[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[H. Duration of Debate in the House]
[Â§ 67. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10900-10912]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                   H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 67. In General


    The duration of debate on a proposition in the House is governed by 
the type of procedure invoked for its consideration. Most proposals are 
considered pursuant to one of the four procedures below:
    (1) consideration under the hour rule where a standing rule of the 
House or a special rule from the Committee on Rules does not otherwise 
provide; (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. 68, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) consideration for a fixed period of time provided for by a 
standing rule governing a particular House procedure, such as 
suspensions or Calendar Wednesday; (19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 69, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) consideration under the five-minute rule in the House as in the 
Committee of the Whole, by unanimous consent, special order,

[[Page 10901]]

or for Private Calendar bills; (20) and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 70, infra. On rare occasions, a special rule has provided 
        that bills be considered in the House as in the Committee of 
        the Whole (see Sec. 4.1, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) consideration pursuant to special rules or unanimous-consent 
agreements fixing or extending the time for debate in the 
House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 71, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One-minute speeches and special-order speeches are two further 
methods whereby time may be obtained for debate, but only when no 
measure is under consideration.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 73, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker has the function of ascertaining the time for debate 
and determining its expiration,(3) and under certain limited 
circumstances the length of debate is within the Chair's 
discretion.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 67.1, 67.2, infra.
 4. See Sec. Sec. 67.3-67.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The only motion in the House with the primary purpose of closing 
debate and bringing the House to a vote is the motion for the previous 
question. Certain other motions, such as the motion to lay on the 
table, may have the effect of closing debate if decided in the 
affirmative.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. For the closing of House debate, see Sec. 72, infra.
            The closing of debate in the Committee of the Whole is 
        discussed in Sec. Sec. 76, 78, 79, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a Member is entitled to a certain amount of time in debate, 
either under the general rules of the House or by unanimous consent or 
special rule, he is not required to consume or yield all of his time. 
If he is recognized to make a debatable motion under the hour rule, he 
may move the previous question at any time.(6) And where a 
unanimous-consent agreement provides a certain amount of debate, the 
Member in charge may move the previous question without using or 
yielding all the time agreed upon.(7) Similarly, the 
managers of a bill in the Committee of the Whole may, acting together, 
agree to use less than the time for general debate allotted under a 
special rule.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 72.1, infra.
 7. See Sec. 72.3, infra.
 8. See Sec. 76.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although a Member making a debatable motion need not consume all 
the time to which he is entitled, if he loses or surrenders the floor 
without closing debate, another Member is entitled to 
recognition.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. Sec. 67.10-67.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The duration and closing of debate in the Senate is governed by 
different considerations than those in the House.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 72, infra.

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

[[Page 10902]]

                            Cross References
Charging time to Member with the floor, see Sec. Sec. 29 (yielding 
    time) and 32 (interruption of Member with the floor), supra.
Debate in committees, see Ch. 17, supra.
Distribution of time for debate, see Sec. 25, supra.
Duration of debate on appropriation bills, see Ch. 26, supra.
Duration of debate before adoption of the rules, see Ch. 1, supra.
Duration of debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. Sec. 74 et 
    seq., infra.
Duration of debate on impeachment propositions and articles of 
    impeachment, see Ch. 14, supra.
Duration of debate on motions, see Chs. 18 (motion to discharge), 21 
    (motion to suspend the rules), 23 (motions generally), supra, and 
    Ch. 32 (Senate amendments), infra.
Motions and questions on which no debate is in order, see Sec. 6, 
    supra.
Yielding and allocating time, see Sec. Sec. 29-31, supra.

                         Collateral References
Duration of debate in the House of Commons of Great Britain, see 
    Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice 472-87, Butterworth & Co. Ltd. 
    (17th ed.) (London 1964).
Duration of debate in the Senate, see Riddick/Frumin, Senate Procedure, 
    S. Doc. No. 101-28, 101st Cong. 2d Sess. 
    (1992).                          -------------------

Timekeeping

Sec. 67.1 The Chair counts the time of a Member with the floor and 
    announces the expiration of allotted time.

