[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§ 69. Ten-minute, Twenty-minute, and Forty-minute Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10963-10982]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                   H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 69. Ten-minute, Twenty-minute, and Forty-minute Debate

    The House has provided in 
its rules for fixed periods of debate, equally divided between the 
proponents and opponents or between parties, on certain motions 
and questions considered in the House.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The other sections of this chapter, dealing with principles of 
        recognition generally and on specific motions and questions, 
        should be consulted, as should the other chapters of this work 
        dealing with particular motions and questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ten minutes of debate, five minutes on each side, is provided 
by Rule XVI for certain motions 
to recommit with instructions,(13) and by Rule XXIV for the 
motions to dispense with Calendar Wednesday business and to dispense 
with the call of the Private Calendar.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995). Prior to 
        the change in that clause by H. Res. 5 in the 92d Congress, no 
        debate was in order on a motion to recommit after the ordering 
        of the previous question (see Sec. 6, supra). See 
        Sec. Sec. 69.6, 69.7, infra, for application of the rule. For 
        the motion to recommit generally, see Ch. 23, supra.
14. Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1995) (to 
        dispense with Private Calendar) and clause 7, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 897 (1995) (to dispense with Calendar Wednesday). 
        On each motion, a two-thirds vote is required. See Sec. 69.4, 
        infra, for debate on the motions and Chs. 21 (Calendar 
        Wednesday) and 22 (Private Calendar), supra, generally.
            For consideration of Private Calendar bills in the House as 
        in the Committee of the Whole, under a strict construction of 
        the five-minute rule, see Sec. Sec. 70.7, 70.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XXVII clause 3 provides for 20 minutes of debate on motions to 
discharge. The time is divided for and against the motion, and the 
previous question may not be moved to prevent the 20 minutes of debate. 
Speaker Garner, in 1932, refused to entertain a unanimous-consent 
request to extend the time.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. Sec. 69.1, 69.2, infra, for the application of the rule, 
        and House Rules and Manual Sec. 908 (1995). For the discharge 
        procedure generally, see Ch. 18, supra.
            Statutes sometimes provide for the discharge of certain 
        kinds of resolutions and that debate thereon is not to exceed 
        one hour. See, for example, Sec. 68.64, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XXVII also provides, in clause 2, for 40 minutes of debate on 
the motion to suspend the rules, such time to be equally divided 
between the proponents and opponents of the motion.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. For the rule, see House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995). For the 
        application thereof, see Sec. Sec. 69.13-69.15, infra. 
        Suspension of the rules is discussed generally in Ch. 21, 
        supra.
            The time on the motion may be extended by unanimous consent 
        (see Sec. 71.14, infra) or by special order (see 
        Sec. Sec. 71.15, 71.16, infra).

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

[[Page 10964]]

    Rule XXVII clause 3 provides that 40 minutes of debate, equally 
divided between proponents and opponents, shall also be in order 
following the ordering of the previous question on a debatable 
proposition on which there has been no debate.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995). For the application of the 
        rule, see Sec. Sec. 69.19-69.21, infra. For the previous 
        question and its effect generally, see Ch. 23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XXVIII provides for 40 minutes of debate, equally divided, on 
motions to reject certain portions of conference reports or motions to 
concur in Senate amendments or portions thereof 
in modified form containing nongermane matter (after the stage of 
disagreement has been reached).(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Rule XXVIII clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 913b 
        (1995), and H. Res. 998 (93d Cong.). See Ch. 32, infra, for 
        Senate amendments, and Ch. 33, infra, for conferences and 
        conference reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The House may by unanimous consent extend the time for debate after 
the ordering of the previous question or rescind the ordering of the 
previous question.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. Sec. 71.22-71.25, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Forty minutes' debate after ordering of previous question where no 
    debate has been had, see Ch. 23, supra.
Forty minutes after ordering of previous question not applicable prior 
    to adoption of rules, see Ch. 1, supra.
Forty minutes of debate on Senate amendments and portions of conference 
    reports ruled nongermane, see Ch. 28 (germaneness rule), supra, Ch. 
    32 (Senate amendments), infra, and Ch. 33 (conference reports), 
    infra.
Motion to discharge and 20 minutes thereon, see Ch. 18, supra.
Motion to suspend rules and 40 minutes thereon, see Ch. 21, supra.
Special orders extending time on motions to suspend the rules, see 
    Sec. 71, infra.
Ten minutes of debate on certain motions to recommit, see Ch. 23, 
    supra.
Unanimous-consent extension of time on motion to suspend the rules, see 
    Sec. 71, infra.                          -------------------

