related to, Sec. 12.5
    reorganization plan, motion to consider, not subject to motion to 
        table, Sec. 11.3
    take from table by unanimous consent, Sec. Sec. 13.1, 13.2
    unanimous consent to take from the table, Sec. Sec. 13.1, 13.2
    written, demand that motion be, timeliness of, Sec. 10.1
Unanimous-consent requests
    alternative request, Sec. 43.2
    Committee of the Whole, extension of remarks in, Sec. 48.16
    Committee of the Whole, to correct section numbers of bill in, 
        Sec. 48.15
    Consent Calendar, consideration of bills not on, Sec. 48.9
    leadership, approval of, prior to making, Sec. 44.1
    legislative business, after announcement regarding schedule of, 
        Sec. Sec. 48.6, 48.7
    motion to suspend the rules, recognition to make, pending, Sec.44.3
    multiple requests, Sec. 48.1
    Private Calendar, bills on, relation to, Sec. Sec. 48.8, 48.9
    recognition for, Speaker's discretion, Sec. Sec. 45.4, 48.3
    rerefer, motion to, to permit debate on, Sec. 47.7
    reservation of right to object and demand for regular order, 
        Sec.46.5, 46.6
    reservation of right to object to, Sec. Sec. 46.1, 46.2
    second request pending first request, Sec. 48.1
    Speaker prohibited from entertaining certain Sec. Sec. 47.5, 47.6
    statement by Chair governs, Sec. 43.1
    withdrawal of, Sec. 46.4
    yeas and nays, after ordering of, Sec. 48.14
Unanimous-consent requests, objection to
    after Chair announces that he hears none, Sec. 45.3
    before request put by Chair, Sec. 45.2
    by Chair, Sec. 45.5
    effect of, Sec. 45.6
    Member making must rise from seat, Sec. 45.1
Unanimous-consent requests, purpose of
    address House on future days, Sec. 48.12
    amend after previous question ordered, Sec. 48.13
    amend amendment, Sec. 47.3
    call up nonprivileged resolution, Sec. 47.4
    close debate on unread titles, Sec. 47.1
    committee may sit while House reads bills for amendment, Sec.48.2
    committee voting record of Member be inserted in Record, Sec.47.11
    debate motion to rerefer, Sec. 47.7
    delete words taken down, Sec. 47.10
    dispense with reading of amendment, Sec. 47.2
    extend remarks in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 48.16
    modify words taken down, Sec. 47.9
    postpone consideration of privileged resolution, Sec. 47.8
    produce committee documents, Sec. 48.4
    revoke special order, Sec. 48.11

[[Page 4524]]

    take bill with Senate amendment from Speaker's table, Sec. 44.2
    waive requirements of rules, Sec. Sec. 47.5, 47.6
Vacate proceedings, unanimous-consent request to, Sec. Sec. 38.5, 38.6
Veto message
    motion to discharge, tabling of, Sec. 9.15
    motion to postpone consideration of, Sec. Sec. 6.2, 7.1-7.3
    motion to table, Sec. 9.5
Withdrawal of motion, Sec. Sec. 1, 2.6-2.8
Withdrawal of motion after yeas and nays ordered, Sec. 2.9
Withdrawal of motion in Committee of the Whole, Sec. 2.10
Written, motions must be, upon demand of Member, Sec. 2.1

[[Page 4525]]


                       

[Page 4525-4530]
 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                             A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec. 1. In General



    The term ``motion'' refers generally to any formal proposal made 
before a deliberative assembly. This chapter covers the general and 
more frequently used motions, which are often referred to as secondary 
motions. Secondary motions are those motions that are used to dispose 
of the main proposition under consideration. The motion to adjourn 
(including the motion to adjourn to a day certain) which enjoys the 
highest privilege in the House, and certain procedural motions, such as 
the motion to discharge a committee, and the motion to suspend the 
rules, are treated in other chapters in this work.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Ch. 18 (Motions to Discharge Committees), Ch. 21 (Motions to 
        Suspend the Rules), supra; and Ch. 27 (Motions to Strike, and 
        to Strike Out and Insert), Ch. 32 (Motions regarding House-
        Senate Relations), Ch. 33 (Motions to Instruct House 
        conferees), and Ch. 40 (Motions to Adjourn), infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Secondary motions are dependent on a main question or proposition 
for their existence and therefore may be offered only when a question 
is under consideration or debate.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All motions must conform to all procedural requirements set forth 
in the House rules. Thus, a Member offering a motion must rise to his 
feet and address the Chair; and a motion must be reduced to writing 
when so demanded by a Member.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Rule XVI clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 775 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A motion may be withdrawn in the House or in the House as in 
Committee of the Whole as a matter of right unless the House has taken 
some action thereon, such as ordering the yeas and nays, or demanding 
or ordering of the previous question, or adopting an amendment 
thereto.(4) Withdrawal of a motion in the Committee of the 
Whole generally requires unanimous consent.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Rule XVI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 776 (1981).
 5. See Sec. 2.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current practice of the House, after a motion is for

[[Page 4526]]

mally pending all modifications of the motion, if in order at all, must 
be approved by the House. There is one narrow exception to this general 
principle, discussed in more detail in Chapter 21, section 28, supra, 
where a resolution is offered as a question of privilege and can be 
withdrawn by the offeror at any time before action is taken thereon and 
again offered as privileged immediately thereafter. Precedent 
(6) indicates that in that context the offeror can accept 
certain ``friendly amendments'' or modifications of his resolution 
without the concurrence of the House. This simply reflects the unique 
circumstances which adhere to a resolution raising a question of 
privilege: the resolution can be withdrawn at will, modified and 
resubmitted if still privileged, and the House has recognized the right 
of the proponent to modify the resolution while it is pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5358.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In most cases, however, the right of withdrawal and resubmission in 
a modified form does not exist. A resolution, if a privileged report, 
may not be modifiable except by direction of the reporting committee or 
with concurrence of the House. In the case of a motion, the proponent 
may not be guaranteed the right to immediately reoffer the motion, 
especially where it is a secondary motion under Rule XVI clause 4 
(7) which may properly be offered only at certain times, as 
when a main question is pending. Thus, while an amendment to a motion 
pending in the House may be withdrawn by the Member offering the 
amendment before it is acted upon, he is not guaranteed the right to 
reoffer that amendment, and therefore he does not have the right to 
modify the amendment without the consent of the House. In the Committee 
of the Whole amendments can be withdrawn only by unanimous consent, so 
the doctrine of modification is never applicable in that forum. Other 
secondary motions to postpone to a day certain or to refer, while 
susceptible to modification, and capable of withdrawal prior to action 
thereon, may for the same reason not be modified without the consent of 
the House. The other secondary motions specified under Rule XVI clause 
4 are not susceptible to modification--such as the motions to lay on 
the table, for the previous question, and to postpone indefinitely. The 
motion to adjourn to a day and time certain is only in order at the 
Speaker's dis

[[Page 4527]]

cretion and is therefore subject to modification by the offeror only 
with the consent of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 
        (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of House Agreement to Motion

Sec. 1.1 Where a motion not in order under the rules of the House is, 
    without objection, considered and agreed to, it controls the 
    procedure of the House until carried out, unless the House takes 
    affirmative action to the contrary.

    On the legislative day of Oct. 8, 1968,(8) the House had 
continued into the next calendar day due to 33 quorum calls, the effect 
of which had been to delay the reading and approval of the Journal. 
After Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, moved still another call of the 
House, a Member moved that those not present be sent for and compelled 
to remain present until the completion of pending business:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 30212-14, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 9, 1968 
        (Calendar Day). For a further discussion of quorum calls, see 
        Ch. 20, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, as part of the 
    motion of a call of the House, I further move under rule 
    II,(9) under which a call of the House is in order, that 
    a motion be made for the majority here that those who are not 
    present be sent for wherever they are found and returned here on 
    the condition that they shall not be allowed to leave the Chamber 
    until such time as the pending business before this Chamber on this 
    legislative day shall have been completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Mr. Adams apparently intended to cite clause 2 of Rule XV, not Rule 
        II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (10) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Adams).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        The Clerk proceeded to call the roll.
        Mr. [Lester L.] Wolff [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from New 
    York that there is a quorum call underway and it cannot be 
    interfered with.
        Mr. Wolff: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order on the quorum 
    call.
        The Speaker: The gentleman makes a point of order?
        Mr. Wolff: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The doors are not locked.
        The Speaker: The Sergeant at Arms will lock the doors, and the 
    Clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk called the roll. . . .
        The Speaker: On this rollcall 222 Members have answered to 
    their names, a quorum.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I move that further proceedings under 
    the call be dispensed with.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma.
        The motion was agreed to. . . .

        Mr. [William E.] Brock [3d, of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 4528]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brock: Am I to understand, if further proceedings under the 
    call have been dispensed with, according to the last motion, it is 
    correct that the doors of the House are now open?
        The Speaker: The Chair is awfully glad the gentleman made that 
    parliamentary inquiry, because the Chair intended to read for the 
    benefit of the Members the motion made by the gentleman from 
    Washington [Mr. Adams]:

            Mr. Speaker, as a part of the motion of a call of the 
        House, I further move under rule II, under which a call of the 
        House is in order, that a motion be made for the majority here 
        that those who are not present be sent for wherever they are 
        found and returned here on the condition that they shall not be 
        allowed to leave the Chamber until such time as the pending 
        business before this Chamber on this legislative day shall have 
        been completed.

        The motion was adopted; and in accordance with that motion no 
    Member can leave the Chamber until the pending business before the 
    House has been disposed of; and the pending business is the reading 
    and approval of the Journal of the preceding session.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Let me repeat the language of the motion of 
    the gentleman from Washington:

            That a motion be made for the majority here that those who 
        are not present be sent for wherever they are found and 
        returned here on the condition that they shall not be allowed 
        to leave the Chamber until such time as the pending business 
        before this Chamber on this legislative day shall have been 
        completed.

        Mr. Speaker, I respectfully argue that in the language used by 
    the gentleman from Washington in the motion that he made, he says 
    very specifically and very categorically that those who are not 
    here are the ones who must be kept in the Chamber.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell (of Michigan): Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    regular order.
        The Speaker: The regular order is that the gentleman is making 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: And I am indicating, Mr. Speaker, in my 
    parliamentary inquiry, that the doors to the Chamber shall not be 
    closed to those Members who were here at the time of the call for 
    the quorum.
        The Speaker: The Chair, in response to the parliamentary 
    inquiry of the distinguished minority leader, feels in construing 
    the motion, that a part of the construction is the happenings of 
    the last 10 or 12 or more hours and the intent and purpose of the 
    gentleman from Washington in making the motion.
        It seems to the Chair, in response to the parliamentary 
    inquiry--and the Chair makes such a response--that the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Adams) meant that any 
    Member who answered the last quorum call cannot leave the Chamber 
    until the pending business has been disposed of; and the doors will 
    be kept closed.
        The Chair might observe in relation to any future points of 
    order that a quorum is not present that apparently

[[Page 4529]]

    a quorum is present because the last one disclosed 222 Members and 
    the Chair is justified in assuming that the 222 Members are still 
    here. The doors will remain locked until the present business is 
    disposed of.
        Mr. Brock: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brock: Is it not so that the rules of the House provide for 
    the highly unusual procedure of calling in absent Members only in 
    the case of the establishment of a nonquorum? Is that not true? And 
    was the motion not illegal and improper on its face, having been 
    made prior to the establishment of no quorum?
        The Speaker: The Chair will observe that we can always attempt 
    to have Members attend who are not present at this time or actually 
    in the Chamber at some particular time. Further, the Chair might 
    also observe that every effort is being made on the Democratic side 
    in connection with notifying Members of the situation that has 
    existed for the past 12 or so hours.
        Mr. Brock: But the parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, was to 
    the question of whether or not the motion was in fact outside the 
    normal rules of the House.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, will the Chair yield?
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma desire to be 
    heard on the parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Tennessee?
        Mr. Albert: The gentleman from Oklahoma would only suggest if a 
    point of order would have been eligible as against the motion made 
    by the distinguished gentleman from Washington, it certainly has 
    come too late in view of the action of the House.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state without passing on the 
    question as to whether or not a point of order would lie if made at 
    the proper time when the gentleman from Washington made his motion, 
    that after the motion had been adopted no point of order was made. 
    Therefore, the motion expressing the will of the majority of the 
    Members present will be adhered to.
        Does the gentleman from Ohio have a point of order?
        Mr. [Robert] Taft [Jr., of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taft: As has just been pointed out by the gentleman from 
    Tennessee, the provisions for restricting the freedom of Members 
    under the House rules is solely under the rules relating to a 
    situation in which there is no quorum, I believe. My inquiry is 
    this: If the House attempts in any other circumstances, 
    circumstances not necessary to the business of the House, to 
    restrict the freedom of the Members to pass in or out of the 
    Chamber or anywhere else that they care to pass, do they not under 
    the Constitution and the laws of the United States constitute a 
    violation of the civil liberties of the Members?
        The Speaker: The Chair could observe that there are civil 
    liberties of others involved. The House has acted. A majority of 
    the House has spoken for this motion and, without getting into any 
    long discussion, the motion on the pending business which is before 
    the House is binding on the Speaker and the Members of the House.

[[Page 4530]]

Effect of Defeat of Essential Motion

Sec. 1.2 When an essential motion made by the Member in charge of a 
    bill or resolution is decided adversely the right to prior 
    recognition passes to the Member leading the opposition to the 
    motion.

    On Feb. 20, 1952,(11) James P. Richards, of South 
Carolina, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, offered House 
Resolution 514, dealing with agreements or understandings between the 
President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. 
The following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 98 Cong. Rec. 1205-07, 1215, 1216, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Richards: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be laid 
    on the table. . . .
        The Speaker: (12) . . . The question is on the 
    motion of the gentleman from South Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Richards: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 150, nays 184, not 
    voting 97. . . .
        So the motion was rejected. . . .
        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio 
    rise?
        Mr. Vorys: Mr. Speaker, I ask for recognition on the 
    resolution, House Resolution 514.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. Richards: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a 
    parliamentry inquiry?
        Mr. Vorys: Gladly.
        Mr. Richards: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Richards: Would the Speaker explain the parliamentary 
    situation as to who is in charge of the time?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio is in charge of the time, 
    the gentleman being with the majority in this instance, and on that 
    side of the issue which received the most votes. The gentleman from 
    Ohio is recognized.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 72 Cong. Rec. 9912-14, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., June 2, 1930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                             A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec. 2. Offering, Modifying, and Withdrawing Motions; Form

Oral or Written Motions

Sec. 2.1 Every motion must be reduced to writing on demand of any 
    Member.

    On July 23, 1942,(14) the House was considering H.R. 
7416, absen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 88 Cong. Rec. 6561, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4531]]

tee voting in time of war by members of the armed forces. The following 
took place:

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike out the enacting clause and ask unanimous consent that I may 
    proceed for 5 additional minutes.
        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the gentleman is not complying with the rule 
    and presenting his motion in writing.
        The Chairman: (15) The rule requires that such a 
    motion must be in writing.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
16. See also 76 Cong. Rec. 4195, 4196, 72d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 15, 
        1933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modifying Motion to Conform to Rules

Sec. 2.2 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole pointed out that a 
    motion before the Committee was not in proper form and then, when 
    the proponent of the motion had modified it to conform to the 
    rules, put the question thereon.

    On Dec. 12, 1969,(17) the House was considering H.R. 
12321, economic opportunity amendments of 1969. A motion to close 
debate was then made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 38844, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Ayres [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the substitute amendment and all amendments thereto close 
    at 6 o'clock with the last 5 minutes reserved to the committee.
        The Chairman: (18) The matter of the last 5 minutes 
    being reserved to the committee may not be included in the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ayres: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that portion of the motion.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Ayres).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Ottinger) there were--ayes 124, noes 35.
        So the motion was agreed to.

 Statement of Motion

Sec. 2.3 The motion as stated by the Chair in putting the question and 
    not as stated by the Member in offering the motion, is the 
    proposition voted upon.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2362, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 when a misunderstanding arose as to the wording of a motion 
offered by Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York. Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, attempted to state 
the motion as he understood it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 111 Cong. Rec. 6101, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair will state the motion as the Chair 
    understood it.

[[Page 4532]]

    The Chair will say frankly the Chair had a little difficulty 
    hearing it, but my understanding of the motion was that the 
    chairman of the committee moved that all debate and all amendments 
    to section 203 be closed in 5 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer (of California): In the event that the 
    motion is carried, if put, would the motion carried be that which 
    was actually made by the gentleman from New York, or according to 
    the record as reported, or would it be the motion as stated by the 
    Chair?
        The Chairman: The motion will be as stated by the Chair, as was 
    the case yesterday and is the case today.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 6016, 6020, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 25, 
        1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Restating and Rereading Motions

Sec. 2.4 Where there is a misunderstanding about the wording of a 
    pending motion, the Chair may restate the motion; but it is not the 
    practice to ask that the motion be reread by the reporter.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(21) during debate in the Committee of 
the Whole on H.R. 2362, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, several Members sought to have the Chair clarify a motion offered 
by Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 111 Cong. Rec. 6101, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Porter] Hardy [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    Chair state the motion as originally made?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry. At the time that the gentleman from New York made the 
    motion his voice was inaudible. I strongly feel that the motion 
    that he made should be reread and read loud.
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair will attempt to state 
    how he understood it. It may be in error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I ask that the reporter read 
    what the Chairman said so we can all hear it. It would be very 
    helpful.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished 
    minority leader, is putting the Chair in the same position he had 
    him in a little while ago. This goes straight, head on, into all of 
    the practices and procedures of the House to have the reporter 
    report a motion.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state the motion as the Chair 
    understood it. The Chair will say frankly the Chair had a little 
    difficulty hearing it, but [the Chair's] understanding of the 
    motion was that the chairman of the committee moved that all debate 
    and all amendments to section 203 be closed in 5 minutes.

Sec. 2.5 A pending motion may be reread, by unanimous consent, even 
    though all time for debate thereon may have expired.

    On Sept. 12, 1967,(2) the House was debating the Senate 
amend
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 113 Cong. Rec. 25201, 25211, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4533]]

ments in disagreement to H.R. 10738, Defense Department appropriations 
for fiscal year 1968. The following then occurred:

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mahon moves that the House insist upon its disagreement 
        to Senate amendment numbered 18.

                  Preferential Motion Offered By Mr. Sikes

        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Sikes moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 18 and concur therein.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Mahon] is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (4) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the preferential motion of the gentleman from Florida 
    be reread before the vote is taken.
        The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        There was no objection.

Withdrawal of Motions in the House

Sec. 2.6 In the House a motion may be withdrawn as a matter of right 
    and unanimous consent is not required.

    On June 22, 1943,(5) the House was debating Senate 
amendments in disagreement to H.R. 2481, the agriculture appropriation 
bill of 1944. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 89 Cong. Rec. 6284, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw 
    the motion which was formerly made with reference to amendments 12 
    and 14 and submit other amendments stating the correct amounts of 
    the totals, which are on the Clerk's desk.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: I object to that, Mr. 
    Speaker. The gentleman asked to withdraw a motion, and he can do 
    that only by unanimous consent.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Chair will state 
    that in the House a motion may be withdrawn as a matter of right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Fritz G. Lanham (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 2.7 A motion may be withdrawn in the House before action is taken 
    thereon.

    On Dec. 11, 1969,(7) the House was debating the 
appointment of conferees on H.R. 13270, the Tax Reform Act of 1969. 
Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, Chairman of the House Committee on Ways 
and Means, sought unanimous consent to disagree to the Senate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 115 Cong. Rec. 38543-45, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4534]]

amendments and agree to a conference requested by the Senate. Mr. 
Charles A. Vanik, of Ohio, sought to offer a preferential motion:

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Vanik moves 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. 13270 be instructed to insist on the House 
        provisions relating to the oil and gas depletion allowance and 
        to provide tax relief by way of increased dependency 
        exemptions.

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on my motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The gentleman from Ohio 
    is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to instruct the 
    conferees in order to assure that the managers on the part of the 
    House will stand by the House provisions on oil and gas depletion--
    which the Ways and Means Committee reduced to 20 percent--along 
    with elimination of the foreign depletion allowance.

    At this point, Mr. Mills assured Mr. Vanik that the conferees would 
uphold the position of the House, and argued that Mr. Vanik's motion 
would limit the discretion of the conferees to agree to some desirable 
Senate amendments.

        Mr. Vanik: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished 
    chairman. The conferees and managers on the part of the House have 
    our best wishes, and I ask that they speak for the average 
    taxpayers of America who need to get some relief out of this tax 
    program which will be before the conference.
        Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my motion.

Sec. 2.8 A motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill was, by 
    unanimous consent, withdrawn after a second was ordered, there had 
    been debate on the motion, and the Speaker had put the question on 
    its adoption.

    On May 6, 1963,(9) the House was debating H.R. 101, 
relating to the definition of peanuts under the Agricultural Act. The 
following then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 109 Cong. Rec. 7813, 7815, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald R.] Matthews [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 101) to extend for 2 
    years the definition of ``peanuts'' which is now in effect under 
    the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. . . .
        The Speaker: (10) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul] Findley [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Florida that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.

[[Page 4535]]

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the motion to suspend the rules and call up the bill 
    under consideration be withdrawn.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Unanimous consent is not required, until a 
second is ordered, to withdraw a motion to suspend the rules.

Sec. 2.9 Unanimous consent to withdraw a motion in the House is 
    required where the yeas and nays have been ordered on the motion.

    On July 9, 1970,(11) the House was debating H.R. 15628, 
the Foreign Military Sales Act of 1970. Mr. Donald W. Riegle, Jr., of 
Michigan, moved that the House instruct its conferees to agree to a 
Senate amendment. The following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 23524, 23525, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
    table.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hays moves to lay on the table the motion offered by 
        Mr. Riegle.

        The Speaker: (12) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hays) to lay on the table 
    the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Riegle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, I have been prevailed upon to attempt to 
    withdraw my motion on the understanding that there will be some 
    equal division of time, and if it is not too late I would ask 
    unanimous consent to withdraw my motion to lay on the table the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Riegle).
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Ohio?
        Mr. [William J.] Scherle [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

Withdrawal of Motions in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 2.10 A motion may be withdrawn in the Committee of the Whole only 
    by unanimous consent.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
debating H.R. 2362, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. 
Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, attempted to clarify a previous motion 
he had offered to limit the time for debate and also limit the offering 
of amendments to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 6101, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Powell: I withdraw the previous motion. I move all debate 
    and all

[[Page 4536]]

    amendments on this title and this section close in 10 minutes.
        Mr. [Porter] Hardy [Jr., of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask that 
    the original motion be read.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. I want to know whether or not it takes unanimous consent to 
    withdraw the motion.
        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman from New York asks 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Powell: That is right. I withdraw it. I ask unanimous 
    consent to withdraw it.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I object.



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                             A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec. 3. Precedence of Motions

    In general, recognition to offer a motion is at the discretion of 
the Chair, subject to the House rules and precedents pertaining to 
several motions which establish priorities of recognition. These will 
be discussed later in this chapter in the sections that deal with each 
motion.                          -------------------

Priority of Motion of Higher Privilege

Sec. 3.1 A Member having the floor to offer a motion may move the 
    previous question thereon although another claims recognition to 
    offer a motion of higher privilege; but the motion of higher 
    privilege must be put before the previous question.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(15) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
interrupted the Clerk's reading of the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 23600, 23601, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: 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: (16) The Chair will state that the 
    motion to lay on the table is in order, but the amendment is not in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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

[[Page 4537]]

    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.
        Mr. Hall: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move to table that motion.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to lay on the table.



                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                             A. INTRODUCTORY
 
Sec. 4. Dilatory Motions

Discretion of Chair

Sec. 4.1 The determination of whether a motion is dilatory is entirely 
    within the discretion of the Chair.

    On May 16, 1938,(17) the consideration of an omnibus 
claims bill was interrupted by a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 83 Cong. Rec. 6938, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to 
    submit a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cochran: The Chair has stated that tomorrow an omnibus 
    claims bill will be called up. I recall that the last time that an 
    omnibus claims bill was called up a Member rose and moved to strike 
    out a certain title which, of course, was permissible under the 
    rule. However, after he had moved to strike out the title and was 
    recognized, he immediately stated that he did not propose to insist 
    upon his motion, but that he offered the motion for the purpose of 
    giving the House some information relative to the title under 
    consideration. As I understand the spirit of the rule, there shall 
    be 5 minutes granted in opposition to the title and 5 minutes in 
    favor of the title, each bill being a separate title. It seems to 
    me that the spirit of the rule was violated on that occasion, 
    because there were two speeches of 5 minutes each in favor of the 
    title or bill, and no speech in opposition to the title. My 
    parliamentary inquiry is whether a point of order would lie against 
    the motion of a Member to strike out the title when, as a matter of 
    fact, the Member was not in favor of striking out the title.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present occupant of the Chair 
    would have no way of reading a Member's mind or questioning his 
    motives with reference to any amendment that he might offer. The 
    Chair thinks that any Member who gained the floor to offer any 
    permissible amendment would be in order and he would be entitled to 
    the floor.
        Mr. Cochran: It was certainly a violation of the spirit of the 
    rule when one offers an amendment to strike out a title and then in 
    the first sentence after recognition says that he is not going to 
    insist upon his motion and consumes 5 minutes that should be 
    allowed in opposition to the title.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The rule interpreted otherwise would 
    make it pretty hard on the occupant of the chair.
        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Where it becomes apparent to 
    the

[[Page 4538]]

    Chair that a motion is made for the purpose of delay, then a point 
    of order may be made and would be sustained, would it not?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present occupant of the chair 
    understands that the determination of whether a motion is dilatory 
    is entirely within the discretion of the Chair.

Intent to Delay

Sec. 4.2 On one occasion the Speaker announced that he would not hold a 
    motion to be dilatory until it became obvious that dilatory tactics 
    were being indulged in and that a filibuster was being conducted.

    On July 25, 1949,(19) the House sought consideration of 
H.R. 3199, a federal anti-poll tax act, by utilizing for the first time 
the so-called 21-day rule to bring this bill to the House from the 
Committee on Rules. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 10095, 10096, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    clause 2(c) of rule XI, I call up House Resolution 276, which has 
    been pending before the Committee on Rules for more than 21 
    calendar days without being reported.
        The Speaker: (20) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve 
        itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
        the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3199) making 
        unlawful the requirement for the payment of a poll tax as a 
        prerequisite to voting in a primary or other election for 
        national officers and for other purposes, and all points of 
        order against said bill are hereby waived. That after general 
        debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to 
        exceed 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
        chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
        House Administration, the bill shall be read for amendment 
        under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration 
        of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report 
        the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
        adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
        without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. . . .

        Mrs. Norton: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on 
    the adoption of the rule.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 262, nays 100, not 
    voting 70. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
        Mr. [Robert L. F.] Sikes [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House do now adjourn.

[[Page 4539]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Florida moves that the House do 
    now adjourn.
        The Chair desires to make a statement. Since the present 
    Speaker has occupied the chair he has yet to hold a motion to be 
    dilatory, and will not until it becomes obvious to everybody that 
    dilatory tactics are being indulged in and that a filibuster is 
    being conducted.

Sec. 4.3 The Chair overruled the point of order that a motion to strike 
    out the enacting clause of a bill was dilatory where the Member 
    offering the motion stated that he was opposed to the bill.

    On Mar. 30, 1950,(1) the House was considering H.R. 
7797, to provide foreign economic assistance. The following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 96 Cong. Rec. 4424, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fulton moves that the Committee do now rise and that 
        the bill be reported to the House with the enacting clause 
        stricken.

        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    preferential motion that it is dilatory. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania is not opposed to this bill and is not in good faith 
    asking that the enacting clause be stricken out; he is advocating 
    this bill vehemently and is simply taking this means to get 5 
    minutes time when many others of us have been waiting for 2 days 
    trying to get time, but in vain.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton] if he is opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Fulton: In its present form I would be opposed to it.

        The Chairman: The Chair must accept the statement of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        The Chair overrules the point of order and recognizes the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania in support of his preferential motion.

Sec. 4.4 After stating that, ``one of the greatest responsibilities the 
    Chair could assume would be to hold that motions are dilatory,'' 
    the Speaker ruled that a motion to adjourn was not dilatory.

    On June 5, 1946,(3) a Calendar Wednesday, several quorum 
calls had delayed reaching the Committee on Labor preventing a federal 
employment practices bill from being called up. After the House voted 
to dispense with further proceedings under a call of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 92 Cong. Rec. 6352-56, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4540]]

the House, Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, moved that the 
House adjourn.

        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
        Mr. [Christian A.] Herter [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: (4) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Herter: Mr. Speaker, the motion just made is a dilatory 
    motion and I should like to be heard on it.
        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, it is always in order to move to 
    adjourn.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts has made a point 
    of order and the Chair is going to hear him.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I would 
    like to be heard in opposition to the point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. Herter: Mr. Speaker, in ruling on the point of order I 
    realize fully that entire discretion is vested in the Chair in 
    reaching a decision as to whether a motion is a dilatory motion or 
    is not a dilatory motion.

    At this point Mr. Rankin rose to a point of order that a quorum was 
not present and Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, moved a call of the 
House. The call was ordered and when taken indicated the presence of 
290 Members. Mr. Graham A. Barden, of North Carolina, moved to dispense 
with further proceedings under the call and Mr. Thomas G. Abernethy, of 
Mississippi, demanded the yeas and nays. The motion was agreed to.

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. Herter] on a point of order.
        Mr. Herter: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, it is within 
    your discretion to rule on this point of order and there can be no 
    appeal from your ruling; however, in making that ruling, it is 
    obvious that you will be guided by two matters: First, by the chain 
    of circumstances which have led to the point of order being made, 
    and, secondly, by the precedents that have been set by your 
    predecessors in ruling under similar circumstances.
        Insofar as the first is concerned, the circumstances that have 
    led to this particular point of order being made are obvious to 
    every Member of this House. For the last few Wednesdays this House 
    has done no business whatsoever. It has clearly been prevented from 
    doing business because certain Members wished to avoid having 
    certain matters come up here for discussion. In other words, sir, 
    as long as the calendar contains certain pieces of legislation that 
    have been favorably reported by your duly constituted committees 
    but have not been brought here under rule, they can only be brought 
    up in this way, and as long as the Members of the House wish to 
    avoid the calendar being reached they can delay action on those 
    particular matters. We all know what they are. . . .
        Mr. Herter: Mr. Speaker, the second point that I wish to 
    emphasize is

[[Page 4541]]

    the question of precedents that have been set by your predecessors 
    under circumstances very similar to those which we are facing here 
    today. I am reading now direct quotations from Cannon's Precedents 
    of the House of Representatives, volume 8, page 424. . . 
    .(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Mr. Herter cited 8 Cannon's precedents Sec. 2813, where a motion to 
        adjourn had been ruled out as dilatory. In that situation, 
        Speaker Frederick H. Gillett (Mass.) in ruling out a motion to 
        adjourn offered by Mr. Finis J. Garrett (Tenn.) stated: ``In 
        deciding what is dilatory the Chair thinks he should be very 
        careful, because his decision is final; but, on the other hand, 
        he does not think there can be any question in the minds of any 
        of the Members of the House present that the purpose of the 
        gentleman from Tennessee in making this motion is delay, and 
        not the expectation or intention of accomplishing any other 
        result by the motion. Therefore the Chair thinks that the 
        motion is dilatory.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair is familiar with the rulings made by 
    Speaker Gillett to which the gentleman from Massachusetts refers. 
    One of the greatest responsibilities any occupant of the Chair 
    could assume would be to hold that motions are dilatory. However, 
    that is not to say that the present occupant of the Chair will not, 
    under certain circumstances, hold motions to be dilatory. In the 
    weeks to come and for the remainder of this day the Chair will 
    scrutinize very carefully motions that are made.
        The Chair is going to put the motion to adjourn.

Sec. 4.5 The first having been withdrawn, a second motion that the 
    Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill back to the House 
    with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken was 
    held in order and not dilatory.

    On May 3, 1949,(6) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2032, the National Labor Relations Act of 1949. The 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 5531, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Boggs of Louisiana moves that the Committee do now rise 
        and report the bill to the House with the recommendation that 
        the enacting clause be stricken out.

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order that that motion has just been voted down.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman is mistaken. The 
    previous motion was withdrawn by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order it is dilatory. Is the gentleman going to 
    press his motion?
        The Chairman: The Chair overrules the point of order.

Sec. 4.6 The Speaker has, on a Calendar Wednesday, recog

[[Page 4542]]

    nized the chairman of a committee to call up a bill in spite of 
    repeated motions to adjourn, thereby inferentially holding such 
    motions to be dilatory.

    On Feb. 15, 1950,(8) the Clerk was calling the roll of 
the committees under the Calendar Wednesday rule. The following took 
place immediately after the rejection of several motions to adjourn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 96 Cong. Rec. 1811, 1812, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) The Clerk will call the committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk called the Committee on the District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not yield to the gentleman for a 
    parliamentary inquiry at this time.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The Clerk has called the Committee on the District 
    of Columbia. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina 
    [Mr. McMillan].
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do 
    now adjourn. That motion is always in order.
        The Speaker: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from South 
    Carolina [Mr. McMillan].
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan] 
    has been recognized.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan] 
    has been recognized.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Repeated roll calls were sought on this day 
in an effort to delay business under the Calendar Wednesday rule and 
thus delay the call of the Committee on Education and Labor on the 
following Wednesday when a fair employment practice bill was to be 
called up.

Demand for Division

Sec. 4.7 A demand for a division vote after a voice vote was held not 
    to be dilatory.

    On May 14, 1930,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
debating H.R. 2152, when a motion was offered to close all debate on a 
particular section and all amendments thereto in five minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 72 Cong. Rec. 8958, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) The question now is on the motion 
    of the gentleman from Michigan to close all debate on this section 
    and all amendments thereto in five minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Scott Leavitt (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken, and Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin 
    demanded a division.

[[Page 4543]]

        Mr. [C. William] Ramseyer [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ramseyer: I make the point of order that the motion is 
    dilatory.
        The Chairman: What motion does the gentleman refer to? The 
    matter before the House is whether there shall be a division.
        Mr. Ramseyer: It can be contended as dilatory. I refer the 
    Chair to page 346 of the House manual, paragraph 10. Vote after 
    vote has been taken here on these minor matters, and each has 
    turned out about 2 to 1. [Cries of ``Oh, no!'']
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Why, a change of 10 
    votes would have made the committee rise on the last vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Mr. Ramseyer: I do not care to take up the time of the Chair to 
    read the various decisions, but it covers almost everything--time 
    to fix debate, a motion to rise, a motion to adjourn, demand for 
    tellers. That has been held dilatory also, and so on through. I am 
    not going to argue this particular point, but I shall insist on the 
    Chair enforcing the rule against dilatory motions.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be 
    heard upon the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Schafer of Wisconsin: The request for a division is 
    certainly not dilatory, particularly in view of the fact that on 
    the vote by ayes and noes it would seem to any fair-minded person 
    paying attention that there was a very close division in the 
    committee. Furthermore, this is not a trivial matter. These motions 
    have been made in order to close debate. Many statesmen or would-be 
    statesmen talk much about freedom of speech when they are running 
    for office, and then come here and try to cut off reasonable 
    debate, in this important legislation, with steam-roller tactics.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair finds 
    nothing in the precedents to hold that a request for a division is 
    dilatory. He does find a demand for tellers to have been held to be 
    dilatory, but not a division. The point of order is overruled.

Time for Objection

Sec. 4.8 After the Speaker has entertained a motion that the House 
    adjourn, it is too late to make the point of order that the motion 
    is dilatory on the ground that the House rejected such a motion an 
    hour previously.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(12) the House was proceeding with 
business under the Calendar Wednesday rule when Mr. Robert L. F. Sikes, 
of Florida, moved that the House adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Sikes] moves that the House do now adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

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

[[Page 4544]]

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order on the motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I submit the motion to adjourn is 
    dilatory. While I recognize that intervening business has been 
    transacted, such as voting on the motion to dispense with Calendar 
    Wednesday business, it seems to me that the House has expressed its 
    will on this matter about an hour ago and the House refused to 
    adjourn. I think it is obvious to the Speaker that the House has 
    refused to adjourn and the motion, therefore, is dilatory.
        The Speaker: The Chair has already entertained the motion. The 
    question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida.

    Parliamentarian's Note: See also Chapters 18, 21, and 17, supra, 
for discussion of prohibition against dilatory motions under the 
discharge rule (Rule XXVII clause 4), motions to suspend the rules 
(Rule XVI clause 8), and motions pending reports from the Committee on 
Rules (Rule XI clause 4(b)).



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                         B. MOTIONS TO POSTPONE
 
Sec. 5. In General


    There are two motions to postpone. One provides postponement to a 
day certain; the other postpones the matter in question indefinitely. 
The adoption of a motion to postpone indefinitely constitutes a final 
adverse disposition of the measure to which it is applied. (See 
Sec. 8.1, infra.) Each must be applied to the entire pending 
proposition, not to a part thereof.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to postpone to a day certain may be 
amended(15)and debated, although debate is limited to the 
advisability of postponement only and may not go to the merits of the 
proposition to be postponed.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2824; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5754.
16. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2372, 2616, 2640; and 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 5311-5315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither motion to postpone is in order in the Committee of the 
Whole, but under special circumstances absent a special rule governing 
consideration of a bill for amendment under the five-minute rule, it 
has been held in order in the Committee of the Whole to move that a 
bill be reported to the House with the rec

[[Page 4545]]

ommendation that action on it be postponed.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 18 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2372; 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to postpone to a day certain may not specify a 
particular hour.(18 Business postponed to a day certain is 
in order on that day immediately following approval of the Journal and 
disposition of the business on the Speaker's table, but may be 
displaced by business of higher privilege.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5307.
 1. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                         B. MOTIONS TO POSTPONE
 
Sec. 6. When in Order

Effect of Ordering Previous Question

Sec. 6.1 The motion to postpone further consideration of a matter is 
    not in order after the previous question has been ordered 
    thereon.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2616, 2617; and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5319-5321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postponement of Veto Message

Sec. 6.2 A privileged motion to postpone further consideration of a 
    veto message to a day certain was made immediately following the 
    reading of the message.

    On June 23, 1970,(3) the President's veto message on 
H.R. 11102, the medical facilities construction and modernization 
amendments of 1970, was laid before the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 20876, 20877, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To the House of Representatives:

        I am returning without my approval H.R. 11102, the Medical 
    Facilities Construction and Modernization Amendments of 1970. My 
    reason for this veto is basic: H.R. 11102 is a long step down the 
    road of fiscal irresponsibility, and we should not take that road. 
    . . .
        In these times there is no room in this massive program--or in 
    any other program--for the kind of needless and misdirected 
    spending represented in H.R. 11102. I again call upon the Congress 
    to join me in holding down Government spending to avoid a large 
    budget deficit in fiscal year 1971.
                                                      Richard Nixon.

        The White House, June 22, 1970.

        The Speaker: (4) The objections of the President 
    will be spread at large upon the Journal and the message and bill 
    will be printed as a House document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move that further consideration of the veto message of the 
    President be postponed until Thursday, June 25, 1970.
        Mr. Speaker, the reason I ask for this postponement is to serve 
    notice on all Members of the House and to give everyone an 
    opportunity to study the

[[Page 4546]]

    veto message and to participate in what I think is a highly 
    important matter.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
        The previous question was ordered.

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The motion was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Postponement of Resolution of Disapproval

Sec. 6.3 A resolution disapproving a President's alternative pay plan 
    is subject to a motion in the House to postpone consideration 
    thereof.

    Parliamentarian's Note: 5 USC Sec. 5305(j) makes in order motions 
to postpone consideration of such disapproval resolutions, either to a 
day certain or indefinitely. A motion to postpone would be in order 
either (1) pending the initial motion to consider the disapproval 
resolution; (2) upon adoption of a motion that the Committee of the 
Whole rise; or (3) after the Committee had risen and reported the 
resolution back to the House.

Postponement of Motion to Discharge

Sec. 6.4 When a motion to discharge a committee under Rule XXVII clause 
    4 is called up a motion to postpone consideration thereof to a day 
    certain is not in order.

    On Dec. 18, 1937,(5) the House was considering the 
petitions on the Discharge Calendar. The following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 82 Cong. Rec. 1847, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel B.] Pettengill [of Indiana]: Assuming that the 
    gentleman from Indiana, or some other signer of the petition, were 
    to call it up, would a motion to postpone to a day certain, being a 
    second or fourth Monday, be in order?
        The Speaker: (6) Under the rules, it would not. The 
    Chair directs the attention of the gentleman from Indiana to the 
    discharge rule which clearly sets out that no intervening motion 
    may take place except one motion to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                         B. MOTIONS TO POSTPONE
 
Sec. 7. Postponement to a Day Certain

Postponement of Veto Messages to a Day Certain

Sec. 7.1 The debatable motion to postpone further consideration of a 
    veto message to a day certain is privileged and takes precedence 
    over the pending question of passing the bill notwithstanding the 
    objections of the President.

[[Page 4547]]

    On Jan. 27, 1970,(7) the House was considering the veto 
message on H.R. 13111, the Labor and HEW appropriations for fiscal 
1970. The following then took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 1367, 1368, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The objections of the 
    President will be spread at large upon the Journal, and the message 
    and bill will be printed as a House document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is: Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the 
    bill H.R. 13111, the objections of the President to the contrary 
    notwithstanding?
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Mahon).

                        Motion Offered by Mr. Mahon

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    further consideration of the veto message from the President be 
    postponed until tomorrow.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) 
    is recognized on his motion.

Sec. 7.2 A Member offering a motion to postpone further consideration 
    of a veto message to a day certain may seek recognition to move the 
    previous question thereon.

    On June 23, 1970,(9) the House was considering the veto 
message on H.R. 11102, the medical facilities construction and 
modernization amendments of 1970, when a motion to postpone was 
offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 20877, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (10) The objections of the President 
    will be spread at large upon the Journal and the message and bill 
    will be printed as a House document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move that further consideration of the veto message of the 
    President be postponed until Thursday, June 25, 1970.
        Mr. Speaker, the reason I ask for this postponement is to serve 
    notice on all Members of the House and to give everyone an 
    opportunity to study the veto message and to participate in what I 
    think is a highly important matter.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 7.3 A veto message postponed to a day certain is the unfinished 
    business on that day.

    On Apr. 14, 1948,(11) the House resumed consideration of 
the veto message on H.R. 5052, dealing with the Social Security Act and 
the Internal Revenue Code. The
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4548]]

proper order of business was announced by the Speaker:

        The Speaker: (12) The Chair wishes to state the 
    order of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The unfinished business is the further consideration of the 
    veto message of the President of the United States on the bill 
    (H.R. 5052) to exclude certain vendors of newspapers or magazines 
    from certain provisions of the Social Security Act and the Internal 
    Revenue Code.

    The Speaker also indicated that when a veto message postponed to a 
day certain is announced as the unfinished business on that day, no 
motion is required from the floor for the consideration of such veto; 
the question ``Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, the 
objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding'' is the 
pending business: (13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 94 Cong. Rec. 4427, 4428, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House, on 
    reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to 
    the contrary notwithstanding? . . .
        The Speaker: The gentleman from California [Mr. Gearhart] is 
    recognized.
        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Bertrand W.] Gearhart: I yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Eberharter: Has the gentleman made a motion to call up the 
    bill?
        Mr. Gearhart: The Parliamentarian advises me that is not 
    necessary. The Speaker has already stated the issue.

        Mr. Eberharter: I just wanted the record to be certain. I did 
    not hear the gentleman make a motion to call up the bill.
        Mr. Gearhart: I believe the gentleman's question has already 
    been answered.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    gentleman will yield, the bill is before the House now 
    automatically.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Gearhart: Gladly.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that he has already put the 
    question, but he will repeat it if the gentleman desires.
        Mr. Eberharter: No. I just want to have the record straight.
        The Speaker: The veto message was originally read on April 6, 
    and the request of the gentleman from California was that it be 
    reread for the information of the House. Previous to that request 
    the Chair had stated that the question before the House was, Will 
    the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the 
    President to the contrary notwithstanding?
        The gentleman will proceed.



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                         B. MOTIONS TO POSTPONE
 
Sec. 8. Postponement for Indefinite Period

[[Page 4549]]

Rescinding Action of Both Houses

Sec. 8.1 The action of the two Houses in connection with the passage of 
    a private bill was rescinded by a concurrent resolution setting 
    forth such rescission and providing that the bill be postponed 
    indefinitely.