    On June 11, 1963,(11) Mr. Paul C. Jones, of Missouri, 
had the floor for a one-minute speech prior to the legislative business 
of the day and yielded to Mr. James G. Fulton, of Pennsylvania. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, interrupted Mr. Fulton to state 
that Mr. Jones' one minute had expired, and Mr. Fulton asked unanimous 
consent that Mr. Jones be given one additional minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 109 Cong. Rec. 10633, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker ruled that such a request was not in order and refused 
to recognize Mr. Fulton for the request (it not being the practice to 
permit any Member to be recognized for more than one one-minute speech 
or to speak for more than one minute prior to legislative business).

Sec. 67.2 Evaluation of the time consumed in one-minute speeches is a 
    matter for the Chair and is not subject to challenge or question by 
    a parliamentary inquiry.

    On May 9, 1972,(12) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, re

[[Page 10903]]

sponded as follows to a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 118 Cong. Rec. 16288, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Donald W.] Riegle [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Riegle: Mr. Speaker, I have observed different speakers 
    being given very different lengths of time to speak under the 1-
    minute rule.
        I just noticed, for example, the gentleman from California who 
    was given approximately half the time that the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Devine) and several other speakers were given today. I object 
    to that and I think if we are going to use the 1-minute rule, let 
    us use it fairly.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair is trying to 
    enforce the 1-minute rule. That is not a parliamentary inquiry and 
    the gentleman was out of order in making it.

Chair's Discretion as to Debate Time

Sec. 67.3 The duration of debate time on a point of order is within the 
    discretion of the Chair.

    On Apr. 13, 1951,(13) Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, made 
a point of order that an amendment offered by Mr. Antoni N. Sadlak, of 
Connecticut, to a pending bill was not in order since not germane to 
the bill. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, inquired of Mr. Sadlak 
whether he desired to be heard on the point of order. Mr. Sadlak 
inquired ``how much time will be allotted to me for that purpose?'' The 
Chair responded that the time to be allotted was ``in the discretion of 
the Chair.'' (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 97 Cong. Rec. 3909, 3910, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
214. Points of order on which the Chair has announced his readiness to 
        rule are not debatable, such debate being at all times within 
        the discretion of the Chair. See Sec. 6.12, supra; 5 Hinds' 
        Precedents Sec. Sec. 6919, 6920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XVII clause 3 [House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 811 (1995)] provides that ``incidental questions of order arising 
after a motion is made for the previous question, and pending such 
motion, shall be decided, whether on appeal or otherwise, without 
debate.'' The rule does not, however, deprive the Chair of his 
discretion, under the precedents, over debate on a point of order or a 
parliamentary inquiry.

Sec. 67.4 A concurrent resolution providing for adjournment of Congress 
    to a day certain is not debatable, but the Speaker has in his 
    discretion permitted some time for discussion where no point of 
    order is raised.

    On Aug. 28, 1967,(15) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
called up

[[Page 10904]]

House Concurrent Resolution 497, providing for an adjournment to a day 
certain of the two Houses of Congress. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled that the resolution was not debatable, but 
permitted Mr. Albert to yield to another Member for a brief statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 113 Cong. Rec. 24201, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the 
    last word.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that this is not a debatable 
    resolution.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Albert: I yield to the gentleman from Iowa for the purpose 
    of making a brief statement.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the distinguished 
    majority leader why the adjournment resolution was not made 
    effective as of the first of this week, and why the recess was not 
    planned to take in this week as well as next week?
        Mr. Albert: We have discussed this matter with the leadership 
    on both sides, and it was determined it would be impractical to do 
    so. . . .
        The concurrent resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 67.5 Although a concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment 
    sine die is not debatable, brief debate time has been permitted by 
    the Chair where no point of order was raised and where the 
    legislative situation warranted some discussion of the resolution.