Motion To Discharge

Sec. 69.1 On a motion to discharge a committee, debate is limited to 20 
    minutes, 10 minutes under the control of the Member calling up the 
    motion and 10 minutes under the control of a Member opposed 
    (typically the chairman of the committee if he is opposed), and the 
    Speaker does not recognize a Member to ask unanimous consent to 
    extend the time.

[[Page 10965]]

    On Mar. 14, 1932,(20) Mr. J. Charles Linthicum, of 
Maryland, moved under Rule XXVII clause 4, that the Committee on the 
Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 208, proposing an amendment to the 18th amendment to the 
U.S. Constitution. Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on the time for debate on the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 75 Cong. Rec. 6000-03, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: In regard to the 
    division of time, I should expect the chairman of the Judiciary 
    Committee to have the 10 minutes in opposition to the motion. I 
    would like to ask him if he will yield five minutes to this side of 
    the aisle?
        The Speaker: The rule is specific. The gentleman making the 
    motion is entitled to 10 minutes, and if the chairman of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary is opposed to the motion, he would be 
    entitled to 10 minutes. If he is of the same opinion as the 
    gentleman from Maryland on this particular motion, the Chair would 
    recognize someone on the committee who desired to oppose it. 
    Whether the gentleman from Texas will yield is a question for the 
    gentleman from Texas.

    The Speaker then refused to entertain a unanimous-consent request 
that the time for debate on the motion be extended:

        Mr. [Fiorello H.] LaGuardia [of New York]: The Speaker 
    announced that he would recognize no Member for any purpose. Does 
    that preclude a Member from asking unanimous consent to extend the 
    time for debate under the rule?
        The Speaker: The rule limits the time and provides that there 
    shall be 10 minutes on each side.
        Mr. LaGuardia: I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
    extended 10 minutes on each side.
        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: It seems to the Chair that it is his duty to 
    protect the rule. Being a Member of the House, he will say himself 
    that he would object to any additional debate, taking as much 
    responsibility as he can in the premises.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See also, for the strict 20-minute debate on the motion, 82 Cong. 
        Rec. 1385, 1386, 75th Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 13, 1937; and 80 
        Cong. Rec. 336, 337, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 13, 1936.
            For another occasion where the Speaker refused to entertain 
        a request that the time for debate on the motion to discharge 
        be increased, see Sec. 71.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 69.2 The previous question may not be moved on a motion to 
    discharge a committee in order to prevent the 20 minutes of debate 
    permitted by Rule XXVII.

    On Jan. 13, 1936,(2) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, moved 
to dis

[[Page 10966]]

charge the Committee on Ways and Means from further consideration of 
H.R. 1, for the immediate cash payment of adjusted service 
certificates. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker Joseph W. 
Byrns, of Tennessee, stated that the motion was debatable for 20 
minutes under the rules with 10 minutes for each side of the question 
and that it was not in order to move the previous question on the 
motion to prevent such debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 80 Cong. Rec. 336, 337, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 69.3 Twenty minutes of debate are allowed on a motion to discharge 
    a committee from consideration of a joint resolution; and the 
    chairman of that committee may be recognized for ten minutes if 
    opposed to the motion.

    On Aug. 10, 1970,(3) the House had under consideration a 
motion to discharge House Joint Resolution 264 (amending the 
Constitution relative to equal rights for men and women) from the 
Committee on the Judiciary. During the proceedings a parliamentary 
inquiry was propounded as to division of the 20 minutes of debate time. 
The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 116 Cong. Rec. 27999, 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. . . .
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I understand the rule provides for 20 minutes of debate, 10 
    minutes on either side. Is it correct that the chairman of the 
    Judiciary Committee, being opposed to the discharge petition, will 
    be allocated 10 minutes?
        The Speaker:(4) The gentleman's statement is correct 
    that the rule provides for 20 minutes of debate, 10 minutes on each 
    side. If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler) is opposed to the 
    [motion], the Chair will recognize him for 10 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is the gentleman opposed to the [motion]?
        Mr. Celler: I am opposed to the [motion], Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Michigan 
    (Mrs. Griffiths) will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler) will be recognized for 10 
    minutes.

