sign in sign up
<<
Home , Minutes, Previous question, Speaker (politics)

Ch. 29 § 71 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 94– rules. The minority has 30 120) and the has 30 minutes on The of conference on the conference report. the disagreeing votes of the two MR. BAUMAN: I am talking about the Houses on the amendment of the lack of protection contained in the re- to the bill (H.R. 2166) to quest for the 1-hour special order that the Internal Revenue Code of was just made by the gentleman from 1954...having met, after full and Oregon. free conference, have agreed to rec- THE : Any Member of the ommend and do recommend to their House may make a request for a spe- respective Houses as follows: cial order. That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of MR. BAUMAN: I withdraw my res- the Senate and agree to the same ervation of objection. with an amendment as follows: In MR. [HERMAN T.] SCHNEEBELI [of lieu of the matter proposed to be in- Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, further serted by the Senate amendment in- reserving the right to object, I also ask sert the following: for a 60-minute special order following that of the gentleman from Oregon SECTION 1. SHORT ; TABLE OF (Mr. Ullman). CONTENTS. THE SPEAKER: Is there objection to (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be the request of the gentleman from cited as the ‘‘Tax Reduction Act of Pennsylvania? 1975’’.... There was no objection. MR. ULLMAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask that upon the adoption of the rule I be granted a 60- minute special order. § 72. Closing ; Sen- THE SPEAKER: (5) Is there objection to ate the request of the gentleman from Or- egon? In the House, secondary mo- MR. [ROBERT E.] BAUMAN [of Mary- tions—to lay on the table or for land]: Reserving the right to object, the —can be Mr. Speaker, we have in the rules (6) of the House an adequate rule for used to cut off debate. Debate the consideration of conference reports can, of course, be limited or closed .... I have no way of knowing, nor by unanimous consent. When the does any Member in this Chamber House is operating ‘‘as in the know, who will control the time during ,’’ both the a special order, except the gentleman motion for the previous question from Oregon, whether questions, once and the motion to limit debate can raised, will be answered, or whether or not debate will deteriorate into par- be utilized. tisan debate. In contrast to the House, where THE SPEAKER: The gentleman is very the hour rule limits debate, Mem- effectively but improperly stating the 6. See §§ 72.1 et seq., infra, for the pre- 5. Carl Albert (Okla.). vious question and its effect.

11010 CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE Ch. 29 § 72 bers of the Senate may retain the Closing and opening debate generally, for indefinite periods of time, see § 7, supra. unless the Senate limits debate ei- Motions which close debate, see Ch. 23, ther by unanimous consent or by supra (previous question, lay on the invoking cloture.(7) Thus, a Sen- table). ator may retain the floor for ex- Order of recognition determines who may tremely long periods of time, en- close debate, see §§ 12 et seq., supra. gaging in a ‘‘’’ to prevent Question of consideration to close debate, see § 5, supra. Senate action on a measure.(8) On Role of manager and management by re- June 12 and 13, 1935, Senator porting committee in closing debate, Huey Long, of Louisiana, in a re- see §§ 24, 26, supra. markable demonstration of phys- ical endurance, set a new record in the Senate when he spoke con- tinuously for 151⁄2 hours in favor Previous Question; Used Before of the Gore amendment to the Adoption of Rules proposed extension of the Na- tional Industrial Recovery Act. § 72.1 The Member controlling But the amendment was finally debate on a proposition in tabled. Again, in 1953, a pro- the House may move the pre- longed debate took place on the vious question and cut off so-called tidelands offshore oil bill. further debate. It began Apr. 1 and ended May 5. On Jan. 4, 1965,(10) at the con- The debate lasted for 35 days, one vening of the 89th Congress and of the longest on record. During before the adoption of the rules, this debate Senator Wayne Morse, of Oregon, established a new rec- Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, of- ord for the longest single speech. fered a resolution and after some On Apr. 24 and 25 he spoke for 22 debate moved the previous ques- hours and 26 minutes.(9) tion: Cross References MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 2) and ask for its Closing debate in the Committee of the immediate consideration. Whole, see §§ 76 (general debate) and The read as follows: 78 (five-minute debate), infra. H. RES. 2 7. See Riddick/Frumin, Senate Proce- dure, S. Doc. No. 101–28, 101st Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and directed to Cong. 2d Sess. (1992). administer the oath of office to the 8. See 8 Cannon’s Precedents § 2866. 9. See 103 CONG. REC. 173, 174, 85th 10. 111 CONG. REC. 20, 89th Cong. 1st Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 1957. Sess.

