[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§ 68. The Hour Rule]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10912-10962]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                   H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 68. The Hour Rule

    Rule XIV clause 2 provides for a one-hour limitation on debate in 
the House and in Committee of the Whole:

        . . . and no Member shall occupy more than one hour in debate 
    on any

[[Page 10913]]

    question in the House or in committee, except as further provided 
    in this rule.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. House Rules and Manual Sec. 758 (1995). The clause dates from 1841 
        (see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4978) and is unique to the House, 
        the hour rule having no application to the proceedings of the 
        Senate (see Sec. 72, infra).
            In the House of Commons of Great Britain, there is no limit 
        on holding the floor for debate except by closure of debate, 
        selection of amendments, or adoption of orders limiting debate. 
        See Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice 472, Butterworth & Co. 
        Ltd. (17th ed.) (London 1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any Member who is recognized in the House is recognized for one 
hour, unless the matter under consideration--such as a suspension 
motion--has a special debate process stated in the rule permitting the 
matter to be called up, or debate is being conducted under the five-
minute rule in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, or a special 
rule has provided otherwise.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The rules provide for 10-minute, 20-minute, and 40-minute debate on 
        certain motions and questions (see Sec. 69, infra). For special 
        orders and unanimous-consent agreements altering the duration 
        of debate in the House, see Sec. 71, infra.
            On Calendar Wednesday, debate on bills considered in the 
        Committee of the Whole is limited to two hours, one hour 
        controlled by the Member in charge of the bill and one hour by 
        the ranking minority member of the committee who is opposed to 
        the bill. See 81 Cong. Rec. 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 
        14, 1937, where the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
        the Whole for the consideration of a bill called up under the 
        Calendar Wednesday procedure (call of committees under Rule 
        XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 [1995]). See 
        also, for the two-hour limitation, 84 Cong. Rec. 5654, 76th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., May 17, 1939; and 72 Cong. Rec. 8938, 8939, 
        71st Cong. 2d Sess., May 14, 1930 (the two hours may not be 
        extended by unanimous consent).
            For five-minute debate in the House as in the Committee of 
        the Whole, conducted generally by unanimous consent but by rule 
        for Private Calendar bills, see Sec. 70, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An hour rule also applies to general debate in the Committee of the 
Whole where a Member 
in control of the time may not 
consume more than one hour except by unanimous consent of the House. 
Debate proceeds under the hour rule unless otherwise provided by the 
House.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For general debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 75, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unless the House provides by special rule or by unanimous-consent 
agreement for the control and distribution of time in the House, the 
proponent of a proposition in the House is recognized for one hour and 
typically moves the previous question at or before

[[Page 10914]]

the expiration thereof.(1) Where a Member has spoken for an 
hour, his time cannot be extended, even by unanimous 
consent.(2) If he loses or surrenders the floor, such as by 
yielding for an amendment, or offering the previous question which is 
then rejected, or failing to move the previous question, another Member 
may be recognized under the hour rule, with the right to offer 
amendments, to move the previous question, or to offer appropriate 
motions.(3) In certain situations, where an essential motion 
(such as the previous question) is defeated, a Member of the opposition 
is entitled to recognition for an hour.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 71.21, infra. If the previous question is moved before any 
        debate on a debatable question, the rules provide for 40 
        minutes of debate, equally divided (see Sec. 69, infra), but 
        any debate, however brief, precludes the operation of that 
        rule. (See, generally, Ch. 23, supra, for the previous question 
        and its application.)
            The Member offering a proposition in the House under the 
        hour rule customarily yields time for a full discussion of the 
        question. See, for example, Sec. 29.15, supra (yielding of time 
        on Committee on Rules resolutions).
 2. See Sec. Sec. 68.3, 68.73, infra.
 3. See Sec. 68.8, infra. For the losing and surrendering of control, 
        see Sec. Sec. 33, 34, supra.
 4. See Sec. 68.42, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Closing debate under the hour rule (manager may move previous question 
    at any time), see Sec. 72, infra.
Extension of the hour rule by special rule or unanimous-consent 
    agreement, see Sec. 73, infra.
Hour rule in the Committee of the Whole, if time for general debate not 
    fixed, see Sec. 75, infra.
Hour rule on resolutions and special rules, see Sec. 18, supra.
Hour rule on Senate amendments, conference reports, and amendments in 
    disagreement, see Sec. 17, supra.
Manager calls up proposition under the hour rule, see Sec. 24, supra.
Opening and closing debate under the hour rule, see Sec. 7, supra.
Order of recognition under the hour rule, see Sec. Sec. 12 et seq., 
    supra.
Practice of Committee on Rules in distribution of the hour for debate 
    on special rules, see Sec. 26, supra.
Recognition of opposition under the hour rule after rejection of an 
    essential motion, see Sec. 15, supra.
Recognition under the hour rule where Member with the floor loses or 
    surrenders control, see Sec. Sec. 33, 34, supra.
Special-order speeches and the hour rule, see Sec. 71, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Before Adoption of Rules

Sec. 68.1 Prior to the adoption of the rules, a Member offering a 
    resolution on the seating of a Member-elect is entitled to one hour 
    of debate.

    On Jan. 10, 1967, prior to the adoption of rules, Mr. Morris K. 
Udall, of Arizona, offered as privileged House Resolution 1, 
authorizing the Speaker to administer

[[Page 10915]]

the oath of office to challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New 
York, and referring the question of his final right to a seat to a 
select committee. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled 
that Mr. Udall was entitled to recognition for one hour.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess. For the privilege and 
        disposition of resolutions before the adoption of rules, see 
        Ch. 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.2 Before the adoption of rules, if the previous question is 
    voted down on a resolution and an amendment is offered, the 
    proponent of the amendment is recognized under the hour rule.

    On Jan. 3, 1969, before the adoption of rules, the House was 
considering a privileged resolution related to the right of a Member-
elect to his seat.(6) After the previous question was voted 
down on the resolution, Mr. Clark MacGregor, of Minnesota, offered an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute to the original resolution. 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. MacGregor 
for one hour of debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 27-29, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bills and Resolutions Generally

Sec. 68.3 While a Member may be given control of several hours of 
    debate, he may not yield himself more than an hour or have his time 
    extended, even by unanimous consent.

    On Mar. 9, 1976,(7) Speaker Pro Tempore Morgan F. 
Murphy, of Illinois, made a ruling relative to extension of debate time 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 122 Cong. Rec. 5900, 5906, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Pike) is recognized for 60 minutes.
        Mr. [Otis G.] Pike [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday 
    while I was picking up oysters and eating up some chowder, I 
    decided that perhaps the time had come for me to make a statement 
    about the late House Select Committee on Intelligence. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman from New 
    York has expired.
        Mr. [Dale] Milford [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the time of the gentleman be extended 5 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's request is out of 
    order.

Sec. 68.4 Where the House agrees to consider in the House a

[[Page 10916]]

    bill called up by unanimous consent from the Speaker's table, the 
    Member calling up the bill is recognized for one hour.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(8) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, called up S. 3361, relating to the entry of alien 
specialists, from the Speaker's table and asked unanimous consent for 
its immediate consideration in the House. When the request was granted, 
Mr. Walter was recognized for one hour. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, indicated that no amendments could be offered to the 
bill unless Mr. Walter yielded for that purpose.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 22606-09, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 9. For disposal of Senate bills on the Speaker's table, and the 
        requirements such bills must meet before such disposition, see 
        Rule XXIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 882 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The procedure is otherwise if the request 
is simply for the ``immediate consideration'' of a Union Calendar bill 
or of an unreported bill which would, if reported, be referred to the 
Union Calendar. In that event the measure is considered under the five-
minute rule in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

Sec. 68.5 When a District of Columbia bill on the House Calendar is 
    called up on District Day, under Rule XXV clause 8, the bill is 
    considered in the House under the hour rule.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 107 Cong. Rec. 10068, 10069, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., June 12, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Use of Previous Question To Terminate Debate

Sec. 68.6 The Member recognized to control one hour of debate in the 
    House may, by moving the previous question, terminate utilization 
    of debate time he has previously yielded to the minority.

    On Mar. 9, 1977,(11) it was demonstrated that a Member 
calling up a privileged resolution in the House may move the previous 
question at any time, notwithstanding his prior allocation of debate 
time to another Member:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 6816, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (12) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 
    minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson), for the 
    minority, pending which I yield myself 5 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the other amendment that the gentleman offers 
    proposes to

[[Page 10917]]

    give the House the opportunity to vote up or down in a certain 
    period of time regulations proposed by the select committee. What 
    that does, and it really demonstrates an almost total lack of 
    understanding of the rules, is to upgrade regulations into rules. 
    The Members of the House will have the opportunity to deal with all 
    laws and 
    rules. That is provided in the resolution. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. . 
    . .
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: I have time remaining. Do I 
    not have a right to respond to the gentleman from Missouri?
        The Speaker: Not if the previous question has been moved, and 
    it has been moved.
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Even though the gentleman mentioned 
    my name and made numerous references to me for the last 10 minutes?
        The Speaker: The Chair is aware of that.
        The question is on ordering the previous question.

--Member Yielded Time Cannot Reserve Time

Sec. 68.7 A Member to whom time was yielded under the hour rule in the 
    House may not, except by unanimous consent, reserve a portion of 
    that time to himself; the unused time reverts to the Member 
    controlling the hour who may subsequently yield further time to 
    that Member.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Feb. 8, 
1972,(13) during consideration of House Resolution 164 
(creating 
a Select Committee on Privacy, Human Values, and Democratic 
Institutions):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 118 Cong. Rec. 3181-84, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ray J.] Madden [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 164 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                               H. Res. 164 . . .

            Whereas the full significance and the effects of technology 
        on society and on the operations of industry and Government are 
        largely unknown. . . .
            Resolved, That there is hereby created a select committee 
        to be known as the Select Committee on Privacy, Human Values, 
        and Democratic In-stitutions. . . .

        Mr. Madden: Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Gallagher).
        Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, may 
    I take 5 minutes now and reserve 5 minutes to the end of the debate 
    since it is my bill?
        The Speaker: (14) The gentleman may do that. Without 
    objection, it is so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object . . . is it in order to have a

[[Page 10918]]

    unanimous-consent request at a time like this when the time is 
    controlled by the members of the Committee on Rules . . .?
        Mr. Gallagher: . . . It was my understanding that I would have 
    the time at the conclusion of debate.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I submit this is between the gentleman 
    and the man handling the rule, and therefore I must object.
        The Speaker: The Chair will notify the gentleman when 5 minutes 
    are up. . . .
        The gentleman from New Jersey has consumed 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gallagher: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
        The Speaker: . . . The gentleman from Indiana has control of 
    the time. . . .
        If the gentleman from Indiana desires to yield further time at 
    this time he can do so.