    On Oct. 14, 1968,(16) Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
called up Senate Concurrent Resolution 83, providing for an adjournment 
sine die of the Congress on Oct. 11, 1968. Mr. Albert moved to amend 
the resolution by striking out the date and inserting ``October 14, 
1968'' and then yielded five minutes' debate, without objection, to Mr. 
James G. O'Hara, of Michigan. Mr. O'Hara, who had previously expressed 
his intention to prevent the adjournment of Congress until the Senate 
took action on a legislative proposal permitting network TV debates 
among the major Presidential candidates, announced he would no longer 
persist in his efforts due to the likelihood of a failure of a quorum 
in the Senate. Mr. Albert resumed the floor to express support for Mr. 
O'Hara's statement and then moved the previous question on the 
amendment to the adjournment resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 114 Cong. Rec. 31312, 31313, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 67.6 Recognition for a reservation of objection to a unanimous-
    consent request is within the discretion of the Speaker and 
    sometimes he refuses to permit any de

[[Page 10905]]

    bate time under such a reservation.

    On Dec. 3, 1969,(17) Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, 
made a unanimous-consent request that she be allowed to address the 
House for one hour at the close of business. Mr. Roman C. Pucinski, of 
Illinois, attempted to reserve the right to object in order to discuss 
the matter. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, refused to 
entertain the reservation of objection and stated ``Either the 
gentlewoman receives permission, or she does not.'' There was no 
objection to the request.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 115 Cong. Rec. 36748, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
18. Any Member may demand the regular order and preclude further debate 
        on a reservation of the right to object (see 75 Cong. Rec. 
        11759, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., June 1, 1932).
            No reservation of objection may be entertained during the 
        call of the Private Calendar (see Rule XXIV clause 6, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1995). Before that prohibition was 
        added to the rules, the Speaker would on occasion invoke the 
        five-minute rule in order to prevent prolonged discussion under 
        a reservation of a right to object (see, for example, 78 Cong. 
        Rec. 2364, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 10, 1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect of Interruptions During Debate Time

Sec. 67.7 The Speaker stated that time for interruptions was taken out 
    of the time of the Member with the floor, except for points of 
    order.

    On Apr. 8, 1937,(19) Mr. Arthur H. Greenwood, of 
Indiana, had the floor, having called up by direction of the Committee 
on Rules a privileged resolution. Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, asked 
Mr. Greenwood to yield for the propounding of a parliamentary inquiry. 
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, advised as follows on the 
consumption of time for interruptions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 81 Cong. Rec. 3283, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield so that I may 
    submit a parliamentary inquiry, not to be taken out of the 
    gentleman's time?
        Mr. Greenwood: I yield for that purpose.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman yields, it comes out of his time.
        Mr. Greenwood: Then I prefer to make my statement. I will not 
    yield for that purpose at this time.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Mapes] that the only exception where interruptions 
    are not taken out of the time of the speaker is on points of order.

    Parliamentarian's Note: When a Member with the floor yields, the 
time consumed by the interruption is charged to his 
time.(20)

[[Page 10906]]

Where, however, he is taken off his feet by a point of order, quorum 
call, or reservation of objection, the time consumed thereby is not 
charged to his time.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For yielding time, see Sec. 29, supra.
 1. For interruptions of the Member with the floor, see Sec. 32, supra.
            When a Member with the floor suspends temporarily for the 
        reception of a message or conference report or other pressing 
        legislative business, the time consumed by the interruption is 
        not charged to his time. See, for example, Sec. 73.19, infra, 
        where a Member occupying the floor for a ``special-order 
        speech'' suspended for a motion to suspend the rules and 
        consumed the remainder of his time following adoption of the 
        motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 67.8 Where debate has been limited to a specified number of 
    minutes, time is counted only during debate, not during quorum 
    calls.