11011 Ch. 29 § 72 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

gentleman from New York, Mr. Rich- THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman ard L. Ottinger. from Oklahoma yield to the gentleman from Mississippi for the purpose of MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, again this is a resolution involving a Member submitting a parliamentary inquiry? whose certificate of election in due MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, I move form is on file in the Office of the the previous question on the resolu- Clerk. I ask for the adoption of the res- tion. olution. THE SPEAKER: The question is on the motion. MR. [JAMES C.] CLEVELAND [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, will the gen- The previous question was ordered. ( ) tleman yield for a parliamentary in- The resolution was agreed to. 11 quiry? MR. ALBERT: I yield for a parliamen- Moving the Previous Question tary inquiry. MR. CLEVELAND: If this resolution is § 72.2 The motion for the pre- adopted, will it be impossible for me to vious question is not debat- offer my own resolution pertaining to able. the same subject matter, either as an (12) amendment or a substitute? On Jan. 3, 1949, at the con- THE SPEAKER: If the resolution is vening of the 81st Congress, the agreed to, it will not be in order for the House was considering House gentleman to offer a substitute resolu- Resolution 5, amending the rules tion or an amendment, particularly if of the House. Mr. Adolph J. the previous question is ordered. Sabath, of Illinois, who had of- MR. CLEVELAND: Is it now in order, Mr. Speaker? fered the resolution, moved the THE SPEAKER: Not unless the gen- previous question. Mr. John E. tleman from Oklahoma yields to the Rankin, of Mississippi, sought rec- gentleman for that purpose.... ognition to offer an amendment in MR. CLEVELAND: Will the gentleman the nature of a substitute and ob- from Oklahoma yield for that purpose? jected that he had a ‘‘right to be MR. ALBERT: Mr. Speaker, I yield for heard.’’ Speaker , of a question and a very brief statement. Texas, held that the previous I do not yield for a speech. question was not debatable. MR. CLEVELAND: May I inquire if the ( ) gentleman will yield so that I may ask On Sept. 13, 1965, 13 Mr. Carl for unanimous consent that certain Albert, of Oklahoma, moved that remarks of mine pertaining to this matter be incorporated in the Record? 11. 87 CONG. REC. 2177, 2178, 77th MR. ALBERT: No, Mr. Speaker, I Cong. 1st Sess. move the previous question. 12. 95 CONG. REC. 10, 81st Cong. 1st MR. [THOMAS G.] ABERNETHY [of Sess. Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a par- 13. 111 CONG. REC. 23601, 89th Cong. liamentary inquiry. 1st Sess.

11012 CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE Ch. 29 § 72 the Journal be approved as read Use of Previous Question and moved the previous question Where Debate Limited by on the motion. Mr. Durward G. Unanimous Consent Hall, of Missouri, stated a par- liamentary inquiry: § 72.3 Where the House by Is not debate in order on this motion unanimous consent fixed the inasmuch as under [the House rules] time and control of debate, it there has been no debate on ordering was held that the Members the previous question? in control were not required THE SPEAKER: (14) The Chair will state that the motion on the previous to consume or to yield all the question is not debatable. The provided for. is on ordering the previous question on ( ) the motion to approve the Journal.(15) On Mar. 11, 1941, 17 the House Parliamentarian’s Note: Mr. was considering House Resolution Hall’s reference was to clause 3 131 under the terms of a unani- (now clause 2) of Rule XXVII, pro- mous-consent agreement pro- viding 40 minutes’ debate after viding two hours of debate and di- the previous question has been or- viding control of debate between dered, if the proposition on which Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, and the motion has been made is de- Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New batable but has not been de- York, and providing that the pre- (16) bated. vious question be considered as 14. John W. McCormack (Mass.). ordered at the conclusion of de- 15. See Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules bate. Mr. Bloom asked for a vote and Manual § 782 (1995): ‘‘When a prior to the expiration of the two question is under debate, no motion hours’ time, and Mr. Martin J. shall be received but to adjourn, to Kennedy, of New York, objected lay on the table, for the previous on the ground that the unani- question (which motions shall be de- cided without debate).’’ mous-consent agreement was 16. See Rule XXVII clause 2, House not being complied with in that Rules and Manual § 907 (1995). the previous question had been The debate comes after and not demanded prematurely. Speaker before the previous question itself Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled is ordered, the motion itself not that the Members in control were being debatable. See 111 CONG. REC. 23602–06, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., not required to consume or to where Speaker McCormack held, yield all the time provided. after the previous question was ordered, that Mr. Hall then had the 17. 87 CONG. REC. 2177, 2178, 77th right to demand 40 minutes’ debate. Cong. 1st Sess.