--Yielding Floor for Amendments

Sec. 68.8 Where the Member in charge of a measure under the hour rule 
    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.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 91 Cong. Rec. 2861, 2862, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 27, 1945.
            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.
            Where the Member with the floor under the hour rule 
        surrenders the floor without moving the previous question, any 
        Member of the House securing recognition in opposition to the 
        pending proposal is recognized for one hour (see Sec. 34, 
        supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consideration of Measures in House

--Private Bill By Unanimous Consent

Sec. 68.9 When a private bill on the calendar of the Committee of the 
    Whole is called up by unanimous consent for consideration in the 
    House, the Member making the request is recognized for one hour.

    On Mar. 12, 1963,(16) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of 
private bill H.R. 4374, to proclaim Sir Winston Churchill an honorary 
citizen of the United States. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control and time 
for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 3993, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, under what 
    circumstances will this resolution be considered? Will there be any 
    time for discussion of the resolution, if unanimous consent is 
    given?

[[Page 10919]]

        The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Iowa, if consent is granted for the present 
    consideration of the bill, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] 
    will be recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from New York may 
    yield to such Members as he desires to yield to before moving the 
    previous question.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, 
    is sometime to be allocated to this side of the aisle?
        Mr. Celler: I intend to allocate half of the time to the other 
    side.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

--Consideration of Senate Bill in House Pursuant to Special Rule

Sec. 68.10 Following the adoption of a resolution making in order the 
    consideration of a Senate bill in the House the Member calling up 
    the Senate bill is recognized for one hour.

    The proceedings relative to consideration of S. 2667 (Emergency 
Petroleum Allocation Act Extensions) in the House on Nov. 14, 
1975,(17) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 36638, 36641, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri] from the Committee on 
    Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 866, 
    Rept. No. 94-666), which was referred to the House Calendar and 
    ordered to be printed.

                                  H. Res. 866

            Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
        resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's 
        table the bill S. 2667, to extend the Emergency Petroleum 
        Allocation Act of 1973, and to consider said bill in the House.

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 866 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Speaker: (18) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is, Will the House now consider House 
    Resolution 866?
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I object 
    to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: . . . Two hundred and forty-one Members are 
    present, a quorum.
        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
        On a division (demanded by Mr. Rousselot) there were--yeas 171, 
    noes 14.
        So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof), the House agreed 
    to consider House Resolution 866.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page 10920]]

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West 
    Virginia (Mr. Staggers).
        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, 
    pursuant to House Resolution 866, I call up the Senate bill (S. 
    2667) and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

--House Bill

Sec. 68.11 A Member calling up a bill or joint resolution in the House 
    pursuant to a special order controls one hour of debate thereon and 
    may of-fer an amendment thereto and move the previous question on 
    the amendment and on the bill or joint resolution.

    On Nov. 3, 1977,(19) the proceedings relating to 
consideration of House Joint Resolution 643 (continuing appropriations) 
in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 36970, 36971, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    rule just adopted, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 643) 
    making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1978, 
    and for other purposes. . . .
        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 643

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        following sums are appropriated out of any money in the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable 
        corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the 
        several departments, agencies, corporations, and other 
        organizational units of the Government for the fiscal year 
        1978, namely:
            Sec. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary for continuing 
        projects or activities which were conducted in the fiscal year 
        1977, and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority 
        would be available in the District of Columbia Appropriations 
        Act, 1978 (H.R. 9005) as passed the House of Representatives or 
        the Senate. . . .

        The Speaker: (20) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Mahon) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, Members need to understand what our 
    problem is at the moment. In view of the fact that final action has 
    not been taken on the District of Columbia appropriation bill and 
    on the Labor-Health, Education, and Welfare bill, we have to have a 
    continuing resolution. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mahon: On page 2, line 6, strike 
        the period and insert the following: ``: Provided further, That 
        the rate of operations for the Disaster Loan Fund of the Small 
        Business Administration contained in said Act shall be the rate 
        as passed the Senate. . . .

        Mr. Mahon: It is absolutely urgent that we find a way to get 
    this continuing resolution acted upon by the Congress tomorrow, 
    since we cannot do it tonight. It is imperative that we get

[[Page 10921]]

    through the Congress a continuing resolution on tomorrow and send 
    it to the President. Otherwise, there will be some very serious 
    problems.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and 
    the joint resolution to final passage.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
    third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.

Senate Amendments

Sec. 68.12 Senate amendments which do not require consideration in 
    Committee of the Whole are debatable under the hour rule when 
    considered in the House.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 18357, 18358, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 30, 1960; 
        and 81 Cong. Rec. 644, 645, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 1, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Senate Amendments in Disagreement

Sec. 68.13 Prior to the amendment to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b) in the 
    92d and 99th Congresses (providing that the hour debate on an 
    amendment in disagreement be divided), debate on an amendment 
    reported from conference in disagreement was under the hour rule 
    and the Member calling up the conference report was in control of 
    the debate thereon.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 108 Cong. Rec. 23423-43, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1962; 
        108 Cong. Rec. 15294, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 1962; and 88 
        Cong. Rec. 2508, 2512, 2513, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 16, 
        1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 1153, which was adopted on 
Oct. 13, 1972, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., to become effective at the end of 
the 92d Congress, amended Rule XXVIII by requiring that 
debate on amendments reported from conference in disagreement be 
equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority parties. 
Thus the hour of debate on a motion offered to dispose of an amendment 
in disagreement is equally controlled by the Member offering the 
initial motion and a Member of the minority, typically the senior 
conferee of that party.
    The debate may be divided three ways if both the manager and the 
ranking minority Member agree. See Rule XXVIII clause 2(b)(1), House 
Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1995), as amended in the 99th Congress by 
H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985.

Sec. 68.14 Debate on a Senate amendment reported in disagreement by 
    managers on the part of the House is

[[Page 10922]]

    under the hour rule, and the Member calling up the conference 
    report is in control of the time (subject to the division of time 
    required by clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII).

    On Aug. 1, 1962,(3) Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode 
Island, had called up a conference report on H.R. 10904, the labor, 
health, education, and welfare appropriations for fiscal 1963. Certain 
Senate amendments had been reported 
in disagreement. When Senate amendment No. 3 was read, Mr. Fogarty 
offered a motion that the House recede from disagreement and concur 
with an amendment. Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on control of the time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 15294, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: Is the gentleman from Rhode Island going to explain 
    any of these amendments?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is within the discretion of the 
    gentleman.
        Mr. Gross: A further parliamentary inquiry. Does not the 
    gentleman have an hour on each of these amendments?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has if he desires to use 
    it.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See also 108 Cong. Rec. 23423-43, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 
        1962. For consideration of amendments 
        in disagreement, see Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b)(1) House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. Sec. 912b et seq. (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.15 A motion in the House to concur in a Senate amendment, the 
    stage of disagreement having been reached, 
    is debatable under the hour rule.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 113 Cong. Rec. 19003, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1967; and 
        81 Cong. Rec. 7197, 7198, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 15, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.16 Debate on a motion to concur in a Senate amendment with an 
    amendment, the stage of disagreement having been reached, is un-der 
    the hour rule.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See 108 Cong. Rec. 23423-43, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1962; 
        108 Cong. Rec. 15294, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 1, 1962; and 89 
        Cong. Rec. 5899, 5900, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.17 Debate on a motion that the House recede from its 
    disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur therewith is under 
    the hour rule, and if the question is divided, the hour rule 
    applies to each motion separately.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 86 Cong. Rec. 5889, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 9, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.18 Debate on a motion to dispose of a Senate amend

[[Page 10923]]

    ment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to 
    a House bill, the stage of 
    disagreement having been reached, is under the hour 
    rule.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 116 Cong. Rec. 750, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 22, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Following Rejection of First Motion

Sec. 68.19 Under clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII, the time allotted for 
    debate on an original motion to dispose of 
    disagreement on a Senate amendment is divided equally between 
    majority and minority parties (except that if both floor managers 
    support the motion then one-third of the time may be claimed by an 
    opponent); and where the original motion to dispose of the Senate 
    amendment in disagreement is rejected, the time for debate on a 
    successor motion is also governed by clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII and 
    may be equally divided.

    On Aug. 6, 1993,(9) the House had under consideration 
Senate amendments in disagreement to H.R. 2493 (Agriculture 
appropriations for 1994):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 164: Page 81, after line 12, insert:
            Sec. 730. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
        made available by this Act shall be used by the Secretary of 
        Agriculture to provide a total amount of payments to a person 
        to support the price of honey under section 207 of the 
        Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446h) and section 405A of 
        such Act (7 U.S.C. 1425a) in excess of $50,000 in the 1994 crop 
        year.

                          motion offered by mr. skeen

        Mr. [Joe] Skeen [of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Motion offered by Mr. Skeen:
            Mr. Skeen moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        amendment of the Senate numbered 164 with an amendment as 
        follows: In the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        amendment, add the following: ``The GAO shall conduct a study 
        and report to Congress on the effectiveness of the program.''

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
    Skeen] is recognized for 30 minutes.
        Mr. [Harris W.] Fawell [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 10924]]

        Mr. Fawell: First of all, the motion that the gentleman from 
    New Mexico offered was read so fast I did not understand just what 
    it was. But I rise in opposition.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman is opposed to the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from New Mexico, the gentleman [Mr. 
    Fawell] is entitled to 20 minutes to debate the issue. . . .
        Mr. Fawell: . . . Assuming that this particular motion fails, 
    can the Chair advise me where we will be then?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Another Member will be recognized for 
    another motion on this amendment in disagreement. . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New Mexico [Mr. Skeen]. . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were yeas 
    140, nays 274, not voting 19, as follows: . . .
        So the House refused to recede 
    and concur in the amendment of the 
    Senate numbered 164 with an amendment. . . .
        Mr. Fawell: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fawell moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        amendment of the Senate numbered 164 with 
        an amendment as follows: In the matter proposed to be inserted 
        by the amendment, strike ``$50,000'' and insert ``$0''.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Fawell] will be recognized for 30 minutes in support of his motion, 
    and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will be recognized for 
    30 minutes in opposition.