    On Aug. 4, 1966,(2) Majority Leader Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, sought unanimous consent that debate on a pending motion to 
strike a title of a bill in Committee of the Whole be limited to 30 
minutes. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, then answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on the effect of a quorum call on that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 112 Cong. Rec. 18207, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, is my 
    understanding correct that the unanimous consent request propounded 
    by the distinguished majority leader would preclude a quorum call 
    prior to the first order of business and the 30 minutes before the 
    vote?
        The Chairman: The Chair will reply to the gentleman that if 
    there is no quorum present any Member at any time can make a point 
    of order. In other words, it will not preclude a quorum call.
        Mr. Hall: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Would 
    that time come out of the 30 minutes allotted for debate?
        The Chairman: It would not.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Time consumed by votes and quorum calls is 
not counted where the time limit for debate is a specified number of 
minutes or hours, as distinguished from a time certain by the clock. 
Thus, when debate has been limited ``to 30 minutes,'' time is counted 
only during debate, not during quorum calls. Likewise, in such cases, 
if an amendment is read during debate, the time consumed by the reading 
of amendments is not taken from that remaining for debate. But where 
time for debate has been fixed to time certain, i.e., 4:15 p.m., the 
time for parliamentary inquiries, rereading of amendments, points of 
order, etc., is taken from time remaining, thus reducing the time for 
debate available to Members thereafter.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For the effect of different types of limitations on five-minute 
        debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 79, infra. 
        Although limitations are often set by the clock in the 
        Committee of the Whole, time in the House for debate is 
        customarily fixed at a certain number of minutes.

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

[[Page 10907]]

Debate Time Fixed at ``One Day''

Sec. 67.9 Where debate on a bill 
    is fixed by special order at 
    one day, the term ``one day'' means one legislative day as 
    terminated by adjournment.

    On Aug. 17, 1949, the House adopted House Resolution 327, providing 
for general debate not to exceed one day in the Committee of the Whole 
on H.R. 5895, furnishing military assistance to foreign nations. When 
the House had resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
consideration of the bill, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
answered 
a parliamentary inquiry on the meaning of the term ``one day'':

        The Chairman: Under the rule general debate will be equally 
    divided and will not exceed one day.
        Mr. [Joseph P.] O'Hara of Minnesota: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Hara of Minnesota: What is meant by the term ``one day''?
        The Chairman: The term means one legislative day as terminated 
    by adjournment, from now until the time the House 
    adjourns.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 95 Cong. Rec. 11666, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
            Where debate time in the Committee of the Whole is fixed at 
        two legislative days, the Chair does not determine when each 
        day is complete; the Committee so determines by rising. See 
        Sec. 74.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member's Time Lapses When He Loses the Floor

Sec. 67.10 A Member in control of time under the hour rule may yield 
    portions of his time to others; but if he surrenders the floor 
    before fulfilling his commitments to yield, all time remaining 
    available to him under the hour--his own as well as that promised 
    or yielded to others--lapses.

    On Nov. 29, 1967,(5) Mr. William R. Anderson, of 
Tennessee, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House 
Resolution 960, a privileged resolution authorizing travel by Members 
of the Committee on Education and Labor for investigatory purposes, and 
yielded 30 minutes to the minority Member handling the resolution, Mr. 
Smith of California. Mr. Anderson yielded to Mr. Durward G. Hall, of 
Missouri, to offer an amendment, thereby surrendering control of the 
resolution to Mr. Hall. When Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma,

[[Page 10908]]

stated that the question was on the resolution, a parliamentary inquiry 
was stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 34136-38, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Smith of California: I was yielded 30 minutes a while ago 
    by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Anderson]. Do I not have that 
    time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
    Anderson] yielded to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hall] for the 
    purpose of offering an amendment, he surrendered all his time, and 
    the Chair so informed the gentleman from Tennessee.
        Mr. Smith of California: If the gentleman has agreed to yield 
    30 minutes to me, I lose it?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the gentleman yielded for the 
    purpose of amendment.