11013 Ch. 29 § 72 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

Vacating the Previous Ques- to dispose of an amendment in tion disagreement. Time for debate on the motion was divided equally § 72.4 The House by unani- among the majority and minority mous consent vacated the or- managers (both of whom sup- dering of the previous ques- ported the motion), and a Member tion in order to permit fur- opposed.(20) ther debate. MR. [SIDNEY R.] YATES [of Illinois]: On Aug. 26, 1960,(18) the House Madam Speaker, I offer a motion. was considering Senate amend- The Clerk read as follows: ments reported from conference in Mr. Yates moves that the House disagreement on H.R. 12619, mak- recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered ing appropriations for the mutual 153 and concur therein with an security program. Mr. Silvio O. amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, Conte, of Massachusetts, arose insert the following: ‘‘: Provided, to object to a motion to concur That— with an amendment in a Senate A. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the National En- amendment, and Mr. Otto E. dowment for the Arts or the Na- Passman, of Louisiana, moved the tional Endowment for the Human- previous question on the motion, ities may be used to promote . . . materials which in the judgment of which was ordered without objec- the National Endowment for the tion. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Arts or the National Endowment for the Humanities may be considered Texas, advised Mr. Conte that no obscene....’’ further debate was in order. MR. [DANA] ROHRABACHER [of Cali- A call of the House was ordered, fornia]: Madam Speaker, I would ask and the House then agreed to a to be recognized in opposition to the unanimous-consent request by Mr. motion for 20 minutes. Passman that ‘‘the action of the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: (1) The House by which the previous Chair will inquire is the gentleman question was ordered be vacated.’’ from Ohio [Mr. Regula] opposed to the motion? Mr. Passman then yielded two MR. [RALPH] REGULA [of Ohio]: No, I minutes of debate to Mr. Conte. am not, Madam Speaker. On Oct. 3, 1989,(19) the House had under consideration a motion ceedings relating to H.R. 2788, Inte- rior and Related Agencies Appropria- 18. 106 CONG. REC. 17869, 17870, 86th tions for 1990.) Cong. 2d Sess. 20. For discussion of so allocating debate 19. 135 CONG. REC. 22835, 22836, time, see § 26, supra. 22842, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. (Pro- 1. Patricia Schroeder (Colo.).

11014 CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE Ch. 29 § 72

THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Then MR. ROHRABACHER: . . . I would just the gentleman from California [Mr. like 1 minute’s worth of time. Rohrabacher], who is opposed to the THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The motion, would be entitled to 20 min- gentleman from California is recog- utes. nized for 1 minute and the previous ac- The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Reg- tion of the House in disposing of the ula], then, would have 20 minutes, motion is vacated. the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] would have 20 minutes, Effect of Motion To Table and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] would have 20 minutes on the § 72.5 The adoption of the non- motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].... debatable motion to lay a MR. YATES: . . . Madam Speaker, I resolution on the table re- move the previous question. sults in the final adverse dis- THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The position of the resolution gentleman from Illinois moves the pre- and closes further debate. vious question on this motion. Without (2) objection, the previous question is or- On Dec. 14, 1970, the pre- dered. vious question was moved on All those in favor of the gentleman’s House Resolution 1306, asserting motion will say ‘‘aye,’’ those opposed the privileges of the House in say ‘‘no.’’ The gentleman’s amendment printing and publishing a report is hereby agreed to. of the Committee on Internal Se- The Clerk will designate the next amendment in disagreement.... curity. Mr. Louis Stokes, of Ohio, MR. ROHRABACHER: Madam Speaker, then offered the preferential mo- I have a parliamentary inquiry.... tion to lay the resolution on the Did I not have 1 minute of debate table. Speaker John W. McCor- left? mack, of Massachusetts, respond- MR. YATES: Madam Speaker, the ed as follows to a parliamentary gentleman was on his feet and he inquiry: knew that the Chair proposed the question. He made no effort to ask for MR. [ALBERT W.] WATSON [of South any kind of a rollcall.... Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, if the motion THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: The to table prevails, there can be no fur- gentleman’s motion for the previous ther consideration at all of this matter. question was not in order unless Is that not correct? Does it not apply the gentleman from California yielded the clincher? back his time.... THE SPEAKER: If the motion to table MR. YATES: I misunderstood the gen- is agreed to, then the resolution is ta- tleman. I thought the gentleman had bled. used up his time. I am sorry if I cut the gentleman off. I did not mean to do 2. 116 CONG. REC. 41372, 91st Cong. 2d that. I have no reason to do that.... Sess.