    Under a former practice, if the initial motion to dispose of the 
amendment in disagreement was rejected, the time for debate on a 
subsequent motion was under the hour rule and entirely within the 
control of the Member of the opposition recognized to make the motion. 
Thus, on July 19, 1977,(11) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 7554 (Housing and Urban Development and 
independent agencies appropriation bill for fiscal 1978) in the House, 
it was demonstrated that, where a motion to dispose of an amendment 
reported from conference in disagreement, offered by the manager of the 
conference report, is rejected, the Speaker recognizes a Member leading 
the opposition to offer another motion to dispose of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 23668, 23669, 23678, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The Clerk will report 
    the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 24: Page 17, line 11, strike out 
        ``$2,943,600,-000'' and insert ``$3,013,000,000''.

        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts] [manager of the 
    conference report]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 10925]]

            Mr. Boland moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        sum proposed by said amendment insert ``$2,995,300,000''.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Boland) is recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) is recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Boland).
        Mr. Boland: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume. . . .
        Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
    to amendment No. 24. . . .
        [After debate, the motion was rejected.]
        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fuqua moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24 and concur therein.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua) 
    is recognized for 60 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The motion was agreed to.

--Intervention of Preferential Motion

Sec. 68.20 The time for debate on an amendment reported from conference 
    in disagreement is equally divided between the majority and 
    minority parties under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b), and a Member 
    offering a preferential motion does not thereby gain control of 
    time for debate; nor can the Member who has offered the 
    preferential motion move the previous question during time yielded 
    to him for debate, since that would deprive the Members in charge 
    of control of the time for debate.

    On Dec. 4, 1975,(13) an example of the proposition 
described above occurred in the House during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 8069 (the Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare and related agencies appropriation bill):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 38714, 38716, 38717, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Flood moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 72 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted 
        by said amendment, insert the following:
            ``Sec. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall 
        be used to 
        require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any 
        student to a school other than the school which is nearest or 
        next nearest the student's home. . . .

[[Page 10926]]

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bauman moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to Senate amendment No. 72 and concur therein.

        The Speaker: (14) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, who has the right to 
    the time under the motion?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has 30 
    minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 30 
    minutes. The time is controlled by the committee leadership on each 
    side, and they are not taken from the floor by a preferential 
    motion. . . .
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I yield such 
    time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
        Mr. Bauman: The gentleman from Maryland has made his case and 
    if the gentleman would like to concur in the stand taken by the 
    majority party in favor of busing he can do that. I do not concur.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I demand the question be divided.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has 
    the floor and the Chair is trying to let the gentleman be heard.
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded. My time has not 
    expired.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has time for debate only.

        Mr. Bauman: No; Mr. Speaker, it was not yielded for debate 
    only.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The Speaker: The gentleman was yielded to for debate only. The 
    gentleman from Illinois had no authority under clause 2, rule 
    XXVIII to yield for any other purpose but debate.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Debate on a motion that the House recede 
from its disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur is under the 
hour rule. In the above instance, the motion to recede and concur was 
divided.(15) If the motion is so divided, the hour rule 
applies to each motion separately.(16) Thus, technically, 
the Bauman motion to concur could have been debated under the hour 
rule, since the request for division of the question was made prior to 
the ordering of the previous question. Control of the time, however, 
would have remained with the majority and minority under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 38717, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. See 86 Cong. Rec. 5889, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 9, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whether or not the division demand was made before or after

[[Page 10927]]

the ordering of the previous question on the motion to recede and 
concur, the preferential motion offered by Mr. Flood to concur with an 
amendment could have been debated under the hour rule equally divided, 
since it was a separate motion not affected by ordering the previous 
question on the motion to recede and concur.
    Had the Bauman motion to concur been rejected, the motion to concur 
with another amendment would have been in order, and preferential to a 
motion to insist on disagreement.

Sec. 68.21 Time for debate on motions to dispose of amendments in 
    disagreement is equally divided, under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b), 
    between the majority and minority party; and if a minority Member 
    has been designated by his party to control time, another minority 
    Member who offers a preferential motion does not thereby gain 
    control of the time given to the minority.

    On May 14, 1975,(17) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 4881(18) in the House, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 121 Cong. Rec. 14385, 14386, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. The Emergency Employment Appropriations for fiscal year 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(19) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 61: Page 41, line 9, insert:

                       ``Federal Railroad Administration

                ``rail transportation improvement and employment

            ``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads 
        by providing funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving 
        railroad roadbeds and facilities, $700,000,000. . . .

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

            Mr. Mahon moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 61.

                  preferential motion offered by mr. conte

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to Senate amendment Number 61 and concur therein with an 
        amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be 
        inserted by the Senate, insert the following:

                                 ``CHAPTER VIII

                         ``Department of Transportation

                       ``federal railroad administration

            ``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads 
        by providing

[[Page 10928]]

        funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving railroad 
        roadbeds and facilities, $200,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, how is the time divided?
        The Speaker: The time is divided equally between the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Mahon), who has 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Michel) who has 30 minutes or such small fraction 
    thereof as he may decide to use.

Conference Reports

Sec. 68.22 One hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and 
    minority parties, is permitted on a conference report; and the 
    Speaker recognizes the Member calling up the report to control 30 
    minutes and a Member from the other party (preferably the senior 
    conferee from that party) to control 30 minutes.

    On Jan. 19, 1972,(20) Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman 
of the Committee on House Administration, called up the conference 
report on S. 382, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972. Speaker 
Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Hays to control 30 minutes of 
debate on the report and Mr. William L. Springer, of Illinois (ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and 
a conferee), to handle the other 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 118 Cong. Rec. 319, 320, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conferees had been appointed from both the Committees on House 
Administration and Interstate and Foreign Commerce, since the bill was 
the work product of both committees.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a), was amended in 
the 92d Congress, 1st session (H. Res. 5) to require a division of the 
hour for debate on a conference report. Prior to that time, debate on a 
conference report was under the hour rule, with the Member recognized 
to call up the report in control of the time. Clause 2(a) was again 
amended in 1985 to permit a three-way division of the hour if both the 
majority and minority floor managers support the report.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, for example, 115 Cong. Rec. 40451, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 
        20, 1969; 108 Cong. Rec. 4247-51, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 15, 
        1962. See also 99th Cong. 1st Sess., H. Res. 7, Jan. 3, 1985, 
        p. 393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Reject Nongermane Provision in

Sec. 68.23 Pursuant to a special rule and to clause 1 of Rule

[[Page 10929]]

    XX (now clause 4(a), Rule XXVIII), the House agreed to a section of 
    a conference 
    report (containing non-germane Senate matter) on a separate vote 
    after 40 minutes' debate thereon, equally divided between the 
    Member moving to reject the section and a Member opposed to that 
    motion. The House then considered the entire conference report, the 
    Member calling it up and a Member 
    of the minority party each being recognized for 30 minutes under 
    clause 2(a) of Rule XXVIII.

    On Nov. 10, 1971,(2) Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, 
called up the conference report on H.R. 8687, military procurement 
authorization. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated the special 
order governing the consideration of the report (H. Res. 696), provided 
that a separate vote could be demanded on certain sections of the 
conference report (containing non-germane portions of the Senate 
amendment). Mr. Donald Fraser, of Minnesota, demanded a separate vote 
on section 503 of the report, pursuant to the special order and 
pursuant to Rule XX, clause 1. The Speaker recognized Mr. Hebert and 
Mr. Fraser for 20 minutes each and the House then agreed to retain 
section 503 within the conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 40489, 40490, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House then proceeded to the consideration of the entire 
conference report. The Speaker stated that one hour of debate would be 
had thereon, Mr. Hebert to be recognized for 30 minutes and a member of 
the minority party, Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, to be recognized 
for 30 minutes.

After Rejection of Nongermane Portion of Conference Report--Debate on 
    Motion To Recede and Concur in Senate Amendment With Amendment 
    Consisting of Remainder of Conference Report

Sec. 68.24 Where the House agrees to a motion to reject 
    a nongermane portion of a conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII 
    clause 4, the pending question, in the form of a motion offered by 
    the manager of the conference report, is to recede from 
    disagreement to the Senate amendment and concur with an amendment 
    consisting of the remaining portions of the conference report not 
    rejected on the sepa

[[Page 10930]]

    rate vote, and one hour of debate, equally divided between the 
    majority and minority parties, is permitted on that pending 
    question.

    The proceedings of Dec. 12, 1979,(3) during 
consideration of H.R. 595(4) in the House, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 125 Cong. Rec. 35522, 35527, 35528, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. A bill authorizing the General Services Administration to dispose 
        of tin from the national stockpile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Mollohan [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 595) to authorize 
    the Administrator of General Services to dispose of 35,000 long 
    tons of tin in the national and supplemental stockpiles, to provide 
    for the deposit of moneys received from the sale of such tin, and 
    for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        Mr. [Larry] McDonald [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker:(5) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    matter contained in clause 3 of section 3 of the substitute for the 
    text of the bill recommended in the conference report would not be 
    germane to H.R. 595 under clause 7 of rule XVI if offered in the 
    House and is therefore subject to a point of order under clause 
    4(a) of rule XXVIII. . . .
        Mr. Mollohan: . . . I concede the point of order.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.

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

            Mr. McDonald moves, pursuant to the provisions of clause 
        4(b) of rule XXVIII, that the House reject clause 3 of section 
        3 of the substitute for the text of the bill recommended in the 
        conference report.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McDonald) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia 
    (Mr. Mollohan) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McDonald). 
    . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(6) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McDonald).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Al Swift (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I object 
    to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the 
    point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    272, nays 122, not voting 39, as follows: . . .
        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. Mollohan: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 10931]]

            Mr. Mollohan moves pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XXVIII and 
        the actions of the House, that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the text of the 
        bill and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
             In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        amendment of the Senate to the text of the bill insert the 
        following:
        That this Act may be cited as the ``Strategic and Critical 
        Materials Transaction Authorization Act of 1979''.

            Sec. 2. There is authorized to be appropriated the sum of 
        $237,000,-000 for the acquisition of strategic and critical 
        material under section 6(a) of the Strategic and Critical 
        Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98e). . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Mollohan) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Maine (Mr. Emery) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Mollohan).

--Where Motion To Reject Is Defeated

Sec. 68.25 Upon defeat of a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a 
    motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with a further 
    amendment, the Member who had moved to recede and concur with an 
    amendment and a minority Member are each recognized for 30 minutes 
    of debate on that motion.