    On Feb. 7, 1952,(14) the House agreed to a Senate 
concurrent resolution rescinding the action of the two Houses on the 
bill S. 1236 for the relief of Kim Song Nore in view of the fact that 
the individual named in the bill had died.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 98 Cong. Rec. 934, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of Senate 
    Concurrent Resolution 60, indefinitely postponing Senate bill 1236, 
    for the relief of Kim Song Nore.
        The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:

            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That the action of the two Houses in connection 
        with the passage of the bill (S. 1236) for the relief of Kim 
        Song Nore be rescinded, and that the said bill be postponed 
        indefinitely.

        The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Senate concurrent resolution was concurred in.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The effect of a motion to postpone 
indefinitely is to finally dispose of the pending matter adversely. It 
is different from merely refusing to consider a matter at a particular 
time. The motion is not amendable, but the motion to postpone to a day 
certain takes precedence.



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                     C. MOTIONS TO LAY ON THE TABLE
 
Sec. 9. In General; Application and Effect


    The motion to lay on the table, also referred to as the motion to 
table, is used by the House to reach a final adverse disposition of a 
proposition.(16) The motion is not in order in the Committee 
of the Whole.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. Sec. 9.1 et seq., infra.
17. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2330, 2556a, 3455; and 4 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 4719, 4720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to lay on the table is of high privilege, but yields to 
a

[[Page 4550]]

motion to adjourn.(18) The motion may not be made after the 
previous question has been ordered,(19) but is in order 
where the previous question has been moved. It may not be applied to a 
demand for the previous question (20) nor to motions to 
suspend the rules.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1981).
19. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2655; 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5415-5422.
20. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5410, 5411.
 1. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5405, 5406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion may not be applied to motions to recommit,(2) 
motions to go into the Committee of the Whole,(3) nor to any 
motion relating to the order of business.(4) It is generally 
not in order on motions which are neither debatable nor 
amendable.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2655; and 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5412-5414.
 3. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 726.
 4. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5403, 5404.
 5. Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 785 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most matters laid on the table may be taken therefrom only by 
unanimous consent (6) or by a motion to suspend the 
rules.(7) However, questions of privilege laid on the table 
may be taken from the table on a motion agreed to by the House 
(8) as may vetoed bills.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 13.1, 13.2, infra.
 7. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6288.
 8. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5438.
 9. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3550; and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec.  5439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a proposed amendment is laid on the table the pending bill 
also goes to the table.(10) The result is the same when a 
Senate amendment to a House bill is laid on the table.(11) 
However, where one motion to dispose of a Senate amendment (with an 
amendment) is tabled, the bill and all Senate amendments do not 
automatically go to the table, as other motions remain available to 
dispose of that Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2656; and 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5423.
11. 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. 5424.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect on Pending Measure

Sec. 9.1 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated 
    that adoption of a motion to lay a resolution on the table would 
    result in the final adverse disposition of the resolution.

    On Dec. 14, 1970,(12) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1306, asserting the privileges of the House relative to the 
printing and publishing of a report of the Committee on Internal 
Security. Mr. Louis Stokes, of Ohio, offered a motion to table the 
resolution. The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 41372, 41373, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert W.] Watson [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 4551]]

        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, if the motion to table prevails, there 
    can be no further consideration at all of this matter. Is that not 
    correct? Does it not apply the clincher?
        The Speaker: If the motion to table is agreed to, then the 
    resolution is tabled.
        Mr. Watson: Then that ends it. All right.

Effect on Debate

Sec. 9.2 The motion to lay on the table may deprive a Member of 
    recognition for debate on a resolution he has offered.

    On Jan. 17, 1933,(14) Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of 
Pennsylvania, offered a resolution of impeachment against President 
Herbert Hoover. The following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 76 Cong. Rec. 1968, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McFadden: During the opening I addressed the Speaker to 
    ascertain whether or not I would be protected in one hour time for 
    debate. I am prepared to debate. I understand a certain motion will 
    be made which will deprive me of that right.
        The Speaker: (15) The Chair can not control 434 
    Members of the House in the motions they will make. The Chair must 
    recognize them and interpret the rules as they are written. That is 
    what the Chair intends to do. The gentleman from Pennsylvania would 
    have an opportunity to discuss this matter for an hour under the 
    rules of the House, if some gentleman did not take him off his feet 
    by a proper motion. [Applause.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McFadden: That is what I was attempting to ascertain.
        The Clerk concluded the reading of the resolution.
        Mr. [Henry T.] Rainey [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay 
    the resolution of impeachment on the table.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois moves to lay the 
    resolution of impeachment on the table.
        May the Chair be permitted to make a statement with reference 
    to the rules applying to that motion. The parliamentarian has 
    examined the precedents with reference to the motion. Speaker Clark 
    and Speaker Gillette, under identical conditions, held that a 
    motion to lay on the table took a Member off the floor of the 
    House, although the general rules granted him one hour in which to 
    discuss the resolution of impeachment or privileges of the House. 
    Therefore the motion is in order.

Application of Motion to Appeal

Sec. 9.3 An appeal from a decision of the Speaker may be laid on the 
    table.

    On Aug. 13, 1937,(16) the House was considering the 
election contest of Roy v Jenks. After the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 8845, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4552]]

Speaker (17) overruled a point of order against the 
privileged report filed by the elections committee, the following took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    respectfully appeal from the decision of the Chair.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York appeals from the 
    decision of the Chair.
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the 
    appeal on the table.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Texas to lay the appeal on the table.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Snell) there were--ayes 212, noes 63.

Sec. 9.4 When an appeal from a decision of the Chair is tabled, the 
    effect of such action sustains the decision of the Chair.

    On May 25, 1944,(18) the House was considering H.R. 
4879, making appropriations for war agencies for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1945. In response to a parliamentary inquiry the Speaker 
(19) ruled that points of order against the bill had been 
waived by unanimous consent two days previously. The following then 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 90 Cong. Rec. 4990-92, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case [of South Dakota]: Mr. Speaker, in view 
    of the importance of this as a matter of setting a precedent, I 
    respectfully appeal from the decision of the Chair and ask for 
    recognition. . . .
        The question involved is whether or not you want the Speaker to 
    recognize Members to ask for the consideration of appropriation 
    bills with points of order waived and let that recognition come at 
    any time regardless of whether or not the bill has been reported to 
    the House.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the appeal be laid on the table.
        The Speaker: The motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
    preferential.
        The question was taken; and the Chair being in doubt, the House 
    divided; and there were--ayes 175, noes 54. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts is agreed to and the decision of the Chair sustained. 
    . . .

                           Parliamentary Inquiry

        Mr. Case: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case: Mr. Speaker, did I understand the Speaker to state 
    that the decision of the Chair was sustained or that the appeal was 
    laid on the table? The effect is perhaps the same.
        The Speaker: The motion to lay the appeal on the table was 
    agreed to. The ruling of the Chair was thereby sustained.

[[Page 4553]]

        Mr. Case: The Chair holds that the two things were involved in 
    laying the appeal on the table?
        The Speaker: They were in the disposition of the appeal.

Rejection of Motion to Table as Affecting Vetoed Bill

Sec. 9.5 The Speaker declined to construe a ``no'' vote on a motion to 
    table as being ``tantamount to overriding the President's veto.''

    On Sept. 7, 1965,(20) Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, 
offered a motion to discharge the Committee on Armed Forces from 
further consideration of the bill H.R. 8439, for military construction, 
which had been vetoed by the President, and to have that bill 
considered in the House. Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, moved 
to lay that motion on the table. Mr. Hall then rose with a 
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 22958, 22959, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, would a ``no'' vote as just stated by 
    the Chair be tantamount to overriding the Presidential veto of the 
    military construction bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot make such 
    construction on a motion. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 323, nays 19, not 
    voting 90. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to.

Debate on Motions to Table

Sec. 9.6 The motion to lay on the table is not debatable.

    On Dec. 9, 1971,(2) the House approved House Resolution 
729, providing for consideration of conference reports the same day 
reported during the first session of the 92d Congress. Mr. Fletcher 
Thompson, of Georgia, then moved to reconsider the vote by which the 
resolution was agreed to. Mr. William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, then 
offered a motion to table that motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 45875, 45876, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay that motion on the 
    table.
        The Speaker: (3) The question is on the motion to 
    table, offered by the gentleman from Mississippi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.

                           Parliamentary Inquiry

        Mr. Thompson of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. 
    According to rule XVIII, section 819, debate on the motion to 
    reconsider:
        A motion to reconsider is debatable only if the motion proposed 
    to be reconsidered was debatable.

[[Page 4554]]

        The motion was debatable.
        The Speaker: The House is not voting on the motion to 
    reconsider. It is voting on the motion to table. That motion is not 
    debatable.

Tabling of Motion to Instruct Conferees

Sec. 9.7 A motion to instruct conferees is subject to a motion to 
    table.

    On Aug. 8, 1961,(4) the House was considering H.R. 7576, 
authorizing appropriations for the Atomic Energy Commission. After Mr. 
James E. Van Zandt, of Pennsylvania, had offered a motion to instruct 
the managers on the part of the House at the conference, and after one 
hour debate thereon, a motion to table was offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 107 Cong. Rec. 14949, 14957, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Van Zandt: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Van Zandt moves 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. 7576 be instructed not to agree to 
        project 62-a-6, electric energy generating facilities for the 
        new production reactor, Hanford, Wash., $95 million as 
        contained in the Senate amendment. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Van Zandt].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the motion to instruct conferees be laid on the table.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Under the rules of the House, is this motion to 
    table in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The motion is in order. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 164, nays 235, not 
    voting 38.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 31202-04, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 23, 
        1969; and 96 Cong. Rec. 2501-16, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 28, 
        1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.8 The House has adopted the preferential motion to lay on the 
    table a motion to instruct House conferees.

    On Dec. 8, 1970,(7) the House was considering H.R. 
17755, the Department of Transportation Appropriation Act for fiscal 
1971. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 40271, 40288, 40289, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves 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. 17755 be instructed to agree to Senate amendment 
        No. 4. . . .

        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a privileged motion.

[[Page 4555]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Boland moves to lay on the table the motion offered by 
        the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates).

        The Speaker: (8) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 213, nays 175, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 45. . . .
        So the motion to table was agreed to.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 29315, 29316, 31202-04, 91st Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Oct. 23, 1969; and 96 Cong. Rec. 2501-16, 81st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Feb. 28, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.9 The House rejected a preferential motion to lay on the table a 
    motion to instruct the House managers at a conference.

    On Dec. 18, 1969,(10) the House was considering H.R. 
13111, dealing with appropriations for the Department of Labor and HEW 
for fiscal 1970. After Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, offered a 
motion to instruct the House conferees to agree to two Senate 
amendments, Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, rose to his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 39826-30, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Flood moves to lay on the table the motion of the 
        gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).

        The Speaker: (11) The question is on the 
    preferential motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 181, nays 216, not 
    voting 36. . . .
        So the preferential motion was rejected.

    Since Mr. Conte had informally conducted debate on his motion prior 
to formally offering it, the question was at this point taken thereon, 
and the motion adopted.

Tabling of Resolution to Adjourn Sine Die

Sec. 9.10 A motion to lay on the table a concurrent resolution 
    providing for adjournment sine die is in order.

    On Mar. 27, 1936,(12) Mr. Maury Maverick, of Texas, 
offered a concurrent resolution providing that the two Houses adjourn 
sine die. Mr. William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, then rose to his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 80 Cong. Rec. 4512, 4513, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bankhead: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution on the 
    table.
        The Speaker: (13) The question is on the motion to 
    lay the resolution on the table. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion to lay the resolution on the table was agreed to, 
    and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution providing for adjourn

[[Page 4556]]

ment though not debatable is subject to amendment.

Tabling of Motion to Approve the Journal

Sec. 9.11 A motion to lay on the table a motion to approve the Journal 
    is in order, and takes precedence over the motion for the previous 
    question.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(14) after the Clerk concluded the 
reading of the Journal, a motion was made that it be approved as read:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 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: (15) The Chair will state that the 
    motion to lay on the table is in order, but the amendment is not in 
    order. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the motion to lay on the table the motion 
    that the Journal be approved as read.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 138, nays 244, not 
    voting 50.

Tabling of Motion to Rerefer a Bill

Sec. 9.12 A motion to rerefer a bill to a committee claiming 
    jurisdiction has been laid on the table.

    On Apr. 21, 1942,(16) Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York, 
moved that the bill H.R. 6915, be rereferred from the Committee on the 
Judiciary to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. After the 
Speaker overruled several points of order against the motion by Mr. 
Dickstein the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 88 Cong. Rec. 3571, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Then, Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to lay on the table the motion of the gentleman from New York.
        The Speaker: (17) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Mississippi. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 238, nays 83, 
    answered ``present'' 2, not voting 108.

Tabling of Consent Calendar Bill

Sec. 9.13 A bill called on the Consent Calendar was, by unanimous 
    consent, laid on the table.

    On Dec. 17, 1963,(18) the Clerk of the House had just 
called House Joint Resolution 838, relating to the commission 
established
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 24788, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4557]]

to report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The 
resolution authorized the commission to compel the attendance of 
witnesses and the production of records. Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New 
York, then rose to his feet:

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, an identical bill having passed the 
    House, I ask unanimous consent that House Joint Resolution 852 be 
    tabled.
        The Speaker: (19) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Tabling of Resolution of Impeachment

Sec. 9.14 The motion to lay on the table applies to resolutions 
    proposing impeachment.

    On Jan. 17, 1933,(20) Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of 
Pennsylvania, offered a resolution proposing the impeachment of 
President Herbert Hoover. After the Clerk concluded reading the 
resolution Mr. Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, rose to his feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 76 Cong. Rec. 1965-68, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rainey: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the resolution of 
    impeachment on the table.
        The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from Illinois moves 
    to lay the resolution of impeachment on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        May the Chair be permitted to make a statement with reference 
    to the rules applying to that motion. The parliamentarian has 
    examined the precedents with reference to the motion. Speaker Clark 
    and Speaker Gillette, under identical conditions, held that a 
    motion to lay on the table took a Member off the floor of the 
    House, although the general rules granted him one hour in which to 
    discuss the resolution of impeachment or privileges of the House. 
    Therefore the motion is in order.

Tabling of Motion to Discharge a Committee

Sec. 9.15 A motion to discharge a committee from consideration of a 
    vetoed bill is subject to the motion to table.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. But see Sec. 9.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Sept. 7, 1965,(3) the Chair recognized Mr. Durward G. 
Hall, from Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 22958, 22959, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the highest 
    privilege of the House, based directly on the Constitution and 
    precedents, and offer a motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The Clerk will report 
    the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Motion by Mr. Hall:
            Resolved, That the Committee on Armed Services be 
        discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 8439, 
        for military construction, with

[[Page 4558]]

        the President's veto thereon, and that the same be now 
        considered.

        Mr. [L. Mendel] Rivers [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to lay that motion on the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion of the 
    gentleman from South Carolina. . . .
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it. . . .
        Mr. Hall: Is a highly privileged motion according to the 
    Constitution subject to a motion to table?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 323, nays 19, not 
    voting 90.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The general rule (stated in Sec. 9.16, 
infra) is that motions to discharge committees are not subject to a 
motion to table. Rule XXVII clause 4,(5) which authorizes 
motions to discharge committees from consideration of ``public bills 
and resolutions'' provides, inter alia, that such motions be decided 
without intervening motion except one motion to adjourn, and thereby 
precludes motions to lay on the table. However, this rule does not 
apply to vetoed bills where the motion to discharge is based on the 
constitutional privilege accorded the consideration of a veto. 
Therefore, the prohibition against intervening motions on motions to 
discharge committees does not apply when a motion to discharge is made 
under another rule of the House or provision of law not governed by 
rule XXVII clause 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.16 The motion to lay on the table a motion to discharge a 
    committee under rule XXVII clause 4 is not in order.

    On June 11, 1945,(6) a Member sought to obtain 
consideration of H.R. 7, a bill to outlaw the poll tax, by calling up a 
motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration 
of a resolution providing for consideration of that bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892-96, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further 
    consideration of House Resolution 139, providing for the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) making unlawful the requirement 
    for the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in a 
    primary or other election for national officers.

    After the Clerk read the resolution, the following occurred:

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the motion be laid on the table.
        The Speaker: (7) That motion is not in order under 
    the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4559]]

Tabling of Resolution of Inquiry

Sec. 9.17 The motion to lay on the table may be applied to a resolution 
    of inquiry adversely reported from a committee.

    On Aug. 16, 1972,(8) Mr. Charles M. Price, of Illinois, 
called up House Resolutions 1078 and 1079, directing the Secretary of 
Defense to furnish certain information to the House of Representatives:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 28365, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Price of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that 
    this resolution was adversely reported by the House Committee on 
    Armed Services by a rollcall vote of 27 to 5, I move to lay House 
    Resolution 1078 on the table.
        The Speaker: (9) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinios (Mr. Price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion to table was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. Price of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 
    1079 and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution. . . .
        Mr. Price of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that 
    this resolution was ordered adversely reported to the House on a 
    vote of 31 to 1 by the House Armed Services Committee I move to lay 
    House Resolution 1079 on the table.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price).
        The motion to table was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider the votes by which action was taken on 
    both motions to table was laid on the table.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 6383-85, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 6, 1973; 
        117 Cong. Rec. 34266, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 30, 1971; 117 
        Cong. Rec. 23030, 23031, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., June 30, 1971; 
        and 111 Cong. Rec. 24030, 24033, 24034, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Sept. 16, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.18 A resolution of inquiry was, by unanimous consent, discharged 
    from the Committee on the Judiciary and laid on the table at the 
    request of its sponsor.

    On Oct. 23, 1973, Mr. Paul N. McCloskey, of California, introduced 
House Resolution 634, a privileged resolution of inquiry, requesting 
the Attorney General to furnish the House with all documents and items 
of evidence in the custody of the Watergate Special Prosecutor as of 
Oct. 20 of that year.
    On Nov. 1, 1973,(11) after the Attorney General had 
turned over the documents in question to a federal court, Mr. McCloskey 
took the following action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 35644, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCloskey: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from the further 
    consideration of

[[Page 4560]]

    House Resolution 634 and that the resolution be laid upon the 
    table.
        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 9.19 The House has rejected a motion to lay on the table an 
    adversely reported resolution of inquiry, and after debate, agreed 
    to the resolution.

    On Feb. 20, 1952,(13) Mr. James P. Richards, of South 
Carolina, offered a privileged resolution, House Resolution 514, 
directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House information 
relating to agreements made between the President of the United States 
and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. After the Clerk read the 
resolution and the adverse report thereon by the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 98 Cong. Rec. 1205-07, 1215, 1216, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Richards: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be laid 
    on the table.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of very considerable 
    importance. Does the making of this motion at this time preclude 
    all debate, or may we expect that the chairman of the Committee on 
    Foreign Affairs will yield time to those who may want to discuss 
    this matter?
        The Speaker: The motion to lay on the table is not debatable. 
    The gentleman from South Carolina cannot yield time after he has 
    made a motion to lay on the table. . . .
         The question is on the motion of the gentleman from South 
    Carolina. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 150, nays 184, not 
    voting 97. . . .
        So the motion was rejected.

    Debate ensued on the resolution and the proceedings were resolved 
as follows:

        Mr. [John M.] Vorys [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question.
        The previous question was ordered. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 189, nays 143, not 
    voting 99, as follows. . . .
        So the resolution was agreed to.

Raising Question of Consideration

Sec. 9.20 Parliamentarian's Note: The question of consideration may be 
    raised after a motion to lay on the table has been 
    made.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tabling of Resolution From Rules Committee

Sec. 9.21 In response to a parliamentary inquiry the

[[Page 4561]]

    Speaker advised that if the previous question on a privileged 
    resolution reported by the Committee on Rules was voted down, a 
    motion to table would be in order and would be preferential.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(16) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1013, establishing a Select Committee on Standards and 
Conduct, when a series of parliamentary inquiries were raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, if the previous 
    question is refused, it is 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, is it 
    not equally so that a motion to table would then be in order?
        The Speaker: At that particular point, that would be a 
    preferential motion.

Sec. 9.22 After defeating the motion for the previous question on a 
    resolution establishing a select investigative committee reported 
    by the Committee on Rules, the House then voted to table the 
    resolution.

    On Mar. 11, 1941,(18) the House was considering House 
Resolution 120, providing for an investigation of the national military 
defense capability. Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, offered an amendment 
to the resolution and moved the previous question on the amendment and 
the resolution. The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 87 Cong. Rec. 2189, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew J.] May [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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.  . . .
        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.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 3291-301, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 8, 
        1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4562]]

Sec. 9.23 A resolution reported by the Committee on Rules providing a 
    special order of business was, after debate, laid on the table.

    On June 15, 1938,(2) the House was considering House 
Resolution 526, providing for the consideration of a joint resolution 
to establish a Bureau of Fine Arts in the Department of the Interior. 
After debate, the previous question was rejected and the following 
transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 83 Cong. Rec. 9499, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    resolution be tabled.
        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I do not 
    yield to the gentleman from Georgia for that purpose unless the 
    same order is entered with reference to my retaining the floor in 
    the event the motion is defeated.
        The Speaker: (3) Unless there is objection the Chair 
    will consider that the same order shall prevail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia moves that the 
    resolution be laid on the table.
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Boileau) there were--ayes 195, noes 35.
        So the motion was agreed to.

Sec. 9.24 A resolution reported by the Committee on Rules has been laid 
    on the table by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 2, 1963,(4) the House was considering House 
Resolution 514, concerning a trip to be made by members of the 
Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, was 
recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 109 Cong. Rec. 18583, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules 
    reported House Resolution 514 concerning a trip to be made by 
    members of the Committee on Agriculture. The matter did not get 
    through until after the trip was over. It is now on the Calendar. I 
    ask unanimous consent that House Resolution 514 be laid on the 
    table.
        The Speaker: (5) Without objection, it is so 
    ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Tabling of Resolution Relating to the Privileges of the House

Sec. 9.25 A resolution raising a question of the privileges of the 
    House has been laid on the table.

    On June 20, 1968,(6) the House was considering the 
conference report on H.R. 15414, the Revenue and Expenditure Control 
Act of 1968, when Mr. H.R. Gross, of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 114 Cong. Rec. 17970-72, 17977, 17978, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4563]]

Iowa, rose to a question of privilege of the House, and offered a 
resolution (H. Res. 1222) which contended that the Senate in its 
amendments to the House bill had contravened the Constitution and had 
infringed on the privileges of the House. After the debate on the 
resolution had concluded the following occurred:

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        Mr. [Wilbur D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay 
    the resolution offered by the gentleman from Iowa on the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion is to lay the resolution on the table.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 257, nays 162, not 
    voting 14, as follows. . . .
        So the motion to table the resolution was agreed to.

Tabling a Motion to Dispense With Further Proceedings Under a Call

Sec. 9.26 A motion to lay on the table a motion to dispense with 
    further proceedings under a call of the House is not in order since 
    a motion to table may not be applied to a motion which is neither 
    debatable nor amendable.

    On Dec. 18, 1970,(8) the following occurred after a 
rollcall in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 42504, 42505, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) On this rollcall 312 Members have 
    answered to their names, a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, further proceeding under the call will be 
    dispensed with.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object to 
    dispensing with further proceedings under the call.

                        motion offered by mr. albert

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    dispense with further proceedings under the call.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    table that motion.
        The Speaker: The motion to dispense with further proceedings 
    under the call is not debatable and is not amendable. The Chair 
    rules that the motion of the gentleman from Missouri is not in 
    order. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 26453, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 11, 1968; 
        and 111 Cong. Rec. 23596-98, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 
        1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4564]]

Tabling of Motions Relating to the Order of Business

Sec. 9.27 The motion to lay on the table may not be applied to a motion 
    relating to the order of business.

    On Apr. 22, 1940,(11) the following took place on the 
floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 86 Cong. Rec. 4860, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8980) to 
    provide revenue for the District of Columbia, and for other 
    purposes; and, pending that, I ask unanimous consent that general 
    debate on the bill be limited to 1 hour, one-half to be controlled 
    by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Dirksen] and one-half by 
    myself.
        Mr. [John C.] Schafer [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    preferential motion. I move to lay the pending motion on the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12)) The Chair may say to 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin that his motion is not in order. It 
    applies to the order of business and is not in order at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.28 A resolution providing a special order of business, before 
    the House under operation of the discharge rule, is not subject to 
    the motion to table, since the discharge rule provides that ``if 
    the motion prevails to discharge the Committee on Rules from any 
    resolution pending before the committee, the House shall 
    immediately vote on the adoption of said resolution, the Speaker 
    not entertaining any dilatory or other intervening motion except 
    one motion to adjourn.''

    On June 11, 1945,(13) the House voted to discharge the 
Committee on Rules from further consideration of House Resolution 139, 
providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 7, which sought to 
eliminate the payment of the poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in a 
primary or other election for a national officer. The Speaker, Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, announced that the question was on the resolution. 
At that point, Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, rose with a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 91 Cong. Rec. 5895, 5896, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Does that mean that this is the end, that this is 
    the last vote on the resolution?
        The Speaker: The last vote today. If the resolution is agreed 
    to, the bill

[[Page 4565]]

    comes up tomorrow under the terms of the resolution.
        Mr. Rankin: I thought the other vote was the only vote to be 
    taken today.
        The Speaker: The other vote was on the question of discharging 
    the Committee on Rules. This vote is on the resolution to make the 
    bill in order.
        Mr. Rankin: I move to lay that motion on the table.
        The Speaker: Under the rule, that motion is not in order.
        The question is on the resolution.

        The question was taken and the Chair announced that the ayes 
    seemed to have it.

Application of Motion in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 9.29 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair stated that 
    a motion to table a pending amendment and all amendments thereto 
    was not in order in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 30, 1970,(14) Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New 
York, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 13782, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Daniel D. Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Would it be in order to move at this time that 
    the Reid of New York amendment and all amendments thereto be tabled 
    so that this matter of grave consequence might be considered at 
    another time?
        The Chairman: A motion to table is not in order at this 
    time.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 72 Cong. Rec. 8959, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., May 14, 1930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.30 The motion to lay on the table is not in order in Committee 
    of the Whole.

    On Oct. 19, 1945,(17) the House was considering H.R. 
4407, to reduce appropriations and contract authorizations for certain 
departments and agencies. Mr. Emmet O'Neal, of Kentucky, made a point 
of order against an amendment offered by Mr. John E. Rankin, of 
Mississippi, on the grounds that the amendment was not germane to the 
bill. After the Chairman, Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, sustained the 
point of order, the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 91 Cong. Rec. 9846, 9867-70, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, with all the deference in the world 
    for the distinguished Chairman, whom we all love, I respectfully 
    appeal from the ruling of the Chair.
        Mr. O'Neal: Mr. Chairman, I move to lay the appeal on the 
    table.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, the appeal cannot be laid on the 
    table. The Committee has a right to vote on it.
        The Chairman. The motion to lay on the table is not in order in 
    the Committee.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 81 Cong. Rec. 7698-700, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 
        1937.

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

[[Page 4566]]

Senate Debate on Motion

Sec. 9.31 In the Senate, the motion to lay an appeal on the table is 
    not debatable.

    On Aug. 2, 1948,(19) 22 Senators signed a cloture 
petition against a motion to take up the bill H.R. 29, the anti-poll 
tax bill. Senator Richard B. Russell, of Georgia, submitted a point of 
order against the cloture petition on the grounds that the Senate rules 
prohibited the use of the cloture petition against a motion to take up 
a bill. The President pro tempore, Arthur H. Vandenberg, of Michigan, 
sustained the point of order, although he stated that his personal 
feelings were at variance therewith, and he invited the Senate to 
appeal his ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 94 Cong. Rec. 9598-605, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Taft [of Ohio]: Mr. President, I appeal from 
    the decision of the Chair chiefly, of course, because it leaves the 
    Senate in an almost impossible situation. A motion to take up is 
    subject to debate and against it under the Chair's decision, a 
    cloture petition cannot lie. Consequently there is no way by which 
    this situation can be changed, except by physical exhaustion, by 
    keeping the Senate in session day in and day out, which I hope will 
    not be necessary, although we shall have to get to it next year 
    unless this proposed change is made. . . .
        The President Pro Tempore: The Senator from Ohio has appealed 
    from the decision of the Chair. Therefore, the pending question 
    before the Senate is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the 
    decision of the Senate? . . .
        Mr. [Kenneth S.] Wherry [of Nebraska]: Mr. President, I 
    propound the following inquiry: If a motion is made to lay the 
    appeal on the table, is that motion subject to debate?
        The President Pro Tempore: No motion to table is ever subject 
    to debate.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See also 95 Cong. Rec. 2273-75. 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 11, 
        1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                     C. MOTIONS TO LAY ON THE TABLE
 
Sec. 10 Offering Motion

Demand That Motion Be in Writing

Sec. 10.1 A demand that the motion to lay on the table a motion to 
    instruct conferees be in writing comes too late after the motion 
    has been stated and the Chair has responded to several 
    parliamentary inquiries.

    On Aug. 8, 1961,(1) after the House had agreed to send 
to conference H.R. 7576, authorizing appropriations for the Atomic 
Energy Commission, Mr. James E. Van Zandt, of Pennsylvania, offered a 
motion to instruct the House conferees. After one hour of debate on 
this motion, the following occurred (with Carl Albert,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 107 Cong. Rec. 14949-58, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4567]]

 of Oklahoma, as the Speaker pro tempore):

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Van Zandt].
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the motion to instruct conferees be laid on the table.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Under the rules of the House, is this motion to 
    table in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The motion is in order.
        Mr. Halleck: If the motion to table is voted down, will the 
    vote then come on the motion itself?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: On ordering the previous question on 
    the motion. . . .
        Mr. [Chet] Holifield [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Holifield: Mr. Speaker, a yea vote on this motion would 
    dispose of this matter and defeat the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Van Zandt]?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would have that effect.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, a vote against tabling the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania would give us the right 
    then to vote on the motion which has been offered by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has properly stated the 
    situation.
        Mr. Van Zandt: Mr. Speaker, is it not a rule of the House that 
    a motion must be at the Clerk's desk in writing?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It must be submitted in writing if a 
    Member at the time insists, but such a demand is not in order at 
    this time. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 164, nays 235, not 
    voting 38.


 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                     C. MOTIONS TO LAY ON THE TABLE
 
Sec. 11. When in Order

Offering Motion to Table Prior to Debate

Sec. 11.1 The motion to lay a resolution on the table may be made when 
    the resolution is under consideration but before the Member 
    entitled to recognition on the resolution has obtained the floor 
    for debate.

    On Jan. 17, 1933,(2) Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of 
Pennsylvania, offered a resolution proposing an investigation into the 
possible impeachment of President Herbert Hoover. After the reading of 
the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 76 Cong. Rec. 1965-68, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4568]]

resolution had been interrupted by several parliamentary inquiries, and 
after Mr. McFadden had sought to determine whether his hour's time for 
debate would be protected, the following occurred:

        The Clerk concluded the reading of the resolution.
        Mr. [Henry T.] Rainey [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay 
    the resolution of impeachment on the table.
        The Speaker: (3) The gentleman from Illinois moves 
    to lay the resolution of impeachment on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        May the Chair be permitted to make a statement with reference 
    to the rules applying to that motion. The parliamentarian has 
    examined the precedents with reference to the motion. Speaker Clark 
    and Speaker Gillette, under identical conditions, held that a 
    motion to lay on the table took a Member off the floor of the 
    House, although the general rules granted him one hour in which to 
    discuss the resolution of impeachment or privileges of the House. 
    Therefore the motion is in order.

Sec. 11.2 A motion to table is a preferential motion, and is in order 
    before a Member begins debate on a motion to expunge from the 
    Record words ruled out of order.

    On June 16, 1947,(4) Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
demanded that certain words read from a telegram by Mr. Chet Holifield, 
of California, be taken down. After the Speaker ruled the words out of 
order as being unparliamentary, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 93 Cong. Rec. 7065, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the entire statement 
    from the Record, and on that I ask for recognition.
        Mr. [Vito]) Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    lay that motion on the table.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I have already been recognized.
        The Speaker: (5) A motion to table is preferential 
    and not debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is upon the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Marcantonio] that the motion be tabled. . . .
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Marcantonio) there were--ayes 10, noes 147.
        So the motion to table was rejected.

Application to Resolution Disapproving Reorganization Plan

Sec. 11.3 A motion to proceed to the consideration of a resolution 
    disapproving a reorganization plan is not subject to the motion to 
    table.

    On June 8, 1961,(6) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, had moved 
that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 9775-77, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4569]]

the state of the Union for the consideration of House Resolution 303, 
disapproving a reorganization plan transmitted to the Congress by the 
President. Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, rose to his feet with a 
parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Oren Harris (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, is a motion to lay this 
    motion on the table in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It would not be in order at this time.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Iowa [Mr. Gross].
        The motion was rejected.



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                     C. MOTIONS TO LAY ON THE TABLE
 
Sec. 12. As Related to Other Motions; Precedence

As Related to the Previous Question

Sec. 12.1 The motion to lay on the table takes precedence over the 
    motion for the previous question; pending the demand for the 
    previous question the motion to lay on the table is preferential 
    and in order.

    On Dec. 14, 1970,(8) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1306, asserting the privileges of the House relating to 
printing and publishing of a report of the Committee on Internal 
Security. The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 41372-74, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman from Missouri moves 
    the previous question on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Stokes

        Mr. [Louis] Stokes [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Stokes moves to lay the resolution on the table.

                           Parliamentary Inquiry

        Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ichord: This is a preferential motion to lay the previous 
    question on the table. What would be the parliamentary situation if 
    the previous question is laid on the table? This is not the 
    adoption of the resolution, but a motion with respect to the 
    previous question.
        The Speaker: If the motion to lay the resolution on the table 
    is not agreed to, then the question would be on ordering the 
    previous question. Then the next vote would be on the adoption of 
    the resolution.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Stokes) to lay the resolution on the table. . . .

[[Page 4570]]

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 55, nays 301, not 
    voting 77. . . .
        So the motion to table was rejected. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        Mr. Ichord: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 302, nays 54, not 
    voting 77.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 23600, 23601, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 
        13, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.2 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised 
    that if the previous question on a privileged resolution reported 
    by the Committee on Rules was voted down, a motion to table would 
    be in order and would be preferential.

    On Oct. 19, 1960,(11) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1013, establishing a Select Committee on Standards and 
Conduct, when Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, rose with a parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (12) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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: If the previous question is defeated, then the 
    resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, is it 
    not equally so that a motion to table would then be in order?
        The Speaker: At that particular point, that would be a 
    preferential motion.

Sec. 12.3 Following a negative vote on a motion to lay on the table a 
    motion to instruct conferees, the question next occurs on ordering 
    the previous question on the motion to instruct.

    On Aug. 8, 1961,(13) the House was considering H.R. 
7576, authorizing appropriations for the Atomic Energy Commission, when 
the Speaker pro tempore, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, announced that the 
question was on the mo

[[Page 4571]]

tion offered by Mr. James E. Van Zandt, of Pennsylvania, to instruct 
conferees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 14957-59, 15001, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the motion to instruct conferees be laid on the table.
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Under the rules of the House, is this motion to 
    table in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The motion is in order.
        Mr. Halleck: If the motion to table is voted down, will the 
    vote then come on the motion itself?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: On ordering the previous question on 
    the motion.

As Related to the Motion to Dispense With Further Proceedings Under a 
    Call

Sec. 12.4 A motion to dispense with further proceedings under a call of 
    the House is not subject to a motion to table.

    On May 4, 1960,(14) following three separate quorum 
calls, motions to dispense with further proceedings under the call were 
made and the previous question demanded thereon. Motions to lay the 
motions for the previous question on the table were then offered. No 
point of order was raised against any of these motions to table. On the 
first two occasions the latter motions were entertained, voted upon, 
and defeated. On the third occasion, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
stated that the motion to dispense with further proceedings under a 
call of the House was neither debatable nor amendable; therefore, 
neither the demand for the previous question, nor the motion to lay on 
the table was applicable thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 9410-18, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Related to the Motion to Recommit

Sec. 12.5 A motion in the House that a Senate amendment be laid on the 
    table is of higher privilege than a motion to refer the amendment 
    to a committee.

    On June 17, 1936,(15) the House rejected the conference 
report on the bill H.R. 11663, to regulate lobbying. The Clerk had 
proceeded to report the Senate amendment when Mr. Earl C. Michener, of 
Michigan, rose to his feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 80 Cong. Rec. 9743-53, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Senate amendment be 
    laid on the table.

[[Page 4572]]

        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion, that the conference report and the Senate 
    amendment be recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the rule is that 
    the motion suggested by the gentleman from New York is not 
    preferential.
        The Speaker: (16) The Chair is of the opinion that 
    the motion made by the gentleman from Michigan has priority. The 
    question is on the motion of the gentleman from Michigan to lay the 
    Senate amendment on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the motion to table a Senate amendment 
prevails, it results in the final disposition of the bill as well as 
the Senate amendment.



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                     C. MOTIONS TO LAY ON THE TABLE
 
Sec. 13. Taking From the Table

By Unanimous Consent

Sec. 13.1 The proceedings whereby a bill was laid on the table were 
    vacated by unanimous consent.

    On May 4, 1959,(1) the House was considering the bill 
H.R. 5610, to amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, the Railroad 
Retirement Tax Act, and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 105 Cong. Rec. 7310-13, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the proceedings whereby the bill H.R. 5610 was laid on 
    the table, the amendment agreed to, the bill engrossed and read a 
    third time, and passed, be vacated for the purpose of offering an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Harris)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A few days earlier, on Apr. 30, 1959, while 
the House had under consideration H.R. 5610, the Senate messaged to the 
House S. 226, a measure differing in only one respect from the House 
bill as it had been amended on the floor. After passage of H.R. 5610, a 
motion was adopted to strike out all after the enacting clause in S. 
226 and insert the language of the House bill, and the House bill was 
then laid on the table. The following day, shortly before the Senate 
bill was to be messaged to the Senate, a question was raised as to the 
constitutionality of the Senate-passed bill because of a tax feature 
therein. The proceedings in the House on May 4, 1959, were necessitated 
by the fact that all bills containing revenue provi

[[Page 4573]]

sions must, under article I, section 7 of the Constitution, originate 
in the House. Following the amendment of the House bill and the 
indefinite postponement of the Senate bill, the House bill, H.R. 5610, 
was messaged to the Senate.

Sec. 13.2 It is in order by unanimous consent to consider a resolution 
    that has been laid on the table.

    On May 22, 1935,(3) the following occurred on the floor 
of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 79 Cong. Rec. 8026, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Citron [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the table House Joint Resolution 
    107, authorizing the President of the United States of America to 
    proclaim October 11 of each year General Pulaski's Memorial Day for 
    the observance and commemoration of the death of Brig. Gen. Casimir 
    Pulaski.
        The Speaker: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Connecticut?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There being no objection, the Clerk read the resolution.



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                  D. MOTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
 
Sec. 14. In General


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

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

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

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

[[Page 4574]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4575]]

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

Application of Motion Prior to Adoption of the House Rules

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

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

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

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

Scope of Motion

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

[[Page 4576]]

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

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

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

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

Divisibility

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4577]]

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

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

Renewing the Motion

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

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

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

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

Application of Motion to Private Bills

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

[[Page 4578]]

    vidual private bills on the calendar.

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

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

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

Approval of Journal

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

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

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

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

Preamble of Resolution

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

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

[[Page 4579]]

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

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

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

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

Committee of the Whole

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4580]]

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

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

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

[[Page 4581]]

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

House as in Committee of the Whole

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4582]]

lective Service Act of 1948, when the following occurred:

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

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Application to Nondebatable Resolutions

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

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

[[Page 4583]]

discussed the procedure for the consideration of the resolution.

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

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

Previous Question Vitiated by Unanimous-consent Request

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

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

    The proceedings were as follows:

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

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

[[Page 4584]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 4585]]

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

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

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

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



                               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.



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                  D. MOTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
 
Sec. 16. Offering Motion; Who May Offer

Member Controlling Debate

Sec. 16.1 The Member in control of debate may move the previous 
    question and cut off debate, either before or after the adoption of 
    the rules.

    On Jan. 4, 1965,(17) the House was considering House 
Resolution 2, offered by the Majority Leader, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
authorizing the Speaker to administer the oath of office to Mr. Richard 
L. Ottinger, of New York. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec.20, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr.[James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, will 
    the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Albert: I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Cleveland: If this resolution is adopted, will it be 
    impossible for me to offer my own resolution pertaining to the same 
    subject mattter, either as an amendment or a substitute?
        The Speaker: (18) If the resolution is agreed to, it 
    will not be in order for the gentleman to offer a substitute 
    resolution or an amendment, particularly if the previous question 
    is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cleveland: Is it now in order, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman from Oklahoma yields to 
    the gentleman for that purpose.
        Mr. Cleveland: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Albert: The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield for that 
    purpose.
        Mr. Cleveland: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. Will there 
    be any opportunity to discuss the merits of this case prior to a 
    vote on the resolution offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Oklahoma has control over the 
    time. Not unless the gentleman from Oklahoma yields for that 
    purpose. . . .

[[Page 4602]]

        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield to the 
    gentleman from Missisippi for the purpose of submitting a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion.
        The previous question was ordered.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 20876, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 23, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member Yielding Floor for Amendment

Sec. 16.2 A Member controlling time for debate in the House may not 
    yield to another Member to offer an amendment without losing the 
    floor and the right to move the previous question.

    On Mar. 13, 1939,(20) the House was considering House 
Resolution 113, providing for an investigation of the milk industry in 
the District of Columbia. Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, was 
controlling the floor for debate when Mr. John Taber, of New York, rose 
with a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 84 Cong. Rec. 2663-73, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Indiana should 
    yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin to offer an amendment, the 
    gentleman from Indiana yields control of the floor under the rule.
        The Speaker: (1) The Chair has already stated that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: And the right to move the previous question would 
    vest in the gentleman from Wisconsin.
        The Speaker: That is a correct interpretation of the rule.

Sec. 16.3 While the Member in charge of a resolution in the House 
    ordinarily loses the floor and the right to move the previous 
    question if he yields for an amendment, he may move the previous 
    question on the resolution following disposition of the amendment 
    where the proponent of the amendment has not done so and where no 
    other Member seeks recognition.

    On Apr. 29, 1971,(2) the House was considering House 
Resolution 274, providing funds for the Committee on Internal Security. 
With Mr. Frank Thompson, Jr., of New Jersey, in control of the 
resolution on the floor of the House the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 12489, 12504, 12505, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: . . . I now yield 2 minutes to the 
    gentleman

[[Page 4603]]

    from Ohio for the purpose of offering an amendment.
        The Speaker: (3) The gentleman from Ohio is 
    recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment 
    which I propose to offer. I want to read it to the House as the 
    Clerk may have trouble with my handwriting. . . .
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
    minutes in support of the amendment. . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Hays) to the committee amendment. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 257, nays 129, not 
    voting 46. . . .
        So the amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to . . .
        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question on the committee amendment, as amended, and on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the committee amendment, as 
    amended.
        The committee amendment, as amended, was agreed to.

Sec. 16.4 A Member who lost the floor on a resolution by yielding for 
    an amendment was recognized to move the previous question on the 
    resolution following rejection of the amendment, where no other 
    Member sought recognition.

    On June 2, 1971,(4) Mr. Kenneth J. Gray, of Illinois, 
was controlling House debate on House Resolution 449, which created 
additional positions and provided an overtime pay system for United 
States Capitol Police.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 117 Cong. Rec. 17502, 17504, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gray: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Hall) for the purpose of offering an amendment.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment. . . .
        The Speaker: (5) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was rejected.
        Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Member Yielding Floor for Debate

Sec. 16.5 The Member who yielded the floor to another Member for one 
    hour of debate was recognized at the end of that hour to move the 
    previous question.

    On July 5, 1945,(6) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, 
offered a motion to correct the Congressional Record of July 2, 1945, 
to reflect a colloquy between Mr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 7221-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4604]]

Tarver and Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi.

        Mr. Tarver: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield the floor.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I ask for recognition.
        The Speaker: (7) The gentleman is recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: For how long?
        The Speaker: The gentleman may speak for an hour if he wishes.

    After the hour's debate:

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.

Member Having Floor to Offer a Motion

Sec. 16.6 A Member having the floor to offer a motion may move the 
    previous question thereon although another Member claims 
    recognition to offer a motion of higher privilege; but the motion 
    of higher privilege must be put before the previous question.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(8) at the conclusion of the reading 
of the Journal, Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, rose to his feet and made 
the following motions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 23600, 23601, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: 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: (9) The Chair will state that the 
    motion to lay on the table is in order, but the amendment is not in 
    order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 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.
        Mr. Hall: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move to table that motion.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to lay on the table 
    the motion that the Journal be approved as read.