11015 Ch. 29 § 72 DESCHLER-BROWN PRECEDENTS

MR. WATSON: Then that ends it. All been ordered by the resolution, right. no further debate or amendments Parliamentarian’s Note: The were in order. motion to lay on the table takes Parliamentarian’s Note: Resolu- precedence over the previous tions reported from the Com- question and may be used to close mittee on Rules, providing for the all debate and adversely dispose consideration of a bill in Com- of a proposition.(3) mittee of the Whole, typically pro- vide that the previous question is Effect of Special Rule ordered to final passage without intervening motion except one mo- § 72.6 When the Chairman of tion to recommit, when the Com- the Committee of the Whole mittee rises. reports a bill to the House pursuant to a resolution pro- Closing Debate in House as in viding that the previous Committee of the Whole question shall be considered as ordered, further debate in § 72.7 Debate in the House as the House is thereby pre- in the Committee of the cluded. Whole may be closed by or- dering the previous question. On Aug. 31, 1960,(4) there being no amendments to S. 2917 being On July 28, 1969,(5) H.R. 9553, considered in the Committee of amending the District of Columbia the Whole, the Committee rose Minimum Wage Act, was being and the bill was reported back to considered under the five-minute the House. Pursuant to the resolu- rule in the House as in the Com- tion under which the bill was mittee of the Whole. Mr. John being considered, Speaker Sam Dowdy, of Texas, moved the pre- Rayburn, of Texas, stated that the vious question on the bill to final previous question was ordered. In passage and Speaker John W. response to a parliamentary in- McCormack, of Massachusetts, quiry by Mr. H. Carl Andersen, answered a parliamentary inquiry of Minnesota, the Speaker stated on the effect of that motion: that the previous question having MR. [PHILLIP] BURTON of California: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. 3. See Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will and Manual § 782 (1995); and Ch. state the parliamentary inquiry. 23, supra. 4. 106 CONG. REC. 18748, 86th Cong. 5. 115 CONG. REC. 20855, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. 1st Sess.

11016 CONSIDERATION AND DEBATE Ch. 29 § 73

MR. BURTON of California: Mr. the motion and it was agreed to Speaker, is the motion before us to by a recorded vote. close debate or will there be a vote Parliamentarian’s Note: Al- subsequent to the pending motion so though it was formerly the prac- that those of us who want a rollcall on tice to read bills considered in the this matter can obtain a rollcall vote. House as in the Committee of the THE SPEAKER: The pending question Whole by sections for amendment, is on ordering the previous question. such bills are now considered as MR. BURTON of California: This is to read and open for amendment at close debate and not on the passage of any point. Debate may be closed the matter? Will this be our last oppor- tunity to receive a rollcall on this mat- by ordering the previous ques- (7) ter? tion. (8) THE SPEAKER: The Chair will state On Jan. 22, 1930, the House that the question on the passage of the was considering under the five- bill will come later, if the previous minute rule in the House as in question is ordered. the Committee of the Whole a sec- tion of a bill for amendment. Mr. § 72.8 In the House as in the George S. Graham, of Pennsyl- Committee of the Whole, a vania, moved that all debate on motion to close debate on an the pending section and amend- amendment is in order. ments thereto close in 10 minutes. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of On June 26, 1973,(6) Mr. George Ohio, put the question on the mo- H. Mahon, of Texas, called up tion and it was agreed to. House Joint Resolution 636, mak- ing continuing appropriations for fiscal 1974 and asked unanimous § 73. One-minute, Special- consent that the resolution be con- order Speeches, and sidered in the House as in the Morning Hour Committee of the Whole, to which request the House agreed. The one-minute speech and the During debate on the resolution special-order speech are two under the five-minute rule, Mr. Mahon moved ‘‘that all debate 7. See 116 CONG. REC. 28050, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1970, for on the pending amendment and the current practice; and 8 Cannon’s amendments thereto close in 20 Precedents §§ 2433, 2434, for earlier minutes.’’ Speaker Carl Albert, of practice as to reading bills for Oklahoma, put the question on amendment in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. 6. 119 CONG. REC. 21305–07, 21314, 8. 72 CONG. REC. 2144, 71st Cong. 2d 21315, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. Sess.

11017