    On July 31, 1974,(7) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
recognized Wilbur Mills, of Arkansas, to call up the conference report 
on H.R. 8217 (exemption from tariff duty of equipment on United States 
vessels) in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 120 Cong. Rec. 26082, 26083, 26088, 26089, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the 
    bill (H.R. 8217) to exempt from duty certain equipment and repairs 
    for vessels operated by or for any agency of the United States, and 
    ask unanimous consent that the statement of the managers be read in 
    lieu of the report. . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Clerk read the statement. . . .
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mills moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the Senate amendment to the text of the bill, H.R. 8217, and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment to the text of the bill (page 2, after line 6), 
        insert the following:
            Sec. 3. The last sentence of section 203(e)(2) of the 
        Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 
        (as added by section 20 of Public Law 93-233 and amended by 
        section 2 of Public Law 93-256 and by section 2 of Public Law 
        93-329) is amended by striking out ``August 1, 1974'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``April 30, 1975''. . . .

[[Page 10932]]

        Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of 
    order on section 3 of this bill because it does not conform to the 
    House germaneness rule, rule 28, clause 5(b)(1). . . .
        Section 3 deals with the unemployment compensation program as 
    it relates to extended benefits. This has nothing to do with the 
    ``repair of vessels.'' . . .
        Mr. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the point of order is 
    well taken. I cannot resist the point of order.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Pickle: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Pickle moves that the House reject section 3 of the 
        proposed amendment to the Senate amendment to the text of the 
        bill H.R. 8217.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Mills) will be recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pickle).
        The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote 
    on the ground that a quorum is not present. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . [T]he Chair does recognize the gentleman 
    from Iowa who objects to the vote on the ground that a quorum is 
    not present and makes the point of order that a quorum is not 
    present, and evidently a quorum is not present. . . .

        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    63, nays 336, not voting 35, as follows: . . .
        So the motion was rejected. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair desires to state that under the rule the 
    gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Mills) will be recognized for 30 
    minutes and 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Schneebeli) will be recognized 
    for 30 minutes.

--Motion Sending Bill to Conference

Sec. 68.26 A Member making a motion to send a bill to conference 
    pursuant to authorization by his committee un-der Rule XX clause 1, 
    is recognized for one hour.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See 116 Cong. Rec. 5722, 5723, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 3, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Close Conference Meeting

Sec. 68.27 The motion to close conference committee meetings is 
    debatable under the hour rule.

    During consideration of H.R. 5970 (Department of Defense 
authorization for fiscal year 1978) in the House on May 23, 
1977,(9) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 123 Cong. Rec. 15880, 15881, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous

[[Page 10933]]

    consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5970) to 
    authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 1978, for 
    procurement of aircraft . . . and for other purposes, with Senate 
    amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to 
    the conference asked by the Senate.
        The Speaker: (10) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Florida? The Chair hears none, and appoints 
    the following conferees: . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Bennett moves, pursuant to rule XXVIII 6(a) of the 
        House rules that the conference committee meetings between the 
        House and the Senate on H.R. 5970 the fiscal year 1978 military 
        authorization bill be closed to the public at such times as 
        classified national security information is under 
        consideration.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) is 
    recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Bob Wilson), the ranking minority member on 
    the committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume; at the conclusion of which I will be happy to yield to any 
    Member who wishes to be heard.

    Parliamentarian's Note: This was the first occasion on which the 
House considered a motion, pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 6(a), that a 
conference committee meeting be closed to the public. Pending the 
motion to close the conference committee meeting to the public, with 
the exception of any sitting Member of Congress, the Speaker stated in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry that the motion was not binding on 
the Senate conferees, and that each House would have one vote in 
conference on whether to close the meeting to the 
public.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 15884, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Instruct House Managers

Sec. 68.28 The Member moving to instruct House managers appointed to a 
    conference committee has 30 minutes of debate at his disposal 
    (whether the motion is made before the conferees have been 
    appointed or at least 20 days after they have been appointed, 
    pursuant to clause 1(b) of Rule XXVIII) and 30 minutes is 
    controlled by the minority party.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Rule XXVIII, clause 1(a) House Rules and Manual Sec. 909 
        (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.29 A Member offering a motion to instruct conferees is entitled 
    to one hour of debate unless a motion to lay that motion on the 
    table is adopted prior to debate.

[[Page 10934]]

    On Aug. 26, 1976,(13) the House had under consideration 
a motion to agree to a conference on H.R. 8603 (the Postal 
Reorganization Act Amendments of 1976), when the following exchange 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 27828, 27831, 27832, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [David N.] Henderson [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk the bill 
    (H.R. 8603) to amend title 39, United States Code, with respect to 
    the organizational and financial matters of the U.S. Postal Service 
    and the Postal Rate Commission, and for other purposes, with Senate 
    amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to 
    the conference asked by the Senate. . . .
        Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, if an 
    objection is heard, is it not so that the procedure that would be 
    followed is for the chairman of the committee to go to the 
    committee, convene the committee, and get a motion to come back to 
    the floor asking for a conference, and that that then would be 
    subject to 1 hour of general debate? Is that not so? . . .
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Alexander 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. 8603, be instructed to insist upon (1) 
        section 2(a) and section 2(c) of such bill as passed the House; 
        (2) section 2401(b)(1) of title 39, U.S. Code, as added by 
        section 2(b) of such bill as passed the House; and (3) section 
        16 of such bill as passed the House.

        Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion offered by 
    the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander) be laid on the table. . 
    . .
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, is it not so that the parliamentary 
    situation is that my motion is entitled to 1 hour of general debate 
    on that motion, the time to be controlled by me as the person who 
    is offering the motion; but in view of the fact that the gentleman 
    from North Carolina (Mr. Henderson) has offered a motion to table, 
    a vote for that motion would preclude any debate and preclude any 
    consideration of the motion to instruct? Is that correct, Mr. 
    Speaker?
        The Speaker:(14) The Chair will state that if the 
    motion to table is voted upon and rejected, 1 hour will be allotted 
    to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Upon an objection to a unanimous-consent 
request to take a House bill with Senate amendments from the Speaker's 
table and agree to a conference, a motion to that effect is privileged 
if made by direction of the committee having jurisdiction over the bill 
under clause 1 of Rule XX, and that motion is debatable for one hour.

--Motion To Instruct House Managers, Amendment to

Sec. 68.30 The division of time, under Rule XXVIII, clause

[[Page 10935]]

    1(b), for debate on a motion to instruct conferees does not extend 
    to separate debate on an amendment to such a motion, which is 
    governed by Rule XIV, clause 2, the general hour rule in the House.

    On Oct. 3, 1989,(15) during consideration of H.R. 3026 
(the District of Columbia appropriation bill for fiscal year 1990), it 
was demonstrated that, where the previous question is rejected on a 
motion to instruct conferees, a separate hour of debate on any 
amendment to the motion is fully controlled by the proponent of the 
amendment, as the manager of the original motion loses the floor. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 135 Cong. Rec. 22859, 22862, 22863, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
    3026) making appropriations for the government of the District of 
    Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part 
    against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending 
    September 30, 1990, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
    thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
    conference asked by the Senate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Bill] Green [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to instruct.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Green 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. 3026, be instructed to agree to the amendment of 
        the Senate numbered 3.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Green] is recognized for 30 minutes in support his motion. . . .
        Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion to instruct. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
        [The previous question was rejected.]
        Mr. Dixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I understand now that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Dannemeyer] intends to offer an amendment to the motion offered by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Green].
        My question is: Under the offering will I receive part of the 
    time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman 
    from California [Mr. Dixon] that 1 hour would be allotted to the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer]. He would have to yield 
    time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer to the motion to 
        instruct: At the end of the pending motion, strike

[[Page 10936]]

        the period, insert a semicolon, and add the following language: 
        ``; Provided further, That the conferees be instructed to agree 
        to the provisions contained in Senate amendment numbered 22.''

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Dannemeyer] is recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    yield one-half of the time to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Dixon], for purposes of debate only.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The control of debate in the above instance 
is to be distinguished from debate on motions in the House to dispose 
of amendments in disagreement. In the latter case, 
although the manager of the 
original motion might lose the 
floor upon defeat of his motion, 
debate on a subsequent motion is 
nevertheless divided under Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b). It is only debate 
on amendments to such motions, when pending, that is not divided. Rule 
XXVIII is discussed in Sec. 26, supra.

Privileged Resolutions

Sec. 68.31 Debate on privileged resolutions is under the hour 
    rule.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 111 Cong. Rec. 13799, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., June 16, 1965; and 109 
        Cong. Rec. 3051, 3052, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 27, 1963.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Committee Funding Resolution

Sec. 68.32 Debate on a privileged resolution from the Committee on 
    House Administration is under the hour rule, and the Member 
    recognized to call it up has control of the time.

    On Feb. 27, 1963,(18) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of 
Maryland, called up by direction of the Committee on House 
Administration House Resolution 164, a privileged resolution providing 
funds for the Committee on Armed Services. Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to control of the 
time for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 109 Cong. Rec. 3051, 3052, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: As I understand it, the 
    gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] has said that he would yield 
    time to Members on the minority side, and that is what we want. If 
    there is another minority Member who wants to be recognized at this 
    time, it would be in order under the rules for that Member to be 
    granted time in order that he might make such statement as he might 
    want to make.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that under the rules of the 
    House and pursuant to custom that has existed from time immemorial, 
    on a resolution of this kind the Member in charge of

[[Page 10937]]

    the resolution has control of the time and he, in turn, yields 
    time.

    Majority Leader Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then made the following 
statement on distribution of time to the minority:

        Following the statement of the distinguished Speaker of the 
    House, the gentleman from Ohio made the statement that he is in 
    favor of the principle involved here. Of course, the principle is 
    well established under the rules of the House and has been observed 
    by both parties from time immemorial, that the Member recognized to 
    call up the resolution has control of the time under the 1-hour 
    rule.

    On Feb. 25, 1954,(19) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control of 
debate on a privileged resolution called up by the chairman of the 
Committee on House Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 100 Cong. Rec. 2282, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Karl M.] LeCompte [of Iowa]: Under the rules the Chairman 
    has control of the time.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has 1 hour to yield to whomsoever he 
    desires.
        Mr. LeCompte: And he has control of the matter of offering 
    amendments.
        The Speaker: A committee amendment is now pending. No other 
    amendment can be offered unless the gentleman yields the floor for 
    that purpose.
        Mr. LeCompte: A motion to recommit, of course, belongs to some 
    member of the minority opposed to the resolution. Would any motion 
    except a motion to recommit be in order except by the gentleman in 
    charge of the bill?
        The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman yields for that purpose.
        The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 1 
    hour.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. For an occasion where the Member in charge of a privileged 
        resolution from the Committee on House Administration yielded 
        to the Majority Leader to offer an amendment and thereby lost 
        control of the hour, see 111 Cong. Rec. 24290, 24291, 89th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 17, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Resolution of Inquiry

Sec. 68.33 Resolutions of inquiry are debatable under the hour 
    rule.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 111 Cong. Rec. 24030, 24033, 24034, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 
        16, 1965; and 98 Cong. Rec. 1205-07, 1215, 1216, 82d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., Feb. 20, 1952.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.34 If a motion to discharge a committee from the further 
    consideration of a privileged resolution is agreed to, the 
    resolution is debatable under the hour rule, and the proponent of 
    the resolution is entitled to prior recognition.