[[Page 4605]]



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                  D. MOTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
 
Sec. 17. Rights of Proponent of Motion

To Offer Motion to Amend

Sec. 17.1 The manager of a bill, recognized by the Chair in the 
    expectation that he would move the previous question on a motion to 
    recommit offered by the minority, moved instead to amend the 
    motion, and was recognized for that purpose by the Chair.

    On May 8, 1968,(10) the House was considering H.R. 
17023, appropriations for certain independent offices for fiscal 1969. 
Mr. Frank T. Bow, of Ohio, offered a motion to recommit with 
instructions, and the following ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 114 Cong. Rec. 12262, 12263, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman from Tennessee is 
    recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I have an 
    amendment to the motion to recommit.
        Mr. Bow: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bow: The motion to recommit being the prerogative of the 
    minority, and the minority having exercised that prerogative, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is as a matter of fact whether or not an 
    amendment is in order, and if it is in order, whether the gentleman 
    making it must indicate that he too is against the bill in its 
    present form?
        The Speaker: In response to the inquiry of the gentleman from 
    Ohio, the Chair will state to the gentleman that the motion to 
    recommit is one with instructions. Since the previous question has 
    not been ordered, it is open for amendment.

Precedence Relative to Question of Personal Privilege

Sec. 17.2 The Chair having recognized a Member in charge of a bill for 
    the motion for the previous question, a Member may not be 
    recognized to rise to a question of personal privilege based on 
    certain remarks in the Record.

    On June 30, 1939,(12) the House was considering the 
conference report on H.R. 3325, relating to the stabilization of the 
alteration of the weight of the dollar. After the Speaker, William B. 
Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized Mr. Andrew L. Somers, of New York, the 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 84 Cong. Rec. 8467, 8468, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Somers of New York: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 4606]]

        Mr. Hoffman: I rise to a point of personal privilege because of 
    certain remarks contained in the Congressional Record and ask to be 
    allowed to state my question.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York has been recognized. 
    The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman from Michigan for that 
    purpose unless the gentleman from New York yields.
        Mr. Somers of New York: Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for that 
    purpose.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: The Chair will at the proper time under the rules 
    recognize the gentleman. The Chair has recognized the gentleman 
    from New York. The gentleman from New York has moved the previous 
    question on the conference report.
        The question is, Shall the previous question be ordered?



                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                  D. MOTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
 
Sec. 18. Time for Motion

Within Time Fixed for Debate

Sec. 18.1 Where the House by unanimous consent fixes time and control 
    of debate, the previous question may be moved at any time within 
    that period, and it is not necessary for the Member in charge to 
    yield the full time agreed upon.

    On Mar. 11, 1941,(13) the House was considering House 
Resolution 131 (providing for the consideration of H.R. 1776, relating 
to the promotion of national defense) pursuant to a unanimous-consent 
agreement which stipulated that debate was to continue not to exceed 
two hours. Before the expiration of the allotted time, Mr. Sol Bloom, 
of New York, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 87 Cong. Rec. 2177, 2178, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bloom: . . . Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to use any more 
    time nor to yield any additional time, so I ask for a vote on the 
    resolution.
        Mr. Martin J. Kennedy [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin J. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, the House is proceeding in 
    its consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 1776 under a 
    unanimous-consent agreement granted yesterday--Monday, March 10. 
    The minutes of this action may be found on pages 2142 and 2143 of 
    the Congressional Record. I was present in the House at the time 
    the request was made and, because of the understanding as to the 
    division of time, I did not object. . . .
        Under the rules of the House, a proceeding by unanimous consent 
    cannot be dissolved except by unanimous consent of the House. 
    Therefore, the time of 2 hours, fixed for debate, not having 
    elapsed, and with a proper request for time not being granted by 
    the gentleman in charge of the time--the chairman of the Committee 
    on Foreign Affairs--I make a point of order that

[[Page 4607]]

    the action of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in 
    moving the previous question prior to the expiration of the agreed 
    time of only 2 hours is not in order and comes prematurely.
        The Speaker: The unanimous-consent request agreed to yesterday 
    left control of the time in the hands of the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Bloom] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish]. At any 
    time those gentlemen do not desire to yield further time, 
    compliance with the request has been had.

During Debate on Motion to Postpone

Sec. 18.2 A Member moving to postpone further consideration of a veto 
    message to a day certain having been recognized, he may move the 
    previous question on that motion at any time.

    On June 23, 1970,(15) the House received the vetoed 
message on H.R. 11102, the medical facilities construction and 
modernization amendments of 1970. The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 20877, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move that further consideration of the veto message of the 
    President be postponed until Thursday, June 25, 1970.
        Mr. Speaker, the reason I ask for this postponement is to serve 
    notice on all Members of the House and to give everyone an 
    opportunity to study the veto message and to participate in what I 
    think is a highly important matter.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (16) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Pending Offering of Amendment

Sec. 18.3 The previous question may be moved pending the offering of an 
    amendment by a Member to whom the floor was yielded for that 
    purpose, and the previous question must be voted down before that 
    Member is recognized to offer the amendment.

    On Nov. 8, 1971,(17) the House was considering House 
Joint Resolution 191, proposing an amendment to the Constitution 
relating to a nondenominational prayer in public buildings. During the 
debate the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 117 Cong. Rec. 39945, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
    gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Buchanan) for the purpose of offering 
    an amendment.

[[Page 4608]]

        Mr. [John H.] Buchanan [Jr.]: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment 
    at the desk.
        The Speaker: (18) Does the gentleman realize he will 
    lose control of the time?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 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.

                           Parliamentary Inquiry

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gerard R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is 
    voted down, does that permit the offering of an amendment by the 
    gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Buchanan)?
        The Speaker: If it is voted down, any proper motion can be 
    made.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Celler).
        The motion was rejected.

Time to Move Previous Question on Preamble

Sec. 18.4 A motion for the previous question on a pending resolution 
    does not cover the preamble thereto unless the motion so provides; 
    and a motion to order the previous question on the preamble is in 
    order following the vote whereby the resolution is agreed to.

    On Mar 1, 1967,(1) the House was considering House 
Resolution 278, relating to the rights of Representative-elect Adam 
Clayton Powell, Jr., of New York, to be sworn in. After the resolution 
and amendment were agreed to the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 5038, 5039, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the adoption of the preamble.
        Mr. [Phillip] Burton of California: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: (2) The gentleman from California will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Burton of California: The gentleman from Missouri is urging 
    a motion that duplicates an action already taken by the House. The 
    House already has had a motion to close debate on the preamble and 
    on the resolution as amended.
        We have already had that vote. I make the point of order that 
    the gentleman's request and/or motion is out of order. I think the 
    record of the proceedings of the House will indicate

[[Page 4609]]

    that the point being advocated reflects accurately the proceedings 
    as they have transpired.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the previous question 
    was ordered on the amendment and the resolution but not on the 
    preamble.


 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                  D. MOTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
 
Sec. 19. Relation to Other Matters

Privilege of Motion Over Recognition of Member of Debate

Sec. 19.1 The motion for the previous question is privileged and is in 
    order before a Member is recognized for debate.

    On Apr. 1, 1938,(3) the House was considering S. 3331, a 
reorganization bill. Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, spoke:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 83 Cong. Rec. 4616, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Speaker, I move 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 S. 3331; pending that, I move 
    that general debate in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    state of the Union on the bill (S. 3331) do now close, and on that 
    motion I move the previous question.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    recognition.
        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Speaker, on that motion I have moved the 
    previous question.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I asked recognition 
    before the previous question was moved.
        The Speaker: (4) The gentleman from Missouri moves 
    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 
    S. 3331; pending that, the gentleman moves that general debate in 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union on the 
    bill S. 3331 do now close, and on that motion he moves the previous 
    question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman 
    moved the previous question I asked recognition.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri moved the previous 
    question.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: I asked recognition, Mr. Speaker, 
    before the gentleman moved the previous question.
        The Speaker: The motion for the previous question takes 
    precedence.

As Related to Amendment to Resolution

Sec. 19.2 An amendment to the body of a resolution reported by the 
    Committee on Rules is properly offered before the previous question 
    is moved.

    On Feb. 28, 1949,(5) Mr. John E. Lyle, Jr., of Texas, 
called up House Resolution 44 (relating to the Panama Canal) which had
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 1617, 1619, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4610]]

been reported from the Committee on Rules. After he controlled a brief 
debate, Mr. Lyle stated that he had no further demands for time, and 
posed a parliamentary inquiry.

        Mr. Lyle: At what time would an amendment be proper? Now, or 
    after the previous question has been ordered?
        The Speaker: (6) An amendment to the body of the 
    resolution should be offered now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Related to Administration of House Oath

Sec. 19.3 A question involving the swearing in of a Member-elect was 
    permitted after the previous question had been ordered on the 
    pending question.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(7) the Committee of the Whole reported 
back to the House the bill H.R. 14000, the Military Procurement Act for 
fiscal 1970, and the Speaker, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
stated that under the rule the previous question was ordered. The 
following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 115 Cong. Rec. 28487, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Michael J. 
    Harrington, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His 
    certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest, 
    and no question has been raised with regard to his election.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Harrington appeared at the bar of the House and took the 
    oath of office.

As Related to Senate Messages

Sec. 19.4 A message from the Senate may be received by the House after 
    the previous question has been ordered, pending the question of 
    passage of the bill.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(8) the Committee of the Whole having 
considered H.R. 14000, dealing with military procurement authorizations 
for fiscal 1970, reported the bill back to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 28487, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Message From the Senate

        A message from the Senate by Mr. Arrington, one of its clerks, 
    announced that the Senate had passed a bill of the following title, 
    in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

            S. 2917. An act to improve the health and safety conditions 
        of per

[[Page 4611]]

        sons working in the coal mining industry of the United 
        States.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 7172, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., May 3, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



                               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).



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                  D. MOTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
 
Sec. 21. Debate

Debate on Motion for Previous Question

Sec. 21.1 A motion for the previous question is not debatable.

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

        The Speaker: (11) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4616]]

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Is not debate in order on this motion inasmuch as 
    under section 805 of Jefferson's Manual there has been no debate on 
    ordering the previous question?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the motion on the 
    previous question is not debatable. The question is on ordering the 
    previous question on the motion to approve the Journal. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 257, nays 126, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 48.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See also 95 Cong. Rec. 10, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 
        1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate After Ordering Previous Question

Sec. 21.2 Where the previous question is ordered on a debatable 
    proposition which has not in fact been debated, a Member may demand 
    the right to 40 minutes of debate, and this time is divided between 
    the person demanding the time and a Member who represents the 
    opposing view of the matter [see Rule XXVII clause 3].

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(13) the previous question was ordered 
on the approval of the Journal as read before any debate had occurred 
on that question. Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, then rose to his 
feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 23602, 23604-06, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hall: May we not have debate at this time, under the rules 
    of the House, under section 805, as quoted?
        The Speaker: If a Member claims the right.
        Mr. Hall: I make such a claim, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
        The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Albert] is recognized for 20 
    minutes.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Rule XXVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 
        (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 21.3 Since the motion for the previous question is not debatable, 
    a Member is not entitled to claim the right to debate it under Rule 
    XXVII clause 3.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(16) after the conclusion of the 
reading of the Journal, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 111 Cong. Rec. 23601, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (17) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 4617]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hall: Is not debate in order on this motion inasmuch as 
    under section 805 of Jefferson's Manual there has been no debate on 
    ordering the previous question?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the motion on the 
    previous question is not debatable. The question is on ordering the 
    previous question on the motion to approve the Journal. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 257, nays 126, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 48.

Sec. 21.4 Parliamentarian's Note: The right to recognition for 20 
    minutes of debate under Rule XXVII clause 3 does not apply simply 
    because the previous question is moved on a proposition on which 
    there has been no debate; the right to 40 minutes of debate accrues 
    only if the previous question is in fact ordered.

    On May 14, 1963,(18) the House was considering H.R. 
5517, providing supplemental appropriations for fiscal 1963. Mr. Albert 
Thomas, of Texas, moved that the House concur in the amendment of the 
Senate numbered 76 with an amendment, and before any debate had taken 
place on that motion he moved the previous question thereon. Mr. Thomas 
B. Curtis, of Missouri, then rose to his feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 8508-11, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry:
        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Curtis: As I understand, any person seeking an opportunity 
    for 20 minutes can have it because the previous question has been 
    moved before there has been any debate on it.
        The Speaker: Well, the Chair is not passing on that.
        Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, I ask for recognition for 20 minutes.
        The Speaker: The previous question has not been ordered yet.

Sec. 21.5 Where the House refused to order the previous question on a 
    motion to concur in a Senate amendment with an amendment, but did 
    order the previous question on the offering of a substitute 
    therefor before debate was had thereon, the action gave rise to 40 
    minutes' debate on the proposition.

    On June 8, 1943,(20) the House was considering the 
conference report on H.R. 2714, urgent defense appropriations for 1943. 
After the House voted without debate to recede from its disagreement to 
a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 89 Cong. Rec. 5506, 5507, 5509, 5510, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4618]]

Senate amendment, Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, moved that the 
House concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment. Without 
intervening debate, he moved the previous question on his motion. After 
the motion for the previous question was rejected, the following 
occurred:

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    substitute for the motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Taber moves to substitute for the Cannon amendment an 
        amendment as follows: Add to the language of the Senate 
        amendment No. 5 the following: ``or the Department of State or 
        the Office of Strategic Services''.

        Mr. Taber: On that motion I move the previous question, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The previous question was ordered.

    The Speaker, Sam Rayburn, of Texas, having previously stated that 
time for debate is fixed when the previous question has been ordered, 
not when the motion therefor has been made,(1) indicated 
that there would be 20 minutes of debate on each side, and recognized 
Mr. Cannon for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at p. 5507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous Question Ordered Prior to Adoption of Rules

Sec. 21.6 Prior to the adoption of the rules, when the motion for the 
    previous question is moved without debate, the 40 minutes' debate 
    prescribed by the House rules during the previous Congress does not 
    apply.

    On Jan. 7, 1959,(2) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, was 
swearing in the Members of the Congress. Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, offered House Resolution 1, providing for the swearing 
in of Mr. T. Dale Alford, of Arkansas, whose election to the 86th 
Congress had been subject to a challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 105 Cong. Rec. 14, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is in accord with 
    existing precedents and, Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question 
    on this resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    may I make an inquiry on a point of parliamentary procedure.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, when the previous order has been 
    moved and there is no debate, under the rules of the House are we 
    not entitled to 40 minutes debate?
        The Speaker: Under the precedents, the 40-minute rule does not 
    apply before the adoption of the rules.
        The question is on the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.

[[Page 4619]]

Previous Question Moved on Motion to Close Debate

Sec. 21.7 When the previous question is moved on a motion to close 
    debate (a motion in itself not debatable), the rule providing for 
    40 minutes of debate on propositions on which the previous question 
    has been ordered without prior debate does not apply and no debate 
    is in order.

    On Apr. 1, 1938,(3) the House was considering S. 3331, a 
reorganization bill, when Mr. John J. Cochran, of Missouri, rose to his 
feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 83 Cong. Rec. 4616, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Speaker, I move 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 S. 3331; pending that, I move 
    that general debate in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    state of the Union on the bill (S. 3331) do now close, and on that 
    motion I move the previous question.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    recognition.
        Mr. Cochran: Mr. Speaker, on that motion I have moved the 
    previous question.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I asked recognition 
    before the previous question was moved.
        The Speaker: (4) The gentleman from Missouri moves 
    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 
    S. 3331; pending that, the gentleman moves that general debate in 
    the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union on the 
    bill S. 3331 do now close, and on that motion he moves the previous 
    question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman 
    moved the previous question I asked recognition.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri moved the previous 
    question.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: I asked recognition, Mr. Speaker, 
    before the gentleman moved the previous question.
        The Speaker: The motion for the previous question takes 
    precedence over any other motion.
        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I ask recognition under 
    the 40-minute rule. It is well recognized in the House that there 
    are 40 minutes of debate on a motion even under the previous 
    question.
        The Speaker: The Chair will read from a precedent directly 
    involved on this proposition, Cannon's Precedents, section 2555, 
    volume 8:

            When the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
        close debate, the rule providing for 40-minute debate on 
        propositions on which the previous question has been ordered 
        without prior debate does not apply, and no debate is in order.

        Mr. O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, the previous question 
    has not been ordered. May I suggest to the distinguished Speaker 
    that he read the rule of the House as to the 40 minutes

[[Page 4620]]

    of debate before the previous question is ordered?
        The Speaker: Under the general rules of the House the previous 
    question is always a privileged motion. The gentleman from Missouri 
    has exercised his right to move the previous question.
        The question is on ordering the previous question on the motion 
    of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cochran] to close debate. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 149, nays 191, not 
    voting 89.

Previous Question Ordered on Motion to Send Bill to Conference

Sec. 21.8 Objection has been raised to a unanimous-consent request to 
    permit one hour of debate on a motion to send a bill to conference, 
    on which the previous question had been ordered after a brief 
    debate.

    On July 9, 1970,(5) the House was considering H.R. 
15628, to amend the Foreign Military Sales Act of 1970. Thomas E. 
Morgan, of Pennsylvania, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, offered a motion to take the bill from the Speaker's table 
with Senate amendments thereto, to disagree to the Senate amendments 
and to agree to conference asked by the Senate. The following then 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 23518, 23524, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Morgan] is recognized for 1 hour on his motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to use any time and 
    there has been no request for any time, and in an effort to move 
    the legislation along I will move the previous question. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question. 
    . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 247, nays 143, not 
    voting 41. . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The doors were opened.
        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the 
    previous question has been ordered on my motion to go to 
    conference, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 1 hour of 
    debate, one-half to be controlled by myself and one-half by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Riegle) who has announced that he will 
    propose a motion to instruct the conferees.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object.


                               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.


 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                  D. MOTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
 
Sec. 23. Rejection of Motion as Affecting Recognition

Opponents of Resolution

Sec. 23.1 If the previous question is voted down on a resolution before 
    the House, recognition passes to the opponents of the resolution, 
    and the Chair recognizes one of the leaders of the opposition and 
    gives preference to a member of the minority if he ac

[[Page 4631]]

    tively opposed ordering the previous question.

    On July 20, 1939,(9) the House was considering House 
Resolution 258, providing for an investigation of the National Labor 
Relations Board. Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, moved the previous 
question on the resolution and then posed a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 9591, 9592, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: If I understand the situation correctly, 
    if the previous question is voted down, the control of the measure 
    would pass to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Keller]; and the 
    resolution would not be open to amendment generally, but only to 
    such amendments as the gentleman from Illinois might yield for. Is 
    my understanding correct, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: (10) If the previous question is voted 
    down, it would not necessarily pass to the gentleman from Illinois; 
    it would pass to the opponents of the resolution. Of course, a 
    representative of the minority would have the first right of 
    recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.2 The previous question on a resolution being voted down, the 
    Speaker recognized a Member opposed to the resolution to offer an 
    amendment.

    On Sept. 15, 1961,(11) the House was considering House 
Resolution 464, providing for consideration of H.R. 7927, providing for 
an adjustment of the postal rates. The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 107 Cong. Rec. 19750, 19751, 19755, 19758, 19759, 87th Cong. 1st 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I find 
    myself in somewhat of a dilemma. I am for this bill; but I am 
    against the rule. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for the purpose of 
    offering an amendment to make this an open rule?
        Mr. [B. F.] Sisk [of California]: I do not yield for that 
    purpose.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) . . . The question is 
    on ordering the previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 142, nays 222, 
    answered ``present'' 2, not voting 71. . . .
        So the motion to order the previous question was rejected. . . 
    .
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Sec. 23.3 The motion for the previous question having been rejected, 
    the Speaker recognized the Minority Leader to offer an amendment to 
    the pending resolution.

    On Jan. 10, 1967,(13) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1, relating to the right of Representative-elect Adam C. 
Powell, Jr., of New York, to take the oath
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 24-26, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4632]]

of office. After Mr. Morris K. Udall, of Arizona, moved the previous 
question on the resolution the following occurred:

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, on the vote on 
    the previous question I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 126, nays 305, not 
    voting 0. . . .
        So the motion was rejected. . . .
        The Speaker: (14) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Michigan [Mr. Gerald R. Ford].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Gerald R. Ford

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I offer a substitute for House 
    Resolution 1.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 5019, 5029, 5036-38, 90th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Mar. 1, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.4 Where the previous question is rejected on a pending 
    resolution, the Speaker recognizes a Member opposed to the 
    resolution who may offer an amendment; and the recognition of the 
    Member is not precluded by the fact that he has been previously 
    recognized and offered an amendment which was ruled out on a point 
    of order.

    On Jan. 3, 1969,(16) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1, authorizing the Speaker to administer the oath of office 
to Representative-elect Adam C. Powell, Jr., of New York. Mr. Clark Mac 
Gregor, of Minnesota, had offered an amendment to the resolution, but 
that amendment was ruled out on a point of order. Mr. Emanuel Celler, 
of New York, the proponent of the original resolution, then moved the 
previous question on his resolution. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115. Cong. Rec. 25-29, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question and 
    insist upon the previous question. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 172, nays 252, not 
    voting 4, not sworn 6. . . .
        So the previous question was not ordered. . . .
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, I have pending at the Clerk's desk 
    a resolution which I offer as a substitute for the resolution ruled 
    out on the point of order, as an amendment to House Resolution 1.

    After the Clerk read the substitute offered by Mr. MacGregor, the 
Speaker (17) stated, ``The gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for one hour.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.5 Recognition to offer an amendment to a resolution

[[Page 4633]]

    called up prior to the adoption of the rules passes to a Member 
    opposed to the resolution if the previous question is rejected.

    On Jan. 10, 1967,(18) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1, relating to the right of Representative-elect Adam C. 
Powell, Jr., of New York, to take the oath of office. Mr. Joe D. 
Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, rose with a series of parliamentary 
inquiries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is voted 
    down would, then, under the rules of the House, amendments or 
    substitutes be in order to the resolution offered by the gentleman 
    from Arizona [Mr. Udall]?
        The Speaker:(19) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Waggonner] that any germane amendment 
    may be in order to that particular amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, one further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Waggonner] will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House would 
    the option or priority or a subsequent amendment or a substitute 
    motion lie with the minority?
        The Speaker: The Chair will pass upon that question based upon 
    the rules of the House. That would be a question that would present 
    itself to the Chair at that particular time.
        A direct answer to the question which has been posed by the 
    gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Waggonner] would be this: Until the 
    situation arises an answer to the question which has been 
    propounded by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Waggonner] cannot 
    be given by the Chair at this time. However, the usual procedure of 
    the Chair has been to the effect that the Member who led the fight 
    against the resolution will be recognized.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 27-29, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan 3, 
        1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opponents of Rules Committee Resolution

Sec. 23.6 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 Chair would 
    recognize the Member who appeared to be leading the opposition to 
    the resolution.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(1) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1013, establishing a Select Committee on Standards and 
Conduct. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    previous

[[Page 4634]]

    question is refused and the resolution is then open for amendment, 
    under what parliamentary procedure will the debate continue? Or 
    what would be the time limit?
        The Speaker: (2) The Chair would recognize whoever 
    appeared to be the leading Member in opposition to the 
    resolution.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 3. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 19837, 19840, 19843, 19844, 91st Cong. 2d 
        Sess., June 16, 1970; and 84 Cong. Rec. 2663, 2670, 2671, 2673, 
        76th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 13, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Instruct Conferees

Sec. 23.7 If the previous question is voted down on a motion to 
    instruct the managers on the part of the House, the motion is open 
    to amendment, and the Speaker would recognize a Member opposed to 
    ordering the previous question to control the time and offer an 
    amendment.

    On May 29, 1968,(4) the House was considering H.R. 
15414, the Revenue and Expenditure Act of 1968. Mr. James A. Burke, of 
Massachusetts, offered a motion to instruct the managers on the part of 
the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
on the bill. The previous question was then ordered on the motion. Mr. 
Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, rose with a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 114 Cong. Rec. 15499, 15500, 15511, 15512, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, should the previous question be 
    voted down would the motion be open to a preferential motion to 
    amend and would of necessity the time be controlled by those in 
    opposition to the previous question?
        The Speaker: (5) . . . The answer to the 
    parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from Louisiana would be in 
    the affirmative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition of Member of Majority

Sec. 23.8 A majority member who had led the opposition to the previous 
    question on the resolution adopting the rules was recognized, upon 
    rejection of the previous question, to offer an amendment, where no 
    minority member who had been opposed to the previous question 
    sought recognition.

    On Jan. 22, 1971,(6) the House was considering House 
Resolution 5, adopting the rules of the House for the 92d Congress. Mr. 
William M. Colmer, of Mississippi, moved the previous question on the 
resolution and the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 117 Cong. Rec. 140, 142-44, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Colmer: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on 
    the res

[[Page 4635]]

    olution, as I am bound to do by the caucus.
        The Speaker: (7) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [B.F.] Sisk [of California]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 134, nays 254, not 
    voting 46. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Sisk).
        Mr. Sisk: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sisk: On page 2, strike out lines 
        1 through 25, and on page 3, strike out lines 1 through 18.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from California is recognized for 1 
    hour.



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                  D. MOTIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
 
Sec. 24. Effect of Adjournment

Adjournment After Motion for Previous Question

Sec. 24.1 Where a quorum failed on ordering the previous question on a 
    bill under consideration on a Calendar Wednesday, and the House 
    adjourned, the vote went over until the next Calendar Wednesday.

    On Mar. 7, 1935,(8) the following occurred on the floor 
of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 79 Cong. Rec. 3121, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frederick R.] Lehlbach [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lehlbach: Yesterday the previous question was moved on a 
    bill then pending, and upon a division the vote was 36 to 16, 
    whereupon a point of no quorum was made. Under the rules of the 
    House there would follow an automatic roll call on the question of 
    ordering the previous question, but before proceedings could be had 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. O'Connor] moved that the House 
    adjourn, and the House accordingly adjourned. My inquiry is, Is the 
    motion for the previous question still pending?
        The Speaker: The motion is pending and the vote will again be 
    taken the next time the committee is called under the Calendar 
    Wednesday rule; that will be the first business in order when the 
    Judiciary Committee is again called on Calendar Wednesday.

Sec. 24.2 If the previous question is ordered on a bill and amendments 
    thereto, and the House adjourns, the bill becomes the unfinished 
    business the following day and separate votes may be demanded on 
    the amendments at that time.

[[Page 4636]]

    On May 17, 1939,(10) the House was considering H.R. 
6264, relating to public works on rivers and harbors. The following 
then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 84 Cong. Rec. 5682, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph J.] Mansfield [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the bill and all amendments to final passage.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rayburn: Were the House to adjourn at this time, would the 
    present bill be pending business tomorrow?
        The Speaker: Answering the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Texas, the Chair will state that the previous 
    question having been ordered on the bill and all amendments to 
    final passage, it would be the unfinished and privileged order of 
    business tomorrow morning.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: Can these individual amendments then be voted on?
        The Speaker: A separate vote can be demanded on them when that 
    question is reached.(12))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See also 72 Cong. Rec. 8964, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., May 14, 1930; and 
        72 Cong. Rec. 7774, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 25, 1930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                    E. MOTIONS TO REFER OR RECOMMIT
 
Sec. 25. In General


    There are in the rules of the House four motions to refer: the 
ordinary motion provided for in the first sentence of clause 4, Rule 
XVI (13) when a question is ``under debate;'' the motion to 
recommit with or without instructions after the previous question has 
been ordered on a bill or joint resolution to final passage, provided 
in the second sentence of clause 4, Rule XVI; the motion to commit, 
with or without instructions, pending the motion for or after the 
ordering of the previous question as provided in clause 1, Rule XVII; 
(14) and the motion to refer, with or without instructions, 
pending a vote in the House on a motion to strike out the enacting 
clause as provided in clause 7, Rule XXIII.(15) The terms 
``refer,''

[[Page 4637]]

``commit,'' and ``recommit'' are sometimes used 
interchangeably,(16) but when used in the precise manner 
contemplated in each rule, reflect certain differences based upon 
whether the question to which applied is ``under debate,'' whether a 
bill or joint resolution, a concurrent or simple resolution, or 
conference report, is under consideration, whether the motion itself is 
debatable, whether the motion may include instructions to report back 
``forthwith'' with an amendment, and whether a minority member or a 
Member opposed to the question to which the motion is applied is 
entitled to a priority of recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1981).
14. House Rules and Manual Sec. 804. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5569.
15. House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (1981).
16. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5521; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2736.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motions may not be used in direct form in Committee of the 
Whole.(17) It is in order for the Committee of the Whole to 
rise and report back to the House with the recommendation that the 
measure under consideration be recommitted, but such a motion is 
entertained only at the completion of reading the bill for amendment 
(18) and then only in situations where the Committee of the 
Whole is proceeding under the general rules of the 
House.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4721; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2326.
18. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 4761, 4762.
19. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where, on the other hand, a bill is being considered under a 
special rule providing that after consideration for amendment the 
Committee automatically rises ``and the previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion'' at the conclusion of the amendment 
process under the five-minute rule, the motion is not in order, since 
precluded by the language of the special rule.(20) It cannot 
be combined in Committee of the Whole as part of a motion to rise with 
the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 26.5, infra, where special rule precluded such a motion, 
        and see also discussions in Ch. 19 Sec. 23.12, supra (Committee 
        of the Whole) under ``Motions to Rise.''
21. See Ch. 19 Sec. Sec. 10.10, 10.12, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The simple motion to refer under the first sentence of clause 4, 
Rule XVI is debatable within narrow limits,(1) but the 
merits of the proposition which it is proposed to refer may not be 
brought into the debate.(2) It may include instructions or 
be amended to include instructions (3)) (so long as
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5054.
 2. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5564-68; 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 65, 549; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2740.
 3. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4638]]

those instructions are not to report back forthwith with an amendment 
if offered at the outset of consideration), may intervene at the outset 
(4) but not after debate has begun in the 
House,(5) and may be offered by any Member (who need not 
qualify as being in opposition to the pending question), when any bill 
or resolution is ``under debate,'' i.e., when the previous question has 
not been moved or ordered. The motion is debatable under the hour rule 
whether or not accompanied by instructions (6) unless the 
previous question has been ordered thereon, and once disposed of, 
cannot be offered again at the same stage of the question on the same 
day.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 65.
 5. 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 468; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2742.
 6. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5561.
 7. Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to recommit a bill or joint resolution after the 
previous question shall have been ordered pending the question of final 
passage is provided in the second sentence of clause 4, Rule XVI, and 
recognition to offer that motion to recommit, whether a ``straight'' 
motion or with instructions, is the prerogative of a Member who is 
opposed to the bill or joint resolution,(8) the Speaker 
looking first to minority members of the committee reporting the bill, 
in order of their rank on the committee,(9) then to other 
Members on the minority side,(10) and then to a majority 
member who is opposed if no minority member qualifies.(11) 
The threshold question asked in qualifying a Member to offer the motion 
to recommit is, ``Is the gentlemen (gentlewoman) opposed to the 
measure?'' Beyond this, the Member entitled to offer the motion is 
determined by the Speaker's power of recognition, but rulings indicate 
that the Speaker will follow the above-mentioned priorities in 
recognition. Basically, the motion is the prerogative of the minority, 
and recognition would be offered to a less senior minority member of 
the reporting committee in preference to a more senior majority member 
of that committee. A majority member of the reporting committee would 
have lower priority than a minority member not on the reporting 
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 100 Cong. Rec. 3967, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 29, 1954 [Speaker 
        Joseph W. Martin (Mass.)].
 9. 78 Cong. Rec. 1396, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 6, 1932 [Speaker John 
        N. Garner (Tex.)]; 81 Cong. Rec. 10638, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 2, 1935 [Speaker Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.)].
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 12608, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 16, 1950 [Speaker 
        Sam Rayburn (Tex.)].
11. 78 Cong. Rec. 7327, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 1, 1932 [Speaker John 
        N. Garner (Tex.)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair no longer gives priority to Members opposed to the

[[Page 4639]]

 measure in its entirety over those opposed to the measure ``in its 
present form.'' (12) If the motion is ruled out on a point 
of order, its proponent or another qualifying Member is entitled to 
offer a proper motion to recommit.(13) The Committee on 
Rules is precluded under clause 4(b), Rule XI (14) from 
reporting a special rule which would prevent the motion to recommit 
from being made as provided in clause 4, Rule XVI (in the second 
sentence), although it may report a special rule limiting to a straight 
motion, or precluding certain instructions in, the motion to recommit 
which may be offered on a bill or joint resolution pending final 
passage.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. Sec. 27.8, 27.9, infra. These precedents supersede earlier 
        precedents in which priority was accorded to Members totally 
        opposed.
13. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2713.
14. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729a (1981).
15. H. Jour. 47, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 11, 1934 [Speaker Henry T. 
        Rainey (Ill.)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to commit under clause 1, Rule XVII applies to 
resolutions, and to concurrent resolutions as well as to bills and 
joint resolutions,(16) to conference reports in cases where 
the House is acting first on the report and to motions, such as a 
motion to amend the Journal.(17) It does not apply to a 
report from the Committee on Rules providing a special order of 
business,(18) or to a pending amendment to a proposition in 
the House.(19) Although a motion to commit under this 
clause, with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment 
has been allowed after the previous question has been ordered on a 
motion to dispose of Senate amendments before the stage of 
disagreement,(20) a motion to commit under this clause does 
not apply to a motion disposing of Senate amendments after the stage of 
disagreement where utilized to displace a pending preferential 
motion.(1) The motion to commit under clause 1, Rule XVII 
may be made pending the demand for the previous question on passage of 
a bill or adoption of a resolution,(2) but when the demand 
covers all stages of the bill to the final passage the motion to commit 
is made only after the third
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5572, 5573; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2742.
17. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5574.
18. Id. at Sec. Sec. 5593-5601; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2270, 
        2750.
19. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5573.
20. Id. at Sec. 5575; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2744, 2745.
 1. 122 Cong. Rec. 30887, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 16, 1976 [Speaker 
        Carl Albert (Okla.)].
 2. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5576.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4640]]

reading and becomes, in effect, the motion as provided in the second 
sentence of clause 4, Rule XVI, and is not in order pending the demand 
or before the engrossment or third reading,(3) or where the 
House has refused to order the third reading.(4) When 
separate motions for the previous question are made, respectively, on 
the third reading and on the passage of a bill, the motion to commit 
should only be made after the previous question is ordered on 
passage.(5) When the previous question has been ordered on a 
simple resolution and a pending amendment thereto, the motion to commit 
should be offered after the vote on the amendment.(6) A 
motion to commit has been entertained after ordering of the previous 
question even before the adoption of rules at the beginning of a 
Congress.(7) The same principles of recognition apply to the 
motion to commit under clause 1, Rule XVII as apply to the motion to 
recommit under the second sentence of clause 4, Rule XVI, but a motion 
under clause 1, Rule XVII to commit a resolution called up in the House 
as a privileged matter and not previously referred to committee does 
not depend on party affiliation or on opposition to the 
resolution.(8) The motion to commit under this clause is not 
debatable,(9) but may be amended, as by adding instructions, 
unless such amendment is precluded by moving the previous question on 
the motion to commit.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Id. at Sec. Sec. 5578-81.
 4. Id. at Sec. Sec. 5602, 5603.
 5. Id. at Sec. 5577.
 6. Id. at Sec. Sec. 5585-88.
 7. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2755.
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 3920, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 19, 1976 [Speaker 
        Carl Albert (Okla.)].
 9. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5582.
10. Id. at Sec. Sec. 5582-84; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2695.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to refer is also provided in clause 7, Rule XXIII, which 
permits the offering of a motion to refer a measure to any committee, 
with or without instructions, pending concurrence in the House in a 
recommendation from the Committee of the Whole that the enacting clause 
of a measure be stricken. Since the recommendation that the enacting 
clause be stricken may interrupt and supersede the offering of 
amendments in Committee of the Whole, and since the motion to recommit 
pending the vote in the House on striking the enacting clause may be an 
alternative for those who oppose killing the bill, persuasive dicta in 
the precedents indicate that ``the motion to recommit is made not by 
persons

[[Page 4641]]

who favored the striking out of the enacting clause but by their 
opponents. The presumption would be that, having succeeded in the 
Committee, they would also succeed in the House and would wish to come 
to an immediate decision; and apparently the provision for a motion to 
refer was inserted so that the friends of the original bill might avert 
its permanent death by referring it again to committee, where it could 
again be considered in the light of the action of the House.'' 
(11) Based upon this reasoning, it would not appear that the 
motion to recommit in this situation would be the prerogative of the 
minority or that the Member seeking recognition to offer it must 
qualify as being opposed to the bill. As indicated in Chapter 19, Sec. 
11.14, supra, the motion has, however, been offered in the modern 
practice by the same Member who had successfully offered the motion in 
Committee of the Whole to rise with the recommendation that the 
enacting clause be stricken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2629.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to refer, commit, or recommit may in certain situations 
include instructions. The ``straight'' motion (i.e., without 
instructions) sends a measure to a specified committee and leaves the 
disposition thereof, together with any amendments adopted by the House 
which may also have been referred, to the discretion of the committee. 
The straight motion to commit or recommit is not debatable where made 
pending the previous question or after the previous question has been 
ordered.(12) The motion to refer, commit, or recommit may 
specify that the reference shall be to a select as well as a standing 
committee (13) without regard for rules of 
jurisdiction,(14) and may provide for reference to another 
committee than that reporting the bill, (15) or to the 
Committee of the Whole,16) but not to a 
subcommittee.(17) The straight motion and the motion with 
instructions are of equal privilege and have no relative 
precedence.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5582.
13. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4401.
14. Id. at Sec. 4375; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5527.
15. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2696, 2736.
16. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5552, 5553.
17. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2739.
18. Id. at Sec. Sec. 2714, 2758, 2762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to commit or recommit with instructions, if made under 
the second sentence of clause 4, Rule XVI, is debatable for 10 minutes, 
five minutes in favor of the motion and five opposed, and only on a 
bill or joint resolution pending final passage.

[[Page 4642]]

    Instructions accompanying a motion to recommit may direct the 
committee(s) to which the measure is recommitted to take certain 
actions. Often the committee is instructed to report the measure back 
to the House immediately (``forthwith'') with an amendment contained in 
the instructions. However, unless provision is included in a special 
rule adopted by the House, it is not in order to do indirectly by a 
motion to recommit with instructions that which may not be done 
directly by way of amendment,(19) such as to propose an 
amendment which is not germane, to propose to strike out or amend 
merely that which has already been inserted by way of 
amendment,(1) to propose an amendment in violation of 
clauses 2, 5, or 6 of Rule XXI,(2) or to change the rules of 
the House by granting a committee leave to report at any time or 
requiring a report on a date certain.(3) Where a special 
rule providing for the consideration of a bill prohibited the offering 
of amendments to a certain title of the bill during its consideration 
in both the House and Committee of the Whole, it was held not in order 
to offer a motion to recommit with instructions to incorporate an 
amendment in the restricted title.(4) The motion may not be 
accompanied by a preamble, argument, or explanation,(5) and 
it may not be laid on the table where the previous question has been 
ordered or is pending on the measure to which applied.(6) 
Only one proper motion to commit or recommit is in order, where the 
previous question has been ordered to final passage or 
adoption.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5529-41; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2705.
 1. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2712, 2715, 2720, 2721.
 2. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 834, 846, 847 (1981); see 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. 5533-40.
 3. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5543, 5549.
 4. H. Jour. 47, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 11, 1934 [Speaker Henry T. 
        Rainey [Ill.)).
 5. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5589; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2749.
 6. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5412-14.
 7. Id. at Sec. Sec. 5577, 5582; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2763.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon approval of the motion to recommit with instructions to report 
back forthwith with an amendment, this process is automatic and the 
committee is not required to convene and consider the measure. The 
chairman or other designated committee member rises and announces that 
pursuant to the instructions of the House, he is reporting the measure 
back to the House with the amendment which was included in the 
instructions.(8) At this point
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. Sec. 28.9, 32.23, 32.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4643]]

a vote is taken on the amendment,(9) and on at least one 
occasion the House has defeated the amendment when so 
reported.(10) Thus the offering of a motion to recommit with 
instructions may give the minority an opportunity to have its version 
of the pending measure placed before the House for a vote, subject to 
the restrictions on prior House adoption of amendments and depending 
upon any special authority conferred in a special rule reported from 
the Committee on Rules to offer a motion to recommit ``with or without 
instructions'' notwithstanding prior House adoption of an inconsistent 
amendment. However, the motion to recommit with instructions may be 
amended if the previous question is not ordered thereon, and a 
substitute which strikes out all of the proposed instructions and 
inserts others in their place is in order if germane to the pending 
measure, and has been held not to violate the right of the minority to 
move to recommit.(11) When a bill is recommitted it is 
before the committee as a new subject,(1) but the committee 
must confine itself to the instructions, if there be any.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. Sec. 32.23, 32.24, infra.
10. See Sec. 32.28, infra.
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2759.
 1. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4557; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5558.
 2. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4404; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5526.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion as Subject to Amendment

Sec. 25.1 A motion to recommit is subject to amendment unless the 
    previous question is ordered thereon; and the previous question 
    takes precedence of the motion to amend.

    On Aug. 11, 1969,(3) the House was considering H.R. 
12982, the District of Columbia Revenue Act for 1969. After the bill 
was engrossed and read a third time, Mr. Alvin E. O'Konski, of 
Wisconsin, offered a motion to recommit. The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 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:(4) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question on the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 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.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See also 84 Cong. Rec. 3671, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 31, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
        The motion to recommit was rejected.

[[Page 4644]]

Sec. 25.2 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated 
    that a motion to recommit a bill is not amendable unless the 
    previous question is voted down on the motion.

    On May 6, 1970,(6) the House was considering H.R. 17123, 
authorizing military procurement for fiscal 1971. After Mr. Alvin E. 
O'Konski, of Wisconsin, offered a motion to recommit the bill, Mr. 
Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, rose with a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 116 Cong. Rec. 14490, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker:(7) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, is a motion to recommit amendable?
        The Speaker: Not unless the previous question is voted 
    down.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 18940, 18941, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. June 26, 
        1968; and 101 Cong. Rec. 9379, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 
        1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 25.3 Parliamentarian's Note: A point of order against an amendment 
    to a motion to recommit is in order immediately following the 
    reading of the amendment.

Reference to Particular Committees

Sec. 25.4 A motion to recommit may provide for reference of the bill 
    under consideration to any committee of the House.

    On Aug. 7, 1950,(9) the House was considering H.R. 8396, 
authorizing federal assistance to state and local governments in times 
of major disasters. The following then occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 96 Cong. Rec. 11914, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Kenneth B.] Keating [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker:(10) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keating: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Keating moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
        Public Lands with instructions to report the same back 
        forthwith with the following amendment: Page 2, line 6, after 
        ``President'' insert ``and the Congress of the United States''. 
        I make the point of order against the motion to recommit that 
        it is a violation of the rules of the House for the bill to be 
        recommitted to the Committee on Public Lands. The Committee on 
        Public Works has jurisdiction of this bill.

        The Speaker: The gentleman may recommit it to any committee, as 
    far as

[[Page 4645]]

    that is concerned, but the Committee on Public Lands does not have 
    jurisdiction over legislation of this character.
        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to change the 
    word ``Lands'' to ``Works.''

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from New York?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.

Sec. 25.5 The motion to recommit a measure may refer it to any 
    committee of the House, and such motion need not necessarily refer 
    the measure to the committee that originally reported it.

    On Dec. 21, 1932,(11) the Committee of the Whole having 
considered H.R. 13742, to provide revenue by the taxation of a certain 
nonintoxicating liquor, reported the bill back to the House. After the 
engrossed copy was read the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 76 Cong. Rec. 866, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Crowther [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (12) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Crowther: I am.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Crowther moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 13742) to the 
        Committee on the Judiciary.

        Mr. Crowther: Mr. Speaker, on that motion I move the previous 
    question.
        Mr. [John J.] Cochran of Missouri:
        Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the motion to 
    recommit. This bill came from the Committee on Ways and Means, and 
    the motion to recommit is to the Judiciary Committee. The 
    precedents----
        The Speaker: This is not a question of precedent. You can move 
    to recommit it to any committee of the House.

Recommittal to Committee Reporting Bill

Sec. 25.6 If the Committee of the Whole reports a bill back to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, 
    a motion to recommit the bill to the committee reporting it is in 
    order in the House.

    On July 18, 1946,(13) the Committee of the Whole having 
considered the bill S. 1717, relating to the development and control of 
atomic energy, a motion was made to report that bill back to the House 
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. The 
following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 9355, 9356, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Graham A.] Barden [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 4646]]

        The Chairman: (14) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. Delaney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Barden: As I understand the parliamentary situation, if 
    this motion prevails, when we go back into the House it would be 
    proper to introduce a motion to recommit the bill back to the 
    committee for further consideration; is that not correct?
        The Chairman: That is correct. . . . When we go back into the 
    House, the House will vote whether or not they want to strike out 
    the enacting clause.
        Mr. Barden: Mr. Chairman, instead of voting whether or not we 
    want to strike out the enacting clause, will it not be a vote to 
    recommit to the committee?
        The Chairman: After we go back into the House, a motion to 
    recommit would be in order.