Sec. 67.11 Where the Member in charge of a resolution in the House 
    yields to another for the purpose of offering an amendment he loses 
    control of the floor and the sponsor of the amendment is given 
    control for an hour.

    On Mar. 27, 1945,(6) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, the 
manager of a resolution (H. Res. 195), was recognized and moved the 
previous question, which was ordered. Discussion then ensued on an 
agreement made by Mr. Cox with Mr. Clinton P. Anderson, of New Mexico, 
that before the resolution was voted on an amendment to the resolution 
would be considered. Mr. Cox therefore moved to reconsider the vote on 
the previous question, and the previous question was reconsidered and 
rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 91 Cong. Rec. 2861, 2862, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Cox then yielded to Mr. Anderson to offer an amendment to the 
resolution. At that point, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, the acting 
    chairman of the Committee on Rules having yielded for the offering 
    of an amendment, as I understand the rule, the gentleman from New 
    Mexico now has 1 hour, and the gentleman from Georgia has lost the 
    floor.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See also 102 Cong. Rec. 12922, 12923, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 16, 
        1956; and 100 Cong. Rec. 2282, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 25, 
        1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 67.12 If a Member recognized to control one hour on a 
    motion to refer a vetoed 
    bill yields the remainder of 
    his time without moving the 
    previous question, another

[[Page 10909]]

    Member is recognized for one hour.

    On Oct. 10, 1940,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid 
before the House a veto message from the President. Mr. Samuel 
Dickstein, of New York, moved that the message and the bill be referred 
to a House committee. He was recognized for one hour by the Speaker, 
delivered some remarks, and then stated ``I yield back the balance of 
my time.'' Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, asked for recognition in 
opposition to the motion, and the Speaker inquired of Mr. Dickstein 
whether he yielded. When Mr. Dickstein stated that he had yielded the 
floor, Mr. Rankin was recognized for one hour. Mr. Dickstein then 
objected that he had not meant 
to surrender the floor, and the Speaker stated that he had 
affirmatively done so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 86 Cong. Rec. 13522-24, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 67.13 A Member having yielded the floor without moving the 
    previous question after making a motion in the House, another 
    Member seeking recognition was recognized for one hour.

    On July 5, 1945,(9) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, 
offered a motion to correct the permanent Record, in order to 
accurately reflect a colloquy between himself and Mr. John E. Rankin, 
of Mississippi. Mr. Tarver discussed his motion and then yielded the 
floor without moving the previous question. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, recognized Mr. Rankin for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 7220-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfinished Business and Resuming Debate

Sec. 67.14 When the consideration of unfinished business resumes in the 
    House, debate does not begin anew but recommences from the point 
    where it was interrupted.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 10, 1980: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 13801, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (11) The unfinished business is the 
    further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 660) in the matter 
    of Representative Charles H. Wilson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Resolved,
            (1) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be censured;
            (2) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be denied the 
        chair on any committee or subcommittee of the House of 
        Representatives. . . .

[[Page 10910]]

        The Speaker: Pursuant to the rules of the House and the 
    unanimous-consent agreement, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Bennett) has 12 minutes remaining, the gentleman from South 
    Carolina (Mr. Spence), has 8 minutes remaining; the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Charles H. Wilson), or his designee has 1 hour 
    remaining.

Debate Under Statutory Provisions

Sec. 67.15 Under section 604(h) of Public Law 93-198, debate on a 
    concurrent resolution disapproving an action by the District of 
    Columbia City Council can be limited by motion, but otherwise 
    extends not to exceed 10 hours.