    The principle described above was illustrated on Sept. 29, 
1975,(2) during proceedings in the

[[Page 10938]]

House relating to House Resolution 718 (a resolution of inquiry, 
directing the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare to furnish documents relating to public school systems to the 
House):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 30748, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Collins of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged motion to discharge the Committee on Education and Labor 
    from consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 718).
        The Speaker: (3) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the motion as follows:

            Mr. Collins of Texas moves to discharge the Committee on 
        Education and Labor from consideration of House Resolution 718.

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

                                  H. Res. 718

            Resolved, That the Secretary of Health, Education, and 
        Welfare, to the extent not incompatible with the public 
        interest, is directed to furnish to the House of 
        Representatives, not later than sixty days following the 
        adoption of this resolution, any documents containing a list of 
        the public school systems in the United States which, during 
        the period beginning on August 1, 1975, and ending on June 30, 
        1976, will be receiving Federal funds and will be engaging 
        in the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance, and 
        any documents respecting the rules and regulations of the 
        Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with respect to 
        the use of any Federal funds 
        administered by the Department 
        for the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance.

        The Speaker: The question is on the privileged motion to 
    discharge.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Speaker, basically, what I am 
    concerned with here is full documentation from the Secretary of 
    HEW.
        I filed this in the Congressional Record and have met the 
    necessary requirements for a resolution of inquiry. . . .
        The other body at this time is discussing the appropriation 
    bill on HEW and has raised the subject over and over again 
    regarding transportation of students to achieve racial balance and 
    how that is affecting the budget. Therefore, it is absolutely 
    essential to us, in our deliberations here in this House, that we 
    have a concise, clear, complete, and factual statement from the 
    Secretary of HEW as defined in my House Resolution 718.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.

Sec. 68.35 The Member calling up for consideration a privileged 
    resolution of inquiry reported adversely from committee is 
    recognized for one hour and may move to lay the resolution on the 
    table at any time; and where the Member calling up the resolution 
    uses part of his

[[Page 10939]]

    hour of debate and then offers a motion to table the resolution 
    which is defeated, the Chair will normally recognize another Member 
    for an hour of debate but may recognize the Member who called up 
    the resolution to control the remainder of his hour of debate, if 
    no other Member seeks recognition.

    On June 15, 1979,(4) during consideration of House 
Resolution 291 (a resolution of inquiry directing the President to 
provide Members of the House with certain information) the following 
proceedings occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 15027, 15029, 15030, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    resolution (H. Res. 291), a resolution of inquiry directing the 
    President to provide Members of the House with information on the 
    energy situation, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 291

            Resolved, That the President, to the extent possible, is 
        directed to furnish to the House of Representatives, not later 
        than fifteen days following the adoption of this resolution, 
        full and complete information on the following:
            (1) the existence and percentage 
        of shortages of crude oil and refined 
        petroleum products within the 
        United States and administrative regions; . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(5) The gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently in the proceedings, Mr. Dingell made a motion to table 
the resolution:

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, at this time I move to table the 
    resolution of inquiry now before the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to table 
    offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). . . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, on that 
    I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    4, nays 338, not voting 92, as follows: . . .
        So the motion to table was rejected. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time 
    remains?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman 
    that he has 48 minutes remaining.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I will, then, at this time yield 24 
    minutes to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Devine), for purposes of debate only.

--Rules Committee Reports

Sec. 68.36 A Member calling up a privileged report from the

[[Page 10940]]

    Committee on Rules has 
    one hour at his command 
    and other Members may be 
    recognized only if yielded time.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See 118 Cong. Rec. 21694, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., June 21, 1972; and 
        114 Cong. Rec. 30217, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 9, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.37 Debate in the House on a resolution reported from the 
    Committee on Rules is under the hour rule, and that time may be 
    extended only by unanimous consent.

    On June 21, 1972,(7) Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, had offered House Resolution 996, from the Committee on 
Rules, providing for the consideration of H.R. 14370, the State and 
Local Assistance Act of 1972. He asked unanimous consent for extension 
of the one hour of debate permitted on the resolution, and the request 
was objected to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 118 Cong. Rec. 21694, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I have so 
    many requests for time, I ask unanimous consent that discussion on 
    the rule be extended 30 minutes, with 15 minutes given to the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Smith) and 15 minutes to myself.
        The Speaker:(8) The gentleman from Massachusetts 
    asked unanimous consent that time for debate on the rule be 
    extended an additional 30 minutes, the time to be equally divided 
    between the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from 
    California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts?
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, 
    reserving the right to object, my attention was elsewhere when the 
    request was made. Do I correctly understand that the request is to 
    extend the time on the rule?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Colmer: For how long?
        The Speaker: For an additional 30 minutes for debate on the 
    rule.
        Mr. Colmer: Equally divided, Mr. Speaker, between whom?
        Mr. O'Neill: The reason why I am asking this is that the 
    gentleman would like to have 10 minutes.
        Mr. Colmer: I understand the reason why the gentleman is doing 
    it.
        Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, if I am in order, between 
    whom is the gentleman going to divide the time?
        Mr. O'Neill: I ask unanimous consent for 30 minutes, with 15 
    minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Smith) and 15 minutes 
    to myself.
        The reason I asked for this is that the gentleman, as chairman 
    of the committee, asked for 10 minutes. I allotted five members 
    opposed to the bill 3 minutes apiece. The gentleman was not 
    satisfied with 3 minutes and is insisting upon 10. In order to 
    satisfy him, as chairman of the Rules Committee, I have made this 
    request.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the statement of the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill)

[[Page 10941]]

    I am unwilling to set a precedent here in order that I may be heard 
    for additional time. Therefore, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, since there 
    is an objection, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
    Mississippi (Mr. Colmer).

Sec. 68.38 On resolutions taken away from the Committee on Rules by 
    operation of the former 21-day rule, there was one hour of 
    debate.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See 111 Cong. Rec. 18076, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1965; and 
        95 Cong. Rec. 14161, 14169, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 10, 
        1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.39 Debate on resolutions reported by the Committee on Rules 
    providing for investigations is under the hour rule.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 81 Cong. Rec. 3283-90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 8, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Debate When Withdrawn Resolution Is Called Up Anew

Sec. 68.40 A Member calling up a privileged resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules is recognized for a full hour notwithstanding 
    the fact that he had previously called up the resolution and 
    withdrawn it after debate.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(11) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
called up at the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 
665, making in order the consideration of a bill. While the resolution 
was pending, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a 
recess to await the receipt of the engrossed copy of a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 7303-08, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the recess, Mr. Bolling withdrew House Resolution 665 in 
order that the engrossed copy of the bill could be taken up as 
unfinished business. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the 
Speaker stated that when the Committee on Rules resolution was again 
brought up by the Member calling it up, he would be recognized for a 
full hour despite the fact he had already brought it up, debated it, 
and withdrawn it:

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, in view of 
    the withdrawal of the resolution by the gentleman from Missouri 
    [Mr. Bolling] do I understand that we start all over again on the 
    consideration of the rule for the wheat-cotton bill?
        The Speaker: When the gentleman calls it up, the understanding 
    of the gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Halleck: We will start all over again with 30 minutes on a 
    side?
        The Speaker: That is correct.

--Where Previous Question Is Defeated

Sec. 68.41 If the previous question on a privileged resolution re

[[Page 10942]]

    ported by the Committee on Rules is voted down, the resolution is 
    open to further consideration, a motion to table is in order and is 
    preferential; if that motion is rejected, the Chair, under the hour 
    rule, recognizes the Member who appears to be leading the 
    opposition.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(12) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1013, 
establishing a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Mr. Pepper 
was recognized for one hour and offered a committee amendment to the 
resolution, which amendment was agreed to. Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, then answered a series of parliamentary inquiries on 
the order of recognition should Mr. Pepper move the previous question 
and should the motion be defeated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: 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. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    previous 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: The Chair would recognize whoever appeared to be 
    the leading Member in opposition to the resolution.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: What would be the time for debate?
        The Speaker: Under those circumstances the Member recognized in 
    opposition would have 1 hour at his disposal, or such portion of it 
    as he might desire to exercise.
        Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gallagher: If the previous question is voted down we will 
    have the option to reopen debate, the resolution will be open for 
    amendment, or it can be tabled. Is that the situation as the Chair 
    understands it?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down on the 
    resolution, the time will be in control of some Member in 
    opposition to it, and it would be open to amendment or to a motion 
    to table.

[[Page 10943]]

Sec. 68.42 Where the motion for the previous question on a resolution 
    (reported from the Rules Committee) is rejected, the Chair 
    recognizes the Member who led the opposition to the previous 
    question, who may offer an amendment and is recognized for one 
    hour.

    During consideration of House Resolution 312, waiving points of 
order and providing special procedures during consideration of H.R. 
4390 (the legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 1980) on 
June 13, 1979,(13) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 125 Cong. Rec. 14650, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(14) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 126, nays 292, not 
    voting 16, as follows: . . .
        [Mr. Delbert L. Latta, of Ohio, who had led the opposition to 
    the previous question was recognized.]
        Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) is recognized 
    for 1 hour.
        Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.

--Changing Rules

Sec. 68.43 A resolution amending the rules of the House to create a 
    permanent select committee is privileged when reported from the 
    Committee on Rules and is debatable for one hour under the control 
    of the Member calling it up.

    On July 14, 1977,(15) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 22932, 22942, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 658 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 658

            Resolved, That it is the purpose of this resolution to 
        establish a new permanent select committee of the House, to be 
        known as the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. . . .

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes for debate to the 
    gen

[[Page 10944]]

    tleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), pending which I yield myself 
    such time as I may consume. . . .