Permitting More Than One Motion

Sec. 25.7 Where a motion to recommit with an instruction was ruled out 
    on a point of order, a second motion with another instruction was 
    admitted.

    On Apr. 28, 1932,(15) the House was considering H.R. 
11452, the Navy Department appropriations bill. The following then 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 75 Cong. Rec. 9147, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker:(16) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collins: I am.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Collins moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
        Appropriations with instructions to report the same back 
        forthwith with the following amendment: On page 25, line 19, 
        before the semicolon, insert ``Provided further, That the total 
        number of enlisted men in the ratings of bandmaster, first 
        musician, musician first class and musician second class on 
        April 18, 1932, shall be reduced by 355 by discontinuing new 
        enlistments and reenlistments not continuous in such ratings 
        and/or placing in such ratings men otherwise rated.''

        Mr. [Carl R.] Chindblom [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. My understanding is that action was taken on this question 
    by an amendment passed in the House. That was stricken out by an 
    amendment.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, that is 
    not a good point of order. The Speaker can not take cognizance of 
    any action that has been taken in Committee of the Whole on the 
    state of the Union except as reported to the House. The chairman of 
    the committee reports only the facts as to amendments, and there 
    was no report that any part of the bill had been stricken out.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois makes the point of 
    order that the motion to recommit attempts to reinsert language 
    that was stricken out of the bill in the House by agreeing to

[[Page 4647]]

    an amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole. The rulings 
    are uniform that you can not undo in a motion to recommit that 
    which the House has just disposed of, so the point of order is well 
    taken.
        Mr. [John C.] Schafer [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    motion to recommit. I move that the bill be recommitted to the 
    Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report it back 
    after further consideration with 10 per cent reduction in the total 
    amount of the appropriation.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

Effect of Special Order

Sec. 25.8 Where a special rule by its terms ordered the previous 
    question at a certain time on a bill to final passage, it was held 
    that a motion to recommit was in order notwithstanding the 
    provisions of the special rule.

    On Mar. 11, 1933,(17) Mr. Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
rose with the following resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 77 Cong. Rec. 198, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Byrns: Mr. Speaker, I offer the following resolution, move 
    its adoption, and upon that motion I move the previous question.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolution offered by Mr. Byrns:

                             ``House Resolution 32

            ``Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution the House shall proceed to the consideration of H.R. 
         2820, a bill to maintain the credit of the United States 
        Government, and all points of order against said bill shall be 
        considered as waived; that, after general debate, which shall 
        be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 2 
        hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
        ranking minority member of the Committee on Economy, the 
        previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to 
        final passage.''

        Mr. [Gordon] Browning [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker:(18) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Henry T. Rainey (Ill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Browning: If this resolution is adopted, there will not be 
    any privilege of amendment given to the House, under any 
    consideration?
        The Speaker: There will not be.
        Mr. Browning: Would a motion to recommit be in order following 
    the third reading of the bill?
        The Speaker: It would; yes.

Sec. 25.9 The Committee on Rules may not report any order or rule which 
    shall operate to prevent the offering of a motion to recommit as 
    provided in Rule XVI clause 4, but such restriction does not apply 
    to a special rule which may prevent a motion to recommit with 
    instructions to incorporate an amendment in a title to which such 
    special rule precludes the offering of amendments.

[[Page 4648]]

    On Jan. 11, 1934,(19) the following occurred on the 
floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 78 Cong. Rec. 479, 480, 482, 483, 73d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William B.] Bankhead [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, at the 
    request of the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
    from North Carolina, I call up for consideration House Resolution 
    217 and ask that the same be reported.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 217

            Resolved, That during the consideration of H.R. 6663, a 
        bill making appropriations for the Executive Office and sundry 
        independent bureaus, boards, commissions, and offices, for the 
        fiscal year ending June 30, 1935, and for other purposes, all 
        points of order against title II or any provisions contained 
        therein are hereby waived; and no amendments or motions to 
        strike out shall be in order to such title except amendments or 
        motions to strike out offered by direction of the Committee on 
        Appropriations, and said amendments or motions shall be in 
        order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding. 
        Amendments shall not be in order to any other section of the 
        bill H.R. 6663 or to any section of any general appropriation 
        bill of the Seventy-third Congress which would be in conflict 
        with the provisions of title II of the bill H.R. 6663 as 
        reported to the House, except amendments offered by direction 
        of the Committee on Appropriations, and said amendments shall 
        be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary 
        notwithstanding. . . .

        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order against the rule that it is not a privileged report 
    from the Committee on Rules, on the ground that it violates the 
    general rules of the House by denying the right to the minority to 
    make the usual and regular motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (20) The Chair will hear the gentleman 
    from New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Henry T. Rainey (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am familiar with the rights 
    of the Committee on Rules to make privileged reports, they are 
    entitled to report a rule at any time, with the two exceptions, and 
    these exceptions are specifically set forth in section 725, page 
    327, of the Manual:

            The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or order 
        which shall provide that business under paragraph 7 of rule 
        XXIV--

        Which is the Calendar Wednesday rule--
        shall be set aside by a vote of less than two-thirds of the 
        Members present--

        The next exception covers the point I am making in my point of 
    order--
        nor shall it report any rule or order which shall operate to 
        prevent the motion to recommit being made as provided in 
        paragraph 4 of rule XVI.

        Paragraph 4 of rule XVI states the following:

            After the previous question shall have been ordered on the 
        passage of a bill or joint resolution, one motion to recommit 
        shall be in order.

        Also rule XVII, section 1, provides--

            It shall be in order, pending the motion for or after the 
        previous

[[Page 4649]]

        question shall have been ordered on its passage, for the 
        Speaker to entertain a motion to commit with or without 
        instructions to a standing or select committee.

        It has been the precedent of the House for a great many years 
    that under no circumstances will the minority be prohibited from 
    making a motion to recommit, and I have yet never heard anyone 
    express a different opinion on policy or philosophy of the rules of 
    the House. In this way the minority is allowed to place its 
    position before the Congress, and, if enough Members approve of it, 
    they are entitled to a roll-call vote. I have never heard anyone 
    take a different position on the floor of the House. But it is 
    evident, from what the gentleman from Alabama says, that they 
    intend, by the particular wording of this rule, to take advantage 
    of the situation and to deny the minority the right of making such 
    a motion. For this reason I maintain the rule is subject to the 
    point of order. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from 
    New York makes the point of order that the Committee on Rules has 
    reported out a resolution which violates the provisions of clause 
    45, rule XI, which are as follows:

            The Committee on Rules shall not report any rule or order . 
        . . which shall operate to prevent the motion to recommit being 
        made as provided in clause 4, rule XVI.

        The pertinent language of clause 4, rule XVI is as follows:

            After the previous question shall have been ordered on the 
        passage of a bill or joint resolution one motion to recommit 
        shall be in order and the Speaker shall give preference in 
        recognition for such purpose to a Member who is opposed to the 
        bill or resolution.

        The special rule, House Resolution 217, now before the House, 
    does not mention the motion to recommit. Therefore, any motion to 
    recommit would be made under the general rules of the House. The 
    contention of the gentleman from New York that this special rule 
    deprives the minority of the right to make a motion to recommit is, 
    therefore, obviously not well taken. The right to offer a motion to 
    recommit is provided for in the general rules of the House, and 
    since no mention is made in the special rule now before the House 
    it naturally follows that the motion would be in order.
        A question may present itself later when a motion to recommit 
    with instructions is made on the bill H.R. 6663 that the special 
    rule which is now before the House may prevent a motion to recommit 
    with instructions which would be in conflict with the provisions of 
    the special rule. It has been held on numerous occasions that a 
    motion to recommit with instructions may not propose as 
    instructions anything that might not be proposed directly as an 
    amendment. Of course, inasmuch as the special rule prohibits 
    amendments to title II of the bill H.R. 6663 it would not be in 
    order after the adoption of the special rule to move to recommit 
    the bill with instructions to incorporate an amendment in title II 
    of the bill. The Chair therefore, holds that the motion to 
    recommit, as provided in clause 4, rule XVI, has been reserved to 
    the minority and that insofar as such rule is concerned the special 
    rule before the House does not de

[[Page 4650]]

    prive the minority of the right to make a simple motion to 
    recommit. The Chair thinks, however, that a motion to recommit with 
    instructions to incorporate a provision which would be in violation 
    of the special rule, House Resolution 217, would not be in order. 
    For the reasons stated, the Chair overrules the point of order.

Explaining the Motion

Sec. 25.10 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Chair indicated 
    that following the reading and amendment of the final section of a 
    bill, he would still recognize a Member to move to strike out the 
    last word in order to explain a motion to recommit to be 
    subsequently offered in the House but not then debatable.

    On July 31, 1969,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13111, Labor and HEW appropriations for fiscal 1970. 
The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 21676, 21677, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles S.] Joelson [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (2) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Chet Holifield (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Joelson: Section 409 is the last section of the bill. I 
    understand there will be an explanation of a proposed motion to 
    recommit. Will there be time to explain the motion and time for me 
    to comment on it?
        The Chairman: There will be time. Section 409 has not yet been 
    read. Section 409 still must be read. The Chair will certainly 
    recognize any Member after the section has been read, providing it 
    is not for the purpose of offering an amendment to section 408 or 
    section 409. In fact, the Chair will recognize the chairman for a 
    perfecting amendment after that.
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    no intention of attempting to foreclose a motion, if there is one 
    --and I do not know that there will be--to recommit. I have no 
    intention of foreclosing explanations, if there are any, by any 
    opponent of the motion to recommit.
        The Chairman: The Chair is pleased to have that statement, 
    because the Chair had promised the gentleman who will offer the 
    recommittal motion to recognize him for 5 minutes when he moves to 
    strike out the last word, after the Committee concludes action on 
    sections 408 and 409, for an explanation of his motion to recommit.

Recommittal of Resolution From Rules Committee

Sec. 25.11 A motion to recommit a privileged resolution reported from 
    the Committee on Rules is not in order.

    On June 8, 1970,(3) the House was considering House 
Resolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 18656-58, 18668-71, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4651]]

976, establishing a select committee to investigate U.S. military 
involvement in Southeast Asia. After the previous question was moved, 
Mr. Jonathan Bingham, of New York, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Bingham: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bingham: Will the Chair entertain a motion to recommit with 
    an amendment to the resolution?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman 
    from New York that a motion to recommit is not in order on a 
    resolution from the Committee on Rules.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See also 101 Cong. Rec. 1076-79, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 2, 
        1955; 97 Cong. Rec. 11394, 11397, 11398, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Sept. 14, 1951; 89 Cong. Rec. 233, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 
        19, 1943; 88 Cong. Rec. 6544, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 
        1942; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2270, 2753. See House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 729(b) (1981), for discussion of 
        recommittal of special orders if the previous question is 
        defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Divisibility of Motion

Sec. 25.12 A motion to recommit with instructions is not divisible.

    On June 27, 1947,(6) the House was considering the 
conference report on H.R. 3737, a bill to provide revenue for the 
District of Columbia. Mr. Joseph P. O'Hara, of Minnesota, offered a 
motion to recommit the conference report to the committee of conference 
with certain instructions to the House conferees. Mr. Everett M. 
Dirksen, of Illinois, then rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 93 Cong. Rec. 7845, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dirksen: Would not the motion be divisible?
        The Speaker: (7) A motion to recommit is not 
    divisible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                    E. MOTIONS TO REFER OR RECOMMIT
 
Sec. 26. Purpose and Effect

Expression of Minority Opinion

Sec. 26.1 One purpose of the motion to recommit is to give those 
    Members opposed to the bill an opportunity to call for a final 
    expression of opinion by the House on the bill.

    On May 15, 1939,(8) the following occurred on the floor 
of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 84 Cong. Rec. 5535, 5536, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) The unfinished business is the 
    reading of the engrossed copy of the bill (H.R. 6260) making 
    appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940, for civil
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4652]]

     functions administered by the War Department, and for other 
    purposes.

        The bill was read the third time.
        Mr. [D. Lane] Powers [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Powers: I am, Mr. Speaker.

        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies, and the Clerk will report 
    the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Powers moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
        Appropriations with instructions to report the same back 
        forthwith with amendments reducing the total amount of the bill 
        $50,000,000.

        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the motion to recommit undertakes to do 
    indirectly what cannot be done directly.
        The amount carried in this bill, with these amendments, totals 
    $305,000,000. Part of it is for the Panama Canal, part for 
    cemeterial expense, part for the Signal Corps and Alaskan 
    Communications Commission, part for rivers and harbors, part for 
    flood control, and part for the United States Soldiers' Home. Of 
    the amount of $305,000,000, $277,000,000 is for rivers and harbors 
    and flood control, leaving only $28,000,000 for all these other 
    governmental activities. A reduction of $50,000,000 would take away 
    a large part of the money carried in the two amendments voted in 
    the House last Wednesday. A motion to recommit to do this cannot be 
    done. This motion to recommit attempts to do indirectly what cannot 
    be done directly. It proposes a second vote on the same 
    propositions that were voted on last Wednesday; therefore is 
    subject to a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair may state, in connection with the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi, that the Chair 
    understands the purpose of the motion to recommit, one motion to 
    recommit always being in order after the third reading, is to give 
    to those Members opposed to the bill an opportunity to have an 
    expression of opinion by the House upon their proposition. It is 
    true that under the precedents it is not in order by way of a 
    motion to recommit to propose an amendment to an amendment 
    previously adopted by the House, but the motion now pending does 
    not specifically propose to instruct the Committee on 
    Appropriations to do that. The Chair is inclined to the opinion 
    that the motion to recommit in the form here presented is not 
    subject to a point of order.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Committee Action

Sec. 26.2 The House may, through use of the motion to recommit, 
    instruct one of its committees to take certain actions which are 
    not contrary to the rules of the House.

    On Aug. 22, 1966,(10) the House was considering H.R. 
16340, prohibiting picketing within 500 feet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 112 Cong. Rec. 20119, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4653]]

of any church in the District of Columbia. The following then occurred:

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) Is the gentleman 
    opposed to the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Edwards of California: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Edwards of California moves to recommit H.R. 16340 to 
        the District of Columbia Committee with instructions to hold 
        public hearings and to request a report of the Department of 
        Justice and the testimony of the Attorney General.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the motion to recommit. We cannot tell a committee 
    who to call as witnesses and what kind of hearings to hold.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House has authority to instruct 
    the committee. The motion is in order.

Investigation of Election Contest

Sec. 26.3 A resolution pertaining to an election contest may be 
    recommitted to an elections committee with an instruction calling 
    for a further investigation of the issues involved.

    On Aug. 19, 1937,(12) Mr. John H. Kerr, of North 
Carolina, called up House Resolution 309, relating to the election 
contest of Roy v Jenks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 9356, 9374, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Resolved, That Arthur B. Jenks is not entitled to a seat in 
        the House of Representatives in the Seventy-fifth Congress from 
        the First Congressional District of the State of New Hampshire.
            Resolved, That Alphonse Roy is entitled to a seat in the 
        House of Representatives in the Seventy-fifth Congress from the 
        First Congressional District of the State of New Hampshire. . . 
        .

        Mr. [J. Mark] Wilcox [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: (13) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Florida rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wilcox: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Wilcox moves that this resolution be recommitted to the 
        committee; that the committee be and hereby is authorized, 
        empowered, and directed to take or cause to be taken the 
        testimony of the 458 Newton residents shown by the town 
        election records to have voted there in person on November 3, 
        1936, and such further testimony as the committee may consider 
        relevant to better enable it to determine the issue

[[Page 4654]]

        raised by this case; and that the committee be authorized to 
        expend such sums in its investigation as it may deem necessary, 
        and report its findings and recommendations to this House at 
        the next session of Congress.

        Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion to recommit.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 231, nays 129, 
    answered ``present'' 3, not voting 66. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to.

Authority of Speaker as to Committee Instructions

Sec. 26.4 Where the House adopts a motion to recommit it is not within 
    the province of the Speaker to advise or direct a committee in the 
    performance of its duty under the terms of the motion.

    On Aug. 19, 1937,(14) the House was considering House 
Resolution 309, relating to the election contest of Roy v Jenks. Mr. 
Jack Nichols, of Oklahoma, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 9374, 9375, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Speaker, we of the committee are in a quandary 
    in reference to the motion to recommit just adopted by the House 
    and would ask that the Speaker examine the motion, if that is 
    possible, and advise us what we are directed to do under the motion 
    to recommit.
        The Speaker: It is not within the province of the Chair to 
    undertake to direct the committee. The Chair feels the House 
    itself, under the terms of the motion, has directed the committee 
    as to the procedure.

Effect of Special Order

Sec. 26.5 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a 
    bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
    recommitted to the committee from which reported is not in order 
    where the Committee of the Whole is considering the bill under a 
    resolution setting out conditions which do not permit such motion.

    On Aug. 10, 1950,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 9176, the Defense Production Act of 1950. Mr. John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, rose with a preferential motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 12219, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rankin moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the

[[Page 4655]]

        bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be 
        recommitted to the Committee on Banking and Currency for 
        further hearings and study.

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Howard W. Smith (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Patman: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that this 
    being a straight motion to recommit, without instructions, it is 
    not permissible under the rule under which we are considering the 
    bill in Committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair is ready to rule.
        That motion is not in order in Committee of the Whole, and the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, it is in order to make a motion that 
    the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House 
    with the recommendation that it be recommitted to the Committee on 
    Banking and Currency for further study and hearing.
        The Chairman: In the consideration of this bill the Committee 
    of the Whole is operating under a special rule which lays down the 
    conditions under which the bill is to be considered. The motion of 
    the gentleman from Mississippi is not in order at this time.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The special rule [H. Res. 740 agreed to 
Aug. 1, 1950] provided:

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the bill (H.R. 9176) to establish a system of 
    priorities and allocations for materials and facilities, authorize 
    the requisitioning thereof, provide financial assistance for 
    expansion of productive capacity and supply, strengthen controls 
    over credit, regulate speculation on commodity exchanges, and by 
    these measures facilitate the production of goods and services 
    necessary for the national security, and for other purposes, and 
    all points of order against said bill are hereby waived. That after 
    general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue 
    not to exceed 1 day, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking 
    and Currency, the bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-
    minute rule. It shall be in order to consider without the 
    intervention of any point of order the substitute committee 
    amendment recommended by the Committee on Banking and Currency now 
    in the bill, and such substitute for the purpose of amendment shall 
    be considered under the 5-minute rule as an original bill. At the 
    conclusion of such consideration the committee shall rise and 
    report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
    adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on 
    any of the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
    bill or committee substitute. The previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit, 
    with or without instructions.

[[Page 4656]]

Effect of Recommittal on Amendments

Sec. 26.6 Where a bill reported to the House with committee amendments 
    is recommitted, it is again before the committee in its original 
    form--that is, as introduced or referred to that committee in the 
    first instance. The committee must again vote on any amendments 
    before rereporting the measure.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On Sept. 20, 1972,(18) the House 
by unanimous consent recommitted the bill S. 1316, to amend section 301 
of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, to the Committee on Agriculture. 
Upon recommittal, the Parliamentarian advised the Committee on 
Agriculture that the Senate bill in the form passed by the Senate was 
pending before the committee, and that the committee would be required 
to act again upon the amendments in order to report the bill with 
committee amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 31370, 31371, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.7 Where the Senate recommits a bill to the committee which 
    reported it such action nullifies all amendments agreed to on the 
    floor, and, if this happens to a House bill, it goes back to the 
    Senate committee in the same form in which it came from the House.

    On May 11, 1949,(19) the Senate was considering H.R. 
3083, a Treasury and Post Office appropriations bill for fiscal 1950. 
The following discussion took place on the floor of the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 6039, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Vice President: (20) The Chair will advise 
    Senators that when a bill is recommitted to the committee from 
    which it emanates, such action nullifies all amendments that have 
    been agreed to on the floor of the Senate, and the bill goes back 
    to the committee--if it happens to be a House bill--in the same 
    shape in which it came to the Senate from the House, regardless of 
    the intention of any Senator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Alben W. Barkley (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Status of Recommitted Conference Report

Sec. 26.8 When a conference report is recommitted to the conference 
    committee the entire matter is again before that committee for 
    consideration.

    On Sept. 11, 1940,(1) the House was considering the 
conference re
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 86 Cong. Rec. 11938, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4657]]

port on S. 3550, making unlawful the transportation of convict-made 
goods in interstate commerce. Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, 
offered a motion to recommit the conference report and then posed the 
following parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Michener: If this motion should carry, the conferees would 
    then be permitted to go back and cut out all the exemptions which 
    they have included here if they wanted.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The whole matter would 
    be before the conferees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.9 Notwithstanding recommittal of a conference report to a 
    committee of conference with instructions, the subsequent 
    conference report is filed as privileged, given a new number, and 
    otherwise treated as a new and separate report.

    On May 8, 1963,(3) the House agreed to recommit the 
conference report (H. Rept. No. 275) on the supplemental appropriations 
bill (H.R. 5517) for fiscal 1963 to the committee of conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 109 Cong. Rec. 8043, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 14, 1963,(4) the new conference report on H.R. 
5517, renumbered House Report No. 290, was submitted for consideration 
to the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Id. at pp. 8502, 8503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.10 Where a conference report is recommitted to the committee of 
    conference, and a second report is then filed by the conferees, 
    this second report is numbered and otherwise treated by the House 
    as a new and separate report.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On June 30, 1962,(5) the 
conferees on the part of the House filed House Report No. 1955, the 
second conference report on S. 3161, to continue authority for the 
control of exports. The original conference report, House Report No. 
1949, had been recommitted to the committee of conference. When the 
second report was filed, the question arose as to whether it should be 
given a new number, or numbered as part II of House Report No. 1949. It 
was given a new number, and the first report was not acted upon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 12355, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommittal of Improperly Reported Bills

Sec. 26.11 Where the chairman of a committee admits that a bill was 
    reported when a

[[Page 4658]]

    quorum was not present in the committee, and a point of order is 
    sustained against the bill on that ground, the bill is recommitted 
    by order of the Speaker.

    On Oct. 11, 1968,(6) the House was considering S. 2511, 
to maintain and improve the income of producers of crude pine gum. Mr. 
Paul Findley, of Illinois, made a point of order against the 
consideration of the bill on the grounds that it had been reported from 
the Committee on Agriculture sitting without a quorum being present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 114 Cong. Rec. 30739, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) The Chair would like to inquire of 
    the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture if a quorum was 
    present when the bill was reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of 
    the Committee on Agriculture was not present the day this bill was 
    reported. The record indicates that there were only 14 members of 
    the committee present at the time it was reported.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Texas state that the 
    record of his committee shows there were 14 members present when 
    the bill was acted upon and reported out?
        Mr. Poage: That is correct.
        The Speaker: Clause 27 of rule XI clearly covers this 
    situation. Paragraph (e) of clause 27 of rule XI states:

            No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any 
        committee unless a majority of the committee were actually 
        present.

        Upon the statement of the chairman of the committee, a majority 
    of the committee were not actually present. Therefore, the point of 
    order is sustained; and the bill is recommitted to the Committee on 
    Agriculture.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 30751, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 11, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.12 Where a report of a committee fails to comply with the 
    provisions of the Ramseyer rule and a point of order is sustained 
    on that ground, the bill is recommitted to the committee reporting 
    it.

    On May 3, 1937,(9) the Clerk had just called up S. 709, 
to incorporate the National Education Association of the United States. 
Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 4123, 4124, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Speaker, if it appears from the report that 
    subsection 2(a) of rule XXIII (10) commonly known as the 
    Ramseyer rule, has not been complied with, is the bill 
    automatically recommitted to the committee from which it was 
    reported?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Rule XIII clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 745 (1981).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (11) If the point of order should be 
    sustained, under the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4659]]

    provision governing such cases the bill would automatically be 
    recommitted to the committee from which it was reported.

        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    consideration of the bill (S. 709) that the so-called Ramseyer rule 
    has not been complied with. . . .
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained, and the bill is 
    recommitted to the Committee on Education.

Resolution Certifying Contumacious Conduct

Sec. 26.13 The House has adopted a motion recommitting a resolution 
    certifying the contempt of a committee witness to the committee 
    which reported the contumacious conduct.

    On July 13, 1971,(12) the House was considering House 
Resolution 534, certifying the contumacious conduct of Frank Stanton, 
president of CBS, as a witness before the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce. After the previous question was ordered on motion by 
Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, Mr. Hastings Keith, of 
Massachusetts, rose to his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 117 Cong. Rec. 24723, 24752, 24753, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keith: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (13) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keith: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Keith moves to recommit House Resolution 534 to the 
        Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered on the motion to recommit.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 226, nays 181, 
    answered ``present'' 2, not voting 24. . . .
        So the motion to recommit was agreed to.

Bill on Consent Calendar

Sec. 26.14 A bill on the Consent Calendar has been recommitted to the 
    committee which reported it.

    On Apr. 4, 1949,(14) the House was considering a bill on 
the Consent Calendar (H.R. 1823), to establish a Women's Reserve as a 
branch of the Coast Guard Reserve. Immediately after the House adopted 
an amendment, Mr. Herbert C. Bonner, of North Carolina, then rose to 
his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 3806, 3807, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bonner: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (15) The Clerk will report the motion 
    to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

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

[[Page 4660]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bonner moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
        Merchant Marine and Fisheries. . . .

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Marcantonio) there were--ayes 107, noes 89. . . .
        The motion to recommit was agreed to.

Bill on Private Calendar

Sec. 26.15 A bill on the Private Calendar was, by unanimous consent, 
    recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.

    On Dec. 17, 1963,(16) the Clerk of the House called up 
the bill S. 1272, for the relief of Viktor Jaanimets. The following 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 24796, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Is there objection to 
    the present consideration of the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael A.] Feighan [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the bill S. 1272 be recommitted to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Ohio?
        There was no objection.

Recommittal of Pending Resolution

Sec. 26.16 The recommittal of a funding resolution and a privileged 
    report thereon does not prevent the resolution from being called up 
    by unanimous consent.

    On Sept. 30, 1966,(18) the House recommitted House 
Resolution 1028, and its accompanying report No. 2158, providing funds 
for the Committee on House Administration, to that committee. Mr. Omar 
T. Burleson, of Texas, then rose to a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 24548, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Burleson: Mr. Speaker, by the report and resolution being 
    recommitted, would that preclude a request on the part of the 
    chairman of the committee to call the [resolution] up under 
    consent?
        The Speaker: (19) The Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Burleson: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the 
    immediate consideration of House Resolution 1028. . . .
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

Instructions to Modify Amendment

Sec. 26.17 Absent a special rule, a motion to recommit may not include 
    instructions to mod

[[Page 4661]]

    ify any part of an amendment previously agreed to by the House.

    On May 4, 1960,(20) Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, 
rose with the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 106 Cong. Rec. 9416, 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day I addressed a 
    parliamentary inquiry to the Chair to which response was made. The 
    parliamentary inquiry went to the question as to whether or not, as 
    the Senate bill has been reported by the committee, a motion to 
    recommit with instructions would be in order. Mr. Speaker, to 
    further clarify the matter, the committee struck out all after the 
    enacting clause of the Senate bill and substituted a complete 
    amendment, which I take it would be offered if and when the bill 
    were to be read for consideration. Under those circumstances, Mr. 
    Speaker, and in view of the fact that what some of us refer to as 
    the administration bill, introduced by the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Kilburn] is now on the calendar, the parliamentary inquiry is 
    whether or not under the rules of the House a motion to recommit 
    with instructions would be in order in order that a record vote 
    could be had on such amendment as a substitute.
        The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from Indiana has been 
    kind enough to discuss this with the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On further examining the rules and precedents of the House, 
    under the situation as it exists, when we go into the Committee of 
    the Whole and the amendment is adopted, and then agreed to in the 
    House, the rules are that a motion to recommit with instructions 
    will not be in order.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See also 99 Cong. Rec. 6156, 83d Cong. 1st Sess., June 5, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: If an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is agreed to in Committee of the Whole and ratified by the 
House, that text cannot thereafter be changed by a motion to recommit 
with instructions.

Sec. 26.18 Where the House has adopted an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, such amendment cannot, absent a special rule, be 
    further amended by way of a motion to recommit; and only a simple 
    motion to recommit would be in order.

    On June 17, 1952,(3) the House was considering S. 658, 
to amend the Communications Act of 1934. Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of 
Indiana, rose with the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 98 Cong. Rec. 7421, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: In view of the fact that the matter before us is a 
    Committee amendment, a complete amendment to the whole bill, would 
    any motion to recommit, except a straight motion to recommit, be in 
    order?

[[Page 4662]]

        The Speaker: (4) That is the only motion that would 
    be in order under the rule.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
 5. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 9416, 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 4, 
        1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment Reported in Disagreement by Conferees

Sec. 26.19 A motion to recommit an amendment reported in disagreement 
    by the conferees is not in order.

    On Oct. 17, 1967,(6) the House was considering the 
conference report and amendments in disagreement on H.R. 11476, 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation for fiscal 1968. 
After the conference report had been agreed to, the House proceeded to 
consider the amendments reported in disagreement, when Mr. Sidney R. 
Yates, of Illinois raised the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 29044, 29048, 29049, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, is it in order to move to recommit this 
    particular amendment to conference?
        The Speaker: (7) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Illinois that at this point it would not be in order 
    to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                    E. MOTIONS TO REFER OR RECOMMIT
 
Sec. 27. Priorities in Recognition

Speaker's Power of Recognition

Sec. 27.1 On one occasion the Speaker took the floor in the Committee 
    of the Whole to state that it was his prerogative to recognize any 
    member of the minority for a motion to recommit when no member of 
    the committee offers a motion.

    On Feb. 3, 1944,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering S. 1285, relating to voting by members of the armed forces. 
Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., a Republican from Massachusetts, had 
indicated that he would be glad to have either Mr. Eugene Worley, a 
Democrat of Texas, or Mr. John Z. Anderson, a Republican of California, 
recognized to offer a motion to recommit. Mr. John J. Cochran, of 
Missouri, then yielded the floor to Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 90 Cong. Rec. 1221, 1222, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rayburn: I trust that this colloquy will not take away from 
    the Speaker what has always been his prerogative, to recognize any 
    member of the minority to offer a motion to recommit when no member 
    of the committee offers a motion.

[[Page 4663]]

        Mr. Cochran: In my opinion no Member on the minority side who 
    is a member of the committee can stand up, in view of the fact that 
    they all signed the report, and say he is opposed to the bill. 
    Therefore some person outside of the committee will have to do it.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Cochran: I yield.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: There will be no minority member 
    of the committee, in my opinion, who can stand up and say he is 
    opposed to the bill, but I would like to address a word or two to 
    my beloved friend, the Speaker. I realize it rests with the Speaker 
    to recognize the Member to make the motion to recommit. The clear 
    intent of the rule, however, in my opinion, is to give that weapon 
    of recommitment to the minority and not to any minority of the 
    minority.
        Mr. Rayburn: I just wanted to make it entirely clear that I 
    always recognize somebody in the minority if they qualify, but I 
    could not allow anybody to commit me to recognize any particular 
    member of the minority. The gentleman from Massachusetts would not 
    ask me to do that, nor would he want that done to him were our 
    positions reversed.

What Constitutes Recognition

Sec. 27.2 The mere fact that the Speaker asks a Member ``for what 
    purpose does the gentleman rise'' does not extend recognition to 
    such Member to offer a motion to recommit.

    On Apr. 13, 1946,(9) the House was considering H.R. 
6064, authorizing an extension of the Selective Training and Service 
Act. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 92 Cong. Rec. 3669, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (10) The question is on the engrossment 
    and third reading of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        Mr. [Dewey] Short (of Missouri): Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox (of Georgia): Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri 
    rise?
        Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia 
    rise?
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, it was my purpose to demand a reading of 
    the engrossed copy of the bill.
        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, may a demand be made for the reading 
    of the copy of the engrossed bill after the proceedings which have 
    just taken place and after the Clerk has read the bill which was 
    considered engrossed?
        The Speaker: The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
    third time. The gentleman from Georgia was on his feet at the time.

[[Page 4664]]

        Does the gentleman from Georgia insist upon his demand that the 
    engrossed copy of the bill be read?
        Mr. Cox: Mr. Speaker, my making demand that the engrossed copy 
    of the bill be read does not indicate my opposition to the bill.
        Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
        Mr. Cox: I was compelled to make the demand and I did make it.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] demands the 
    reading of the engrossed copy of the bill. The Chair will state 
    that with the number of amendments agreed to, it would be 
    impossible to have the engrossed copy of the bill this afternoon.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the situation 
    correctly, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Short] was recognized 
    to offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Short] was not 
    recognized. The Chair asked the gentleman for what purpose he rose, 
    and then recognized the gentleman from Georgia.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 101 Cong. Rec. 9379, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 28, 1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition as Dependent on Opposition to Measure

Sec. 27.3 In recognizing a Member to move to recommit, the Speaker 
    determines if the Member qualifies as being opposed to the bill.

    On April 27, 1966,(12) the House was considering H.R. 
10065, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1965. After the 
engrossed copy of the bill was read Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of 
Louisiana, was recognized, and the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 9153, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (13) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Waggonner: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See also 95 Cong. Rec. 3110-15, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 
        1949; and 86 Cong. Rec. 11938, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Sept. 11, 
        1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member's Attitude Toward Measure is Only Relevant Inquiry

Sec. 27.4 The Speaker recognized a Member for a motion to recommit who 
    stated that he was opposed to the form of the bill, although 
    another Member said he was unqualifiedly opposed to the bill.

    On Mar. 12, 1964,(15) the House was considering H.R. 
8986, relat
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 110 Cong. Rec. 5147, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4665]]

ing to salary increases for federal officers and employees. The 
following then occurred:

        Mr. [Robert J.] Corbett [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (16) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Corbett: I am opposed to the bill in its present form.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.
        Mr. [H.R.] Gross (of Iowa): Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa 
    rise?
        Mr. Gross. Under the rules of the House, Cannon's Procedure in 
    the House of Representatives, a member of the committee who is 
    unqualifiedly opposed to the bill takes precedence over a member 
    who qualifies his opposition.
        The Speaker: The Chair understands that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania is opposed to the bill in its present form.
        Mr. Gross: I am opposed to it unqualifiedly.
        The Speaker: Since the gentleman from Pennsylvania is opposed 
    to the bill in its present form, the Chair rules that the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania qualifies.

        The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.  See also 104 Cong. Rec. 12974, 85th Cong. 2d Sess., July 2, 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acceptance of Member's Declaration of Opposition

    Parliamentarian's Note: The following precedents demonstrate the 
current and the older practice with respect to qualifying to offer the 
motion to recommit. Under the current practice (Sec. Sec. 27.5-27.9, 
infra) a Member opposed to the bill ``in its present form'' qualifies. 
The earlier rulings (Sec. Sec. 27.10, and 27.11, infra) illustrate a 
distinction between qualified and total opposition.

Sec. 27.5 Members of the minority have preference of recognition for 
    motions to recommit and, if they qualify as being opposed to the 
    bill, the Chair never questions their veracity.

    On Apr. 8, 1957,(18) the House was considering H.R. 
6500, making appropriations for the government of the District of 
Columbia and for other purposes. Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri (of the 
majority party), and Mr. Earl Wilson, of Indiana (of the minority party 
and a member of the Committee on Appropriations), rose at the same time 
to offer motions to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 5294, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
    recommit.
        Mr. Wilson of Indiana: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
    recommit.
        The Speaker: (19) Is the gentleman from Indiana 
    opposed to the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

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

[[Page 4666]]

        Mr. Wilson of Indiana: I am.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies. . . .
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: When a Member makes a motion to recommit 
    and the Chair asks him if he is against the bill, would the 
    proceedings during the afternoon when he is for the bill--
        The Speaker: The Chair never questions a Member about his 
    motives or whether or not he is telling the truth.
        Mr. Jones of Missouri: I was just asking for information.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Indiana offered a motion to 
    recommit. The motion always goes to the minority if they desire it, 
    and the gentleman qualifies by saying he was opposed to the bill.

Sec. 27.6 When a Member has stated that he is opposed to a bill, the 
    Speaker will not entertain a point of order against a motion by 
    that Member to recommit with instructions on the grounds that the 
    motion shows the Member not to be opposed and not qualified.

    On July 2, 1958,(20) Mr. John Taber, of New York, rose 
and was recognized by the Speaker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 104 Cong. Rec. 12974, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker:(1) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I am.

    Mr. Homer H. Budge, of Idaho, inquired whether he, who was 
unqualifiedly opposed to the bill, was entitled to prior recognition to 
offer a motion to recommit.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York has qualified by his 
    statement that he was opposed to the bill. What other thought the 
    gentleman from New York may have had in his mind the Chair is 
    unable to determine.
        The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Taber moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
        Appropriations with instructions to report the same back 
        forthwith together with the following amendment: Page 2, line 
        10, strike out ``$700,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$775,000,000.''

    At this point Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, rose to a point of 
order.

        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    motion to recommit on the ground that the motion itself shows that 
    the gentleman is not qualified.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot entertain such a point of order 
    after the statement made by the gentleman from New York.

Effect of Qualified or Limited Opposition

Sec. 27.7 Where a Member seeking recognition to offer a motion

[[Page 4667]]

    to recommit a bill states he is opposed to ``some features'' of the 
    bill, the Chair may conclude that he is opposed to the bill and 
    therefore recognize him to make the motion.

    On Apr. 15, 1948,(2) the House was considering H.R. 
6226, supplemental national defense appropriations for 1948. After the 
engrossed copy of the bill was read Mr. John H. Kerr, of North 
Carolina, was recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 94 Cong. Rec. 4547, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (3) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kerr: I am opposed to some features of it.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. The gentleman says that he is opposed to some features of 
    the bill. My understanding of the rules is that the gentleman must 
    be opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has stated that he is opposed to 
    some features of the bill, and the Chair must interpret that to 
    mean that he is opposed to the bill.
        The gentleman from North Carolina qualifies. The Clerk will 
    report the motion to recommit.

Sec. 27.8 The Speaker indicated in response to a parliamentary inquiry 
    that a minority member of a committee reporting a bill who is 
    opposed to the bill ``in its present form'' qualifies to offer a 
    motion to recommit since he is opposed to the bill then before the 
    House.

    On Apr. 16, 1970,(4) the House was considering H.R. 
16311, the Family Assistance Act of 1970. Mr. Harold R. Collier, of 
Illinois, was then recognized to offer a motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 116 Cong. Rec. 12063, 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collier: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (5) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Collier: In its present form I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.
        Mr. [Phillip M.] Landrum [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Landrum: Mr. Speaker, is it not true under the rules of the 
    House that the motion to recommit should go to one who is 
    unqualifiedly opposed to the bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that a Member who states that 
    he is opposed to the bill in its present form qualifies.
        Mr. Landrum: Mr. Speaker, is that not a modification of the 
    rule that a

[[Page 4668]]

    Member in order to qualify must be opposed to the bill?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Collier) 
    qualifies because he has stated he is in opposition to the bill in 
    its present form, which is the bill now before the House.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois has 
    repeatedly stated, as recently as a few minutes ago, that he firmly 
    supports the bill.
        Mr. Collier: Mr. Speaker, I said I firmly support the principle 
    and the concept of the bill. That is what I said, but I am opposed 
    to the bill in its present form.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois has stated that he is 
    opposed to the bill in its present form. Therefore, the gentleman, 
    with that statement, and upon his responsibility, 
    qualifies.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 28487, 28488, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 3, 
        1969; and 110 Cong. Rec. 5147, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 12, 
        1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 27.9 In qualifying a Member to offer a motion to recommit, the 
    Chair makes no distinction between a Member who states that he is 
    opposed to the bill in its present form and another who is opposed 
    to the bill in its entirety.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(7) the House was considering H.R. 
14000, authorizing military procurement for fiscal 1970. The Speaker, 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Alvin E. O'Konski, 
of Wisconsin, and the following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 115 Cong. Rec. 28487, 28488, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Konski: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. O'Konski: In its present form, emphatically yes.
        Mr. [Otis G.] Pike [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Pike: Mr. Speaker, Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
    Representatives volume 8, section 2731, says:

            Recognition to move recommitment is governed by the 
        attitude of the Member toward the bill, and a Member opposed to 
        the bill as a whole is entitled to prior recognition over a 
        Member opposed to a portion of the bill.

        Mr. Speaker, I submit that there were two gentlemen on their 
    feet on the other side, one of whom has voted against the bill as a 
    whole, both seeking recognition for the privilege of offering the 
    motion to recommit. I would submit that under that rule of the 
    House the gentleman who stated that he was opposed to it only in 
    its present form should yield to the gentleman who has voted 
    against the entire bill.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. O'Konski) has stated he is opposed to the bill in 
    its present form before the House is the bill H.R. 14000, as 
    amended, and therefore the gentleman qualifies.

[[Page 4669]]

        The point of order is overruled.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 12063, 12092, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 16, 
        1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. O'Konski and Mr. Chalmers P. Wylie 
(Ohio) who were both minority members of the Committee on Armed 
Services, each sought recognition to offer a motion to recommit. 
Speaker McCormack in overruling 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2731 
apparently relied on the fact that Mr. O'Konski was the senior minority 
member of the Committee on Armed Services, the committee that had 
reported the measure at issue.

Sec. 27.10 Under the earlier practice, a Member opposed to a conference 
    report ``in its present form'' was qualified to move to recommit 
    such a report, but if another Member opposed to the report without 
    reservation desired recognition to offer the motion, he was 
    accorded priority.

    On Oct. 18, 1949,(9) the House was considering the 
conference report on H.R. 5856, the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 
1949. When Mr. A. S. Mike Monroney, of Oklahoma, was recognized, the 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 14943, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Monroney: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (10) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    conference report?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Monroney: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Monroney moves to recommit the conference report to the 
        conference committee with instructions to the managers on the 
        part of the House to further insist upon the House provisions 
        for the exemption of employees of newspapers of circulation of 
        5,000 or under.

        Mr. [Walter E.] Brehm [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brehm: If I understood the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    correctly, he said he was opposed to the bill in its present form. 
    If I understand the rules correctly, that is incorrect. He is 
    either opposed to it or he is for it. I wonder if the gentleman 
    will state his position?
        The Speaker: If the gentleman is opposed to the bill in its 
    present form he would be opposed to it. However, if some other 
    Member had asked to qualify to submit a motion to recommit, and 
    said he was absolutely opposed to the bill, unequivocally, as a 
    gentleman said the other day, then of course the Speaker would 
    recognize him.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The rule referred to by Speaker Rayburn has not been invoked in 
        recent years. Speaker McCormack's rulings (see Sec. Sec. 27.8, 
        27.9, supra) reflect the current practice.

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

[[Page 4670]]

Sec. 27.11 Under the earlier practice, a Member opposed to a bill 
    without reservation had priority to offer a motion to recommit the 
    bill over one opposed merely to the bill ``in its present form''; 
    and where a Member opposed to a bill in its present form offered 
    the motion, the Speaker asked ``is there any member opposed without 
    reservation who desires to make such a motion.''

    On May 24, 1949,(12) the House was considering H.R. 
4591, relating to pay, allowances, and physical disability retirement 
for members of the armed forces. Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, 
was recognized and the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 6772, 6773, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
    recommit.
        The Speaker: (13) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present 
    form.
        The Speaker: Does any Member desire to offer a motion to 
    recommit without reservation? [After a pause.] The Chair hears 
    none. The gentleman from South Dakota is the only Member that 
    qualifies under the circumstances.

Vote on Recommitted Measure

Sec. 27.12 A Member making a motion to recommit must qualify as being 
    opposed to the measure under consideration, and is expected to 
    indicate his opposition by voting against passage of the measure if 
    the motion to recommit is rejected; however, where the proponent of 
    a motion to recommit with instructions is successful in having this 
    motion adopted, and the instructions accompanying the motion are 
    agreed to by the House, he remains under no obligation to vote 
    against the bill on final passage.

    On Dec. 2, 1969,(14) the House was considering House 
Resolution 613, affirming its support for President Richard M. Nixon's 
conduct of war in Viet Nam. Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania, moved 
to recommit the resolution with instructions to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. After his motion was adopted by the House, Mr. Fulton 
voted in favor of the resolution as amended by that motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 36536, 36537, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 4671]]

Recognition of Member Favoring Measure

Sec. 27.13 A Member may be recognized to offer a motion to recommit 
    even though he is not opposed to the bill if no Member opposed 
    seeks recognition.