    During consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 228 
(disapproving the Location of Chanceries Amendment Act) in the House on 
Dec. 20, 1979,(12) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 37299, 37303, 37304, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fortney H.] Stark [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate 
    concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 63) to disapprove the Location 
    of Chanceries Amendment Act of 1979 passed by the City Council of 
    the District of Columbia, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution. . 
    . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) Does the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) reserve the right to object?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. George E. Danielson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: I reserve the right to 
    object, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Speaker, I have requested this procedure because the 
    alternate procedure is a privileged motion which is at the desk 
    which allows up to 10 hours of debate, which is the identical 
    motion, and it would take the House some more time.
        I would be glad to yield to any Member under the other debate 
    procedure and allow every Member time for debate. I would hope to 
    save the House time, and I would urge the gentleman to allow us to 
    call up the Senate resolution.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, I will still object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, under the home rule statute (Public Law 
    93-198, sec. 604(g)), I move to proceed to the immediate 
    consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 228 as a privileged 
    resolution and ask unanimous consent that general debate thereon be 
    limited to one-half hour, to be equally divided between the 
    gentleman from Virginia and myself.
        The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on consideration of 
    the concurrent resolution.
        The motion to consider the House concurrent resolution was 
    agreed to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) to limit 
    debate to one-half hour?

[[Page 10911]]

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, reserving 
    the right to object, we have already had the debate. I do not know 
    why the gentleman needs a half hour, frankly.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Bauman: I yield to the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, it is to accommodate anybody who has 
    not had an opportunity to speak on the issue.
        Mr. Bauman: I think 10 hours is worth it on this.
        I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general 
    debate be limited to 20 minutes, to be divided between myself and 
    the gentleman from Virginia.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from California?
        Mr. [Romano L.] Mazzoli [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Stark: Mr. Speaker, I move that debate on the concurrent 
    resolution be limited to 20 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from California. . . .
        [T]he motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the motion, there are 20 minutes 
    for debate. The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) will be 
    recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Virginia (Robert 
    W. Daniel, Jr.) will be recognized for 10 minutes.

Sec. 67.16 Pursuant to section 305(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget 
    Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344, amended by Public Law 95-523), the 
    four hours' debate on economic goals and policies in Committee of 
    the Whole on the first concurrent resolution on the budget must be 
    consumed in its entirety or yielded back before the remaining time 
    for general debate on the resolution may be resumed.

    During consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 115 (pertaining 
to the congressional budget) in the Committee of the Whole on May 1, 
1981,(14) the Chair made a statement as to procedures for 
debate, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 127 Cong. Rec. 8165, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Hawkins) has 8 minutes remaining. The rules are 
    that the gentleman must complete his time on economic policies 
    before the general debate continues, controlled by Mr. Latta and 
    Mr. Jones of Oklahoma on the budget resolution generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: All the time has expired on economic 
    goals and policies.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones).

[[Page 10912]]

        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 hour 
    to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).

Extending Debate by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 67.17 By unanimous consent, further debate may be permitted on a 
    motion to instruct conferees on which the previous question has 
    been ordered.

    During consideration of a motion to instruct House conferees on the 
conference with the Senate on H.R. 3919 (crude oil windfall profits 
tax) on Feb. 20, 1980,(16) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 126 Cong. Rec. 3322, 3337, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Norman E.] D'Amours [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    offer a motion.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. D'Amours moves that, pursuant to the provisions of 
        clause 1(b) of Rule XXVIII, the managers on the part of the 
        House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
        Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3919 be 
        instructed to agree to the provisions contained in parts 1, 2 
        and 4 of title II of the Senate amendment to the text of the 
        bill.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman from New 
    Hampshire (Mr. D'Amours) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the 
    motion to instruct.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . . [T]here may have been some confusion 
    on the last vote, given what appeared on the screens in Members' 
    offices. . . .
        This question . . . we will vote on now is a vote on the motion 
    to instruct the conferees?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question that will occur now is on 
    the motion to instruct the conferees.
        (By unanimous consent Mr. Gibbons was allowed to speak out of 
    order.)
        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I cannot 
    believe the last vote. It is absolutely astounding.
        What my colleagues voted for was to instruct the conferees to 
    throw away $26 billion on some tax credits of doubtful value. . . .
        But, please, do not instruct us. We are about to complete this 
    conference. We are about to get things wound up and get it out here 
    where we can either accept it or reject it.