    In this instance, the House agreed to a unanimous-consent request 
to extend for 30 minutes the debate on a privileged resolution reported 
from the Rules Committee in the House, to be controlled by the Member 
who had called it up, with the assurance that one-half the additional 
time would be yielded to the minority:

        Mr. [Ted] Weiss [of New York]: . . . Mr. Speaker, at this time 
    I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on this matter be 
    extended for an additional 1 hour, the time to be controlled by the 
    gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling).
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(16) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, I would assume the usual delegation of one-half 
    the time to the minority?
        Mr. Weiss: Of course. That is intended. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from New York?
        Mr. [Ronald M.] Mottl [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that time for 
    debate be extended for an additional half hour, the time to be 
    divided 15 minutes on each side.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.

Resolution Creating Select Committee

Sec. 68.44 Where the Majority Leader was recognized for one hour of 
    debate on a privileged resolution creating an ad hoc legislative 
    committee pursuant to Rule X, clause 5(c), he yielded one-half of 
    the time to the Minority Leader.

    Proceedings in the House relating to consideration of House 
Resolution 508 (creating an Ad Hoc Committee on Energy) on Apr. 21, 
1977,(17) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 11550, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    clause 5 of rule X, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 508

            Resolved, (a) that pursuant to rule X, clause 5, the 
        Speaker is authorized to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on 
        Energy to consider and report to the House on the message of 
        the President dated April 20, 1977. . . .

[[Page 10945]]

        The Speaker:(18) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Wright).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Wright asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks.)
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume. This resolution authorizes the Speaker to appoint an ad 
    hoc committee to receive the messages and the recommendations of 
    the President of the United States with respect to the energy 
    problems of this country. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I now yield 30 minutes to the distinguished 
    minority leader, or such part of that time as he may consume, and 
    reserve to myself the remainder of the time. I yield to the 
    gentleman from Arizona for purposes of debate only.

Time on Reported Committee Amendments

Sec. 68.45 There is one hour of 
    debate in the House on a 
    resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, and time consumed 
    on a reported committee amendment runs concurrently with debate on 
    the resolution.

    On Jan. 29, 1976,(19) during consideration in the House 
of House Resolution 982 (authorizing the Select Committee on 
Intelligence to file its final report by Jan. 31, 1976), the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 122 Cong. Rec. 1632, 1641, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  H. Res. 982

            Resolved, That the Select Committee on Intelligence have 
        until midnight Friday, January 30, 1976, to file its report 
        pursuant to section 8 of House Resolution 591, and that the 
        Select Committee on Intelligence have until midnight, 
        Wednesday, February 11, 1976, to file a supplemental report 
        containing the select committee's recommendations.

        With the following committee amendment:

            Committee amendment: On page 1, after the first sentence, 
        add the following:
            ``Resolved further, That the Select Committee on 
        Intelligence shall not release any report containing materials, 
        information, data, or subjects that presently bear security 
        classification, unless and until such reports are published 
        with appropriate security markings and distributed only to 
        persons authorized to receive such classified information. . . 
        .

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (20) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is to 
    determine the procedure in the process of considering the 
    resolution just read.
        The resolution is a resolution with an amendment. On the 
    resolution with the amendment, if the previous question were 
    ordered on the resolution and the amendment, would the next step 
    after the previous question were agreed to be a vote on the 
    amendment?

[[Page 10946]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman is 
    correct.
        Mr. Bolling: I thank the Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Young) is recognized 
    for 1 hour.
        Mr. [John] Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to 
    the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Quillen)--and might 
    I say, Mr. Speaker, at this point, that all time I yield will be 
    for the purposes of debate only--pending which I yield myself such 
    time as I may consume. . . .
        [After one hour of debate:]
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and 
    on the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered on the amendment and on the 
    resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is on the committee amendment.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Young of Texas: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
    nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device; and there were--yeas 
    246, nays 124, not voting 62.

Privilege of House or Constitutional Privilege

Sec. 68.46 A Member in rising to a question of privilege of the House 
    must offer a resolution, and on such resolution there is one hour 
    of debate equally divided between the proponent and the Majority 
    Leader, the Minority Leader, or a designee.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Under Rule IX, clause 2, the debate time on a question of privilege 
        of the House is--since the 103d Congress--divided as indicated. 
        Before 1993, the proponent of such a resolution controlled the 
        hour. See 115 Cong. Rec. 17948, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 1, 
        1969; 113 Cong. Rec. 6035-42, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 9, 
        1967; and 96 Cong. Rec. 1514, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 
        1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.47 A Member recognized on a question of privilege 
    to present impeachment charges against an officer of the government 
    is entitled to an hour for debate.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See 80 Cong. Rec. 404, 406, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 14, 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.48 Before the 103d Congress, a Member offering a resolution 
    presenting a question of the privilege of the House was recognized 
    to control one hour of debate on the resolution.

    On Feb. 19, 1976,(3) Mr. Samuel S. Stratton, of New 
York, offered a privileged resolution as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 3914, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: I rise to a question involving the privileges of 
    the House, and I offer a privileged resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

[[Page 10947]]

                                  H. Res. 1042

            Resolution requiring that the Committee on Standards of 
        Official Conduct inquire into the circumstances leading to the 
        public publication of a report containing classified material 
        prepared by the House Select Committee on Intelligence
            Whereas the February 16, 1976, issue of the Village Voice, 
        a New York City newspaper, contains the partial text of a 
        report or a preliminary report prepared by the Select Committee 
        on Intelligence of the House, pursuant to H. Res. 591, which 
        relates to the foreign activities of the intelligence agencies 
        of the United States and which contains sensitive classified 
        information . . . Now, therefore, be it
            Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct be and it is hereby authorized and directed to inquire 
        into the circumstances surrounding the publication of the text 
        and of any part of the report of the Select Committee on 
        Intelligence, and to report back to the House in a timely 
        fashion its findings and recommendations thereon.

        The Speaker: (4) The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.49 A Member recognized to debate a resolution raising a 
    question of the privileges of the House controls one hour of 
    debate, and the resolution is not amendable unless he yields for 
    that purpose or unless the previous question is voted down.

    On Feb. 13, 1980,(5) during consideration of House 
Resolution 578 (directing the Committee on Rules to make certain 
inquiries), the following proceedings occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 126 Cong. Rec. 2768, 2769, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I send to the 
    desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 578) and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 578

            Resolved, Whereas it was reported in the public press on 
        February 9, 1980, that, ``The House of Representatives this 
        week lost a secret effort in court to obtain a ruling that 
        congressmen do not have to respond to federal grand jury 
        subpoenas for House records;'' and . . .
            Whereas such alleged House action involves the conduct of 
        officers and employees of the House, newspaper charges 
        affecting the honor and dignity of the House, and the 
        protection of the constitutional prerogatives of the House when 
        directly questioned in the courts. . . .
            Therefore be it resolved, That the Committee on Rules be 
        instructed to inquire into the truth or falsity of the 
        newspaper account and promptly report back to the House its 
        findings and any recommendations thereon. . . .

        The Speaker: (6) The Chair has examined the 
    resolution and finds that under rule IX and the precedents of the 
    House, the resolution presents the question of the privilege of the 
    House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) will be recognized 
    for 1 hour.

[[Page 10948]]

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling). 
    . . .
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my 
    distinguished friend from Arizona 5 minutes for debate only. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Arizona (Mr. Rhodes).

--Motion To Refer

Sec. 68.50 A motion to refer (where the previous question has not been 
    ordered on the pending proposition) is debatable for one hour, 
    controlled by the Member offering the motion.

    During consideration of House Resolution 142 (to expel Charles C. 
Diggs, Jr.) in the House on Mar. 1, 1979,(7) the following 
exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 3746, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 142) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 142

            Resolved, That Charles C. Diggs, Jr., a Representative from 
        the Thirteenth District of Michigan, is hereby expelled from 
        the House of Representatives.

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Wright moves to refer House Resolution 142 to the 
        Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

        The Speaker: (8) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Wright) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.51 When a resolution is offered as a question of privilege and 
    is debatable under the hour rule, a motion to refer is in order 
    before debate begins and is debatable for one hour under the 
    control of the offeror of the motion.

    On Mar. 4, 1985,(9) during consideration of House 
Resolution 97 (to seat Richard D. McIntyre as a Member from Indiana) in 
the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 131 Cong. Rec. 4277, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of privilege.
        Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 97) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 97

            Whereas a certificate of election to the House of 
        Representatives always carries with it the presumption that the 
        State election procedures have been timely, regular, and fairly 
        implemented; and . . .

[[Page 10949]]

            Whereas the presumption of the validity and regularity of 
        the certificate of election held by Richard D. McIntyre has not 
        been overcome by any substantial evidence or claim of 
        irregularity: Now, therefore be it
            Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and 
        directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from 
        Indiana, Mr. Richard D. McIntyre.
            Resolved, That the question of the final right of Mr. 
        McIntyre to a seat in the 99th Congress is referred to the 
        Committee on House Administration.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The gentleman states a 
    valid question of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander).
        Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the resolution be referred to the Committee on House 
    Administration.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, for what period of time am I 
    recognized?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is entitled to 1 hour 
    under that motion, during which time the gentleman from Arkansas 
    controls the time.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, does the minority wish time on the 
    motion?
        Mr. Michel: Yes.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would yield 30 minutes for 
    purposes of debate only, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel).

--Disciplinary Resolutions

Sec. 68.52 A Member calling up a privileged resolution reported from 
    the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to censure and 
    punish a Member was recognized for one hour, and he yielded a 
    portion of that time to the Member who was the subject of the 
    resolution, who declined to speak but who, in turn, yielded all his 
    time to another Member.

    During consideration of House Resolution 378 (censuring and 
punishing a Member) in the House on July 31, 1979,(11) the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 21584-86, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 378) in the matter of Representative 
    Charles C. Diggs, Jr., and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 378

            Resolved,
            (1) that Representative Charles C. Diggs, Junior, be 
        censured. . . .

        The Speaker: (12) . . . While a wide range of 
    discussion relating to conduct of the Member in question will be 
    permitted, it is the duty of the Chair to

[[Page 10950]]

    maintain proper decorum in debate. It is the intention of the Chair 
    to enforce the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) is recognized for 1 
    hour. . . .
        Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only I 
    yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence); 
    and for the purposes of debate only I yield 20 minutes to the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Diggs), pending which I yield myself 
    such time as I may consume.

    After some debate, Mr. Diggs yielded his time:

        Mr. [Charles C.] Diggs [Jr., of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 
    my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Stokes).
        Mr. [Louis] Stokes [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
        Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have found no further requests for 
    time.