    On Jan. 24, 1946,(15) the House was considering H.R. 
5201, appropriations for independent offices for fiscal 1947, when Mr. 
John Taber, of New York, was recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 92 Cong. Rec. 370, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(16) Is the gentleman 
    opposed to the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: I am not, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Joe] Hendricks [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hendricks: Did the gentleman from New York say he was 
    against the bill?
        Mr. Taber: I did not. That relates only to the privilege of 
    offering it. A Member who is opposed to the bill would be entitled 
    to prior recognition.
        Mr. Hendricks: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that 
    unless the gentleman is opposed to the bill he cannot offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there any Member of the minority 
    party who is opposed to the bill who desires to offer a motion to 
    recommit? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none.
        The Clerk will report the motion to recommit offered by the 
    gentleman from New York.

Proponent of Amendment to Motion to Recommit

Sec. 27.14 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker 
    indicated that if the previous question were voted down on a motion 
    to recommit, the person offering an amendment to the motion would 
    not necessarily have to qualify as being opposed to the bill.

    On June 26, 1968,(17) the House was considering H.R. 
18037, Labor and HEW appropriations for fiscal 1969. After Mr. Robert 
H. Michel, of Illinois, was recognized to offer a motion to recommit, 
Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, was recognized to propound a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 18940, 18941, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Is it not true that under the rules a motion to 
    recommit, under the long-established precedents of the House of 
    Representatives, shall go to the ranking member on the minority 
    side of the committee involved?
        The Speaker:(18) The Chair has recognized and 
    complied with that custom
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4672]]

    and practice in recognizing the gentleman from Illinois on the 
    motion to recommit.

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michel: Is it not also true that for one to qualify to 
    amend a motion to recommit, one would also have to be opposed to 
    the bill?
        The Speaker: At that stage, should it develop, not necessarily.

Members of the Minority

Sec. 27.15 In recognizing a Member for a motion to recommit, the 
    Speaker gives preference to a minority member if opposed to the 
    measure.

    On Mar. 29, 1954,(19) the House was considering House 
Resolution 468, authorizing expenditures to be paid out of the 
contingent fund of the House. The following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 100 Cong. Rec. 3962-67, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Augustine B.] Kelley of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (20) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kelley of Pennsylvania: I am, Mr. Speaker.

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    motion to recommit with instructions.
        The Speaker: The Chair is obliged to say that, by reason of a 
    time-honored custom, the motion to recommit belongs to the minority 
    party if they claim the privilege, and in this instance they have 
    claimed it. Therefore, the Chair is constrained to recognize the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelley), for that 
    purpose.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also 101 Cong. Rec. 3950, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 29, 1955; 
        92 Cong. Rec. 10104, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 25, 1946; 89 
        Cong. Rec. 9899, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 23, 1943; 88 Cong. 
        Rec. 478, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 19, 1942; and 86 Cong. Rec. 
        8214, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., June 13, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 27.16 On one occasion, the Speaker intended to recognize the 
    Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to offer a motion to 
    recommit, but the Minority Leader claimed that the motion to 
    recommit was the prerogative of the minority and the Speaker 
    recognized a minority member of the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce, the committee which had reported the matter to 
    the House, to offer the motion.

    On July 13, 1971,(2) the House was considering a 
resolution (H. Res. 534) certifying the contumacious conduct of Frank 
Stanton, the president of CBS, as a witness
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 24723, 24752, 24753, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4673]]

before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Mr. Hastings 
Keith, of Massachusetts, a member of that committee, was recognized to 
offer a motion to recommit the resolution to the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Parliamentarian's Note: The Congressional Record indicates only 
        that Mr. Keith, a Republican, was recognized to offer a motion 
        to recommit. However, prior to consideration of the resolution, 
        the Speaker had announced to the press his support of a motion 
        to recommit the resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary 
        for further study of the constitutional questions involved. 
        During consideration of the resolution, however, the Minority 
        Leader, Gerald R. Ford (Mich.), suggested that recognition to 
        offer the motion to recommit was the prerogative of the 
        minority, whereas the Speaker had indicated that he would 
        recognize Emanuel Celler (N.Y.), Chairman of the Committee on 
        the Judiciary, to offer the motion. The Speaker therefore 
        agreed to recognize a minority member of the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce to offer the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minority Member Opposed to Measure in Its ``Present Form''

Sec. 27.17 Under the prior practice, the Speaker extended recognition 
    to a minority member ``opposed to the bill in its present form'' 
    over a majority member with the same qualification where no one 
    stated he was opposed to the bill without qualification.

    On July 7, 1949,(4) the House was considering S. 1008, 
to define the application of the Federal Trade Commission and the 
Clayton Act to certain pricing practices. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, 
offered a motion to recommit, and the Speaker, Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
posed the following question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 95 Cong. Rec. 9074, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Gross: I am, in its present form.
        The Speaker: Is there anyone opposed to the bill without 
    qualification?
        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Tennessee opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. Evins: I am, in its present form.
        The Speaker: The gentleman does not qualify any more than the 
    gentleman from Iowa.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Evins was a Democrat and hence a member 
        of the majority party in the 81st Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minority Members of Reporting Committee

Sec. 27.18 In recognizing Members to move to recommit,

[[Page 4674]]

    the Speaker gives preference to minority members of the committee 
    reporting the bill.

    On June 19, 1959,(6) the following occurred on the floor 
of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 105 Cong. Rec. 11372, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to 
    recommit.
        Mr. [Noah M.] Mason [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit, which is at the Clerk's desk.
        The Speaker: (7) The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Mason], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and in the 
    minority, has the right to make the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is the gentleman from Illinois opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Mason: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

Sec. 27.19 On one occasion a minority member of a committee reporting a 
    bill offered a straight motion to recommit (having qualified as 
    being opposed to the bill), and then voted against that motion.

    On Sept. 16, 1971,(8) the House was considering H.R. 
1746, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1971. Mr. John M. 
Ashbrook, of Ohio, was then recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 117 Cong. Rec. 32112, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (9) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ashbrook moves that the bill H.R. 1746 be recommitted 
        to the Committee on Education and Labor. . . .

        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 130, nays 270, not 
    voting 33.

    Mr. Ashbrook was listed among those voting nay.

Recognizing Minority Members of Reporting Committee

Sec. 27.20 In recognizing Members to move to recommit, the Speaker 
    gives preference first to the ranking minority member of the 
    committee reporting the bill; then to the remaining minority 
    members of that committee in the order of their rank.

    On June 18, 1957,(10) the House was considering H.R. 
6127, a civil rights bill. Mr. Joseph W. Martin,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 9516, 9517, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4675]]

Jr., of Massachusetts, inquired as to the relative priorities in 
recognition to offer the motion to recommit. The Speaker, Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, responded to the inquiry by citing a ruling by former Speaker 
Champ Clark:

        The Speaker: The Chair in answer to that will ask the Clerk to 
    read the holding of Mr. Speaker Champ Clark, which is found in 
    volume 8 of Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, 
    section 2767.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            The Chair laid down this rule, from which he never intends 
        to depart unless overruled by the House, that on a motion to 
        recommit he will give preference to the gentleman at the head 
        of the minority list, provided he qualifies, and then go down 
        the list of the minority of the committee until it is gotten 
        through with. And then if no one of them offer a motion to 
        recommit the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Kansas 
        (Mr. Murdock), as the leader of the third party in the House. 
        Of course he would have to qualify. The Chair will state it 
        again. The present occupant of the chair laid down a rule here 
        about a year ago that in making this preferential motion for 
        recommitment the Speaker would recognize the top man on the 
        minority of the committee if he qualified--that is, if he says 
        he is opposed to the bill--and so on down to the end of the 
        minority list of the committee. . . .

        The Speaker: . . . In looking over this list, the Chair has 
    gone down the list and will make the decision when someone arises 
    to make a motion to recommit. The Chair does not know entirely who 
    is going to seek recognition.
        Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Poff: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Russell W.] Keeney [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I also 
    offer a motion to recommit, and I, too, am opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: In this instance the Chair finds that no one has 
    arisen who is a member of the minority of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary until it comes down to the name of the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Poff]. He ranks the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Keeney] and is therefore senior. Under the rules and precedents of 
    the House, the Chair therefore must recognize the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Poff].(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 17327, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., May 28, 1970; 
        and 114 Cong. Rec. 18914, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., June 26, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 27.21 Members of the committee reporting a measure are entitled to 
    prior recognition for the purpose of offering a motion to recommit 
    if they qualify as being opposed to the measure.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On June 29, 1937,(12) the House 
was considering H.R. 7562, the farm tenancy bill. The Speaker, William 
B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized Mr. Gerald J. Boileau,

[[Page 4676]]

of Wisconsin, to offer a motion to recommit, although Mr. Joseph W. 
Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, was also on his feet attempting to offer 
a motion to recommit. Since Mr. Boileau was a member of the Committee 
on Agriculture and Mr. Martin was not, the Speaker accorded prior 
recognition to Mr. Boileau. Upon discovering that Mr. Boileau was not 
opposed to the measure, the Speaker recognized Mr. Martin to offer his 
motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 6580, 6581, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 27.22 Recognition to offer a motion to recommit was extended to a 
    minority member of the committee which reported the bill under 
    consideration, who qualified as being opposed to the bill ``in its 
    present form,'' although a majority member of the committee, 
    totally opposed to the bill, was on his feet seeking recognition.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On June 30, 1969,(13) the House 
was considering H.R. 12290, continuing an income tax surcharge and 
certain excise taxes through fiscal 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 17874, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker (14) recognized Mr. Charles E. Chamberlain, 
of Michigan, who opposed the bill ``in its present form,'' to offer a 
motion to recommit, although a member of the majority party who was 
totally opposed to the bill was on his feet seeking recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Chamberlain: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

Sec. 27.23 A member of the committee reporting a measure, if opposed to 
    the bill in its final form, is entitled to move to recommit over 
    one not a member of the committee.

    On Oct. 9, 1951,(15) the House was considering S. 1959, 
to amend the National Labor Relations Act. After Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, 
of Michigan, offered a motion to recommit Mr. Cleveland M. Bailey, of 
West Virginia, a member of the majority, rose with a parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 97 Cong. Rec. 12863, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bailey: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (16) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bailey: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on 
    Education and

[[Page 4677]]

    Labor, do I not have the privilege of recognition?
        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: May I inquire if it is not the practice and the 
    rules of the House of Representatives that the right to offer a 
    motion to recommit goes first to someone on the minority side?
        The Speaker: In response to the gentleman from Indiana, that is 
    correct, if he is a member of the committee, reporting the bill. 
    The Chair quotes from page 301 of Cannon's procedure in the House 
    of Representatives as follows:

            A member of the committee reporting the measure and opposed 
        to it is entitled to recognition to move to recommit over one 
        not a member of the committee.

        Mr. [Walter E.] Brehm [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit.
        The Speaker: The Chair will hold that the gentleman is not too 
    late in offering the motion. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Brehm: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion, and that motion 
    must be in writing.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Parliamentarian's Note: Both Mr. Brehm and Mr. Hoffman were members 
        of the minority party, however, Mr. Brehm was a member of the 
        Committee on Education and Labor and Mr. Hoffman was not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 27.24 On one occasion a minority member of the Committee on Ways 
    and Means, which had considered title three of a bill reported by 
    the Committee on Public Works, was recognized to offer a straight 
    motion to recommit to the Committee on Public Works, although a 
    minority member of the Committee on Public Works also opposed to 
    the bill, sought to offer a motion to recommit with instructions.

    On Nov. 25, 1970,(18) the House was considering H.R. 
19504, relating to federal aid for highway construction. The Speaker, 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Joel T. Broyhill, 
of Virginia, to offer a motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 116 Cong. Rec. 38997, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broyhill of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
    recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Virginia opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. Broyhill of Virginia: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Fred] Schwengel [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Schwengel: Mr. Speaker, I speak as a member of the 
    Committee on Public Works. This is a public works bill. I have a 
    recommittal motion at the desk which was filed earlier this 
    afternoon.

[[Page 4678]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that title III of the bill is 
    a provision that has come from the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
    gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Broyhill] is a member of the Committee 
    on Ways and Means.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Broyhill had been a Member of Congress 
since the onset of the 83d Congress. Mr. Schwengel had begun his 
service with the 84th Congress, and after being defeated for a term in 
the 89th Congress, returned with the 90th Congress.

Recognizing Majority Member Opposed to Measure

Sec. 27.25 Where no Member from the minority side seeks recognition to 
    offer a motion to recommit, the Chair recognizes a Member from the 
    majority side who qualifies as being opposed to measure.

    On Apr. 5, 1967,(19) the House was considering House 
Resolution 221, appropriating funds for the administration of the 
House. After the Speaker, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled 
out on a point of order a motion to recommit offered by Mr. John 
Ashbrook, of Ohio, Mr. Sidney R. Yates, of Illinois, was recognized on 
a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 113 Cong. Rec. 8441, 8442, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Chair 
    ruled out the motion to recommit made by a member of the minority, 
    is it in order for the gentleman from California [Mr. Edwards], who 
    is on his feet seeking recognition to offer a motion to recommit?
        The Speaker: If no Member on the minority side seeks 
    recognition to offer a motion to recommit, then a Member on the 
    majority side may be recognized to offer a motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from 
    California rise?
        Mr. Edwards of California: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
    recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Edwards of California: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.
        The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 25663, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 30, 
        1965; 110 Cong. Rec. 20120, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 18, 1964; 
        94 Cong. Rec. 8014, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., June 12, 1948; 93 
        Cong. Rec. 7845, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., June 27, 1947; and 92 
        Cong. Rec. 9776, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 23, 1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Floor Manager of Measure

Sec. 27.26 The chairman of the committee reporting a bill who had 
    managed the bill during its consideration on the floor of the House 
    offered

[[Page 4679]]

    a motion to recommit with instructions to report it back with an 
    amendment which he had offered, and which had been rejected, in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 22, 1968,(1) the House was considering H.R. 
16409, the District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act. After the bill 
was read for the third time, John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, the 
Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia rose to his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 10126, 10130, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (2) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McMillan: In its present form I am opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. McMillan moves to recommit the bill H.R. 16409 to the 
        Committee on the District of Columbia with instructions to 
        report the bill back forthwith with the following amendment: On 
        page 2, strike out the salary schedule beginning after line 2 
        and ending before line 1 on page 4 and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: . . .

        Mr. McMillan (during the reading): Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to dispense with further reading of the motion to recommit 
    and that it be printed in the Record.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from South Carolina?
        Mr. [Joel T.] Broyhill of Virginia: Reserving the right to 
    object, is the amendment the gentleman has offered as a motion to 
    recommit the same amendment which the gentleman offered during the 
    debate on the bill which would reduce the salary structure by $200?
        Mr. McMillan: Two hundred dollars across the board.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from South Carolina?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered on the motion to recommit.


 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                    E. MOTIONS TO REFER OR RECOMMIT
 
Sec. 28 Offering the Motion; Procedure

Oral or Written Motions

Sec. 28.1 Motions to recommit must be sent to the Speaker's desk and 
    are required to be in writing.

    On June 16, 1949,(3) the House was considering H.R. 
4963, providing for the appointment of additional circuit and district 
judges. After the Speaker, Sam Rayburn, of Texas, announced that the 
question was on the passage of the bill, Mr. Carl T. Curtis, of Ne
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 7855, 7856, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4680]]

braska, offered a motion to recommit:

        Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Curtis: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk will report the 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Curtis moves to recommit the report back with the 
        Keating amendment. . . .

        Mr. [Emanual] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order against the motion to recommit that in that form, it is 
    not in order.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be recommitted 
    and reported back with this amendment:

            That not more than two-thirds of the total number of 
        circuit judges or district judges authorized hereunder first 
        appointed pursuant hereto shall be members of the same 
        political party.

        The Speaker: Will the gentleman send the motion to the desk? 
    The motion has to be in writing.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See also 97 Cong. Rec. 12863, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 9, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form of Instructions

Sec. 28.2 A motion to recommit a bill with instructions to report it 
    back with the ``Keating amendment'' (an amendment rejected in the 
    Committee of the Whole) was held not to be in proper form inasmuch 
    as the House has no knowledge of amendments rejected in the 
    Committee of the Whole and not reported therefrom.

    On June 16, 1949,(5) the House was considering H.R. 
4963, providing for appointment of additional federal judges. The 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 7855, 7856, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (6) The question is on the passage of 
    the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl T.] Curtis [of Nebraska]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Curtis: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk will report the 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Curtis moves to recommit the report back with the 
        Keating amendment.

        The Speaker: The House certainly has no knowledge of what the 
    Keating amendment is. That was acted on in the Committee of the 
    Whole. We are in a different jurisdiction now.

Correcting Language

Sec. 28.3 The use of incorrect language in a motion to recommit is not 
    within the control

[[Page 4681]]

    of the Chair after the previous question has been ordered.

    On May 19, 1939,(7) the House was considering H.R. 6392, 
providing appropriations for the Departments of Justice, State, 
Commerce, and the Judiciary. Mr. Charles Hawks, Jr., of Wisconsin, was 
then recognized:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 84 Cong. Rec. 5856, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hawks: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (8) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hawks: Yes.
        The Speaker: The gentlemen qualifies. The Clerk will report the 
    motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hawks moves to recommit the bill to the committee with 
        instructions to report it back forthwith with the following 
        amendment: At the end of the bill insert a new paragraph, as 
        follows:
            ``No part of the funds appropriated in this bill shall be 
        used for the purpose of purchasing any foreign dairy or other 
        competitive foreign agricultural products which are not 
        produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet 
        domestic needs.''. . .

        Mr. Thomas S. McMillan [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question on the motion to recommit.

        The previous question was ordered.

    Mr. James W. Mott, of Oregon, was then recognized.

        Mr. Mott: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mott: May I inquire whether the apparent inaccuracy or 
    error to which attention was called by the gentleman from South 
    Dakota has been corrected? There was a double negative in there as 
    I heard the amendment read.
        The Speaker: That is not a matter within the control of the 
    Chair, the previous question having been ordered.
        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, some of us are under the 
    impression that the wording of the amendment as it is on the 
    Clerk's desk is not in the form in which it was read. May I ask as 
    a parliamentary inquiry whether the amendment upon which we will 
    vote is as it was read to the House or if the words ``may not be'' 
    are changed to ``can''?
        The Speaker: There is no amendment pending before the House.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: I refer to the motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The motion to recommit has been reduced to writing 
    and has been read from the Clerk's desk. It speaks for itself.

Sec. Sec. 28.4 A motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report 
    a bill back to the House with the enacting clause be stricken out 
    and

[[Page 4682]]

    the bill ``returned'' to a committee with instructions to remove a 
    provision permitting the government to manfacture rum was held not 
    to be in proper form.

    On May 5, 1949,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2989, dealing with the Virgin Islands Corporation. The 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 95 Cong. Rec. 5705, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rich moves that the Committee now rise and report the 
        bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken and the bill be returned to the 
        Committee on Public Lands with instructions to remove the 
        provision permitting the Government to manufacture rum.

        The Chairman: (10) The Chair will state that the 
    motion as presented by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not in 
    proper form for a preferential motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: It is inconsistent to move that the 
Committee of the Whole recommend to the House both that the enacting 
clause of a measure be stricken and that the measure be ``returned'' 
(recommitted) to a committee. Concurrence by the House in the former 
constitutes a rejection of the measure and precludes recommittal. In 
the event that the House disagrees to the recommendation to strike the 
enacting clause, recommittal to the Committee of the Whole is 
automatic. Pending a vote in the House on agreeing to the 
recommendation to strike the enacting clause, a motion to recommit is 
in order. Rule XXIII clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (1983).

Rereading Motion

Sec. 28.5 A motion to recommit read by the Clerk may again be read by 
    unanimous consent.

    On May 19, 1939,(11) the House was considering H.R. 
6392, appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, State, Justice, 
and for the Judiciary. After the Clerk read a motion to recommit 
offered by Mr. Charles Hawks, Jr., of Wisconsin, and after the Chair 
overruled a point of order against the motion, Mr. Francis H. Case, of 
South Dakota, was recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 84 Cong. Rec. 5856, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (12) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4683]]

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: May the motion again be read? I think 
    there was an error in it.
        The Speaker: It may be read by unanimous consent.
        Is there objection to the reading of the motion?
        Mr. [John] Lesinski [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I object.

Form for Recommittal of Resolution

Sec. 28.6 The House considered a motion to recommit a resolution with 
    instructions to a standing committee to hold open hearings thereon.

    On Apr. 5, 1967,(13) the House was considering House 
Resolution 221, providing funds for the Committee on Un-American 
Activities. Mr. Don Edwards, of California, offered the following 
motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 8441, 8442, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Edwards of California moves to recommit the resolution (H. 
    Res. 221) to the Committee on House Administration with 
    instructions that open hearings be held on justification for such 
    additional funds of the House Committee on Un-American Activities 
    as provided in House Resolution 221.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 3664, 3665, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 25, 
        1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form for Recommittal of Conference Report With Instructions

Sec. 28.7 The House considered a motion recommitting a conference 
    report with instructions to House conferees.

    On Sept. 15, 1965,(13) the House was considering the 
conference report on H.R. 8283, the Economic Opportunity Act Amendments 
of 1965. Mr. William H. Ayres, of Ohio, offered the following motion to 
recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 23928, 23931, 23936, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ayres moves to recommit the conference report on the bill 
    (H.R. 8283) to the committee of conference with instructions to the 
    managers on the part of the House insist on the language of section 
    10 of the House bill, which retains the veto power of State 
    Governors in the form approved by the House.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 8037, 8043, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., May 8, 
        1963; and 97 Cong. Rec. 8064, 8071, 8072, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 12, 1951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Form of Motion to Recommit Bill With Instructions

Sec. 28.8 The House considered a motion to recommit a bill with 
    instructions that the committee not report back to the House until 
    certain information is available to it.

[[Page 4684]]

    On Mar. 5, 1970,(17) the House was considering S. 2910, 
additional authorization for the Library of Congress James Madison 
Memorial Building. Mr. Marion G. Snyder, of Kentucky, offered a motion 
to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 6191, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Snyder moves to recommit the bill S. 2910 to the Committee 
    on Public Works with the instruction that it not be reported back 
    to the House until all necessary designs, plans, and specifications 
    have been completed.

Reporting Amendment to House Pursuant to Instructions

Sec. 28.9 An amendment is immediately reported to the House pursuant to 
    a motion to recommit with instructions to report back ``forthwith'' 
    with an amendment.

    On Apr. 1, 1948,(18) the House was considering H.R. 
6055, the deficiency appropriation bill of 1948. After the engrossed 
copy of the bill was read and the Speaker, Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, announced that the question was on the passage of the 
bill, Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, offered the following motion to 
recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 94 Cong. Rec. 3994, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cannon moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
    Appropriations with instructions to report the bill back forthwith 
    with an amendment as follows:

            On page 10, line 7, strike out ``$300,000,000'' and insert 
        in lieu thereof ``$400,000,000.''

    After the Clerk announced the vote adopting the motion offered by 
Mr. Cannon, the Chair recognized Mr. John Taber, of New York.

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the instructions of 
    the House, I report the bill back with an amendment which is at the 
    desk.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will read the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 10, line 7, strike out ``$300,000,000'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``$400,000,000.''

        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        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.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also 108 Cong. Rec. 16781, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 16, 1962; 
        and 94 Cong. Rec. 448-450, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 22, 1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                    E. MOTIONS TO REFER OR RECOMMIT
 
Sec. 29. Time for Motion

After Engrossment and Third Reading.

Sec. 29.1 The motion to recommit is not in order until the bill

[[Page 4685]]

    has been engrossed and read a third time.

    On June 12, 1961,(20) the House was considering H.R. 
7053, relating to the admission of certain evidence in the courts of 
the District of Columbia. Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New York, rose with 
a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 107 Cong. Rec. 10080, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Multer: Mr. Speaker, at what point is a motion to recommit 
    in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) Prior to the passage of 
    the bill and after the third reading.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. W. Homer Thornberry (Tex.).
 2. See also 105 Cong. Rec. 10561, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1959; 
        96 Cong. Rec. 2254, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 22, 1950; and 84 
        Cong. Rec. 5535, 5536, 76th Cong. 1st Sess., May 15, 1939.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.2 Further consideration of a general appropriation bill having 
    been postponed to a day certain by unanimous consent following 
    engrossment and third reading of the bill, a motion to recommit the 
    bill is in order when consideration resumes on the subsequent day.

    On Apr. 17, 1973,(3) the House having considered H.R. 
6691, making appropriations for the legislative branch for fiscal 1974, 
ordered that the bill be engrossed and read a third time, and then 
postponed further consideration thereof until the next day. On Apr. 
18,(4) the Speaker (5) made the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 12792, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Id. at p. 13079.
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The unfinished business is the question on the passage of the 
    bill (H.R. 6691) making appropriations for the legislative branch 
    for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and for the other 
    purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Alphonzo] Bell [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Bell: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

Pending Concurrence With Recommendation That Enacting Clause Be 
    Stricken

Sec. 29.3 Whenever a bill is reported to the House by the Committee of 
    the Whole with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken out, pending the question of concurrence, a motion to 
    recommit the bill to a committee is in order.

    On Mar. 24, 1949,(6) the Committee of the Whole having 
had
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 95 Cong. Rec. 3110-15, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4686]]

under consideration H.R. 2681, to provide pensions for the veterans of 
World War I and World War II, reported the bill back to the House with 
the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. As the 
Speaker pro tempore, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that 
the question would be on that recommendation, Mr. Olin Teague, of 
Texas, and Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, both members of the 
majority party, rose:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the recommendation 
    of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union that 
    the enacting clause be stricken out.
        Mr. Teague rose.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman 
    from Texas rise?
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: I make the point of order that, according to the 
    rules of the House, the vote comes now on the motion to strike out 
    the enacting clause. I looked into the matter carefully last night.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: In this particular legislative 
    situation the motion to recommit is in order under clause 7 of rule 
    23.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Teague]. . . 
    .
        Mr. Teague: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: The gentleman from Texas to qualify to offer a 
    motion to recommit must announce that he is opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from Texas opposed to 
    the bill?
        Mr. Teague: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill as now 
    written.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk 
    will report the motion to recommit.

After Ordering of Previous Question

Sec. 29.4 A motion to recommit a resolution is properly made after the 
    previous question on that resolution is ordered.

    On Sept. 17, 1965,(7) the House was considering House 
Resolution 585, dismissing five Mississippi election contests. After 
the previous question was ordered, the Speaker, John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated that the question would be on the resolution as 
amended. Mr. Charles S. Gubser, of California, rose with a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 111 Cong. Rec. 24291, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gubser: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 4687]]

        Mr. Gubser: Mr. Speaker, I intend to offer a motion to 
    recommit. Will the Chair please advise when that will be in order?
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Gubser: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman now is the 
    appropriate time.

After Yeas and Nays Ordered

Sec. 29.5 Where the yeas and nays had been ordered on the passage of a 
    bill, it was held to be too late to offer a motion to recommit.

    On June 27, 1935,(8) the House was considering H.R. 
8555, the merchant marine bill. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, 
put the question on the passage of the bill, and the following 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 79 Cong. Rec. 10288, 10289, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William D.] McFarlane [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Clerk proceeded to call the roll.
        Mr. [Ralph O.] Brewster [of Maine]: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Maine 
    rise?
        Mr. Brewster: To propound a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Brewster: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    point of order. The Clerk had already begun the calling of the roll 
    and had called the first name, ``Allen.'' I make the point of order 
    the gentleman from Maine cannot interrupt the roll call.
        The Speaker: The Chair overrules the point of order. The 
    gentleman from Maine is entitled to propound a legitimate 
    parliamentary inquiry, and the Chair presumes that the inquiry 
    propounded is a proper one. The gentleman from Maine will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Brewster: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that a motion to 
    recommit cannot be submitted at this stage?
        The Speaker: Such a motion is not in order at this time.

After Announcing Result of Vote

Sec. 29.6 A motion to recommit comes too late when the Chair has put 
    the question on passage and has announced the apparent result of 
    the vote.

    On Dec. 11, 1969,(9) the House was considering H.R. 
4249, extending portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 38536, 38537, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (10) The question is on the passage of 
    the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.

[[Page 4688]]

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry: has a motion to recommit been made?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that a motion to recommit 
    comes too late at this stage. The Chair has already put the 
    question on the passage of the bill and announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.

Recommittal of Conference Report

Sec. 29.7 A motion to recommit a conference report is not in order 
    unless the previous question has been ordered on the conference 
    report.

    On Dec. 15, 1970,(11) the House was considering H.R. 
17755, Department of Transportation appropriations for fiscal 1971. 
Pending the ordering of the previous question on the conference report 
on H.R. 17755, Mr. Sidney Yates, of Illinois, was recognized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 41502, 41503, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 25663, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 30, 
        1965; 109 Cong. Rec. 25409, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 21, 
        1963; and 101 Cong. Rec. 9379, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., June 29, 
        1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.8 A motion to recommit a conference report is not in order when 
    the other House has, by acting on the report, discharged its 
    managers.

    On June 5, 1968,(14) the House was considering the 
conference report on H.R. 11308, amending the National Foundation of 
Arts and Humanities Act of 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 16058, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the conference report.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. [William J.] Scherle [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman will 
    state the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thompson of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the motion to recommit on the ground that the other 
    body has already acted.

[[Page 4689]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is 
    sustained.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 109th Cong. Rec. 25249, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 
        1963; 107 Cong. Rec. 5288, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 29, 1961; 
        102 Cong. Rec. 13755, 13764, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 20, 
        1956; and 89 Cong. Rec. 7135, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 3, 
        1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                    E. MOTIONS TO REFER OR RECOMMIT
 
Sec. 30. Debating the Motion

Time for Debate

Sec. 30.1 Pursuant to Rule XVI clause 4, five minutes of debate in 
    favor of and five minutes in opposition to a motion to recommit 
    with instructions are in order notwithstanding the ordering of the 
    previous question on a bill or joint resolution to final passage.

    On July 19, 1973,(17) the House was considering H.R. 
8860, to amend and extend the Agricultural Act of 1970. After the 
previous question was ordered on the bill, Mr. Charles M. Teague, of 
California, was recognized:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 24966, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Teague of California: Mr. Speaker I offer a motion to 
    recommit.
        The Speaker: (18) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Teague of California: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit. . . 
    .
        Under the rule the gentleman from California is recognized for 
    5 min- 
    utes. . . .
        Does the gentleman from Texas desire to rise in opposition to 
    the motion to recommit?
        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: I do, Mr. 
    Speaker.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 13079, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 18, 1973; 
        118 Cong. Rec. 3451-53, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 9, 1972; and 
        117 Cong. Rec. 34345-47, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 30, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XVI clause 4 was amended by the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 [84 Stat. 1140, Pub. L. No. 91-
510, Sec. 123 (Oct. 26, 1970)] to provide that 10 minutes of debate 
shall always be in order on a motion to recommit with instructions 
after the previous question is ordered on the passage of a bill or 
joint resolution. This change became effective on Jan. 22, 1971 (H. 
Res. 5, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.).

Yielding to Another Member After Debate

Sec. 30.2 The Member offering a motion to recommit a bill with 
    instructions may, at the conclusion of debate thereon, yield to 
    another Member to

[[Page 4690]]

    offer an amendment to the motion if the previous question has not 
    been ordered on that motion.

    On July 19, 1973,(20) Mr. Charles M. Teague, of 
California, offered a motion to recommit the bill H.R. 8860, to amend 
and extend the Agricultural Act of 1970. After Mr. Teague had debated 
his motion for five minutes, William R. Poage, of Texas, the chairman 
of the committee that reported the bill, was recognized in opposition 
to the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 119 Cong. Rec. 24966, 24967, 93d Cong. 1st. Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (1) Does the gentleman from Texas 
    desire to rise in opposition to the motion to recommit?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Poage: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    distinguished chairman of the committee yield for an amendment to 
    the motion to recommit?
        Mr. Poage: Certainly I will yield, but I would like to hear the 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: 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.
        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.

Challenging Motion After Debate

Sec. 30.3 A point of order that a motion to recommit a bill

[[Page 4691]]

    with instructions is not germane to the bill comes too late after 
    the proponent of the motion has been recognized for five minutes of 
    debate and has yielded for a parliamentary inquiry.

    On June 2, 1971,(2) the House was considering H.R. 3613, 
the Public Service Employment Act. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
then recognized Mr. Marvin L. Esch, of Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 17491-95, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Esch: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Esch: I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

    The Clerk then read Mr. Esch's motion to recommit the bill with 
instructions to report it back forthwith with an amendment.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Esch) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. [James. G.] O'Hara [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Michigan yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?

        Mr. Esch: I yield to the gentleman from Michigan for a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. O'Hara: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if this is the 
    exact text of H.R. 8141 that was made in order by the amendment to 
    the rule.
        Mr. Esch: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. O'Hara: Then I would like to inquire of the Speaker, if the 
    fact that an amendment was made in order, a particular amendment 
    otherwise not germane, was made in order under the 5-minute rule, 
    by provisions of the resolution from the Committee on Rules, would 
    that make the same nongermane amendment in order as a motion to 
    recommit with instructions?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Esch) has been 
    recognized on his motion to recommit with instructions. Any 
    challenge to the motion would now come too late.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Esch) may continue to debate 
    his motion to recommit with instructions.

Rights of Member Recognized in Opposition

Sec. 30.4 A Member recognized for five minutes in opposition to a 
    motion to recommit with instructions controls the floor for debate 
    only, and may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment to 
    the motion to recommit.

    On July 19, 1973,(3) Mr. Charles M. Teague, of 
California, had offered a motion to recommit the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 119 Cong. Rec. 24967, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4692]]

bill H.R. 8860, to amend and extend the Agricultural Act of 1970, to 
the Committee on Agriculture. After five minutes of debate, the 
Speaker, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, addressed William R. Poage, of 
Texas, Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture:

        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Texas desire to rise in 
    opposition to the motion to recommit?
        Mr. Poage: I do, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    distinguished chairman of the committee yield for an amendment to 
    the motion to recommit?
        Mr. Poage: Certainly I will yield, but I would like to hear the 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: 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.
        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 (Mr. Teague) can yield for that purpose. 
    . . .
        The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.

Debate on Recommittal of Simple Resolution

Sec. 30.5 The provisions of Rule XVI clause 4, which make in order 10 
    minutes of debate on a motion to recommit with instructions, after 
    the previous question has been ordered on a measure, apply only to 
    bills and joint resolutions; debate is not in order on a motion 
    under Rule XVII clause 1, to recommit a simple resolution with 
    instructions after the previous question has been ordered.

    On Nov. 15, 1973,(4) the House was considering House 
Resolution 702, providing additional funds for investigations by the 
Committee on the Judiciary. After the previous question was ordered on 
the resolution, Mr. William L. Dickinson, of Alabama, was recognized:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 119 Cong. Rec. 37150, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (5) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickinson: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

    After the Clerk read the motion to recommit, the Speaker stated:

        Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 4693]]

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, am I not entitled to five minutes 
    as the member offering this motion to recommit?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that that 
    procedure is not applicable on a motion to recommit a simple 
    resolution.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, is that also true when there are 
    instructions in the motion to recommit?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    procedure permitting 10 minutes of debate on a motion to recommit 
    with instructions only applies to bills and joint resolutions.

Motion to Recommit Conference Report With Instructions

Sec. 30.6 When the previous question on agreeing to a conference report 
    has been ordered, a motion to recommit is not debatable.

    On Sept. 27 (a continuation of the legislative day of Sept. 25), 
1961,(6) the House had just ordered the previous question on 
the conference report on H.R. 9169, providing supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal 1962. Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, 
was recognized and offered a motion to recommit the conference report 
with instructions that the House conferees insist on their disagreement 
to a particular Senate amendment. After the Clerk reported the motion 
the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 21524, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Conte: Is the motion debatable?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is not debatable.


                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                    E. MOTIONS TO REFER OR RECOMMIT
 
Sec. 31. As Related to Other Motions; Precedence

Previous Question

Sec. 31.1 The motion for the previous question on a motion to recommit 
    takes precedence over an amendment to the motion to recommit.

    On Aug. 11, 1969,(8) the House was considering H.R. 
12982, the District of Columbia Revenue Act of 1969. After Mr. Alvin E. 
O'Konski, of Wisconsin, offered a motion to recommit the bill, Mr. 
Brock Adams, of Washington, was recognized:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 115 Cong. Rec. 23143, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Adams: 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 the motion to recommit.

[[Page 4694]]

        The Speaker:(9) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question on the motion to recommit.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
10. See also 91 Cong. Rec. 2739, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Recommit With Instructions and ``Straight'' Motions

Sec. 31.2 A motion to recommit with instructions does not take 
    precedence over a straight motion to recommit, both motions being 
    on an equal footing

    On Mar. 29, 1954,(11) the House was considering House 
Resolution 468, relating to expenses incurred in conducting 
investigations authorized by the rules of the House. The Speaker, 
Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then recognized Mr. Augustine 
B. Kelley, of Pennsylvania:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 100 Cong. Rec. 3962-67, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kelley of Pennsylvania: Mr Speaker, I offer a motion to 
    recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Kelley of Pennsylvania: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. (Clare E.) Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    motion to recommit with instructions.
        The Speaker: The Chair is obliged to say that, by reason of a 
    time-honored custom, the motion to recommit belongs to the minority 
    party if they claim the privilege, and in this instance they have 
    claimed it. Therefore, the Chair is constrained to recognize the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley], for that purpose.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, does not a motion to 
    recommit with instructions take precedence over a straight motion 
    to recommit?
        The Speaker: It does not. All motions to recommit are on an 
    equal footing.



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                    E. MOTIONS TO REFER OR RECOMMIT
 
Sec. 32. Motions to Recommit With Instructions

Precedence

Sec. 32.1 The motion to recommit with instructions does not take 
    precedence over a straight motion to recommit.

    On Nov. 25, 1970,(12) the House was considering H.R. 
19504, the Federal Aid Highway Act. Both Mr. Frederick Schwengel, of 
Iowa, and Mr. Joel T. Broyhill, of Virginia, sought to offer motions to 
recommit. Mr. Brock Adams, of Washington, was then recognized to 
propound a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 12. 116 Cong. Rec. 38997, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, would a specific motion to recommit 
    with instructions have priority over a general motion to recommit? 
    Did the gen

[[Page 4695]]

    tleman from Virginia announce that his motion was a general motion 
    to recommit?

        It is my understanding that the motion to recommit by the 
    gentleman from Iowa is a motion to recommit with instructions and, 
    therefore, has priority.
        The Speaker:(13) The Chair will state in response to 
    the parliamentary inquiry that a motion to recommit with 
    instructions does not have priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        It is my understanding that under the rules, a motion to 
    recommit with instructions is a motion that, if not described by 
    the word ``priority'' is entitled to prior recognition by the Chair 
    because a motion with specific instructions is entitled to 
    recognition over a general motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that a motion to recommit 
    with instructions does not have priority over a straight motion to 
    recommit.

Amendment to Motion to Recommit

Sec. 32.2 A motion to recommit with instructions is subject to 
    amendment if the previous question is voted down.

    On Oct. 3, 1969,(14) the House was considering H.R. 
14000, the military procurement authorizations for fiscal year 1970. 
After Mr. Alvin E. O'Konski, of Wisconsin, moved to recommit the bill 
to the Committee on Armed Services with certain instructions, Mr. 
Donald M. Fraser, of Minnesota, rose to his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 28487, 28488, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in order to be able to amend the 
    pending motion to recommit, is it necessary that the previous 
    question be voted down?
        The Speaker: (15) The Chair will state the answer to 
    the question is ``yes.''(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
16. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 12262, 12263, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., May 8, 
        1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.3 Parliamentarian's Note: The House may reject the previous 
    question on a straight motion to recommit, and then amend the 
    motion to include instructions to reinsert in the bill any germane 
    amendment, including amendments adopted in the Committee of the 
    Whole but rejected in the House.

Sec. 32.4 If the previous question is voted down on a motion to 
    recommit, a Member offering an amendment to the motion does not 
    necessarily have to qualify as being opposed to the bill.

    On June 26, 1968,(17) the House was considering H.R. 
18037, ap
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 114 Cong. Rec. 18940, 18941, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4696]]

propriations for Labor and HEW for fiscal 1969. Mr. Robert H. Michel, 
of Illinois, offered a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
Appropriations with certain instructions. Mr. Michel then propounded a 
parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Michel: Is it not also true that for one to qualify to 
    amend a motion to recommit, one would also have to be opposed to 
    the bill?
        The Speaker: (18) At that stage, should it develop, 
    not necessarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.5 An amendment incorporated in a motion to recommit with 
    instructions must be germane to the bill to which the amendment is 
    proposed.

    On June 18, 1957,(19) the House was considering H.R. 
6127, to provide the means of further securing and protecting the civil 
rights of persons within the United States. Mr. Richard H. Poff, of 
Virginia, offered a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the 
Judiciary with certain instructions, and Mr. Kenneth B. Keating, of New 
York, rose with a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 103 Cong. Rec. 9516, 9517, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keating: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    wording of the motion to recommit is not germane to the bill. We 
    have already debated the germaneness of the wording of this motion 
    in Committee of the Whole. But, I have this additional observation 
    to make, which was not made, as I recall, during the debate, 
    namely, that this proposed amendment is to the act, where as it is 
    inserted as an amendment to a section of the act. It is sought to 
    insert this in part III of the bill only at page 10, line 5, but it 
    purports to be an amendment to the entire act. We had a similar 
    situation presented in the Committee in the consideration of this 
    matter and the Chair ruled in Committee that because the wording 
    was an amendment to the section, but was worded as an amendment to 
    the act, that it was not germane. I urge that if the amendment were 
    to the act, as it purports to be, it would have to be at some other 
    point in the bill and could not be an amendment to the act in the 
    middle of one of the sections of the act.
        The Speaker: (20) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        This same question was raised in the Committee of the Whole on 
    the same amendment. The very capable gentleman from Rhode Island 
    [Mr. Forand] Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, overruled the 
    point of order after having heard all the debate. The present 
    occupant of the Chair, having read all of the debate and having 
    heard most of it, reaffirms the decision of the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole in the consideration of the bill and, 
    therefore, overrules the point of order.

Sec. 32.6 The Speaker indicated that an amendment accom

[[Page 4697]]

    panying a motion to recommit a bill would have to follow the form 
    of the bill as reflected by the engrossed copy.

    On Mar. 22, 1949,(1) the House was considering H.R. 
1437, the Army and Air Force Act of 1949. Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, 
asked unanimous consent that the third reading of the bill be dispensed 
with, when Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, reserving the right to 
object, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 2936, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, if the pending unanimous-consent 
    request is granted and a motion to recommit is offered with an 
    amendment, does the amendment have to follow the lines of the 
    engrossed copy?
        The Speaker: (2) It should. Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Georgia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 32.7 An amendment in the form of a limitation to an appropriations 
    bill, contained in a motion to recommit with instructions, 
    providing that no funds were to be used for the purchase of certain 
    foreign agricultural products, was held in order under Rule XXI 
    clause 2.

    On May 19, 1939,(3) the House was considering H.R. 6392, 
state, justice, judiciary, and commerce appropriations for 1940. Mr. 
Charles Hawks, Jr., of Wisconsin, offered the following motion to 
recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 5856, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hawks moves to recommit the bill to the committee with 
    instructions to report it back forthwith with the following 
    amendment: At the end of the bill insert a new paragraph, as 
    follows:

            No part of the funds appropriated in this bill shall be 
        used for the purpose of purchasing any foreign dairy or other 
        competitive foreign agricultural products. . . .

        Mr. Thomas S. McMillan [of South Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I make 
    a point of order against the motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (4) The gentleman will state the point 
    of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas S. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order 
    that the motion to recommit is not in order in that it is an 
    attempt to place legislation in an appropriation bill.
        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, it 
    is a limitation on appropriations.
        The Speaker: The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order 
    made by the gentleman from South Carolina.
        The point of order has been made that the motion to recommit is 
    not in order because of the fact that it sets up matters of 
    legislation in an appropriation bill. The Chair has tried carefully

[[Page 4698]]

    to read the provisions of the motion. On a fair reading and 
    construction of the whole motion it appears that there is nothing 
    affirmative in the motion in the way of legislation. It appears to 
    the Chair on the whole to be a restriction or a limitation upon the 
    expenditure of funds.

Sec. 32.8 A motion to recommit a bill reported by the Committee on 
    House Administration, making unlawful the requirement of the 
    payment of a poll tax, with instructions to report it back in the 
    form of a joint resolution amending the Constitution to accomplish 
    the purpose of the bill was held not germane inasmuch as a 
    constitutional amendment involving the question would lie within 
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.