Sec. 68.53 A motion to postpone, pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XIV, may 
    be offered to a privileged resolution (of expulsion) before debate 
    thereon, and the motion to postpone is debatable for one hour, 
    controlled by the proponent thereof.

    On Oct. 2, 1980,(13) during consideration of House 
Resolution 794 (in the matter of Representative Michael J. Myers) in 
the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 126 Cong. Rec. 28953, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the privileged resolution, House Resolution 794, in the Matter of 
    Representative Michael J. Myers, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Speaker: (14) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 794

            Resolved, That, pursuant to article I, section 5, clause 2 
        of the United States Constitution, Representative Michael J. 
        Myers be, and he hereby is, expelled from the House of 
        Representatives.

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

            Mr. Stokes moves to postpone further consideration of House 
        Resolution 794 until November 13, 1980.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) will be 
    recognized for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished chairman 
    of the Ethics Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett).

Sec. 68.54 The chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official 
    Conduct, recognized for one hour of debate on a resolution to expel 
    a Member, Mr. Michael J. Myers, of

[[Page 10951]]

    Pennsylvania, yielded one half the time to Mr. Myers to speak in 
    his own defense; during debate on the resolution, the Member in 
    question and another Member were permitted by unanimous consent to 
    proceed for additional time beyond that yielded by the manager 
    under the hour rule.

    During consideration of House Resolution 794 (in the matter of 
Representative Michael J. Myers) in the House on Oct. 2, 
1980,(15) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 126 Cong. Rec. 28953-78, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the privileged resolution, House Resolution 794, in the Matter of 
    Representative Michael J. Myers, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Speaker: (16) The Clerk will report the 
    resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 794

            Resolved, That, pursuant to article I, section 5, clause 2 
        of the United States Constitution, Representative Michael J. 
        Myers be, and he hereby is, expelled from the House of 
        Representatives. . . .

        The Speaker: Pursuant to the unanimous-consent request made by 
    the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) which was agreed to, the 
    Chair will remind Members that any revisions of remarks actually 
    made on the floor during the consideration of House Resolution 794 
    should be confined to grammatical corrections, and extensions of 
    remarks will be placed in the extensions portion of the Record.
        The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) is recognized for 1 
    hour.
        Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, although technically speaking I could 
    control all of the time, in all fairness I think I should yield 
    half of the time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers). I 
    plan to do that at the conclusion of my remarks and the remarks of 
    those people on the Democratic side who wish to be heard. . . .
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take 
    the well for a minute.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) 
    yield time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania? . . .
        Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I will give the gentleman half my 
    time now, which is 30 minutes. I will give all of that time to the 
    gentleman now.
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the 
    committee chairman.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Myers) is 
    recognized for 30 minutes.
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, the last vote was this: 
    I only received 75 votes, and I certainly want to thank the Members 
    who had courage enough to stand up and vote. . . .
        The Speaker: The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page 10952]]

        (By unanimous consent, Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania was allowed to 
    proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
        Mr. Myers of Pennsylvania: I yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy). . . .
        The Speaker: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        (By unanimous consent, Mr. Fowler was allowed to proceed for 1 
    additional minute.)

--Vetoed Bills

Sec. 68.55 Debate on the question of passage of a bill over 
    Presidential veto is under the hour rule.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 21532-53, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., June 25, 1970; 116 
        Cong. Rec. 750, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 22, 1970; 97 Cong. 
        Rec. 5435, 5444, 5445, 82d Cong. 1st Sess., May 17, 1951; and 
        89 Cong. Rec. 7051-55, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 2, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Where Motion To Reject Is Defeated

Sec. 68.56 Debate on a motion to postpone or refer a vetoed bill is 
    under the hour rule.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 13522-24, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., Oct. 10, 1940 (refer); 
        116 Cong. Rec. 1365, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 27, 1970 
        (postpone). A motion to lay on the table a vetoed bill is not 
        debatable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Particular Motions, Debate on

--Motion To Recommit After Previous Question

Sec. 68.57 Under clause 4 of Rule XVI, a motion to recommit with 
    instructions after the previous question is ordered on passage of a 
    bill or joint resolution is debatable for 1 hour (rather than the 
    normal 10 minutes) if the floor manager for the majority so 
    demands.

    During consideration of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act 
(H.R. 4848) in the House on July 13, 1988,(19) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 134 Cong. Rec. 18054, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(20) Un-der the rule, the 
    previous question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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.
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Michel: I am, in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit.

[[Page 10953]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Michel moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4848, to the 
        Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
        bill back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
            ``Strike out section 1910 (entitled Ethyl Alcohol and 
        Mixtures for Fuel Use);
            ``And redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.''

        Mr. [Sam] Gibbons [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 
    4 of rule XVI, I demand an hour of debate, equally divided, on the 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Florida (Mr. Gibbons) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the minority leader, the distinguished 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).

--Motion To Postpone

Sec. 68.58 A motion to postpone further consideration of a privileged 
    resolution (to censure a Member) may be offered before the manager 
    of the resolution has been recognized for debate, and is debatable 
    for one hour controlled by the Member offering the motion.

    On May 29, 1980,(1) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 12649, 12650, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I call 
    up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 660) in the matter of 
    Representative Charles H. Wilson, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 660

            Resolved,
            (1) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be censured; . . 
        .
            (4) That the House of Representatives adopt the report of 
        the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated May 8, 
        1980, in the matter of Representative Charles H. Wilson.

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rousselot moves to postpone further consideration of 
        House Resolution 660 until June 10, 1980.

        The Speaker:(2) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Rousselot) for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Reconsider

Sec. 68.59 When the motion to reconsider is debatable, the Member 
    making the motion has control of the one hour allowed for debate.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(3) the House adopted, without debate, 
House

[[Page 10954]]

Resolution 506, brought up by a motion to discharge, providing for the 
consideration of a bill (H.R. 10065), the Equal Opportunity Act of 
1965. Mr. William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, who had voted in the 
affirmative on the resolution, moved that the vote on adoption of the 
resolution be reconsidered. Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, moved to lay 
that motion on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 111 Cong. Rec. 23608, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to parliamentary inquiries by Mr. Melvin R. Laird, of 
Wisconsin, and Mr. McCulloch, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, advised: (1) that the motion to reconsider would be 
debatable if the pending motion to table was defeated (the resolution 
itself being debatable and the previous question not having been 
ordered thereon); and (2) that in such event the Member moving 
reconsideration, Mr. McCulloch, would be recognized to control the one 
hour of debate.
    Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to reconsider is debatable only if 
the measure proposed to be reconsidered is debatable.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 819 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Correct Record or To Expunge

Sec. 68.60 Debate on a motion 
    or resolution to correct the Record is under the hour 
    rule.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 91 Cong. Rec. 7220-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., July 5, 1945 (motion); 
        92 Cong. Rec. 1274, 1275, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 13, 1946 
        (resolution).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.61 Debate on a motion to expunge from the Record certain 
    remarks used in debate and ruled out of order is under the hour 
    rule.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See 93 Cong. Rec. 6895, 6896, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., June 12, 1947; 
        and 87 Cong. Rec. 894, 895, 899, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 11, 
        1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Accepting Resignation From Committee

Sec. 68.62 When a letter of resignation is laid before the House, the 
    pending question is whether the resignation shall be accepted, and 
    the Speaker recognizes for one hour the Member in effect moving the 
    acceptance of the resignation.

    Proceedings relating to acceptance of the resignation of the 
chairman of a House committee on Mar. 8, 1977,(7) were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 123 Cong. Rec. 6580, 6581, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker laid before the House the following resignation as 
    chairman and member of the Select Committee on Assassinations: . . 
    .

[[Page 10955]]

            Dear Mr. Speaker: I feel keenly the responsibilities placed 
        on me as Chairman of the House Select Committee on 
        Assassinations. . . .
            Under the circumstances that now exist, I have no 
        alternative but to resign from the Select Committee on 
        Assassinations herewith.
            With warmest personal regards.
            -Sincerely yours,
                                               Henry B. Gonzalez
                                      Member of Congress, Chairman

        The Speaker:(8) Is there objection to the acceptance 
    of the resignation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        The question is, Shall the resignation be accepted?
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: . . . I should like to 
    make it clear that if ever it came to a choice between the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) and any member of that staff, I 
    would come down on the side of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Gonzalez) because he is my friend and because I admire him and 
    respect him.
        However, for those very reasons I am asking the House to accept 
    the resignation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez). . . . 
    He asked me on last Saturday evening personally to prevail upon the 
    Speaker and upon his friends to accept his resignation. . . .
        For that reason I ask the Members of the House to vote to 
    accept the resignation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) 
    and to understand that in so doing they are not expressing any 
    disagreement with him. . . .

        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is, Shall the resignation be 
    accepted?
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it. . . .
        So the resignation was accepted.

--Electing Members to Committee

Sec. 68.63 A privileged resolution offered by direction of the 
    Democratic Caucus or Republican Conference, electing a Member to a 
    committee, is debatable for one hour (if debate time is desired by 
    the proponent thereof).

    On May 15, 1980,(9) during consideration of a privileged 
resolution electing a Member to the Committee on Education and Labor, 
the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 126 Cong. Rec. 11441, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, as chairman 
    of the Democratic Caucus, and by the authority and direction of the 
    Democratic Caucus, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 669) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              House Resolution 669

            Resolved, That the following-named Member be, and he is 
        hereby,

[[Page 10956]]

        elected to the following standing committee of the House of 
        Representatives:
            Committee on Education and Labor: Raphael Musto of 
        Pennsylvania.

        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Is the gentleman from Washington entitled to 
    any time on this resolution?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(10) The Chair would respond 
    to the distinguished minority leader that this would be a debatable 
    resolution if debate were desired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the gentleman from 
    Washington to take his time for the purpose of answering a question 
    which has absolutely nothing to do with the main part of the 
    resolution?
        Mr. Foley: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes and I yield to 
    the distinguished minority leader.

--Motion To Discharge; Discharged Measures

Sec. 68.64 Debate on a motion to discharge a committee from further 
    consideration of a resolution disapproving a reorganization plan 
    (under the Reorganization Act of 1949) was limited to one hour and 
    was equally divided between the Member making the motion and a 
    Member opposed thereto.

    On Aug. 3, 1961,(11) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, moved to 
discharge the Committee on Government Operations from the further 
consideration of House Resolution 335, introduced by Mr. John S. 
Monagan, of Connecticut, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 6, 
transmitted to Congress by the President on June 12, 1961. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, recognized, under the hour provided for in the 
Reorganization Act of 1949, Mr. Gross for 30 minutes in favor of the 
resolution and a Member opposed for 30 minutes in opposition to the 
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 107 Cong. Rec. 14548, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Reorganization Act of 1949, Public Law 
No. 81-109, provided for a motion to discharge such a resolution 
disapproving a reorganization plan from a committee which had not 
reported such a resolution after 10 days following its introduction. On 
such a motion, the statute provided ``not to exceed one hour'' of 
debate, to be equally divided and controlled between those favoring and 
those opposing the resolution.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Pub. L. No. 81-109, 63 Stat. 207, Sec. 204, June 20, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On several occasions, the one-hour debate provided for on the 
motion to discharge such a resolu

[[Page 10957]]

tion was extended by unanimous consent.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See, for example, 107 Cong. Rec. 13084, 13095, 87th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., July 20, 1961; and 107 Cong. Rec. 12774, 87th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., July 18, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On motions to discharge which are made privileged by statute, the 
relevant law should be consulted for the time and control of debate.

Sec. 68.65 Where a joint resolution not requiring consideration in 
    Committee of the Whole is before the House pursuant to a motion to 
    discharge, the Member who made the motion for its immediate 
    consideration is recognized in the House under the hour 
    rule.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 28004, 91st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 10, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.66 Where a joint resolution not requiring consideration in 
    Committee of the Whole is before the House pursuant to a motion to 
    discharge, the Member who made the motion for its immediate 
    consideration is recognized in the House under the hour rule.

    On Aug. 10, 1970,(15) following agreement to the motion 
to discharge the Judiciary Committee from further consideration of 
House Joint Resolution 264 (amending the Constitution relative to equal 
rights for men and women) in the House, the proponent of the motion for 
immediate consideration of the resolution was recognized for one hour. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 27999, 28004, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Martha W.] Griffiths [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to clause 4, rule XXVII, I call up motion No. 5, to discharge the 
    Committee on the Judiciary from the further consideration of House 
    Joint Resolution 
    264, proposing an amendment to the 
    Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men 
    and women. . . .
        The Speaker:(16) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Griffiths) to 
    discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration 
    of House Joint Resolution 264. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the motion to discharge was agreed to. . . .
        Mrs. Griffiths: . . . I move that the House proceed to the 
    immediate consideration of House Joint Resolution 264. . . .
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the joint resolution. . . .
        The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 1 hour.

Budget Act

Sec. 68.67 While under section 305(a)(4) of the Congres

[[Page 10958]]

    sional Budget Act there can be up to five hours of debate on a 
    conference report on a concurrent resolution on the budget equally 
    divided between the majority and minority parties, where the 
    conferees have reported in total disagreement, debate on the motion 
    to dispose of the amendment in disagreement is not covered by the 
    statute and is therefore un-der the general ``hour'' rule in the 
    House.

    During consideration of the first concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 1978 (S. Con. Res. 19) in the House on May 17, 
1977,(17) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 15126, 15127, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, I call up 
    the conference report on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. 
    Res. 19) setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S. 
    Government for the fiscal year 1978 (and revising the congressional 
    budget for fiscal year 1977), and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(18) The Clerk will read the 
    conference report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the conference report. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the Senate 
    amendment to the House amendment.

        The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment as 
    follows:

            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House 
        engrossed amendment, insert: . . .

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

            Mr. Giaimo moves to concur in the Senate amendment to the 
        House amendment.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Connecticut (Mr. Giaimo) for 1 hour.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Since the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment had not been reported from conference in disagreement, but 
had been subsequently added by the Senate after consideration of the 
conference report in that body, the requirement for equal division of 
time on a motion to dispose of a Senate amendment reported from 
conference in disagreement was not applicable.

Sec. 68.68 When a conference report in disagreement is called up for 
    consideration, the Chair recognizes the manager for a motion to 
    dispose of the amendment(s) reported in disagreement, which is 
    debatable for one hour, equally divided between the manager and a 
    Member of the minority.

[[Page 10959]]

    On May 23, 1979,(19) during consideration in the House 
of the conference report on the first concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 1980 (H. Con. Res. 107), reported in 
disagreement,(20) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 12469, 12471, 12472, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 11987-95, 96th Cong. 1st Sess., May 21, 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert N.] Giaimo [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the order of the House of May 22, 1979, I call up the conference 
    report on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 107) setting 
    forth the Congressional Budget for the U.S. Government for the 
    fiscal year 1980 and revising the Congressional Budget for the U.S. 
    Government for the fiscal year 1979. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(21) The Clerk will read the 
    Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the Senate amendment, as follows:

            Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
        That the Congress hereby determines and declares [that]

            (a) In order to achieve a balanced budget in fiscal year 
        1981, the following budgetary levels are appropriate for the 
        fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1979, October 1, 1980, and 
        October 1, 1981-- . . .

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

            Mr. Giaimo moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the Senate amendment and to concur therein with 
        an amendment, as follows: . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
    Giaimo) will be recognized for 30 minutes [and] the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
    Giaimo).

--Statutory Allocation of Time

Sec. 68.69 While normally the ``hour'' rule (clause 2 of Rule XIV) 
    prohibits a Member controlling the floor from yielding more than 
    one hour to another Member, a statutory provision constituting a 
    House rule which specifically allocates larger amounts of time may 
    permit more than one hour to be yielded.

    Pursuant to section 305(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 (Public Law 93-344, as amended by Public Law 95-523), a period of 
up to four hours for debate on economic goals and policies follows the 
presentation of opening statements on the first concurrent resolution 
on the budget by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Budget. Thus, the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget (or his designee managing the resolution) may yield for more

[[Page 10960]]

than one hour to another Member to control a portion of the time for 
such debate, which is equally divided and controlled by the majority 
and minority. The following exchange occurred on Apr. 30, 
1981:(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 127 Cong. Rec. 8016, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman:(2) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Martin Frost (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: It is my wish now to 
    yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hawkins) for a 
    discussion of the provisions of Humphrey-Hawkins which relate to 
    this entire debate.
        The Chairman: How much time does the gentleman from Missouri 
    wish to yield?
        Mr. Gephardt: It is my understanding under the previously 
    arranged rule that I yield 4 hours; is that correct?
        The Chairman: Two hours, under the statute. Two on each side.
        Mr. Gephardt: I yield 2 hours to the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Hawkins).

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although section 305(a)(3) does not specify 
that the four hours of debate is equally divided and controlled by the 
majority and minority, such has been the practice, which is consistent 
with the management of other general debate on the resolution.

Sec. 68.70 While normally the ``hour'' rule (clause 2 of Rule XIV) 
    prohibits a Member controlling the floor in general debate from 
    consuming more than one hour himself, a 
    statutory provision constituting a House rule which 
    specifically allocates larger amounts of time may permit the Member 
    in charge to consume more than one hour, but not to yield himself 
    more than one hour at a time.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Apr. 30, 1981,(3) during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 134 (revising the congressional budget for fiscal year 1981, 
and setting forth the congressional budget for fiscal years 1982, 1983, 
and 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 127 Cong. Rec. 8012, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman:(4) The time of the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Martin Frost (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 
    1 additional minute.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) has used 1 hour in his opening statement. How 
    much time does the gentleman yield at this moment?
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

[[Page 10961]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) is 
    recognized for 1 minute.

Debate on Appeal

Sec. 68.71 In the House, an appeal from the Chair's ruling is debatable 
    under the hour rule unless a motion to lay the appeal on the table 
    is made prior to debate on the appeal.

    On Mar. 16, 1988,(5) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 134 Cong. Rec. 4085, 4086, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: . . . Panama is in chaos 
    and Communists in Nicaragua, thanks to the liberal and radical left 
    leadership in this House are winning a major victory, right now.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(6) The time of the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dornan of California: Wait a minute. On Honduran soil and 
    on Nicaraguan soil.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Dornan of California: And it was set up in this House as 
    you set up the betrayal of the Bay of Pigs.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Dornan of California: I ask--wait a minute--I ask unanimous 
    consent for 30 seconds. People are dying.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Dornan of California: People are dying.

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, regular 
    order, regular order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired. 
    Will the Sergeant at Arms please turn off the microphone?
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    question of privilege before the House under rule IX.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

            Whereas, the Speaker pro tempore ordered the microphone cut 
        off as a duly-elected Member of the House was speaking: Be it 
        therefore
            Resolved, That the Speaker, Speaker pro tempore, or any 
        Member of the House as the Presiding Officer of the House of 
        Representatives may not order the microphone to be cut off 
        while any Member is speaking on the floor of the House of 
        Representatives. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The resolution does not allege an 
    abuse of the House rules, and is not a question of privilege.
        The House will proceed to the unfinished business. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am appealing the ruling of the 
    Chair.
        It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that I am given a chance 
    to debate that issue.
        Mr. [Brian J.] Donnelly [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, the 
    vote is automatic.

[[Page 10962]]

        Mr. Walker: I have 1 hour, I believe.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The appeal is debatable unless there 
    is a motion to table.

Special-order Speeches

Sec. 68.72 Special orders to address the House at the conclusion of the 
    business of the day are limited to one hour per Member; and when a 
    Member has used one hour, the Chair declines to recognize him for 
    extensions of time or for an additional special order.

    On Feb. 9, 1966,(7) Mr. Joseph Y. Resnick, of New York, 
who already had scheduled a special order for the day, asked unanimous 
consent that he have an additional special order to address the House 
for 15 minutes at 
the close of legislative business. Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, declined to recognize him for that purpose, stating as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 112 Cong. Rec. 2794, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would advise the gentleman that pursuant to the 
    practice of the House, Members are limited to a 1-hour special 
    order per day. The Chair would be glad to entertain a request for a 
    special order for a later day.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 15440, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1969; 
        and 115 Cong. Rec. 2835, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 5, 1969.
            For an occasion where a Member had used an hour for a 
        special order and was then yielded time by the next Member with 
        a special order, see 114 Cong. Rec. 14265-71, 90th Cong. 2d 
        Sess., May 21, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 68.73 A Member may not control more than one hour of debate in the 
    House (on a special order), even by unanimous consent.

    On Oct. 16, 1979,(9) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 125 Cong. Rec. 28508, 28515, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker:(10) Under a previous order of the 
    House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes) is recognized for 60 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of 
    this special order is to outline what Congress should be doing to 
    help our Nation turn back inflation. It has been said that 
    inflation is the neutron bomb of our economy. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(11) The time of the 
    gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Rhodes) has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John G. Fary (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the gentleman proceed for 5 additional minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That request is not in order.

[[Page 10963]]