    On July 26, 1949,(5) the House was considering H.R. 
3199, the antipoll tax bill. After the bill was read for a period of 
time, Mr. Robert Hale, of Maine, offered a motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 95 Cong. Rec. 10247, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Hale moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3199 to the 
        Committee on House Administration with directions that they 
        report the legislation back to the House in the form of a joint 
        resolution amending the Constitution to make illegal payment of 
        poll taxes as a qualification of voting. . . .

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: I make the point of order 
    that the language which is carried in the motion to recommit is not 
    germane to the bill. The motion calls for a constitutional 
    amendment.
        The Speaker: (6) The Chair is inclined to agree with 
    the gentleman for the simple reason that a constitutional amendment 
    involving this question would lie within the jurisdiction of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary and not within the Committee on House 
    Administration. The Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timeliness of Point of Order

Sec. 32.9 A point of order that a motion to recommit with instructions 
    is not germane to the bill comes too late after the proponent of 
    the motion has been recognized for five minutes of debate in the 
    House, and has yielded for a parliamentary inquiry.

    On June 2, 1971,(7) the House was considering H.R. 3613, 
a manpower and revenue-sharing bill. Mr. Marvin L. Esch, of Michigan, 
offered a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Education and 
Labor with certain instructions, and was recognized for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 17491-95, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4699]]

five minutes of debate thereon. At this point, Mr. James G. O'Hara, of 
Michigan, interrupted Mr. Esch with a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. O'Hara: Then I would like to inquire of the Speaker, if the 
    fact that an amendment was made in order, a particular amendment 
    otherwise not germane, was made in order under the 5-minute rule, 
    by provisions of the resolution from the Committee on Rules, would 
    that make the same non-germane amendment in order as a motion to 
    recommit with instructions?
        The Speaker: (8) The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
    Esch] has been recognized on his motion to recommit with 
    instructions. Any challenge to the motion would now come too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Esch] may continue to debate 
    his motion to recommit with instructions.

Instructions to House Committees

Sec. 32.10 The House may, through use of the motion to recommit, 
    instruct one of its committees to take certain actions.

    On Aug. 22, 1966,(9) the House was considering H.R. 
16340, prohibiting picketing within 500 feet of any church in the 
District of Columbia. Mr. Don Edwards, of California, offered a motion 
to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 112 Cong. Rec. 20119, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Clerk will report 
    the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Edwards of California moves to recommit H.R. 16340 to 
        the District of Columbia Committee with instructions to hold 
        public hearings and to request a report of the Department of 
        Justice and the testimony of the Attorney General.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:  Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order against the motion to recommit. We cannot tell a committee 
    who to call as witnesses and what kind of hearings to hold.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The House has authority to instruct 
    the committee. The motion is in order.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 116 Cong. Rec. 28036, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1970; 
        and 114 Cong. Rec. 6270, 6275, 6276, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 
        13, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.11 The House rejected a motion to recommit a resolution of the 
    Committee on Un-American Activities to a select committee with 
    instructions to examine the sufficiency of the contempt citation 
    and report back to the House.

    On Oct. 18, 1966,(12) the House was considering House 
Resolution

[[Page 4700]]

1060, relating to the refusal of Milton M. Cohen to testify before the 
Committee on Un-American Activities. Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of 
Massachusetts, offered a motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 27484, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) The Clerk will report the motion 
    to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves to recommit the resolution of the Committee 
        on Un-American Activities to a select committee of seven 
        Members to be appointed by the Speaker with instructions to 
        examine the sufficiency of the contempt citations under 
        existing rules of law and relevant judicial decisions and 
        thereafter to report it back to the House, while Congress is in 
        session, or, when Congress is not in session, to the Speaker of 
        the House, with a statement of its findings.

        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered on the motion to recommit. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 90, nays 181, not 
    voting 161.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See also 112 Cong. Rec. 1742-63, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 2, 1966; 
        H. Rept. No. 1241 and H. Res. 699, contempt proceedings against 
        Robert M. Shelton of the Ku Klux Klan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conditional Instructions

Sec. 32.12 A motion to recommit a bill to the Committee on Public 
    Works, with instructions not to report back to the House until 
    final plans for construction became available, was rejected by the 
    House.

    On Mar. 5, 1970,(15) the House was considering S. 2910, 
providing additional authorization for the Madison Memorial building. 
The Speaker, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Marion 
G. Snyder, of Kentucky, to offer a motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 6191, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Snyder moves to recommit the bill S. 2910 to the 
        Committee on Public Works with the instruction that it not be 
        reported back to the House until all necessary designs, plans, 
        and specifications have been completed. . . .

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 149, nays 197, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 83.

Rulings as to Propriety of Motion

Sec. 32.13 Parliamentarian's Note: It is the responsibility of the 
    Speaker, not the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, to rule 
    upon the propriety of a motion to recommit with instructions.

Raising Points of Order

Sec. 32.14 Where a motion to recommit with instructions is

[[Page 4701]]

    ruled out on a point of order, a further motion to recommit may be 
    offered.

    On Mar. 2, 1967,(16) the House was considering H.R. 
4515, supplemental military authorizations for fiscal 1967. After Mr. 
Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin, offered a motion to recommit the bill 
with instructions, Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, rose with a 
point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 5155, 5156, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rivers: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    instructions contained in the motion to recommit are not germane to 
    the bill under consideration. Therefore, they are not in order and 
    are not germane to the matter under consideration.
        The Speaker: (17) The gentleman from South Carolina 
    [Mr. Rivers] makes the point of order that the motion to recommit 
    contains provisions that are not germane to the bill presently 
    under consideration. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        It is evident to the Chair that the amendment--or at least 
    portions thereof--are not germane as they involve different 
    subjects than the field covered by the pending bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.
        The question is on the passage of the bill.

                             Motion To Recommit

        Mr. [George E.] Brown [Jr.] of California: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    to recommit the bill H.R. 4515, to the Committee on Armed Services, 
    with instructions to report it back forthwith with an amendment 
    which is at the Clerk's desk.
        The Speaker: The Chair will ask if the gentleman is opposed to 
    the bill?
        Mr. Brown of California: I am opposed to the bill in its 
    present form, Mr. Speaker.

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 94 Cong. Rec. 5007, 5008, 80th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 28, 
        1948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.15 A point of order against a motion to recommit with an 
    instruction was made prior to completion of the reading thereof, 
    the same proposition having been ruled out as not germane when 
    offered as an amendment in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Mar. 2, 1967,(19) the House was considering H.R. 
4515, supplemental military authorizations for fiscal 1967. After Mr. 
Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin, offered a motion to recommit the bill 
with certain instructions, Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, 
interrupted the reading of the motion to make a point of order. Mr. 
Reuss spoke in defense of his motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 113 Cong. Rec. 5155, 5156, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (20) Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    [Mr. Reuss] desire to be heard?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).

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

[[Page 4702]]

        Mr. Reuss: Mr. Speaker, I shall appreciate proceeding briefly 
    in opposition to the point of order that the amendment is not 
    germane.
        Mr. Speaker, the amendment contained in the motion to recommit 
    is precisely the amendment which I offered earlier. It was ruled 
    not germane by the able and respected Chairman of the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union, the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski]. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves thus in the position of having 
    two precedents on both sides of the question, which is not an 
    unprecedented matter in the history of precedents. It is a matter 
    analogous to where there is disagreement in the circuit courts of 
    appeals, thus requiring the Supreme Court to rule to resolve the 
    dispute.
        Accordingly, I hope and trust that the Speaker will rule that 
    the motion to recommit, and the amendment contained in it, is 
    germane, and thus that this body may vote on this important 
    question of war and peace.
        The Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule. . . .
        It is evident to the Chair that the amendment--or at least 
    portions thereof--are not germane as they involve different 
    subjects than the field covered by the pending bill.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.
        The question is on the passage of the bill.

 Instructions to Report Back With Amendment

Sec. 32.16 The House recommitted a joint resolution to the Committee on 
    Education and Labor with instructions that the preamble and body be 
    reported back forthwith with an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.

    On Feb. 9, 1972,(1) the House was considering House 
Joint Resolution 1025, providing a procedure for settlement of a 
dispute on the Pacific Coast among certain shippers and employees. Mr. 
Albert H. Quie, of Minnesota, offered the following motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 3451-53, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Quie moves to recommit House Joint Resolution 1025 to the 
    Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to that 
    committee to report it back to the House forthwith with the 
    following amendment: Strike out all after title of the joint 
    resolution and insert in lieu thereof the following: . . .

    The motion to recommit then provided an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute for the joint resolution.

        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question on the motion to recommit.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (2) The question is on the motion to 
    recommit. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the motion to recommit was agreed to.

[[Page 4703]]

Instructions Modifying Previously Adopted Amendment

Sec. 32.17 Absent a special rule, a motion to recommit may not include 
    instructions to modify an amendment previously agreed to by the 
    House.

    On Apr. 5, 1967,(3) the House was considering House 
Resolution 221, authorizing expenditures by the Committee on Un-
American Activities. Mr. John Ashbrook, of Ohio, offered a motion to 
recommit the resolution with instructions and Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of 
Ohio, rose with a point of order against the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 8441, 8442, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ashbrook moves to recommit the resolution (H. Res. 
        221)to the Committee on House Administration with instructions 
        to report the resolution forthwith with the following 
        amendment: On page 1, line 5, strike out ``$350,000'' and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``$400,000.''

        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker: (4) For what purpose does the gentleman 
    rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    motion to recommit on the grounds that the House has just adopted 
    the committee amendment to cut the amount from $400,000 to 
    $350,000. The gentleman now offers a motion to recommit to restore 
    it from the $350,000 to $400,000 and it is clearly out of order.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashbrook] desire 
    to be heard?
        Mr. Ashbrook: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that we voted to order the 
    previous question on the amendments and the motion to recommit, in 
    my opinion, would be a proper motion to recommit. I hope that the 
    Chair will so hold.
        The Speaker: The Chair will call attention to that fact that 
    the previous question was ordered and the amendments were adopted 
    by the House.
        It is not in order to do indirectly by a motion to recommit 
    with instructions that which may not be done directly by way of 
    amendment.
        An amendment to strike out an amendment already adopted is not 
    in order. The subject matter of the motion to recommit has already 
    been passed upon by the House.
        The Chair sustains the point of order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5.  See also 111 Cong. Rec. 2914, 2917, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 17, 
        1965; 103 Cong. Rec. 12471, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., July 23, 
        1957; and 95 Cong. Rec. 5597, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., May 4, 
        1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.18 A motion to recommit an appropriation bill to a committee 
    with instructions to reduce the amount of the appropriation by a 
    certain amount is in order, but, absent a special rule, the com

[[Page 4704]]

    mittee may not report the bill back to the House with an amendment 
    proposing a change in the amendments adopted by the House.

    On May 15, 1939,(6) the House was considering H.R. 6260, 
providing appropriations for certain civil functions administration by 
the War Department. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized 
Mr. D. Lane Powers, of New Jersey, to offer a motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 84 Cong. Rec. 5535, 5536, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Powers moves to recommit the bill to the Committee of 
    Appropriations with instructions to report the same back forthwith 
    with amendments reducing the total amount of the bill $50,000,000.
        Mr. [Ross A.] Collins [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that the motion to recommit undertakes to do 
    indirectly what cannot be done directly.
        The amount carried in this bill, with these amendments, totals 
    $305,000,000. Part of it is for the Panama Canal, part for 
    cemeterial expense, part for the Signal Corps and Alaskan 
    Communications Commission, part for rivers and harbors, part for 
    flood control, and part for the United States Soldiers' Home. Of 
    the amount of $305,000,000, $277,000,000 is for rivers and harbors 
    and flood control, leaving only $28,000,000 for all of these other 
    governmental activities. A reduction of $50,000,000 would take away 
    a large part of the money carried in the two amendments voted in 
    the House last Wednesday. A motion to recommit to do this cannot be 
    done. This motion to recommit attempts to do indirectly what cannot 
    be done directly. It proposes a second vote on the same 
    propositions that were voted on last Wednesday; therefore is 
    subject to a point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair may state, in connection with the point 
    of order made by the gentleman from Mississippi, that the Chair 
    understands the purpose of the motion to recommit, one motion to 
    recomit always being in order after the third reading, is to give 
    those Members opposed to the bill an opportunity to have an 
    expression of opinion by the House upon their proposition. It is 
    true that under the precedents it is not in order by way of a 
    motion to recommit to propose an amendment to an amendment 
    previously adopted by the House, but the motion now pending does 
    not specifically propose to instruct the Committee on 
    Appropriations to do that. The Chair is inclined to the opinion 
    that the motion to recommit in the form here presented is not 
    subject to a point of order.
        The Chair overrules the point of order. . . .
        The Chair understands the rule to be that the House can adopt a 
    motion to recommit with instructions to reduce the amount of the 
    appropriation by $50,000,000, but the committee, if this motion 
    should be adopted, could not report the bill back to the House with 
    an amendment proposing a change in the amendments adopted by the 
    House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to such instructions, the Com

[[Page 4705]]

mittee on Appropriations would not necessarily be forced to recommend 
specific reductions in line item appropriations, but could report an 
amendment directing an overall reduction of funds in the bill in some 
manner.

Sec. 32.19 Where a special rule permitted two motions to recommit and 
    made such motions in order ``any rule of the House to the contrary 
    notwithstanding,'' it was held that instructions in a motion to 
    recommit might propose the striking out of an amendment previously 
    agreed to by the House.

    On Mar. 22, 1935,(7) the House was considering H.R. 
3896, relating to the payment of adjusted service certificates from 
World War I. Mr. Fred M. Vinson, of Kentucky, was recognized to offer a 
motion to recommit the bill with instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 79 Cong. Rec. 4309-11, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vinson of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I move to recommit the 
    bill (H.R. 3896) to the Committee on Ways and Means with 
    instructions to report the same back forthwith with the following 
    amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause in the said 
    bill and insert the following amendment, which I send to the 
    Clerk's desk.

    After the Clerk reported the motion to recommit, Mr. Thomas L. 
Blanton, of Texas, raised a point of order against the motion.

        Mr. Blanton: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose only of getting a 
    ruling from the Chair on the existing parliamentary situation, 
    which is novel in that there has never been a precedent like it 
    before in the whole history of this House, I make the point of 
    order that even though the rule provides for two motions to 
    recommit, they are under and governed by the general rules of the 
    House except insofar as the special rule itself changes the general 
    rules. The rules and precedents of the House provide that where a 
    matter has been voted upon and adopted, not only in the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the state of the Union but also in the House 
    itself after the bill comes back from the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the state of the Union to the House, and the House votes 
    on such substantive proposition in the bill and registers its 
    decision on that proposition, and motion is duly made and carried 
    to reconsider the vote by which the proposition was passed and to 
    lay that motion on the table, you cannot have two votes thereafter 
    in the House on the same identical proposition that has been voted 
    upon once in the House. . . .
        The Speaker: (8) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    pending bill is being considered under a special rule which was 
    unanimously adopted by the House before the bill was taken up for 
    consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is true, as the gentleman from Texas suggests, that under 
    the ordinary rules of the House only one mo

[[Page 4706]]

    tion to recommit would be in order. However, the Committee on 
    Rules, after a very long and thorough consideration of the question 
    before the House, and after what the Chair understands to be a 
    general understanding among those for and against either one of the 
    bills, decided in the interest of fairness to propose a rule which 
    permitted two motions to recommit.
        While it has no bearing upon the ruling of the Chair, the Chair 
    feels that every Member of the House, without regard to his 
    position on this or any other bill pending, understood at the time 
    the rule was proposed by the Committee on Rules, that it would 
    enable the House to express its will with reference to these two 
    bills. The rule was adopted unanimously, and it provided, 'That if 
    the instructions in such motion relate to the payment of World War 
    adjusted-service certificates, they shall be in order, any rule of 
    the House to the contrary notwithstanding.'
        Now, in view of the action of the House in adopting the rule, 
    the Chair thinks, notwithstanding the fact that a vote was taken 
    yesterday on the socalled ``Patman bill'' and a motion to 
    reconsider laid on the table, it is in order to recognize a Member 
    to offer the Vinson bill in a motion to recommit, even though it 
    may involve a vote for the second time on the Patman bill.
        The Chair therefore overrules the point of order.

Sec. 32.20 Where the House has adopted an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, such amendment cannot be further amended by way of a 
    motion to recommit with instructions, absent a special rule, and 
    only a straight motion to recommit would be in order.

    On June 17, 1952,(9) the House was considering S. 658, 
to amend the Communications Act of 1934. Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of 
Indiana, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 98 Cong. Rec. 7421, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: In view of the fact that the matter before us is a 
    committee amendment, a complete amendment to the whole bill, would 
    any motion to recommit, except a straight motion to recommit, be in 
    order?
        The Speaker: (10) That is the only motion that would 
    be in order under the rule.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
11. See also 106 Cong. Rec. 9416, 9417, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 4, 
        1960; and 103 Cong. Rec. 12471, 85th Cong. 1st Sess., July 23, 
        1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.21 Where the rule under which a bill is being considered 
    provides for ``a motion to recommit with or without instructions,'' 
    the motion to recommit may contain instructions to report back 
    forthwith with amendments notwithstanding the fact that the House 
    has just agreed to an amendment in the nature

[[Page 4707]]

    of a substitute reported from the Committee of the Whole.

    On Sept. 29, 1965 (12) the Committee of the Whole having 
considered the bill H.R. 4644, providing home rule for the District of 
Columbia, reported the bill back to the House with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 25438, 25439, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, just to get 
    this matter clarified, as I understand the rule, if the Sisk 
    amendment is defeated on the rollcall which is approaching, then we 
    go back to the original first Multer bill, the bill for which the 
    discharge petition was signed. That is the original first bill and 
    there cannot be any vote on any compromise bill. The original 
    Multer bill will then not be subject to further amendment or to any 
    amendment.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Although Mr. Smith stated that he was seeking to clarify the 
        matter, his statement reflected some confusion on his part. The 
        impending vote was on the Multer substitute as amended by the 
        Sisk substitute amendment, both of which had been adopted by 
        the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Smith was correct in stating 
        that if the Multer substitute as amended by the Sisk substitute 
        amendment was defeated, the proposition then before the House 
        would have been H.R. 4644. H.R. 4644 was considered pursuant to 
        H. Res. 515, which had been taken from the Committee on Rules 
        on a discharge petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: It would not be because the previous question has 
    been ordered.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, may I make this 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Albert: Is not what the distinguished gentleman from 
    Virginia said subject to the right of the minority to offer a 
    motion to recommit containing appropriate amendments with or 
    without instructions?
        The Speaker: The rule provides for one motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hays: That one motion to recommit, depending on who decides 
    to offer it, may be a straight motion to recommit without any 
    instructions, may it not?
        The Speaker: It could be.
        Mr. Hays: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Then 
    the House would be faced with voting for or against the original 
    bill Mr. Multer himself abandoned. Is that not true?
        The Speaker: The Chair feels that the gentleman from Ohio 
    answered his own question.

Instruction With Previously Rejected Amendment

Sec. 32.22 An amendment rejected in the Committee of the

[[Page 4708]]

    Whole may be offered in the House in a motion to recommit with 
    instructions.

    On July 8, 1940,(15) the House was considering S. 326, 
the Mexican claims bill. Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, offered a 
motion to recommit, and Mr. Luther A. Johnson, of Texas, rose with a 
point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 86 Cong. Rec. 9302, 9303, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Luther A. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
        The Speaker: (16)The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Luther A. Johnson: An identical amendment was voted upon in 
    Committee of the Whole, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Rich].
        The Speaker: That was an amendment which was offered in 
    Committee of the Whole, the Chair will state. The House takes no 
    judicial notice of action in Committee of the Whole or the 
    rejection of an amendment in the Committee. The point of order is 
    overruled.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 10126-30, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 22, 
        1968; and 93 Cong. Rec. 10445, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 
        1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instructions to Report Back ``Forthwith''

Sec. 32.23 Instructions to report back ``forthwith'' accompanying a 
    motion to recommit must be complied with immediately, and while the 
    committee to which a bill is recommitted with instructions to 
    report ``forthwith'' takes no action thereon, the Member in charge 
    of the bill immediately reports the bill to the House as 
    instructed, and the amendment is before the House for immediate 
    consideration.

    On Apr. 24, 1950,(18) after the engrossment and third 
reading of (H.R. 5965) providing for the construction of certain 
Veterans' Administration hospitals the House adopted a motion to 
recommit the bill to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs with 
instructions to report the bill back forthwith with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 96 Cong. Rec. 5620, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    the motion just adopted, I report the bill back with the amendment 
    and move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (1) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Clerk read the amendment the Speaker announced that the 
question was on the amendment. Mr. James W. Wadsworth, of New York, 
then rose with the following parliamentary inquirty.

[[Page 4709]]

        Mr. Wadsworth: Mr. Speaker, is it possible that such a motion 
    can be made by the gentleman from Mississippi in view of the fact 
    that the committee has had no meeting?
        The Speaker: This is a forthwith motion. The question is on the 
    amendment.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 19208, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 
        1961; and 105 Cong. Rec. 8635, 8636, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., May 
        20, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.24 Where a motion to recommit with instructions to report back 
    ``forthwith'' with an amendment has been agreed to, and the bill 
    and amendment have again been reported to the House, the question 
    recurs upon agreeing to the amendment, and if the amendment is 
    agreed to, the bill is again ordered engrossed and read a third 
    time.

    On Sept. 30, 1965,(3) Mr. James T. Broyhill, of North 
Carolina, had offered a motion to recommit the bill H.R. 10281, the 
Federal Salary Adjustment Act of 1965. After the Speaker, John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, put the question on the motion to recommit 
the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 25701, 25702, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 238, nays 140, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 53. . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit I report 
    back the bill, H.R. 10281, with an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            On page 38, strike out line 9 and all that follows through 
        line 5 on page 39.

        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on 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 passage of the 
    bill.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 1194, 1195, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 26, 
        1965; 108 Cong. Rec. 21897, 21898, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 3, 
        1962; and 89 Cong. Rec. 3948, 3956, 3957, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        May 4, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.25 A motion to recommit a bill to a committee with instructions 
    to amend it and report the bill back to the House ``as thus 
    amended'' was construed to mean ``not forthwith,'' and the bill 
    when reported back to the House was not given a privileged status.

    On May 18, 1938,(5) the House was considering H.R. 9738, 
to cre
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 83 Cong. Rec. 7103, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4710]]

ate a Civil Aeronautics Authority. Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, was 
recognized to offer a motion to recommit, and the following occurred:

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mapes moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
        Interstate and Foreign Commerce with instructions to that 
        committee to amend the bill so as to provide for the regulation 
        of civil aeronautics by the Interstate Commerce Commission 
        instead of by the Civil Aeronautics Authority provided in the 
        bill, and to report the same back to the House as thus amended. 
        . . .

        Mr. [Gerald J.] Boileau [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (6) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boileau: The gentleman from Michigan has offered a motion 
    to recommit which is not in the usual form of a motion to recommit, 
    which provides that the committee shall report the bill back 
    forthwith with the following amendments. It is a direction to the 
    committee to amend the bill in accordance with the instructions in 
    the motion to recommit and to report the bill back to the House. 
    Obviously the motion to recommit, if carried, will necessitate 
    considerable work on the part of the Committee on Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce. My parliamentary inquiry is, after the Committee 
    on Interstate and Foreign Commerce makes the necessary changes as 
    directed in the motion to recommit--assuming, of course, that the 
    motion should prevail--would the bill then come back to the House 
    automatically without action on the part of the Committee on Rules? 
    In other words, would the bill amended in accordance with the 
    instructions in the motion to recommit come back to the House as a 
    matter of privilege?
        The Speaker: In answer to the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin, the Chair will state that the bill would 
    be reported back to the House as it was in the first instance 
    before the consideration of the bill was begun.
        Mr. Boileau: Assuming the motion to recommit prevails and the 
    Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce is directed to make 
    certain amendments, would not the committee then be forced to bring 
    the bill back to the House as amended, and in that instance would 
    it be a matter of privilege, or would the Committee on Rules be 
    required to present a rule to make consideration of the bill in 
    order?
        The Speaker: This is a rather unusual form in which to prepare 
    a motion to recommit. However, the Chair will have to construe the 
    motion as it is presented in the light of the parliamentary inquiry 
    of the gentleman from Wisconsin.
        The motion provides that the committee shall amend the bill so 
    as to provide, and so forth. If the motion to recommit should 
    prevail, of course, under the terms of the motion the bill would be 
    recommitted to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce for 
    the purpose of undertaking to carry out the instructions. The Chair 
    is not of the opinion that thereafter the bill would have a 
    privileged status before the House.

[[Page 4711]]

Sec. 32.26 Where a motion to recommit a bill with instructions that it 
    be reported back forthwith with an amendment has been agreed to, a 
    motion to strike out the enacting clause of the bill is not in 
    order pending the report of the committee pursuant to the 
    instructions.

    On Apr. 16, 1970,(7) the House adopted a motion to 
recommit the bill H.R. 16311, the Family Assistance Act of 1970, to the 
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the bill back 
to the House forthwith with several amendments. Immediately after the 
vote was announced on the motion to recommit, Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of 
Ohio, was recognized:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 12093, 12106, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential motion.
        The Speaker: (8) Will the gentleman state his 
    motion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays: I move that the enacting clause be stricken out.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that that motion is not in 
    order. The Chair passed on it awhile ago. That motion is not in 
    order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Parliamentarian's Note: The previous question had been ordered on 
        the bill and amendments to final passage without intervening 
        motion except one motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.27 The House voted to recommit a bill to a committee with 
    instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment and then 
    rejected the amendment when so reported.

    On Feb. 4, 1940,(10) the House was considering H.R. 
7551, relating to certain payments to the San Carlos Apache Indians. 
The House adopted a motion offered by Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of 
Michigan, to recommit the bill to the Committee on Indian Affairs with 
instructions to report it back forthwith with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 86 Cong. Rec. 1456-58, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Will] Rogers of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    instructions of the House, I refer the bill back to the House with 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 2, line 6, strike out all the remainder of the 
        paragraph after the word ``Indians.''

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(11) The question is on 
    agreeing to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Schafer of Wisconsin) there were--ayes 11, noes 14.
        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 4712]]

        Mr. Cochran: Is that the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Michigan [Mr. Wolcott] just adopted by a roll-call vote?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. It was 
    included in the motion to recommit. The House voted on the 
    amendment provided for in the motion to recommit, and there were--
    ayes 11, noes 14.
        Mr. [John C.] Schafer of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    regular order.
        The amendment was rejected.

Sec. 32.28 The House having voted to recommit a bill to a committee 
    with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment agreed 
    to the amendment when so reported, but then defeated the bill on a 
    yea and nay vote.

    On June 30, 1941,(12) the House was considering H.R. 
4228, a wiretapping bill. After the House adopted a motion to recommit 
the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report 
it back forthwith with an amendment, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 5793, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sam] Hobbs [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, in obedience to the 
    instruction of the House we report the bill back as amended in 
    accordance with the order of the House.
        The Speaker: (13) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Clerk reported the amendment the following occurred:

        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed, read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question in on the passage of the bill. . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 147, nays 154, 
    answered ``present'' 1, not voting 130, as follows: . . .

Recommittal of Conference Report With Instructions

Sec. 32.29 On a motion to recommit a conference report with 
    instructions, it is not in order to demand a separate vote on the 
    instructions or various branches thereof.

    On Apr. 11, 1956,(14) the House was considering the 
conference report on H.R. 12, to amend the Agricultural Act of 1949. 
After Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, offered a motion to 
recommit the conference report with various instructions, Mr. Arthur L. 
Miller, of Nebraska, rose with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 102 Cong. Rec. 6157, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Miller of Nebraska: Since the motion to recommit applies to 
    several

[[Page 4713]]

    titles and sections of the bill, is it possible under the rules of 
    the House to get a separate vote on the various amendments that 
    seek to strike certain matter from the bill?
        The Speaker: (15) A motion to recommit is not 
    subject to division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.30 A motion to recommit a conference report to the committee of 
    conference with instructions to do something which the House itself 
    does not have the power to do (to amend its own bill after its 
    passage) is not in order.

    On Aug. 25, 1950,(16) the House was considering the 
conference report on H.R. 7786, an appropriations bill. Mr. Vito 
Marcantonio, of New York, offered the following motion to recommit the 
conference report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 13476, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Marcantonio moves to recommit the conference report on H.R. 
    7786 to the committee of conference with instructions to the 
    managers on the part of the House to incorporate in the conference 
    report the following provisions: At the end of chapter XI, titled 
    ``General Provisions,'' add the following:
        ``None of the funds appropriated in this act shall be paid to 
    any person, firm, partnership, or corporation which refuses 
    equality in employment to any person because of race, color, or 
    creed.''

    Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, rose with a point of order:

        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, the motion is not in order for two 
    reasons: In the first place, the proposed instructions to the House 
    managers incorporated in the motion propose action which is not 
    within their province, they direct the managers on the part of the 
    House to change the conference report, an action which can be taken 
    only with the concurrence of the managers on the part of the 
    Senate.
        The second point is that the provision which the gentleman from 
    New York seeks to add to the conference report does not appear in 
    either the House bill or the Senate bill. It is therefore not in 
    conference. It is not in difference between the two Houses. For 
    either reason, the motion to recommit is not in order.
        The Speaker: (17) The Chair is ready to rule. 
    Without passing on the first point raised by the gentleman from 
    Missouri, the Chair will rule on the second point made by the 
    gentleman from Missouri. The point of order is that this matter was 
    not incorporated in the bill when it passed the House, nor was it 
    in the bill as it passed the other body. The motion to recommit 
    calls upon the committee of conference to do something which the 
    House itself does not have the power to do, namely to amend its own 
    bill after its passage. This matter, not being in either the House 
    version or the Senate version of the bill, the Chair holds that the 
    point or order is well taken and sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 32.31 A motion to recommit a conference report with in

[[Page 4714]]

    structions to the House managers to report back an amendment which 
    would include the provisions of the bill as reported by the House 
    committee, rather than as passed by the House with changes, was 
    held not in order as being beyond the scope of the Senate and House 
    passed versions.

    On May 9, 1955,(18) the House was considering the 
conference report on S. 1, the Coastal Field Service Compensation Act 
of 1955. Mr. Edward H. Rees, of Kansas, offered a motion to recommit 
and the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 101 Cong. Rec. 5871, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rees of Kansas moves to recommit the bill S. 1 as amended 
    to the committee of conference with instructions to report back an 
    agreement which would include the provisions of H.R. 4644 as 
    reported by the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee, with 
    the additional provision that the 6-percent increase be retroactive 
    to March 1, 1955.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray of Tennessee: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order against the motion to recommit. As I understand, the 
    motion instructs the conferees to do something less than the House 
    voted. We are bound to follow the instructions of the House in the 
    conference. That matter is not even in conference.
        The Speaker: (19) The Chair is ready to rule. The 
    Chair thinks that this question has been passed upon many times in 
    the past. An exactly similar question was raised on September 15, 
    1922, when a very distinguished gentleman by the name of John N. 
    Garner made a similar motion to recommit with instructions to the 
    conferees to lower the rates contained in either the bill or in the 
    amendment. Mr. Edward Taylor, of the State of Colorado, made the 
    point of order. Speaker Gillette sustained the point of order, and 
    that decision may be found in Cannon's Precedents, volume VIII, 
    section 3244. It is exactly on all fours with this. Therefore, the 
    Chair sustains the point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Practice

Sec. 32.32 Where the Senate recommits a bill to the committee which 
    reported it such action nullifies all amendments agreed to on the 
    floor; the committee has the entire matter before it again and may 
    report it back with or without former committee amendments and 
    amendments agreed to by the Senate, unless the motion to recommit 
    contains specific instructions as to how the bill should be 
    reported.

    On May 11, 1949,(20) the Senate was considering H.R. 
3083, Treasury and Post Office appropriations for 1950. The following 
discussion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 6039, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4715]]

took place on the effect of the motion to recommit:

        The Vice President: (21) The Chair will advise 
    Senators that when a bill is recommitted to the committee from 
    which it emanates, such action nullifies all amendments that have 
    been agreed to on the floor of the Senate, and the bill goes back 
    to the committee--if it happens to be a House bill--in the same 
    shape in which it came to the Senate from the House, regardless of 
    the intention of any Senator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Alben W. Barkley (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert A.] Taft [of Ohio]: Mr. President, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Vice President: The Senator will state it.
        Mr. Taft: Is it not true that the committee, complying with the 
    intention of the Senate, as indicated by the motion, can report the 
    bill back adopting or recommending as committee amendments, 
    amendments which it formerly recommended, and also amendments which 
    the Senate itself had specifically approved?
        The Vice President: The committee might do that; but the 
    committee would have to act upon the amendments in committee as if 
    no action had previously been taken.
        Mr. [Claude D.] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. President, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .

        The Senator from New Hampshire has today reaffirmed the same 
    principle. I am raising the parliamentary question, Is not the 
    Senate the superior body, which has control of the action of its 
    committees? If the intention of the Senate is clear, could there be 
    any parliamentary result to the contrary?
        The Vice President: The Senate can instruct its committees as 
    it sees fit. It may make an exception of any amendment which has 
    been agreed to on the floor. However, if it does not make an 
    exception of any amendment agreed to on the floor, the 
    parliamentary effect of recommittal is to nullify all amendments 
    agreed to on the floor. In the recommittal of the bill the other 
    day no exception was made of any amendment. The committee has a 
    perfect right to act upon its own judgment; but in the opinion of 
    the Chair, there is no automatic exception with regard to any 
    amendment agreed to in the Senate prior to recommittal of the bill.

Sec. 32.33 The Senate recommitted a House bill to its Committee on 
    Commerce with instructions to report it back forthwith in an 
    amended form combining the provisions of both the House bill and a 
    related Senate measure.

        On Feb. 20, 1970,(1) the Senate was considering H.R. 
    14465, relating to the expansion and improvement of airport and 
    airway systems when Senator Warren G. Magnuson, of Washington, was 
    recognized to offer a motion to recommit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 4327, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Magnuson: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 
    14465, to provide for expansion and improve

[[Page 4716]]

    ment of the Nation's airport and airway systems, be recommitted to 
    the Committee on Commerce with instructions to report back 
    forthwith a bill which combines the provisions of S. 3108, to 
    provide for additional Federal assistance for the improvement of 
    the airway system, plus the provisions of H.R. 14465, as both were 
    originally reported to the Senate from the Committee on Finance. 
    The bill has two parts and one part had to go to the Committee on 
    Finance.
        The Presiding Officer: (2) Without objection, it is 
    so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Robert C. Byrd (W. Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Magnuson: This procedure is followed to permit the bill to 
    be printed in the form in which it will be considered, I believe, 
    early next week. This is one of the most important pieces of 
    legislation we will consider this session.



                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 33. In General


    The motion to reconsider is provided for by House 
rule.(3) It is the procedural device which permits the House 
to review its actions on a given proposition. Indeed, it has been said 
that the vote of the House on a proposition ``is not final and 
conclusive upon the House itself until there has been an opportunity to 
reconsider it,'' (4) and that ''. . . neither a bill nor an 
amendment is passed or adopted until the motion to reconsider is 
disposed of. The Speaker is not allowed to sign a bill during the 
pendency of a motion to reconsider. . . .'' (5) While 
pending, the motion serves to suspend the original 
proposition.(6) When the motion is agreed to, the question 
immediately recurs on the proposition to be reconsidered.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. ``When a motion has been made and carried or lost, it shall be in 
        order for any member of the majority, on the same or succeeding 
        day, to move for the reconsideration thereof, and such motion 
        shall take precedence of all other questions except the 
        consideration of a conference report or a motion to adjourn, 
        and shall not be withdrawn after the said succeeding day 
        without the consist of the House, and thereafter any Member may 
        call it up for consideration: Provided, That such motion, if 
        made during the last six days of a session, shall be disposed 
        of when made.'' Rule XVIII clause 1, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 812 (1981).
 4. Speaker John G. Carlisle (Ky.), Jan. 31, 1889, cited in Cannon's 
        Procedure (86th Cong.), p. 319.
 5. Speaker Thomas B. Reed (Maine), Feb. 19, 1898, 31 Cong. Rec. 1944, 
        55th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5704.
 7. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5703.

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

[[Page 4717]]

    The motion is privileged for consideration,(8) but if it 
relates to business which is in order only on certain days, it may be 
called up for consideration only when that class of business is in 
order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2787.
 9. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5677-5681; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 2785, 2796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XVIII clause 1 (10) provides that the motion to 
reconsider may be entered by any Member who voted with the majority on 
a particular question, and then may be called up for consideration by 
any Member. ``Majority'' has been construed as meaning the prevailing 
side, as it has applied to those Members voting ``nay'' on a 
proposition defeated by a tie vote,(11) and to those 
Members, though a minority, whose votes defeated a proposition that 
required a two-thirds vote for approval.(12) However, when a 
vote is taken viva voce, or by division or tellers, and not recorded, 
any Member, regardless of how he voted, may enter the 
motion.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. House Rules and Manual Sec. 812 (1981).
11. See Sec. 35.2, infra.
12. 12. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5617, 5618.
13. 13. See Sec. 35.3, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ordinarily, the motion is debatable only if the proposition sought 
to be reconsidered was debatable.(14) Recent precedent 
suggests that debate on the motion is in order only if the previous 
question has not been ordered.(15) Early precedents held 
that a vote on a proposition divested it of the previous question, so 
that a motion to reconsider the proposition would be 
debatable.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5694-5699; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 2437, 2792.
15. See Sec. 41, infra.
16. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5491, 5492, 5494.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the motion to reconsider cannot be agreed to in the 
House in the absence of a quorum when the vote to be reconsidered 
required a quorum.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 812 (1981). Compare Sec. 37.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to reconsider occurs most frequently in conjunction with 
the motion to lay on the table. In most instances, the motion to 
reconsider is followed immediately by a motion to table the motion to 
reconsider, although quite frequently a unanimous-consent request is 
the method by which the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See generally Sec. Sec. 34, 39, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A unanimous-consent request may be in order to vacate proceedings 
wherein the motion to reconsider has been laid on the 
table,(19) and on at least one occasion a unanimous-consent 
request to vacate the proceedings has
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 38.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4718]]

been permitted in lieu of the motion to reconsider in the Committee of 
the Whole which is not in order.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 38.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to reconsider is in order on measures that have passed 
both Houses (2) and on measures sent to the Senate or the 
President.(3) It is in order on a vote ordering the yeas and 
nays (4) (but if the House votes by a majority to reconsider 
the calling of the yeas and nays, they may again be ordered by one-
fifth of the Members),(5) and on a vote refusing the yeas 
and nays.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 3466-3469.
 3. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5666-5668.
 4. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 6029; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2790.
 5. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5689-5691.
 6. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reconsideration is also in order on an affirmative vote to lay on 
the table (7) and on a negative vote to lay on the 
table.(8) However, it is not in order to reconsider the vote 
whereby the House tabled another motion to reconsider.(9) 
The vote to lay on the table an appeal from a decision of the Speaker 
may be reconsidered.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5628, 5695, 6288; 8 Cannon's 
        Precedents Sec. 2785; Sec. 39.3, infra. Thus the motion to 
        reconsider provides a third method (in addition to suspension 
        of the rules and requests for unanimous consent) whereby 
        matters laid on the table may be brought back for 
        consideration.
 8. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5629.
 9. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5632-5640.
10. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It has been held in order to reconsider an action predicated on a 
request for unanimous consent, on the theory that such a request is in 
effect a motion.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2794.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reconsideration is in order once on a vote ordering the previous 
question,(12) but may not be applied to a vote ordering the 
previous question which has been partially executed.(13) 
However, on two occasions the motion to reconsider was applied to 
partially executed orders of the House.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 15 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5655.
13. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5653, 5654.
14. 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 2028; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5665.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recent precedents indicate that the motion to reconsider may be 
applied to a vote on a conference report,(15) or to a vote 
on recommitting a conference report.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 39.4, infra.
16. See Sec. 39.5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to reconsider is not in order on a negative vote to 
adjourn,(17) on a negative vote for a recess,(18) 
or on a negative vote on going into the Committee of the Whole which is 
akin to the ques
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5620-5622.
18. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4719]]

tion of consideration, which is also immune to the 
motion,(19) though it has been admitted on an affirmative 
vote to go into the Committee of the Whole.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5641.
20. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5368.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reconsideration is not in order on a negative vote on a motion to 
suspend the rules (1) nor on a vote to override a 
Presidential veto.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5645, 5646; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2781.
 2. House Rules and Manual, Jefferson's Manual Sec. 109 (1981); 5 
        Hinds' Precedents Sec. 5644; 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2778.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion to reconsider may not be applied to the vote by which 
the House decided a question of parliamentary procedure (3) 
nor on a vote on the reference of a bill to a committee.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2776.
 4. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2782.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposition once reconsidered may not be reconsidered again 
(5) unless the nature of the proposition has been changed by 
amendment.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 39.16, infra (Senate).
 6. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5685-5688; 8 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 2788.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To entertain a motion to reconsider the vote on an amendment to an 
amendment, for example, it is first necessary to vote to reconsider the 
vote by which the original amendment, as amended, was disposed of. Thus 
is it proper to reconsider various questions in reverse order until 
proceedings return, in effect, to the original position in which the 
question which is to be reconsidered was pending.
    The purpose of reconsideration is to allow the House to reflect on 
the wisdom of its action on a given proposition. Since a vote taken in 
the Committee of the Whole is not binding on the House until ratified 
there, reconsideration is not in order in the Committee of the Whole. 
The precedents are in conflict as to whether or not the motion to 
reconsider may be entered by unanimous consent in the Committee of the 
Whole (7) but the Chair would normally decline to entertain 
such a request. However, the motion is in order in the House as in the 
Committee of the Whole.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See Sec. 39, infra.
 8. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2793.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In committees, the motion to reconsider may be entered on the same 
day on which the action is taken to which it is proposed to be applied, 
or on the next day thereafter on which the committee convenes with a 
quorum present at a properly scheduled meeting at which business of 
that class is in order.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2213.

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

[[Page 4720]]


                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 34. Purpose and Effect; Pro Forma Motion

    The most common usage of the motion to reconsider is its 
perfunctory disposal by a Member simultaneously entering the motion and 
moving to lay it on the table. One Member may move to reconsider and 
another may move to lay that motion on the table, or both motions may 
be entered by the same Member. Usually, after the Clerk has announced 
the result of a vote, the Speaker will declare, ``Without objection, a 
motion to reconsider is laid on the table.'' This precludes subsequent 
motions for reconsideration.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 34.5, infra. In practice, one of the Members managing the 
        bill under consideration will move that the motion to 
        reconsider be laid on the table, thereby precluding 
        reconsideration. Floyd M. Riddick, Congressional Procedure, 
        Chapman and Grimes (Boston, 1941) p. 237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pro forma motion is generally accepted as the method of making 
a decision of the House final.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The pro forma use of the motion is generally proposed by Members 
        who agree with the decision reflected in the vote that is the 
        subject of the motion. It is interesting to note that after 
        Thaddeus Stevens had successfully sponsored the House 
        resolution that President Andrew Johnson be impeached Mr. 
        Stevens moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution 
        was agreed to, and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider 
        on the table. The later motion was agreed to, this being the 
        parliamentary mode of making a decision final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the prerogative of reconsideration is to be preserved a Member 
must object to the pro forma motion in a timely manner and may be well 
advised to notify the Speaker in advance of his intention to seek 
genuine reconsideration.                          -------------------

Tabling of Motion to Reconsider

Sec. 34.1 A motion to reconsider and a motion to table that motion may 
    be made from the floor and agreed to by unanimous consent.

    On July 18, 1962,(12) the House voted to recommit the 
conference report on S. 167, relating to the enforcement of the 
antitrust laws. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then rose to his feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 108 Cong. Rec. 13997, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Was the vote by which the motion to recommit carried 
    recon

[[Page 4721]]

    sidered and that motion laid on the table?
        The Speaker: It has not been yet.
        Mr. Gross: I so move, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Without objection the motion to reconsider will be 
    laid on the table.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 34.2 Following inquiry from the floor, a motion to reconsider the 
    vote whereby a conference report was recommitted was laid on the 
    table.

    On the legislative day of Dec. 20, 1963,(14) the House 
voted to recommit Conference Report No. 1091, on House Resolution 9499 
(foreign aid appropriations). Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, rose 
with the following inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 109 Cong. Rec. 25423, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 21, 1963 (Calendar 
        Day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker:(15) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, was a motion to reconsider the vote 
    just taken on the motion to recommit tabled?
        The Speaker: The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        A motion to reconsider the vote by which action was taken on 
    the motion to recommit the conference report on H.R. 9499 making 
    appropriations for foreign aid and related agencies for other 
    purposes, was laid on the table.

Who May Offer

Sec. 34.3 After a recapitulation confirmed that a proposition had been 
    passed by a single vote, the Speaker, by unanimous consent, laid a 
    motion to reconsider that vote on the table, despite a later 
    objection from a Member who had voted on the losing side and who 
    had sought the recapitulation.

    On Aug. 12, 1941,(16) the House approved by one vote 
House Joint Resolution 222, to amend the Selective Service Act of 1940. 
Mr. Dewey Short, of Missouri, who had voted against the bill, first 
sought and obtained a recapitulation, and then attempted to have the 
vote reconsidered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 7075, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (17) . . . [T]he vote stands and the 
    bill is passed and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid 
    on the table. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet.
        The Speaker: The Chair announced the vote before the 
    recapitulation. There were no changes whatsoever and the Chair 
    announced that the vote stood and the bill was passed, and without 
    objection a motion to reconsider was laid on the table, and there 
    was no objection.
        Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, I object, and I demand recognition. I 
    wanted to move to recapitulate the vote by which the bill was 
    passed.
        The Speaker: That has already been done.

[[Page 4722]]

        Mr. Short: I mean to reconsider the vote by which the bill was 
    passed.
        The Speaker: The vote has been recapitulated.
        Mr. Short: I meant to reconsider the vote by which the bill was 
    passed.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener (of Michigan): Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, there is no use getting excited 
    about this.
        The Speaker: The Chair trusts the gentleman from Michigan does 
    not think the Chair is excited.
        Mr. Michener: The only thing that would make me think it was 
    the speed with which the Speaker passed the bill and refused to 
    recognize the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Short), who was on the 
    floor.
        The Speaker: The gentleman did not state for what purpose. Mr. 
    Short: Mr. Speaker, I did not have time. I wanted to move to 
    reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
        The Speaker: The gentleman, in the first place, is not eligible 
    to make that motion.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For eligibility requirements to offer the motion to reconsider, see 
        Sec. 35, infra. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Effect of Objection to Request to Table

Sec. 34.4 Where objection was raised to the pro forma unanimous-consent 
    request stated by the Speaker that a motion to reconsider be 
    tabled, the Chair announced that the objection was heard and then, 
    since no Member sought recognition to make a motion relating to the 
    pending bill, recognized another Member to call up the next item of 
    scheduled business.

    On Oct. 9, 1969,(19) after the House agreed to a 
conference on H.R. 11612 (Department of Agriculture appropriations for 
1970) Mr. Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, offered a motion to 
instruct the House conferees to insist on a certain provision therein. 
The following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 115 Cong. Rec. 29315, 29316, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves to lay on the table the motion offered by 
        the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).

        The Speaker: (20) The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 181, nays 177, not 
    voting 73. . . .
        So the preferential motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair appoints the following conferees: 
    Messrs. Whitten, Natcher, Hull, Shipley, Evans of Colorado, Mahon, 
    Langen, Michel, Edwards of Alabama, and Bow.
        Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

[[Page 4723]]

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

    The Speaker then recognized another Member to call up a special 
rule for the consideration of a bill seeking to limit the number of 
hours of work permitted for railroad employees. The motion to 
reconsider was not entered or called up on the next legislative day, so 
the matter became moot.

Tabling of Motion to Reconsider as Affecting Second Motion to 
    Reconsider

Sec. 34.5 The tabling of a motion to reconsider by the Speaker has 
    precluded a Member from subsequently offering a motion to 
    reconsider the same question.

    On June 20, 1967,(21) the House voted approval of H.R. 
10480, a bill prohibiting desecration of the flag. After announcement 
of the result of the vote, a motion to reconsider was laid on the table 
by unanimous consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. 113 Cong. Rec. 16497, 16498, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, Mr. Theodore R. Kupferman, of New York, sought to 
have the vote reconsidered, but the Speaker ruled that motion out of 
order.

        The Speaker: (1) The question is on the passage of 
    the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 387, nays 16, not 
    voting 30. . . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. Kupferman: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Kupferman: Mr. Speaker, I voted for this bill believing 
    that the word ``knowingly'' had been included at line 8 on page 1. 
    It was adopted in committee on the amendment proposed by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Biester]. I am now told 
    informally--and that is the basis for my parliamentary inquiry--
    that the provision is not included in the bill we voted for because 
    of the adoption in the committee, also, of the amendment of the 
    gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Wyman], which was later defeated 
    in the House itself. So my parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Speaker, 
    is the word ``knowingly'' included on line 8, page 1, of the bill 
    that has just been adopted by the House?
        The Speaker: In reply to the parliamentary inquiry, the Chair 
    will state that the word ``knowingly'' is not included.
        Mr. Kupferman: Then I make a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: As the Chair understands the situation, the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Corman], in the

[[Page 4724]]

    Committee of the Whole offered an amendment to strike out the last 
    two lines on page 1 and the first two lines on page 2 and insert 
    new language. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Biester] then 
    offered a substitute for the Corman amendment. The substitute, 
    which proposed to insert the word ``knowingly'' after the word 
    ``whoever'' in the first line of the section, was agreed to; and 
    the Corman amendment, as amended, was then agreed to.
        Subsequently, the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Wyman] 
    offered an amendment to strike out the last two lines on page 1 and 
    the first line on page 2 and insert new language. This amendment 
    was adopted in the Committee of the Whole and was then reported to 
    the House. The only amendment to this part of the bill reported to 
    the House by the Committee of the Whole was the so-called Wyman 
    amendment.
        The House, on a separate vote, then rejected the Wyman 
    amendment. The net result was that the language of the original 
    bill was then before the House. The language of the original bill 
    was thus what the House passed.
        Mr. Kupferman: Even though, Mr. Speaker, we had adopted the 
    word ``knowingly'' as proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    [Mr. Biester].
        In other words, Mr. Speaker, I must make a point of order 
    because I believe--and I know that a great many other Members of 
    the House believe--that they voted for this bill on the basis that 
    the word ``knowingly'' was included. My vote might very well have 
    been otherwise had it not been included, and I must make the point 
    of order that the vote was taken on a false premise.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that there is no point of 
    order involved. The Chair has undertaken to answer a parliamentary 
    inquiry proposed by the gentleman from New York. As a result of the 
    various motions and the actions of the Committee of the Whole or, 
    rather, the action of the House, the original language of the bill 
    has been restored and the original language of the bill is the 
    language that finally passed the House.
        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Colorado will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, that also includes the 
    word ``burning'' which was a committee amendment; is that correct?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Colorado that the two words ``knowingly'' and ``burning'' were 
    eliminated by the action of the House.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: I thank the distinguished Speaker.
        Kupferman: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. 
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Kupferman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask is it in order for 
    reconsideration of the vote on the ground that there was a 
    misconception at the time of the vote?
        The Speaker: The Chair will reply to the gentleman from New 
    York that a motion to reconsider was laid on the

[[Page 4725]]

    table and that a motion to reconsider at this point is not in 
    order.


 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec.  35. Who May Offer; Calling Up

Members Voting With the Majority

Sec. 35.1 A motion to reconsider a vote may be made by a Member voting 
    with the majority on that vote.

    On May 5, 1943,(2) Mr. Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, 
called up for consideration a previously entered motion to reconsider 
the vote whereby a conference report had been rejected. A parliamentary 
inquiry was raised and entertained by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 89 Cong. Rec. 4001, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule 18, I call up for 
    consideration the motion to reconsider the vote whereby the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 1860) to provide for the 
    payment of overtime compensation to Government employees, and for 
    other purposes, was rejected.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: Was the motion to reconsider made by one of those 
    who was in the majority upon that question?
        The Speaker: It was. It was made by the gentleman from Texas 
    [Mr. Worley].(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See also 87 Cong. Rec. 7074, 7075, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 12, 
        1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reconsideration of Tie Vote

Sec. 35.2 Since a tie vote defeats a question, a Senator who voted in 
    the affirmative is not on the prevailing side and is precluded from 
    moving to reconsider the question.

    On Feb. 4, 1964,(4) Senator Thomas H. Kuchel, of 
California, moved to reconsider the tie vote whereby the Senate 
rejected an amendment to H.R. 8363, the Revenue Act of 1964. With 
Senator George McGovern, of South Dakota, presiding, the following 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 1854, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kuchel: Mr. President, I move that the Senate reconsider 
    the vote by which the last amendment was defeated. I ask for the 
    yeas and nays on the motion. . . .
        Mr. [Elmer J.] Holland [of Pennsylvania]: A point of order.
        The Presiding Officer: The Senator will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Holland: Is the Senator from California in position to make 
    his motion?
        Mr. [Russel B.] Long of Louisiana: How did the Senator from 
    California vote?
        Mr. Kuchel: I make my motion. I voted in the affirmative.
        Mr. Long of Louisiana: The Senator is not in a position to make 
    his motion.
        Mr. Kuchel. I renew my motion.

[[Page 4726]]

        Mr. Long of Louisiana: Mr. President----
        The Presiding Officer: The Senator from California voted in the 
    affirmative. The Parliamentarian informs the Chair that the Senator 
    from California, therefore, is not in a position to make his 
    motion.

Reconsideration of Unrecorded Vote

Sec. 35.3 Where there has been no recorded vote, a Member offering a 
    motion to reconsider will not be compelled to say whether he voted 
    with the majority or minority.

    On July 14, 1932,(5) Mr. William P. Connery, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, moved to reconsider a vote by division on a motion to 
recommit Senate Joint Resolution 169, to relocate the unemployed on 
unoccupied rural lands. A point of order was raised that Mr. Connery 
had not voted with the majority and was therefore not eligible to make 
that motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 75 Cong. Rec. 15392, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Connery: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the 
    motion to recommit the resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 169, and 
    spread that on the Journal.
        Mr. [John B.] Schafer [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. The gentleman voted against the motion, and under the 
    parliamentary situation and the rules of the House, the gentleman 
    can not move to reconsider the vote.
        The Speaker: (6) The Chair has no knowledge of how 
    any vote was cast. There was no roll call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: But should not the gentleman be 
    required to state how he voted, when the question is raised, Mr. 
    Speaker?
        The Speaker: Well, it has not been customary in the House since 
    the present occupant of the chair has been a Member of it.

Timeliness of Objection as to Eligibility

Sec. 35.4 A point of order that a Senator who had moved to reconsider 
    was ineligible to make the motion [not being on prevailing side of 
    question] comes too late where a motion to table the motion to 
    reconsider has been rejected and yeas and nays have been ordered on 
    the motion to reconsider.

    On July 23, 1964,(7) during Senate consideration of S. 
2642, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, with Senator Daniel Inouye, 
of Hawaii, presiding, the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 16722, 16723, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. President, I move that 
    the

[[Page 4727]]

    Senate reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Winston L.] Prouty [of Vermont]: I move to lay that motion 
    on the table.
        The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the 
    motion of the Senator from Vermont to lay on the table the motion 
    of the Senator from New York to reconsider the vote by which the 
    amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [Hubert H.] Humphrey [(of Minnesota]: Mr. President, on 
    this question, I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.
        The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. . . .
        The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 45, as follows. . . .
        So the motion to lay on the table was rejected.
        Mr. [Thomas H.] Kuchel [of California]: Mr. President, on the 
    last vote, was the question to lay on the table the motion to 
    reconsider?
        The Presiding Officer: That is correct.
        Mr. Kuchel: Is the question now on the motion to reconsider?
        The Presiding Officer: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. [John G.] Tower [of Texas]: Mr. President, a point of 
    order.
        The Presiding Officer: The Senator will state it.
        Mr. Tower: The motion to reconsider was made by the Senator 
    from New York, who, I believe, was not on the prevailing side.
        The Presiding Officer: The Parliamentarian advises the Chair 
    that it is too late to raise that point of order.

Calling Up on Subsequent Day; Form

Sec. 35.5 A Member entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which a 
    conference report was rejected; subsequently, another Member called 
    up that motion for the consideration of the House.

    On Apr. 22, 1943,(8) Mr. Eugene Worley, of Texas, moved 
to reconsider the vote whereby the House had on the previous day 
rejected H.R. 1860, a bill to provide overtime compensation for 
government employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 89 Cong. Rec. 3729, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Worley: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the action by 
    which H.R. 1860 was on yesterday rejected.

    On May 5, 1943,(9) Mr. Robert Ramspeck, of Georgia, 
called up for consideration a motion to reconsider the vote by which a 
conference report had been rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Id. at p. 4001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Speaker,(10) pursuant to rule 18, 
    I call up for consideration the motion to reconsider the vote 
    whereby the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1860) to provide 
    for the payment of overtime compensation to Government employees, 
    and for other purposes, was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

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

[[Page 4728]]



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 36. Withdrawing the Mo-tion

Withdrawal of Senate Motion to Reconsider

Sec. 36.1 In the Senate, a motion to reconsider was withdrawn, by 
    unanimous consent, some seven months after having been entered.

    On Nov. 18, 1963,(11) with Senator Gaylord A. Nelson, of 
Wisconsin, presiding, the following took place on the Senate floor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 109 Cong. Rec. 22063, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mike] Mansfield [of Montana]: Mr. President, I ask 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the motion which I made on April 26 
    to reconsider H.R. 2837, a bill to amend further section 11 of the 
    Federal Register Act.
        The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
        The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
        H.R. 2837 will be transmitted to the House of Representatives.


 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 37. Requirement for a Quorum

Effect of Point of Order of no Quorum

Sec. 37.1 When a point of order that a quorum was not present was 
    raised against the offering of a motion to reconsider the vote by 
    which a bill was adopted, the proponent of the motion indicated a 
    willingness to enter, rather than make, the motion; the point of 
    order was withdrawn, and the motion was entered.

    On Apr. 22, 1943,(12) Mr. Eugene Worley, of Texas, moved 
to reconsider the vote whereby the House had on the previous day 
rejected H.R. 1860, a bill to provide overtime compensation for 
government employees. Objection was made on the ground that a quorum 
was not present, but was withdrawn after Mr. Worley asked for unanimous 
consent to enter, rather than to make, his motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 89 Cong. Rec. 3729, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Worley: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the action by 
    which H.R. 1860 was on yesterday rejected.
        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order a quorum is not present.
        Mr. Worley: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter the 
    motion.
        Mr. Gore: Mr. Speaker, then I withdraw the point of order.
        The Speaker: (13) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Worley]?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).

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

[[Page 4729]]

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since a quorum is required to reconsider 
the vote on a proposition which requires a quorum (5 Hinds' Precedents 
Sec. 5606), and since under the rules then applicable no business could 
be conducted once a point of no quorum was made, it became necessary to 
seek unanimous consent to enter the motion. However, once the point of 
order was withdrawn, such unanimous consent would no longer have been 
required.


                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 38. As Related to Other Motions

Motion to Lay on the Table

Sec. 38.1 The motion to reconsider may be applied to a vote to lay a 
    matter on the table (except to a vote to table a motion to 
    reconsider) and conversely, a motion to reconsider may be laid on 
    the table.

    On Oct. 9, 1968,(14) Mr. Robert Taft, Jr., of Ohio, 
sought to appeal a ruling of the Chair, and Mr. Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, moved to lay that appeal on the table. After the House voted 
to table the appeal the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214-16, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged motion.
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman from California will 
    state his privileged motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the 
    motion to lay the appeal from the Chair on the table.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion be laid on the 
    table.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from California moves to reconsider 
    the vote on the motion to lay the appeal from the decision of the 
    Chair on the table, and the gentleman from Oklahoma moves that that 
    motion be laid on the table.
        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    motion of the gentleman from Oklahoma to lay my motion on the table 
    because that motion does not lie.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that a motion to lay on the 
    table, on a motion to reconsider, is a recognized motion. . . .
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma [Mr. Albert], that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 
    table.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 136, nays 104, not 
    voting 191. . . .

        So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Sec. 38.2 A motion to reconsider and a motion to table the mo

[[Page 4730]]

    tion to reconsider were made from the floor and agreed to by 
    unanimous consent.

    On July 18, 1962,(16) after the House adopted a motion 
to recommit the conference report on S. 167 relating to the enforcement 
of antitrust laws, the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 13997, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Was the vote by which the motion to recommit carried 
    reconsidered and that motion laid on the table?
        The Speaker: It has not been yet.
        Mr. Gross: I so move, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Without objection the motion to reconsider will be 
    laid on the table.
        There was no objection.

Sec. 38.3 After a Member inquired as to whether a motion to reconsider 
    a vote on a motion to recommit had been tabled, the motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.

    On the legislative day of Dec. 20, 1963,(18) the House 
voted to recommit Conference Report No. 1091 on H.R. 9499, dealing with 
foreign aid appropriations for fiscal 1964. The following then took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 25423, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 21, 1963 (Calendar 
        Day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (1) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, was a motion to reconsider the vote 
    just taken on the motion to recommit tabled?
        The Speaker: The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        A motion to reconsider the vote by which action was taken on 
    the motion to recommit the conference report on H.R. 9499 making 
    appropriations for foreign aid and related agencies for the fiscal 
    year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes, was laid on the 
    table.

Sec. 38.4 Where objection was raised to a unanimous-consent request 
    that a motion to reconsider be tabled, the Chair announced that the 
    objection was heard and then, since no Member sought recognition to 
    make a motion relating to the pending bill, recognized another 
    Member to call up the next item of scheduled business.

    On Oct. 9, 1969,(2) after the House agreed to a 
conference on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 115 Cong. Rec. 29315, 29316, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4731]]

H.R. 11612 relating to agriculture appropriations for fiscal 1970, Mr. 
Silvio O. Conte, of Massachusetts, offered a motion to instruct the 
House conferees to insist on a certain provision of the bill. The 
following then occurred:

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves to lay on the table the motion offered by 
        the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).

        The Speaker: (3) The question is on the preferential 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten). . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the preferential motion was agreed to [and the Chair 
    appointed managers on the part of the House].
         Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the 
    table.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

    The Speaker then recognized another Member to call up a special 
rule for the consideration of another bill. The motion to reconsider 
was neither entered nor called up the next legislative day, so the 
matter became moot.

Unanimous-consent Requests

Sec. 38.5 A unanimous-consent request to vacate the proceedings whereby 
    a conference report was agreed to and a motion to reconsider laid 
    on the table, was entertained by the Chair but objected to.

    On May 22, 1968,(4) the House was considering the 
conference report on S. 5, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, when the 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 114 Cong. Rec. 14396, 14398, 14402, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The conference report was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        Mr. [William T.] Cahill [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (5) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cahill: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for a Member to 
    move to rescind the action heretofore taken by the House?
        The Speaker: A motion would not be in order. But it would be in 
    order for a unanimous-consent request to be made. . . .
        Mr. [Wright] Patman [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to vacate the proceedings by which the House adopted the 
    conference report on the bill (S. 5) to assist in the promotion of 
    economic stabilization by requiring the disclosure of finance 
    charges in connection with extension of credit.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?

[[Page 4732]]

        Mr. [William L.] Hungate [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, all Members were notified this measure would 
    be before the House today as the first order of business. This 
    legislation has been before this body for 8 years. Objection should 
    have been made before the vote was taken.
        Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

Sec. 38.6 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole allowed a 
    unanimous-consent request to vacate the proceedings whereby an 
    amendment was adopted, after he held out of order a motion to 
    reconsider the vote by which that amendment was adopted.

    On Mar. 12, 1945,(6) Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, who 
was in charge of debate in the Committee of the Whole on H.R. 2023 (to 
continue the Commodity Credit Corporation), inadvertently permitted an 
amendment offered by Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of Michigan, to be adopted. 
Mr. Spence realized his mistake, and sought to have that proceeding 
reconsidered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 2042, 2043, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider the action of 
    the Committee by which the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: (7) Such a motion is not in order in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Wolcott: Inasmuch as business has been transacted since the 
    original request was submitted by the gentleman from Kentucky, 
    would it be in order for me to propound a consent request that the 
    proceedings by which the amendment was adopted be vacated?
        The Chairman: Such a request would be in order, and the 
    Chairman recognizes the gentleman for that purpose.
        Mr. Wolcott: Then, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
    the proceedings by which the amendment was adopted reducing the 
    amount from $5,000,000,000 to $4,000,000,000 be vacated. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.

Motion for the Previous Question

Sec. 38.7 A motion to reconsider is debatable when a resolution 
    [providing for the order of business] has been agreed to without 
    debate and without the ordering of the previous question.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(8) after adoption of House Resolution 
506 providing for consideration of H.R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 23608, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4733]]

10065 (the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1965), the following 
discussion on the relationship between the motion to reconsider and the 
previous question took place:

        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9.  John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, was the previous question ordered 
    on the question to adopt the resolution that has just been voted 
    on?
        The Speaker: It was not.
        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 that 
    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 
    inquirry

        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 table 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.



                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 39. Scope and Application of Motion

Use in Committee

Sec. 39.1 A motion to reconsider may be used in a committee, when a 
    quorum is present, to report out from that committee bills approved 
    earlier that day in the absence of a quorum.

    On July 9, 1956,(10) John L. McMillan, of South 
Carolina, Chair
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 102 Cong. Rec. 12199, 12200, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4734]]

man of the Committee on the District of Columbia, called up for 
consideration H.R. 4697, to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of 
the District of Columbia. Mr. Albert P. Morano, of Connecticut, rose to 
a point of order:

        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    consideration of this bill on the ground that when the committee 
    considered this bill there was not a quorum present to report it to 
    the House.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, may I be 
    recognized on the point of order?
        The Speaker: (11) Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, there is great difficulty, 
    it is true, in getting a quorum of the District Committee, but I 
    was personally present when this bill was voted out, and there was 
    a quorum of the committee present. And, in order to be sure that 
    there was no such question as this raised on the floor of the 
    House, I myself made a motion, when a quorum was present, to 
    reconsider all of the bills that had been considered and voted them 
    out again, which was done.
        The Speaker: Does the chairman of the Committee of the District 
    of Columbia desire to be heard on the point of order? . . .
        Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the gentleman 
    from Virginia [Mr. Smith] is correct. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair must know whether the gentleman says 
    that there was a quorum present or not, to his knowledge.
        Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, there was a quorum present part of 
    the time and part of the time there was not.
        The Speaker: That is not an answer to the query of the Chair.
        Mr. [Sidney E.] Simpson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, would the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I yield.
        Mr. Simpson of Illinois: I will say for the benefit of the 
    House that I was at the committee meeting when the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Smith] brought up the point of no quorum; and there 
    was a quorum present.
        The Speaker: That is what the Chair is trying to ascertain from 
    the chairman of the committee.
        Mr. McMillan: That is correct.
        The Speaker: That is the point that is involved here.
        Mr. McMillan: The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] made that 
    motion and there was a quorum present. . . .
        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I press my point of order. I would 
    like to know whether or not there was a quorum present when this 
    bill was reported, not when the gentleman from Virginia made his 
    motion.
        The Speaker: The chairman of the legislative committee has just 
    stated to the Chair that there was a quorum present when this bill 
    was reported. The Chair is going to take the word of the chairman 
    of the committee, because that is according to the rules and 
    practices of the House.
        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I understood the chairman to say that 
    when the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] made his motion there 
    was a quorum present. But I did not understand the chairman of the 
    committee

[[Page 4735]]

    to say that when this bill was reported there was a quorum present.
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to ask the gentleman from South 
    Carolina [Mr. McMillan] that question now.
        Mr. McMillan: Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Virginia 
    made his motion he stated that he wanted all bills that were 
    considered that day passed with a quorum present.
        The Speaker: The Chair is going to ask the gentleman again if a 
    quorum was present, to his certain knowledge, when this bill was 
    reported.
        Mr. McMillan: There was not when this bill was passed.
        Mr. Morano: Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be heard 
    further, because I think it is important to straighten this 
    question out.
        The Speaker: It is.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Not from the standpoint of this bill, 
    but as a parliamentary question. Frequently bills are discussed and 
    voted upon when a quorum is not present. It is the custom, at the 
    conclusion of the discussion, when a quorum is present, to move a 
    reconsideration of all the bills that have been passed, and to move 
    to report them out. That is what was done in this matter. I think 
    it is important for the House to know just how strict this rule is 
    and how it is to be applied, because I think every bill that was 
    passed upon this morning came here under the same conditions as 
    this bill.
        Mr. Simpson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: I yield.
        Mr. Simpson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I wish to verify what 
    Judge Smith is saying. That was exactly the procedure in this 
    matter in the House Committee on the District of Columbia.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: On this proceeding of the committee, I 
    think we ought to be straightened out on it for the future.
        The Speaker: This has come up many times and it has always been 
    decided by the Chair on the statement of the chairman of the 
    legislative committee concerned. The gentleman from South Carolina 
    said that when this bill was reported there was not a quorum 
    present. Is the Chair quoting the gentleman from South Carolina 
    correctly?
        Mr. McMillan: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: That really is not the question I am 
    trying to get determined for the benefit of the House and other 
    committees. It is true, I believe, there was not a quorum present 
    when any one of these bills was considered, but before the session 
    adjourned a quorum did appear, and then a blanket motion was made 
    to reconsider all of the bills that had previously been passed upon 
    and to vote them out, which motion was carried. May I ask the 
    chairman of the committee if that is a correct statement of what 
    occurred?
        Mr. McMillan: That is correct.
        The Speaker: A quorum was present at that time?
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: At that time a quorum was present. That 
    was the reason the motion was made. That is the only way we can 
    operate in that committee, I might add.

        Mr. [Henry O.] Talle [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, may I say as a 
    member of the District Committee that I was present

[[Page 4736]]

    at the meeting. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] has 
    recorded the proceedings accurately.
        Mr. Morano: There is obviously a contradiction here, Mr. 
    Speaker. The chairman of the committee said there was not a quorum 
    present when this bill was considered. The issue before the 
    Speaker, as I understand it, is a ruling on this bill, not on other 
    bills that were considered en bloc.
        The Speaker: That is correct, but the gentleman from South 
    Carolina said that on the last action on the bill in the committee 
    a quorum was present.
        The Chair under the circumstances must overrule the point of 
    order made by the gentleman from Connecticut.

Sec. 39.2 A point of order against one motion to reconsider the actions 
    whereby a committee reported out several bills in the absence of a 
    quorum should be made in the committee and not in the House.

    On July 9, 1956,(12) Mr. John L. McMillan, of South 
Carolina, called up H.R. 4697, to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control 
Act of the District of Columbia of 1954. Mr. Albert P. Morano, of 
Connecticut, raised a point of order against the consideration of this 
bill on the ground that the Committee on the District of Columbia had 
considered this bill in the absence of a quorum. A dialogue ensued and 
established the following facts: The committee adopted this and several 
other bills in the absence of a quorum; however, before the committee 
adjourned a quorum appeared, and a motion was then adopted to 
reconsider all the bills which had been approved in the absence of a 
quorum and report them to the House. The Speaker thereupon overruled 
the point of order. Mr. John Taber, of New York, then posed a 
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 102 Cong Rec. 12199, 12200, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, is it proper to consider by a single 
    vote a reconsideration of the votes by which several bills have 
    been reported, and then make a single omnibus motion by which all 
    those bills that have been so reconsidered would be reported?
        The Speaker: (13) If, as seems to be true in this 
    instance, no point of order was made, then the action of the 
    committee is presumed to have been in accordance with parliamentary 
    procedure of the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taber: Mr. Speaker, the thing that would occur to me with 
    reference to that is that if it may be that an omnibus motion is 
    made to report bills that instead of the bills being considered on 
    their merits and by themselves separately, it would be very 
    unfortunate for us to treat bills in that way.
        The Speaker: Of course, if any point was made in the committee, 
    they would be compelled to consider them separately. But if no 
    point was made, it is assumed that the committee was acting in 
    proper parliamentary fashion.

[[Page 4737]]

Application to Motion to Table

Sec. 39.3 A motion to reconsider may be applied to a vote on a motion 
    to lay on the table (except to a vote to table another motion to 
    reconsider).

    On Oct. 9, 1968,(14) the House had adopted a motion 
offered by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to table an appeal from a 
decision of the Chair sought by Mr. Robert Taft, Jr., of Ohio. The 
following then occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 30215, 30216, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged motion.
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman from California will 
    state his privileged motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hosmer: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the 
    motion to lay the appeal from the Chair on the table.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    motion be laid on the table.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from California moves to reconsider 
    the vote on the motion to lay the appeal from the decision of the 
    Chair on the table, and the gentleman from Oklahoma moves that that 
    motion be laid on the table. . . .
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma [Mr. Albert], that the motion to reconsider be laid on the 
    table.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 135, nays 104, not 
    voting 191, as follows: . . .
        So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Application to Conference Reports


Sec. 39.4 The House may reconsider the vote whereby a conference report 
    was rejected.

    The House may reconsider the vote on a conference report, as 
illustrated by the proceedings of May 5, 1943,(16) dealing 
with the War Overtime Pay Act of 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 4001, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert] Ramspeck [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    rule 18, I call up for consideration the motion to reconsider the 
    vote whereby the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1860) to 
    provide for the payment of overtime compensation to Government 
    employees, and for other purposes, was rejected. . . .
        The Speaker: (17) . . . The question is: Will the 
    House reconsider the vote whereby the conference report on the bill 
    (H.R. 1860) to provide for the payment of overtime compensation to 
    Government employees, and for other purposes, was rejected? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question recurs on the motion to reconsider.

[[Page 4738]]

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Vorys of Ohio) there were--ayes 169, noes 82.
        So the motion to reconsider was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on agreeing to the conference 
    report.
        Mr. Ramspeck: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Clerk called the roll; and there were--yeas 275, nays 119, 
    not voting 40.

Application to Vote to Recommit


Sec. 39.5 The motion to reconsider has been applied to the vote whereby 
    a conference report was recommitted.

    On the legislative day of Dec. 20, 1963,(18) after the 
House voted to recommit the conference report on H.R. 9499 (foreign aid 
appropriations for 1964), the following occurred on the floor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 25423, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 21, 1963 (Calendar 
        Day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, was a motion to reconsider the vote 
    just taken on the motion to recommit tabled?
        The Speaker: The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        A motion to reconsider the vote by which action was taken on 
    the motion to recommit the conference report on H.R. 9499 making 
    appropriations for foreign aid and related agencies for the fiscal 
    year ending June 30, 1964, and for other purposes, was laid on the 
    table.


Sec. 39.6 It is in order to reconsider the vote whereby the House 
    recommitted a joint resolution to a committee.

    On July 14, 1932,(20) after the House voted to recommit 
Senate Joint Resolution 169 (for relocation of the unemployed), a 
motion was entered to reconsider this vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 15391, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Luther A.] Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I voted for the 
    motion to recommit, and I make the motion to reconsider the vote by 
    which the bill was recommitted, and spread that motion upon the 
    Journal.
        The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from Texas . . . 
    moves to reconsider the vote by which the Senate Joint Resolution 
    was recommitted. The motion will be spread upon the Journal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John N. Garner (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 16, 1932,(2) this motion was called up for 
consideration, and laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 75 Cong. Rec. 15725, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 4739]]

        Mr. Johnson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I call up my motion to 
    reconsider the vote whereby Senate Joint Resolution 169 was 
    recommitted to the Committee on Labor.
        Mr. [Charles] Adkins [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to lay 
    that motion on the table.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Illinois.
        The question was taken; and on a division [demanded by Mr. 
    Connery], there were 147 ayes and 29 noes.
        Mr. [William P.] Connery [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts demands the yeas 
    and nays. Eleven Members have arisen, not a sufficient number, and 
    the yeas and nays are refused.
        So the motion to lay the motion of Mr. Johnson of Texas on the 
    table was agreed to.

Use of Motion to Vote on Motion to Expunge Remarks in Record

Sec. 39.7 The motion to reconsider may be used to reopen the 
    proceedings whereby the House voted to expunge certain proceedings 
    from the Congressional Record, including a speech made on the floor 
    by a Member.

    On Feb. 11, 1941,(3) the House agreed to a motion 
offered by Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, to expunge from the 
Record a speech made that day by Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York 
(criticizing the House Committee on Un-American Activities). A point of 
order raised by Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, against this speech 
and the Speaker's response thereto, both of which occurred during the 
speech, were also removed from the Record as a result of this motion. 
On Feb. 13, 1941,(4) Mr. Hoffman, who wished to have the 
alleged offensive speech and his point of order against it preserved in 
the Record, rose to a question of privilege of the House, contending 
that by expunging from the Record those proceedings of Feb. 11, the 
House had abridged the first amendment. He offered a resolution to have 
the expunged proceedings included in the Record. The issue was resolved 
in the following manner:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 87 Cong. Rec. 932, 933, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. Id. at pp. 979, 980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: I raised a question of the privilege of the House. 
    The House has not passed upon that question raised by the 
    resolution.
        The Speaker: (5) The House would have to decide 
    that, and, in the opinion of the Chair, the House did decide the 
    matter when it expunged the remarks from the Record. The Chair 
    thinks, under the circumstances, that the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4740]]

    proper way to reopen the question would be by a motion to 
    reconsider the vote whereby the motion of the gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Rankin] was adopted. The Chair is of the opinion 
    that inasmuch as the question raised by the gentleman from Michigan 
    was decided by a vote of the House on a proper motion, that he does 
    not now present a question of privilege of the House or of personal 
    privilege.

Senate Practice

Sec. 39.8 A motion to reconsider its action in passing a House bill may 
    be entered in the Senate; when this occurs, the Senate requests the 
    House to return the papers.

    On May 8, 1967,(6) the following occurred on the floor 
of the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 11868, 11918, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Allen J.] Ellender [of Louisiana]: Mr. President, I enter 
    a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill [H.R. 3399 to 
    amend section 2 of Public Law 88-240] to extend the termination 
    date for the Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission was passed on 
    Thursday, May 4, 1967.
        The Presiding Officer: (7) The motion will be 
    entered and placed on the calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Birch Bayh (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Motion for House to Return to the Senate the Papers on H.R. 3399

        Mr. Ellender: Mr. President, I move that the House of 
    Representatives be requested to return to the Senate the papers on 
    H.R. 3399, to amend section 2 of Public Law 88-240, to extend the 
    termination date for the Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission.
        The Presiding Officer: The motion will be stated.
        The Assistant Legislative Clerk: The Senator from Louisiana 
    [Mr. Ellender] moves that the House of Representatives be requested 
    to return to the Senate the papers on H.R. 3399, to amend section 2 
    of Public Law 88-240, to extend the termination date for the 
    Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission.
        The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the 
    motion of the Senator from Louisiana.
        The motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 3399, extending the termination date 
for the Corregidor-Bataan Memorial Commission, was adopted by the 
Senate on May 4, 1967. By the time the message arrived from the Senate 
on May 8, requesting the return of the papers to the Senate, the 
enrolled bill was on the Speaker's table awaiting his signature. After 
consultations with the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
the Speaker withheld his signature until the chairman could ascertain 
the reason for the Senate's request and recommend appropriate action in 
response thereto.

Sec. 39.9 A motion to reconsider two Senate bills having been

[[Page 4741]]

    entered, the Senate [by motion] requested the House to return the 
    bills.

    On Aug. 26, 1963,(8) a motion to reconsider certain 
votes was made on the floor of the Senate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 109 Cong. Rec. 15849, 15850, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Michael J.] Mansfield [of Montana]: Mr. President, I enter 
    a motion to reconsider the votes by which the bills, S. 1914 to 
    incorporate the Catholic War Veterans of the United States of 
    America, and S. 1942 to incorporate the Jewish War Veterans of the 
    United States of America, were passed on August 20. . . .
        The President Pro Tempore: (9) The Senator has a 
    right to enter the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Hayden (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mansfield: Mr. President, I move that the House of 
    Representatives be requested to return the papers on the bill S. 
    1914 to incorporate the Catholic War Veterans of the United States 
    of America, and on the bill S. 1942, to incorporate the Jewish War 
    Veterans of the United States of America.
        The President Pro Tempore: The question is on agreeing to the 
    motion of the Senator from Montana. . . .
        The motion was agreed to.

Use in Committee of the Whole

Sec. 39.10 A motion to reconsider is not in order in the Committee of 
    the Whole.

    On May 24, 1967,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7819, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
amendments of 1967. A motion regulating the time for debate had been 
approved when the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 13824, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman from Illinois will 
    state his parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Pucinski: Mr. Chairman, is a motion to reconsider the last 
    motion in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Illinois [Mr. Pucinski] that such motion is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 39.11 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by motion, agreed to 
    limit debate on a pending amendment, a motion to reconsider its 
    action is not in order.

    On Aug. 5, 1966,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act of 1966, when Mr. William 
L. Dickinson, of Alabama, rose to a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 18416, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Richard Bolling (Mo.).

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

[[Page 4742]]

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, if I understand correctly, we were 
    granted 2 hours in which to submit amendments. One hour and 45 
    minutes has been used up. We have 15 minutes remaining. Did the 
    Chair just rule that it would be inappropriate, and this Committee 
    would be unable to reconsider, the fixing of this time? Was that 
    the ruling of the Chair?
        The Chairman: A motion to reconsider is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 39.12 A request to reconsider a vote on an amendment is not in 
    order in the Committee of the Whole, even by unanimous consent.

    On Dec. 4, 1963,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6196--on the revitalization of cotton industry--when 
the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 109 Cong. Rec. 23322, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert J.] Dole [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John J. Rooney (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dole: Mr. Chairman, would it now be in order to reconsider 
    by unanimous consent the amendment I previously offered?
        The Chairman: A motion to reconsider is not in order in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 39.13 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole held out of order 
    a motion to reconsider the vote by which an amendment was adopted, 
    but allowed a unanimous-consent request to vacate the proceedings 
    whereby that amendment was adopted.

    On Mar. 12, 1945,(16) while Mr. Brent Spence, of 
Kentucky, was controlling debate in the Committee of the Whole on H.R. 
2023 [to continue the Commodity Credit Corporation] he inadvertently 
permitted adoption of an amendment offered by Mr. Jesse P. Wolcott, of 
Michigan. Upon realizing his mistake, Mr. Spence sought to reconsider 
the vote on this amendment, and the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 2042, 2043, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider the action of 
    the Committee by which the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: (17) Such a motion is not in order in 
    the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. R. Ewing Thomason (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolcott: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Wolcott: Inasmuch as business has been transacted since the 
    original request was submitted by the gentleman from Kentucky, 
    would it be in order for me to propound a consent request that the 
    proceedings by which the amendment was adopted be vacated?

[[Page 4743]]

        The Chairman: Such a request would be in order, and the Chair 
    recognizes the gentleman for that purpose.
        Mr. Wolcott: Then, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
    the proceedings by which the amendment was adopted reducing the 
    amount from $5,000,000,000 to $4,000,000,000 be vacated. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        There was no objection.

Question of Consideration

Sec. 39.14 It is not in order to reconsider the vote whereby the House 
    has declined to consider a proposition since the question of 
    consideration can be raised again at a subsequent time.

    On Apr. 7, 1937,(18) the issue before the House was 
whether to consider H.R. 2251, an antilynching bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 3252-54, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I raise 
    the question of consideration.
        The Speaker: (1) The gentleman from New York raises 
    the question of consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is, will the House consider the bill [H.R. 2251] 
    to assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the 
    equal protection of the laws, and to punish the crime of lynching? 
    . . .
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 123, nays 257, not 
    voting 50, as follows: . . .
        So the House refused to consider the bill. . . .
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
    the House refused to consider the bill and lay that motion on the 
    table.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks that the motion is not in order 
    on a vote of this character.

Second Motion

Sec. 39.15 After a motion to reconsider has been laid on the table a 
    second motion to reconsider is not in order.

    On June 20, 1967,(2) the House had just adopted H.R. 
10480, to prohibit desecration of the flag, when confusion arose as to 
the effect of House action on amendments reported out by the Committee 
of the Whole. Mr. Theodore R. Kupferman, of New York, stated that his 
vote had been based on a misconception of the exact wording of the 
bill, and raised the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 113 Cong. Rec. 16497, 16498, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Kupferman: Mr. Speaker, may I ask is it in order for 
    reconsideration of the vote on the ground that there was a 
    misconception at the time of the vote?
        The Speaker: (3) The Chair will reply to the 
    gentleman from New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4744]]

    that a motion to reconsider was laid on the table and that a motion 
    to reconsider at this point is not in order.

Sec. 39.16 After one motion to reconsider has been acted on, a second 
    motion to reconsider is not in order.

    On May 6, 1964,(4) the Senate rejected amendments 
proposed by Senator Thruston B. Morton, of Kentucky, to amendments 
offered by Senator Herman E. Talmadge, of Georgia, to H.R. 7152, the 
Civil Rights Act of 1963. Senator Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, 
moved to reconsider the vote on the Morton amendments, with the 
following results:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 110 Cong. Rec. 10201-03, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Acting President Pro Tempore: (5) The question 
    is on agreeing to the motion to reconsider the vote by which the 
    Morton amendments to the Talmadge amendments were rejected. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Lee Metcalf (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The results was announced--yeas 46, nays 45, as follows: . . .
        So the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Morton 
    amendments to the Talmadge amendments were rejected was agreed to.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: The question now is on 
    agreeing to the amendments, of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. 
    Morton] to the Talmadge amendments. . . .
        The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. . . .
        The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 46, as follows: . . .
        So Mr. Morton's amendments to the amendments of Mr. Talmadge 
    were rejected.
        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: The motion is not in order.



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 40. Precedence of Motion

Vote Recapitulation and Motion to Reconsider

Sec. 40.1 A demand for recapitulation takes precedence over a motion to 
    reconsider.

    On May 6, 1964,(6) the Senate defeated by a tie vote 
several amendments to H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963. Mr. 
Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois, sought to have this vote reconsidered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 110 Cong. Rec. 10200, 10201, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Acting President Pro Tempore: (7) The vote being 
    45 yeas and 45 nays, the Morton amendments to the Talmadge 
    amendments are rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Lee Metcalf (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Several Senators: No, no, no.
        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. President, I move that the Senate reconsider 
    the vote by which the Morton amendments to the Talmadge amendments 
    were rejected.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: The question is on agreeing 
    to the motion to reconsider.

[[Page 4745]]

        Mr. [Richard B.] Russell [of Georgia]: Mr. President, I demand 
    a recapitulation of the vote.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: The Senator is entitled to 
    have that done, and there will be a recapitulation. The clerk will 
    call the names for the recapitulation.
        The legislative clerk recapitulated the vote.



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 41. Debate on Motion

When Motion is Debatable

Sec. 41.1 The motion to reconsider is debatable if the motion proposed 
    to be reconsidered was debatable.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(8) the House adopted House Resolution 
506, providing for consideration of H.R. 10065, the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Act of 1965. There then occurred the discussion below, 
which suggests the circumstances under which a motion to reconsider may 
be debated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 23608, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (9) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, was the previous question ordered 
    on the question to adopt the resolution that has just been voted 
    on?
        The Speaker: It was not.
        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 that 
    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 has 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 gentlemen 
    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 table is defeated, the 
    motion to reconsider will give us an opportunity

[[Page 4746]]

    to debate the question on the resolution.
        The Speaker: Under the present circumstances, the motion to 
    reconsider would be debatable.
        Mr. Laird: I thank the Speaker.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Speaker, what time woud be allowed to debate 
    the question and how would it be divided?
        The Speaker: It will be under the 1-hour rule and the gentleman 
    from Ohio would be entitled to the control of the entire hour.
        The Chair will restate the question on which the yeas and nays 
    have been demanded and ordered.
        The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Oklahoma 
    [Mr. Albert] to lay on the table the motion to reconsider.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 194, nays 181, not 
    voting 57.

Senate Practice

Sec. 41.2 A Motion to reconsider is debatable under Senate rules. 
    During the Senate debate of May 6, 1964,(10) on H.R. 
    7152 (Civil Rights Act of 1963), Mr. Everett M. Dirksen, of 
    Illinois, sought reconsideration of a tie vote on certain 
    amendments and raised the following parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 110 Cong. Rec. 10201-03, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dirksen: Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: (11) The Senator 
    will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Lee Metcalf (Mont.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dirksen: A motion to reconsider is a debatable motion, is 
    it not?
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: The Senator is correct.
        Mr. Dirksen: So any Senator who wishes to discuss the motion to 
    reconsider is at liberty to do so upon recognition?
        The Acting President Pro Tempore: The Senator is correct. The 
    Senator from Illinois has the floor.



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 42. In General; Effect

    The unanimous-consent request is a procedural device that is 
available both in the House and Committee of the Whole.(12) 
The limitations on the application of unanimous-consent requests are 
primarily those imposed by the presiding officer in the exercise of his 
discretionary power to recognize Members.(13) However, in at 
least one circumstance the Speaker is proscribed by rule from 
entertaining certain unanimous-consent requests.(14) Also, 
unanimous
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See, generally, Sec. 47, infra.
13. See, generally, Sec. Sec. 44, 48, infra.
14. Rule XXXII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 919 (1981). See 
        also Sec. Sec. 47.5, 47.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4747]]

consent may not be requested in the Committee of the Whole on matters 
properly recognizable only in the House.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Sec. Sec. 48.15, 48.16, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a unanimous-consent request has been made, any Member, 
including the Chair,(16) may object. The objection 
terminates the request.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Sec. Sec. 45.4, 45.5, infra.
17. Sec. 45.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member may reserve the right to object to a unanimous-consent 
request and by so doing obtains the floor. However, the Chair may 
refuse to permit debate under the reservation and put the question on 
the request.(1) A Member controlling the floor under a 
reservation of the right to object loses the floor if the request is 
withdrawn.(2) The reservation of the right to object cannot 
be maintained if the regular order is demanded; in that case the 
reserving Member must either object or withdraw his 
reservation.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Sec. Sec. 46.1, 46.2, infra.
 2. Sec. 46.4, infra.
 3. Sec. 46.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 43. Stating the Request; Withdrawal

Stating the Request

Sec. 43.1 The Speaker's statement of a unanimous-consent request as put 
    to the House is controlling, and he may refuse to recognize an 
    objection to the request made prior to such statement.

    On Sept. 4, 1940,(4) the following occurred after a 
divisive personal exchange between Mr. Martin L. Sweeney, of Ohio, and 
Mr. Beverly M. Vincent, of Kentucky:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 86 Cong. Rec. 11516, 11517, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vincent of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I served in the World 
    War, and the World War, as I understand it then and as I understand 
    it now, was fought because we were being attacked by submarines and 
    women and children were being murdered on the high seas. For the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sweeney) to say that President Wilson 
    brought on that war to me was untrue and the whole statement the 
    gentleman made I resented very much.
        When he finished his speech he started to sit down by me. I got 
    up and moved. I shall continue to refuse to sit by him as long as I 
    am a Member of the Congress and he is a Member. When he sat down by 
    me I got up and moved. I said I did not want to sit by a traitor to 
    my country. . . .
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I demand 
    recognition on a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the 
    gentleman

[[Page 4748]]

    who just left the floor be taken down, because they violate the 
    rules of the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the words 
    complained of.
        Mr. Vincent of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
    to withdraw the last sentence of my statement.
        Mr. [Henry C.] Dworshak [of Idaho]: I object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Kentucky asks 
    unanimous consent to withdraw the statement. Is there objection? 
    The Chair hears none.
        Mr. [Frederick V.] Bradley of Michigan: I object, Mr. Speaker. 
    . . .

                           Parliamentary Inquiry

        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, a point of order and a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago certain words were 
    uttered by the gentleman on the floor of the House which I demanded 
    be taken down. No report was made of those words. I demand the 
    regular order--the taking down of the words, and the reading by the 
    Clerk.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Subsequently, unanimous consent was 
    granted for the words to be withdrawn.
        Mr. Hoffman: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker; three Members were on their 
    feet. I was one of them, and objecting to that.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That was the ruling of the Chair.

Requests Put in the Alternative

Sec. 43.2 The Speaker does not entertain unanimous-consent requests put 
    in the alternative, but requires the Member to put the requests one 
    at a time.

    On Oct. 31, 1963,(6) a dispute arose between Mr. Edgar 
Franklin Foreman, of Texas, and Mr. Henry B. Gonzalez, also of Texas. 
The Speaker, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that the use of 
certain words contained in the remarks of Mr. Foreman were not in order 
under the rules of the House. Mr. Bruce R. Alger, of Texas, then rose 
with a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 20744, 20745, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Alger: My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is this: Mr. 
    Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that after deleting the 
    objectionable words that the gentleman be permitted to proceed or 
    at least insert his remarks at this point in the Record.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has put two propositions, one to 
    proceed or to extend his remarks in the Record. Which unanimous-
    consent request does the gentleman want the Chair to put first?
        Mr. Alger: Mr. Speaker, first, that the gentleman be permitted 
    to proceed in order.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Texas?
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney of New York: . . . I object.
        The Speaker: The objection is heard.

[[Page 4749]]

Individual Requests and Legislative Requests Distinguished

Sec. 43.3 The Speaker announced that he would recognize Members to make 
    individual unanimous-consent requests prior to recognizing Members 
    for unanimous-consent requests relating to legislative business.

    On Oct. 5, 1972,(7) the Speaker, Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 118 Cong. Rec. 34039, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is going to recognize Members who have individual 
    unanimous-consent requests.
        The Chair cannot determine, when a Member rises, whether he has 
    a legislative purpose for rising or whether he has a unanimous-
    consent request to make and desires something to be put into the 
    Record.
        After that, the Chair will recognize any Member who has a 
    unanimous-consent request in connection with business.

Withdrawal of Request

Sec. 43.4 Unanimous consent is not required to withdraw a unanimous-
    consent request in the House.

    On Mar. 14, 1968,(8) the House was considering H.R. 
2516, providing penalties for interference with certain civil rights 
(with a Senate amendment containing further civil rights legislation, 
including open housing). Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, requested 
unanimous consent that the reading of the Senate amendment be dispensed 
with. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, and Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of 
Louisiana, both reserved the right to object. The Speaker, John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, then recognized Mr. Celler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 114 Cong. Rec. 6474-80, 6489-92, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request.
        The Speaker: It does not require unanimous 
    consent.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See also 110 Cong. Rec. 2614, 2615, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 8, 
        1964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 44. Recognizing Members for Requests

Grounds for Refusal to Recognize

Sec. 44.1 The Speaker may decline to recognize for a unanimous-consent 
    request for the consideration of a bill until the Member making 
    such request consults with the Speaker and the Majority and 
    Minority Leaders.

[[Page 4750]]

    On July 11, 1946,(10)Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce, of 
Connecticut, made the following request from the floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 92 Cong. Rec. 8726, 8728, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . Mr Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to consider 
    immediately the Wolcott bill (H.J. Res. 372) to reinstate rent 
    control, which I send to the desk.
        The Speaker: (11) Did the gentlewoman consult the 
    Speaker about this and notify him that she was going to make this 
    request?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Luce: I did not, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair refuses to recognize the gentlewoman for 
    that purpose. . . .
        The Chair desires to make a statement. For a long time, ever 
    since 1937 at least, the present occupant of the chair knows that 
    when Members intend to ask unanimous consent to bring up a bill 
    they have always properly consulted with both the majority and 
    minority leaders of the House and with the Speaker. That has been 
    the unfailing custom. The Chair is exercising that right and 
    intends to continue to exercise it as long as he occupies the 
    present position because the Chair wants the House to proceed in an 
    orderly fashion.

Recognition of Committee Chairmen

Sec. 44.2 The Speaker, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, 
    indicated that only the chairman of a committee having jurisdiction 
    of the subject matter of the bill would be recognized to ask 
    unanimous consent to take it from the Speaker's table, disagree to 
    the Senate amendment and ask for a conference.

    On the legislative day of Aug. 31, 1960,(12) Mr. Charles 
A. Halleck of Indiana, was recognized to offer a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 106 Cong. Rec. 18920, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1960 (Calendar 
        Day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Would it be in order for a unanimous-consent 
    request to be made to send the bill that has just come from the 
    Senate to conference?
        The Speaker: (13) That would be up to the gentleman 
    from North Carolina [Mr. Cooley].(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14. Mr. Cooley was Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture during the 
        86th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition Pending Motion to Suspend Rules

Sec. 44.3 The Speaker declined to recognize a request for unanimous 
    consent during consideration of a motion to suspend the rules.

    On July 21, 1947,(15) the following occurred on the 
floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 93 Cong. Rec. 9522-51, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 4751]]

        Mr. [Ralph A.] Gamble [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 29) making unlawful the 
    requirement for the payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to 
    voting in a primary or other election for national officers.

    After the House defeated a motion to adjourn and after the Speaker 
ruled out as dilatory a point of no quorum, the following occurred:

        Mr. [Tom] Pickett [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent----
        The Speaker: (16) The Chair will refuse to entertain 
    any unanimous-consent requests until after the vote on this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 45. Objecting to Requests

Rising to Object

Sec. 45.1 When objecting to a unanimous-consent request a Member must 
    rise from his seat.

    On Feb. 20, 1946,(17) the House was considering H.R. 
3370, the school lunch program, when the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 92 Cong. Rec. 1500, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) The time of the gentleman from 
    Texas has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Henry M. Jackson (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William R.] Poage [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Texas?
        Mr. [William J.] Gallagher [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.
        Mr. [John E.] Rankin [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin: To make an objection a Member has to rise to 
    object.

        The Chairman: The point of order is well taken.

Time for Objection

Sec. 45.2 An objection to a unanimous-consent request is properly made 
    to the request put by the Chair, not as put by the Member making 
    the request.

    On Sept. 4, 1940,(1) Mr. Beverly M. Vincent, of 
Kentucky, and Mr. Martin L. Sweeney, of Ohio, became engaged in an 
acrimonious personal debate; Mr. Vincent sought to withdraw a remark in 
which he referred to Mr. Sweeney as a traitor:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 86 Cong. Rec. 11516, 11517,76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vincent of Kentucky: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
    to withdraw the last sentence of my statement.

[[Page 4752]]

        Mr. [Henry C.] Dworshak [of Idaho]: I object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The gentleman from 
    Kentucky asks unanimous consent to withdraw the statement. Is there 
    objection? The Chair hears none.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 45.3 It is too late to object to a unanimous-consent request after 
    the Chair has asked if there is objection and has announced that he 
    hears none.

    On Sept. 4, 1940,(3) Mr. Beverly M. Vincent, of 
Kentucky, sought unanimous consent to withdraw part of a statement he 
made about Mr. Martin L. Sweeney, of Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 86 Cong. Rec. 11516, 11517, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from 
    Kentucky asks unanimous consent to withdraw the statement. Is there 
    objection? The Chair hears none.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Jere Cooper (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frederick V.] Bradley of Michigan: I object, Mr. Speaker.

    Subsequently Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, rose with a point 
of order.

        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, a point of order and a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago certain words were 
    uttered by the gentleman on the floor of the House which I demanded 
    be taken down. No report was made of those words. I demand the 
    regular order--the taking down of the words, the report of the 
    words, and the reading by the Clerk.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Subsequently, unanimous consent was 
    granted for the words to be withdrawn.
        Mr. Hoffman: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker; three Members were on their 
    feet. I was one of them, and objecting to that.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That was the ruling of the Chair.

Sec. 45.4 The Chair may decline to recognize a Member seeking unanimous 
    consent where that Member rejects the Chair's suggestion that the 
    request be temporarily withheld.

    On Dec. 15, 1937,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering S. 2475, the wages and hours bill, when the following took 
place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 82 Cong. Rec. 1571, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Schuyler Otis] Bland [of Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that any substitute which may be offered for the 
    pending bill and adopted shall, when adopted, be open to amendment 
    as though it were the original bill.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair has already suggested to 
    the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. McReynolds], who pro
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4753]]

    pounded a similar unanimous-consent request, that the gentleman 
    withhold temporarily his request.

        Mr. Bland: I prefer to submit mine now as to the offering of a 
    substitute.
        The Chairman: The Chair exercises the right of declining to 
    recognize the gentleman for that purpose.

Objection by Presiding Officer

Sec. 45.5 A Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not lose his 
    right to object to a unanimous-consent request.

    On Dec. 9, 1947,(7) the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole, Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 93 Cong. Rec. 11231, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the Chair understands the rule, the presiding officer in the 
    Committee is in a dual capacity. First, he is selected to be the 
    presiding officer during the consideration of the bill. But by 
    accepting such appointment he does not lose his right to vote and 
    object as any other Member. That is, his district is not deprived 
    of its rights by virtue of the Chairman selection.

Effect of Objection; Withdrawal

Sec. 45.6 A unanimous-consent request does not remain pending after an 
    objection thereto has been made; and the objecting Member cannot 
    subsequently withdraw his objection so as to revive the request.

    On Nov. 24, 1937,(8) the Speaker, William B. Bankhead, 
of Alabama, recognized Mr. Ralph E. Church, of Illinois, to propound a 
parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 82 Cong. Rec. 368, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Church: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day the majority leader 
    asked unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it 
    adjourn to meet on Friday next. I reserved the right to object. 
    Under my right to object I proceeded to make a short statement.
        The Speaker: Will the gentleman please submit his parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        Mr. Church: I am submitting it. I made the reservation of 
    objection for the purpose of making a short statement. Then someone 
    called for the regular order, which forced me to object. I have 
    been able since that time to make my statement, and now, Mr. 
    Speaker, if I withdraw my objection, which I am willing to do, and 
    now do, is it in order and will the request of the gentleman from 
    Texas prevail?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state in answer to the inquiry of 
    the gentleman that no request is now pending before the House to 
    which he could object or not object.

[[Page 4754]]



 
                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 46. Reservation of Objection

Discretion of Chair

Sec. 46.1 Recognition for a reservation of objection to a unanimous-
    consent request is within the discretion of the Speaker, and 
    sometimes he refuses to permit debate under such a reservation and 
    immediately puts the question.

    On Dec. 3, 1969,(9) the House was considering an 
extension of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Mrs. Edith S. Green, 
of Oregon, had sought a special order permitting her to address the 
House for two hours, but the Speaker, John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, informed her that she would have to limit her request to 
one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Cong. Rec. (daily ed.), 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I am always cooperative with 
    the Speaker of the House. I therefore ask unanimous consent that I 
    be permitted to address the House for 1 hour after the close of 
    business today.
        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object----
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that it will not recognize 
    anyone else at this moment. Either the gentlewoman receives 
    permission, or she does not.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from 
    Oregon?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 46.2 Recognition for a reservation of objection to a unanimous-
    consent request is within the discretion of the Chair, who 
    endeavors to protect the right of Members to make timely 
    reservations, but who may also refuse to permit debate under such 
    reservation and immediately put the question on the request.

    On July 23, 1970,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 18515, appropriations for the Departments of Labor and 
Health, Education, and Welfare for fiscal 1971. Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of 
Pennsylvania, sought unanimous consent to grant Mr. Robert N. Giaimo, 
of Connecticut, an additional five minutes of debate. Mr. John E. Moss, 
Jr., of California, attempted to reserve the right to object to the 
unanimous-consent request, and a discussion arose between Mr. Moss and 
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Chet Holifield, of 
California, as to the timeliness of Mr. Moss' reserva
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 25620, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4755]]

tion of the right to object. The issue was resolved in the following 
manner:

        The Chairman: If the gentleman insists that he was seeking to 
    reserve the right to object, the Chair will again put the request.
        Mr. Moss: I do so insist, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman?
        Mr. Moss: Reserving the right to object----
        The Chairman: The gentleman has already reserved the right to 
    object.
        Mr. Moss: That is correct. . . .
        I want to state my point, if the Chair will permit it.
        The Chairman: Reservations to object are entertained only in 
    the prerogative of the Chair. The Chair does not recognize the 
    gentleman from California, Mr. Moss, any further unless he objects.

Yielding Under a Reservation

Sec. 46.3 A Member holding the floor under a reservation of the right 
    to object to a unanimous-consent request yielded to another Member 
    who moved that the House adjourn.

    On Sept. 22, 1965,(11) the House was considering a home 
rule bill for the District of Columbia, when the Speaker, John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, announced pursuant to a call of the House 
that a quorum was present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 24716, 24717, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: . . . Without objection, further proceedings under 
    the call will be dispensed with.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
    right to object.
        The Speaker: The Chair has announced that without objection 
    further proceedings under the call will be dispensed with.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet at the time seeking 
    recognition.
        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    further proceedings under the call be dispensed with.
        The Speaker: Without objection, it is so ordered.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I still reserve the right to object.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan reserves the right to 
    object.

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask whether or not it is 
    the intention of the leadership to adjourn.
        Mr. Albert: Yes; we have only two or three unanimous-consent 
    requests.
        Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman from Michigan yield to me?
        Mr. Dingell: I yield.
        Mr. Arends: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan has 
    yielded to me. I move that the House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman from Illinois will withhold that 
    for a moment----
        Mr. Arends: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan has 
    yielded to me.

[[Page 4756]]

        The Speaker: I do not think the gentleman yielded for that 
    purpose.
        Does the gentleman from Michigan yield for that purpose?
        Mr. Dingell: Yes, I do.
        Mr. Arends: Mr. Speaker, I make the motion that the House do 
    now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion of the gentleman 
    from Illinois.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair could have refused to recognize 
the Member to whom the floor was yielded under the reservation until 
the unanimous-consent request was disposed of. The motion to adjourn, 
being so highly privileged could have been made as a matter of right 
whether the unanimous-consent request were agreed to or disagreed to.

Sec. 46.4 A Member who reserves the right to object to a unanimous-
    consent request loses control of the floor when the request is 
    withdrawn.

    On Feb. 8, 1964,(12) the Committee on the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963 when Mr. Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, sought unanimous consent to limit debate on title 
VII of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 110 Cong. Rec. 2614, 2615, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, and I am just one ordinary Member of 
    this House, but I do have certain rights as one ordinary Member of 
    the House, if I understand what was agreed upon originally, I am 
    willing to abide by that agreement. . . .
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
    yield to me?
        Mr. Colmer: I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry. If the unanimous-consent request of the 
    majority leader should be objected to, would not the majority 
    leader or the chairman of the committee have a right to move that 
    that be set and that the debate be ended at a specified time on 
    Monday?
        The Chairman: The Chair would say a motion to limit debate 
    would be in order after there has been debate on the title.
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Chairman, may I withdraw my unanimous-consent 
    request and ask unanimous consent that the debate on title VII and 
    all amendments thereto be limited to not exceeding 2 hours on 
    Monday?
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I think it is about time I make a little comment 
    on the whole matter.
        I opened the debate for our side of the aisle on this rule, and 
    I explained it thoroughly. I thought at that time I had explained 
    the agreement. I want to repeat that an agreement was made.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a 
    parliamentary inquiry?

[[Page 4757]]

        Mr. Brown of Ohio: If it does not come out of my time.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Chairman, the majority leader made a unanimous-
    consent request. I reserved the right to object. Then the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma, the majority leader, after some discussion, asked 
    unanimous consent to withdraw his unanimous-consent request. I did 
    not hear the Chair rule on the gentleman's request, therefore, I 
    assume I still have the floor.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma withdrew his 
    unanimous-consent request to which the gentleman from Mississippi 
    had reserved the right to object. The gentleman from Oklahoma 
    submitted a new unanimous-consent request to which the gentleman 
    from Ohio [Mr. Brown] reserved the right to object.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: The gentleman from Ohio has the floor?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] has the 
    floor.

Demand for Regular Order

Sec. 46.5 An objection cannot be reserved against a unanimous-consent 
    request if the regular order is demanded.

    On July 29, 1968,(14) Mr. Thaddeus J. Dulski, of New 
York, sought unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the 
bill H.R. 15387, relating to disciplinary action against employees of 
the postal field service. After brief discussion on Mr. Dulski's 
request, Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, rose to his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 23935, 23936, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the gentleman 
    from Illinois is going to object, I demand the regular order.
        Mr. [Charles R.] Jonas [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object----
        The Speaker: (15) The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hays] 
    has demanded the regular order. The regular order is, Is there 
    objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, in 
    deference to the gentleman from Ohio, I will reserve my right to 
    object.
        Mr. Jonas: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
        The Speaker: The regular order has been demanded, and the Chair 
    has no discretion.
        Is there objection to the request?
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]:
        Mr. Speaker, I object.

Sec. 46.6 Where a Member has reserved the right to object to a 
    unanimous-consent request pending before the House and the regular 
    order is demanded, further reservation of the right to object to 
    that request is precluded and that Member must either object or 
    permit the request to be granted.

[[Page 4758]]

    On Feb. 4, 1971,(16) the following occurred on the floor 
of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 117 Cong. Rec. 1713, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (17) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Arkansas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Andrew] Jacobs [Jr., of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve 
    the right to object, and I do so because I want to reply to the 
    statements made by the gentlewoman from Oregon.
        Mr. [Wilber D.] Mills [of Arkansas]: Regular order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: Regular order has been demanded, and the regular 
    order is, Is there objection to dispensing with the reading of the 
    resolution?
        Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object----
        The Speaker: The regular order has been demanded. The gentleman 
    can either object or permit the request to be granted.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Arkansas?
        There was no objection.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 10674, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 47. Scope and Application of Request

Closing Debate on Unread Titles

Sec. 47.1 When a bill is being read by titles, debate may be closed on 
    titles that have not been read by unanimous consent.

    On Feb. 8, 1964,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering the bill H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963, when a 
question arose concerning the time limit for debate on the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 110 Cong. Rec. 2614, 2615, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: I should like to ask, Mr. 
    Chairman, if the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
    Union can now effect binding action as to time on the titles of the 
    bill which we have not reached?
        The Chairman: (2) The Chair would inform the 
    gentleman from Ohio that that could be done only by unanimous 
    consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading of Amendment

Sec. 47.2 The reading of a substitute amendment in the Committee of the 
    Whole may be dispensed with by unanimous consent.

    On May 4, 1960,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering S. 722, the Area Redevelopment Act of 1960, when Mr. Silvio 
O. Conte, of Massachusetts, offered a substitute for the com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 106 Cong. Rec. 9468, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4759]]

mittee amendment to the bill. The reading of the amendment had begun 
when a Member rose to address the Chairman:

        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana] (interrupting the reading of 
    the amendment): Mr. Chairman, I move that the further reading of 
    the substitute amendment be dispensed with.
        The Chairman: (4) That motion is not in order. 
    Unanimous consent is required to dispense with the further reading 
    of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Wilbur D. Mills (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfecting Previously Adopted Amendment

Sec. 47.3 It is in order by unanimous consent to offer a perfecting 
    amendment to an amendment which has already been agreed to.

    On Sept. 17, 1970,Sec. (5) the Committee of the Whole 
was considering H.R. 17654, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 
when the Chairman, William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, recognized Mr. H. 
Allen Smith, of California:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 32303, 32304, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of California: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
    necessary number of words. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to page 39 of 
    H.R. 17654, immediately below line 4, for the purpose of offering a 
    perfecting amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. White which 
    was adopted in this committee. . . .
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        There was no objection.

Nonprivileged Resolution

Sec. 47.4 A resolution increasing the number of Members on one of the 
    standing committees of the House was called up by unanimous 
    consent.

    On Dec. 22, 1969,(6) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, was 
recognized by the Speaker, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 40922, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution [H. Res. 764] and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Resolved, That during the remainder of the Ninety-first 
        Congress, the Committee on Education and Labor shall be 
        composed of thirty-seven members.

        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma?

        Mr. [Roman C.] Pucinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object----
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object----
        The Speaker: The Chair will not entertain a reservation of 
    objections.

[[Page 4760]]

        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, then I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

Waiving House Rule

Sec. 47.5 The Speaker may recognize a Member for a unanimous-consent 
    request to waive the requirement of a rule unless the rule in 
    question specifies that it is not subject to waiver, even by 
    unanimous consent.

    On July 29, 1970,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 17654, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. 
During debate on the bill there was pending an amendment to require the 
Record to contain a verbatim account of floor proceedings, permitting 
only technical corrections by revision and extension of remarks, and 
authorizing Members to insert remarks not spoken on the floor but 
requiring their printing in distinctive type, and an amendment thereto 
retaining the present practice of making insertions by unanimous 
consent. A dialogue arose between the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole, William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, and Mr. Dante Fascell, of 
Florida, regarding the effect of such amendments on the Speaker's power 
of recognition for unanimous-consent requests:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 116 Cong. Rec. 26419, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Fascell: If there is no prohibition in the rule for the 
    Speaker to recognize any Member for a unanimous-consent request, is 
    it not true that the Speaker can recognize any Member for a 
    unanimous-consent request?
        The Chairman: The power of recognition is in the Speaker. He 
    has the right to recognize any Member on the floor.
        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fascell: The point specifically is that by rule the Speaker 
    can be prohibited from recognizing a Member for a unanimous-consent 
    request; is that not correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that 
    his statement is correct.
        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fascell: Is it not true, therefore, that if there is no 
    prohibition in the present amendment, any Member could rise and the 
    Speaker could recognize him for a unanimous-consent request to 
    waive that particular rule at that moment?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that 
    under those conditions it would require unanimous consent. Any 
    Member could object. The Speaker could object.

[[Page 4761]]

        Mr. Fascell: Mr. Chairman, one further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fascell: May a rule be waived by unanimous consent, either 
    temporarily or permanently?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inform the gentleman that 
    there are rules of the House that the Speaker himself does not have 
    the right to waive.

Sec. 47.6 Rule XXXII governing admissions to the floor specifically 
    prohibits the Speaker from entertaining motions or unanimous-
    consent requests to suspend that rule.

    On June 8, 1972,(8) during consideration in the House of 
the conference report on S. 659, the Education Amendments of 1972, Mr. 
Olin M. Teague, of Texas, posed a point of order to the Speaker, Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, relative to Rule XXXII: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 118 Cong. Rec. 20318, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. Rule XXXII clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 919 (1981), 
        prohibits the Speaker from entertaining requests to suspend 
        provisions of the rule governing admission to the floor of the 
        House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Teague of Texas: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House limit 
    the number of staff members who are allowed on the floor in a 
    situation like this and I make the point of order that this 
    committee has violated that rule of the House.
        Mr. Speaker, the reason I make this point of order is to point 
    up the fact that if the debate concerning this conference report 
    requires 10 or 15 staff members to be on the floor to tell them 
    what to say or what to do, then for sure they must not know what is 
    in the bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has made a point of order that the 
    committee has violated the rules of the House in bringing an 
    excessive number of committee staff members to the floor. The rule 
    which governs situations of this kind is rule 32 which lists those 
    who do have the privileges of the floor, and contains the clause: 
    ``and clerks of committees when business from their committee is 
    under consideration; and it shall not be in order for the Speaker 
    to entertain a request for the suspension of this rule.''
        This rule was adopted before the Reorganization Act of 1947 
    which provided for four professional staff members for each 
    committee. The Chair must hold under the rule that no committee is 
    entitled under the rules of the House--because the Chair cannot 
    waive the rule--to more than four professional staff members and 
    the clerk, a total of five.

Permitting Debate on Motion to Rerefer

Sec. 47.7 Where the rule with regard to rereference of bills on motions 
    of a committee prohibits debate, a Member may proceed by unanimous 
    consent for one minute before he makes such motion.

[[Page 4762]]

    On Apr. 21, 1942,(10) the Speaker, Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, recognized Mr. Samuel Dickstein, of New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 88 Cong. Rec. 3570, 3571, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address 
    the House for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from New York?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Dickstein: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
    Hobbs] has introduced another Hobbs bill known as H.R. 6915. At the 
    conclusion of my remarks I propose to move that it be referred to 
    the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, where this bill 
    belongs. Time does not permit me to go into a detailed discussion 
    to point out to the House that this bill is absolutely an 
    immigration bill and not a bill for the Committee on the Judiciary 
    but I can give you a short analysis of the bill to prove my point. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Immigration and 
    Naturalization, I move that the bill H.R. 6915, now in the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, be referred to the Committee on 
    Immigration and Naturalization.

    Subsequently, Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, rose with a point of 
order.

        Mr. Hobbs: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order against the 
    motion that it is made in violation of the rule under which it is 
    supposed to be presented, in that there was debate by the 
    distinguished gentleman from New York for 1 minute immediately 
    preceding the submission of the motion, whereas the opposition is 
    denied that right by the rule.
        The Speaker: The Chair did not know what the gentleman from New 
    York was going to talk about. The Chair cannot look into the mind 
    of a Member when he asks unanimous consent to address the House for 
    1 minute and see what he intends to talk about.

Postponing Consideration of Privileged Resolution

Sec. 47.8 The calling up of a resolution reported from the Committee on 
    Rules is a matter of high privilege; but when consideration thereof 
    has begun, the House can postpone it and proceed to other business 
    by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 29, 1969,(11) Mr. John A. Young, of Texas, was 
recognized on the floor of the House to call up a special order from 
the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of H.R. 14001, 
amending the Military Selective Service Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 32076-83, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
    I call up House Resolution 586 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.

    After the Clerk reported the resolution, Mr. Young was recog

[[Page 4763]]

nized for debate on the resolution. During debate, points of no quorum 
were made, resulting in calls of the House after which Mr. Young made 
the following request:

        Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further 
    consideration of this resolution be postponed until tomorrow.
        The Speaker: (12) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Member calling up the resolution could 
have withdrawn it before the House acted; and such withdrawal would not 
require unanimous consent. If withdrawn, renewed consideration of the 
resolution would have been de novo. By postponing consideration, the 
resolution became unfinished business.

As Related to Unparliamentary Language

Sec. 47.9 Although a Member's words have been taken down on demand and 
    read to the House, the Speaker may recognize the Member who made 
    the statement to ask unanimous consent to change those words.

    On June 5, 1962,(13) the following occurred on the floor 
of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 108 Cong. Rec. 9739, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: . . . The AMA opposed the 
    Social Security Act passed in 1935, and I refer the gentleman to 
    the Journal of the American Medical Association and the proceedings 
    of its house of delegates. I think in fairness when he stands up 
    and opposes this and speaks as a mouthpiece for the AMA and as a 
    mouthpiece for the house of delegates of the AMA, he should be 
    shown as speaking for the kind of organization that has opposed all 
    of these things.
        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The gentleman will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Arnold Olsen (Mt.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: I regret to say that the gentleman's 
    words need to be taken down.
        This is a point of order. To clarify, it was the reference to 
    the gentleman from Missouri as a member of the house of delegates 
    of the AMA and the reference to that organization and the 
    relationship of the gentleman from Missouri to that organization.
        The Speaker:(15) The Clerk will report the words 
    objected to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dingell: I think in fairness, when he stands up and 
        opposes this and speaks as a mouthpiece for the AMA and as a 
        mouthpiece for the house of delegates of the AMA, he should be 
        shown as speaking for that

[[Page 4764]]

        kind of organization that has opposed all of these things.

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to change the 
    words complained of to ``self-appointed spokesman'' instead of 
    ``mouthpiece.''
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Michigan?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Missouri withdraw his 
    point of order?
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: I do, Mr. Speaker.

Sec. 47.10 The words of a Member which were taken down and ruled out of 
    order were, by unanimous consent, deleted from the Record; and the 
    Member was then permitted to proceed in order.

    On June 24, 1958,(16) Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, rose 
to object to the use of certain language on the floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 104 Cong. Rec. 12120, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I must object to the language just 
    used.
        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, wait a minute. 
    Is the gentleman asking me to yield?
        Mr. Harris: I am not asking the gentleman to yield.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.
        The Speaker: (17) The gentleman from Missouri has 
    the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I demand that the gentleman's words be 
    deleted from the Record.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the words objected to.

    After the Clerk reported the words that were objected to, the 
following occurred:

        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it is very clear that this is a 
    reflection on a committee of the House of a very serious type and, 
    therefore, holds that the language is not parliamentary.
        Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    language objected to be expunged from the Record and that the 
    gentleman from Missouri be permitted to proceed in order.
        Mr. Curtis of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard.
        The Speaker: The Chair has already ruled. It is as clear to the 
    Chair as anything in the world.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Arkansas?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Motions to expunge from the Record and to 
permit a Member to proceed in order are privileged, therefore unanimous 
consent is not required.

Insertions in the Record

Sec.  47.11 The committee voting record of a Member was, at his request 
    and by unanimous consent, inserted in the Record in the form of a

[[Page 4765]]

    memorandum prepared by the committee counsel.

    On Dec. 11, 1969,(1) Mr. Arnold Olsen, of Montana, made 
the following statement on the floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 38556, 38557, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Olsen: Mr. Speaker, during my 9 years here in the House of 
    Representatives I have established a record in committee and here 
    on the floor of the House. It has been a consistent record. I am 
    proud of it and I have campaigned on it in the last four elections.
        Last week a nationally syndicated columnist released certain 
    allegations and implications which, if left unanswered, could cast 
    a shadow on that record. For that reason I have asked Chairman 
    Dulski of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee to 
    release a review of my position on the legislation in question 
    during executive committee sessions over the last 9 years. Chairman 
    Dulski directed counsel to prepare a summary of the previously 
    unreported and confidential record and, with the advice and 
    permission of my chairman, I am inserting this document in the 
    Record today for the information of all of my distinguished 
    colleagues. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I ask that notwithstanding the rules of the House 
    that the following documents be inserted at this time in the 
    Congressional Record: First, the statement I released to the press 
    last Friday following publication of the column in question; 
    second, the letter from Committee Counsel Charles E. Johnson 
    transmitting a compilation of my voting record in executive 
    committee sessions and here on the floor of the House; and third, 
    the record compiled by Mr. Johnson at the direction of Chairman 
    Thaddeus J. Dulski.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(2) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Montana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Charles M. Price (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.


                               CHAPTER 23
 
                                Motions
 
                        F. MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER
 
Sec. 48. Limitations on Requests

Multiple Requests

Sec. 48.1 During the pendency of a unanimous-consent request, the 
    Speaker may refuse to entertain a second unanimous-consent request.

    On Oct. 14, 1972,(3) during the pendency of a unanimous-
consent request sought by Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, Mr. Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, rose to his feet:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 36501, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mills of Arkansas: . . . Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman 
    from Louisiana yield for a unanimous-consent request?
        Mr. Boggs: Certainly.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, there is a 
    unanimous-consent request before the House.
        The Speaker:(4) There is a unanimous-consent request 
    pending from the gentleman from Louisiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).

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

[[Page 4766]]

Requests Relating to Committee Meetings

Sec. 48.2 The Speaker has declined to recognize a Member for a 
    unanimous-consent request that a committee be allowed to sit at the 
    same time the House is considering a measure under the five-minute 
    rule.

    On July 1, 1947,(5) the following occurred on the floor 
of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 8054, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel K.] McConnell [Jr., of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I ask unanimous consent that a subcommittee of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor holding hearings on minimum wages be allowed to 
    sit tomorrow during the session of the House.
        The Speaker:(6) The Chair cannot recognize the 
    gentleman for that purpose. Tomorrow the House will be reading the 
    civil functions appropriation bill for amendment, and committees 
    cannot sit during sessions of the House while bills are being read 
    for amendment; only during general debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McConnell: We have a full schedule that we want to get 
    through.
        The Speaker: That is the policy that has been adopted. The 
    minority leader has stated that he would object to any requests of 
    that character.

Requests to Proceed for One Minute

Sec. 48.3 The Minority Leader having been recognized to proceed for one 
    minute and in that time having asked unanimous consent for 
    consideration of a bill, the Speaker held that he had not been 
    recognized for that purpose.

    On Jan. 26, 1944,(7) the following took place on the 
floor of the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 90 Cong. Rec. 746, 747, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts and Mr. May rose.
        The Speaker:(8) For what purpose does the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.] of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: The Chair will not recognize any other Member at 
    this time for that purpose but will recognize the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the 
    generosity of the Chair.
        I take this minute, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make a 
    unanimous-consent request and I think it should be explained.
        I agree with the President that there is immediate need for 
    action on the

[[Page 4767]]

    soldiers' vote bill. A good many of us have been hoping we could 
    have action for the last month. To show our sincerity in having 
    action not next week but right now, I ask unanimous consent that 
    the House immediately take up the bill which is on the Union 
    Calendar known as S. 1285, the soldiers' voting bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts was not 
    recognized for that purpose.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.

Production of Committee Documents

Sec. 48.4 The Speaker declined to entertain a unanimous-consent request 
    that the clerk of the Committee on House Administration be directed 
    to bring to the well of the House certain documents in the custody 
    of that committee.

    On June 3, 1960,(9) Mr. John James Flynt, Jr., of 
Georgia, made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 106 Cong. Rec. 11820, 11821, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Flynt: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair 
    Direct the clerk of the Committee on House Administration to bring 
    to the well of the House, following the legislative business of the 
    day, that portion of the records and documents in the custody of 
    that committee, which refer to and contain the entries on the 
    records of the Royal Hawaiian Hotel in Honolulu, Hawaii, for the 
    purpose of permitting me to refer specifically to any such items 
    contained therein which are at complete variance with published 
    reports in the Wednesday issue of the Washington Post and Times 
    Herald, and in the issue of Life magazine dated June 6, 1960, which 
    is next Monday, but which appeared on the newsstands in the city of 
    Washington and other parts of the country on Wednesday, June 1.
        The Speaker: (10) The Chair will say to the 
    gentleman that it has never been the policy of the House to order 
    any documents in the custody of a committee of the House to be 
    brought into the House, unless the committee by its action has 
    approved such a request. The gentleman certainly may examine those 
    items between now and the time he makes his remarks on that 
    subject. But the Chair has never known of a case where a clerk of 
    any committee has been ordered to bring documents to the floor of 
    the House without the prior approval of the committee in whose 
    hands they are at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.  Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requests to Rerefer

Sec. 48.5 The Speaker has declined to recognize a chairman of a 
    committee for a unanimous-consent request to rerefer a bill until 
    the chairman of the other committee was consulted.

    On Mar. 25, 1948,(11) the following took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 94 Cong. Rec. 3573, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 4768]]

        Mrs. [Edith Nourse] Rogers of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be 
    discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 5515 for the 
    relief of Mr. and Mrs. Albert Chandler and that the same be re-
    referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        The Speaker: (12) Has the gentlewoman conferred with 
    the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Rogers of Massachusetts: I have not, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: It is customary to consult with the chairman of 
    the committee to whom the bill is to be referred. No harm will come 
    if this matter is delayed until Monday.
        Mrs. Rogers of Massachusetts: I withdraw the request, Mr. 
    Speaker.

Requests Affecting the Schedule of Legislative Business

Sec. 48.6 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member for a unanimous-
    consent request to take a bill from the Speaker's table and concur 
    in the Senate amendments thereto, where such a request was made in 
    the absence of the chairman of the committee involved and where 
    Members had been informed there would be no further legislative 
    business for that day.

    On July 31, 1969,(13) the Speaker, John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 21691, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boggs: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from 
    the Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 9951), to provide for the 
    collection of the Federal unemployment tax in quarterly 
    installments during each taxable year; to make status of employer 
    depend on employment during preceding as well as current taxable 
    year; to exclude from the computation of the excess the balance in 
    the employment security administration account as of the close of 
    fiscal years 1970 through 1972; to raise the limitation on the 
    amount authorized to be made available for expenditure out of the 
    employment security administration account by the amounts so 
    excluded; and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, 
    and concur in the Senate amendments.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that at this time the Chair 
    does not recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for that purpose.
        The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is at present 
    appearing before the Committee on Rules seeking a rule and Members 
    have been told that there would be no further business tonight.

Sec. 48.7 The Speaker declined recognition for a unanimous-consent 
    request to call up a House resolution after it had been announced 
    that there would be no further legislative business for that day.

    On Feb. 7, 1969,(14) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, rose with 
a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 115 Cong. Rec. 3268, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 4769]]

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, since several House resolutions have 
    been passed today by unanimous consent, my question to the 
    distinguished Speaker is whether it would be in order at this time 
    to call up House Resolution 133 disapproving the pay increase for 
    certain officials and employees of the Federal Government?
        The Speaker: (15) The Chair will state to the 
    gentleman from Iowa that it has already been announced that there 
    would be no legislative business today. Under those circumstances, 
    and without determining the merits of the resolution, the Chair 
    could recognize the gentleman. Yet the Chair in its discretion will 
    not recognize the gentleman for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requests Relating to Private Bills

Sec. 48.8 The Chair may refuse to recognize a Member for a unanimous-
    consent request to address the House on a private bill being 
    considered on the Private Calendar.

    On May 7, 1935,(16) the Clerk was calling up bills on 
the Private Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 7100, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk called the next bill, S. 41, for the relief of the 
    Germania Catering Co., Inc.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Is there objection to 
    the present consideration of the bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John J. O'Connor (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles V.] Truax [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to proceed for 5 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will not recognize the 
    gentleman for that purpose.

Sec. 48.9 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member for a unanimous-
    consent request relating to a bill stricken from the Private 
    Calendar until such time as the Member had consulted with the 
    official objectors.

    On Apr. 19, 1948,(18) the Speaker, Joseph W. Martin, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Thomas J. Lane, of Massachusetts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 94 Cong. Rec. 4573, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
    H.R. 403 be restored to the Private Calendar.
        The Speaker: Has the gentleman consulted the objectors?
        Mr. Lane: No; I have not.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot entertain the gentleman's request 
    until he has done so.

Requests Relating to Consent Calendar

Sec. 48.10 On Consent Calendar days only eligible bills on the calendar 
    are called, and the Speaker may in his discretion decline to 
    recognize unanimous-consent requests

[[Page 4770]]

    for consideration of bills which have not been on such calendar for 
    three legislative days.

    On May 6, 1946,(19) Mr. Overton Brooks, of Louisiana, 
made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 92 Cong. Rec. 4527, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to ask unanimous 
    consent for the immediate consideration of the bill H.R. 2325, 
    which is No. 419 on the Consent Calendar that was called today?
        The Speaker: (20) The Chair announced some time ago 
    that since those known as the objectors had examined only the 
    eligible bills on the Consent Calendar the Chair would not 
    recognize Members to take up the remaining bills, unless they 
    involved emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revocation of Special Order

Sec. 48.11 The Speaker pro tempore declined to recognize a Member to 
    ask unanimous consent for the revocation of a special order, 
    previously agreed to, permitting the consideration of conference 
    reports on the same day reported.

    On Sept. 25, 1961,(1) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, sought 
recognition for a unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 107 Cong. Rec. 21183, 21184, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous-consent request to 
    make concerning the procedure of the House. I ask unanimous consent 
    that the action by which clause 2 of Rule XXVIII was suspended a 
    week ago last Saturday be revoked, and that clause 2, Rule XXVIII 
    of the Rules of the House of Representatives be restored. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) Under the circumstances 
    the Chair declines to recognize the gentleman from Iowa to submit 
    the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requests to Address the House

Sec. 48.12 The Chair may refuse to recognize Members for unanimous-
    consent requests to address the House on future days prior to the 
    completion of legislative business on the current day.

    On June 14, 1935,(3) Mr. Kent E. Keller, of Illinois, 
made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 79 Cong. Rec. 9330, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Keller: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on next 
    Monday after the reading of the Journal and the completion of 
    business on the Speaker's desk I may address the House for 15 
    minutes to answer an attack upon an amendment I proposed to the 
    Constitution made in the Washington Times of June 12 by Mr. James 
    P. Williams, Jr.
        The Speaker: (4) Under the custom that prevails and 
    the action of the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Joseph W. Byrns (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4771]]

    Chair, heretofore, the Chair cannot recognize the gentleman today 
    to make a speech on Monday. The Chair hopes the gentleman will 
    defer his request.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See also 79 Cong. Rec. 3171, 3172, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 7, 
        1935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requests Made After Previous Question Ordered

Sec. 48.13 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 may 
    decline to entertain unanimous-consent requests that further 
    amendments be in order.

    On Aug. 31, 1960,(6) the Committee of the Whole House on 
the state of the Union having considered the bill S. 2917, to establish 
a price-support level for milk and butterfat, reported the bill back to 
the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 104 Cong. Rec. 18748, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (7) Under the rule the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
        The bill was read a third time.
        Mr. [H. Carl] 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.

Sec. 48.14 A yea and nay vote having been ordered the Chair may decline 
    to entertain unanimous-consent requests.

    On May 3, 1940,(8) the House had just ordered the 
previous question on H.R. 5435, an amendment to the Fair Labor 
Standards Act of 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 86 Cong. Rec. 5499, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) . . . The question is 
    on agreeing to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Mary T.] Norton [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered. . . .
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Speaker----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman 
    rise?
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: To prefer a unanimous-consent 
    request.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
    The

[[Page 4772]]

    Chair will not entertain a unanimous-consent request at this time.

Requests for the Correction of Section Numbers

Sec. 48.15 A unanimous-consent request that the Clerk of the House, in 
    the engrossment of the bill, be instructed to correct section 
    numbers is not in order in the Committee of the Whole, since such 
    permission must be obtained in the House.

    On Oct. 3, 1962,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 13273, the rivers and harbors authorization bill of 
1962, when a question arose as to the accuracy of the bill's section 
numbers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 21884, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, so as to avoid 
    any possible confusion in the numbering of these sections, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Clerk of the House be instructed so to 
    number these sections serially that they are all in proper 
    sequence.
        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman's request will have 
    to be made in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Frances E. Walter (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requests to Include Extraneous Matter in Remarks

Sec. 48.16 The House and not the Committee of the Whole has control 
    over the Congressional Record and requests of Members to include in 
    their remarks extraneous matters should be submitted in the House 
    and not the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 14, 1937,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 1668, to amend the Interstate Commerce Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 81 Cong. Rec. 3463, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter M.] Pierce [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I may have the privilege of revising and 
    extending my remarks and including therein such letters and 
    telegrams as I have here denying or repudiating their appearance as 
    proponents of the Pettengill bill.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair will remind the 
    gentleman from Oregon that the request to extend his own remarks to 
    include extraneous matter must be submitted in the House and not in 
    Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. J. Mark Wilcox (Fla.).