Motion To Dispense With Calendar Wednesday Business

Sec. 69.4 On a motion to dispense with business under the Calendar 
    Wednesday rule, there is five minutes debate for

[[Page 10967]]

    and five minutes against the motion, and such motion may not be 
    laid on the table.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(5) Mr. Dwight L. Rogers, of Florida, 
moved to dispense for the day with the operation of Rule XXIV clause 7, 
providing for the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday. In response 
to parliamentary inquiries, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that 
the motion was debatable for five minutes for and five minutes against 
the motion, and that the motion was not subject to a motion to 
table.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 96 Cong. Rec. 2157, 2158, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Rule XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1995) provides 
        that on the motion there may be debate ``not to exceed five 
        minutes for and against.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 69.5 Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XXIV, the motion to dispense 
    with the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday is debatable for 
    10 minutes, five minutes on each side, and requires a two-thirds 
    vote for adoption.

    On Jan. 24, 1984,(7) Speaker Pro Tempore Gillis W. Long, 
of Louisiana, responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding debate, as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 130 Cong. Rec. 294-96, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    business in order on January 25, 1984, under clause 7, rule XXIV, 
    the Calendar Wednesday rule, may be dispensed with on that day.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) 
    is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Speaker, is there also 5 minutes given to 
    someone in opposition?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise that the 
    opposition is also entitled to 5 minutes and will be recognized 
    following the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright). . . .
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Wright).
        So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the motion 
    was rejected.

Motion To Recommit With Instructions

Sec. 69.6 Under Rule XVI clause 4, a Member offering a motion to 
    recommit with instructions (after the previous question has been 
    ordered) and a Member opposing the motion to recommit are each 
    recognized for five minutes of debate.

    On June 2, 1971,(8) a bill was reported back to the 
House with

[[Page 10968]]

an amendment agreed to in the Committee of the Whole. Speaker Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, stated that under the rule the previous question 
was ordered, and the bill was read the third time. Mr. Marvin L. Esch, 
of Michigan, offered a motion to recommit the bill with instructions. 
The Speaker recognized him for five minutes' debate in favor of his 
motion and Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, for five minutes' debate 
in opposition to the motion.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 117 Cong. Rec. 17491-95, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. For prior practice, precluding debate on such a motion, see Sec. 6, 
        supra; 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5561, 5582-5584; and 8 
        Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2471.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 19, 1973,(10) Mr. Charles M. Teague, of 
California, who was opposed to the pending bill, offered a motion to 
recommit with instructions after the previous question had been ordered 
on the bill. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized him under the 
rule for five minutes and then recognized Mr. William R. Poage, of 
Texas, for five minutes in opposition to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 119 Cong. Rec. 24966, 24967, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the conclusion of Mr. Poage's time, the Speaker held that Mr. 
Teague still retained control of the motion and could yield to another 
Member to offer an amendment to the motion to recommit.

Sec. 69.7 The 10 minutes of debate on certain motions to recommit with 
    instructions permitted by Rule XVI clause 4, are not in order on a 
    motion to recommit a simple resolution (or a conference report) 
    with instructions.

    On Nov. 15, 1973,(11) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, 
offered House Resolution 702, providing additional funds for 
investigations by the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Hays moved the 
previous question on the report and the previous question was ordered. 
Mr. William L. Dickinson, of Alabama, then moved to recommit the 
resolution with instructions. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
informed him, in response to his parliamentary inquiry, that no debate 
was in order on the motion, the pending proposition not being a bill or 
joint resolution but a simple resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 37141, 37142, 37150, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, am I not entitled to 5 minutes as 
    the Member offering this motion to recommit?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that that 
    procedure is not applicable on a motion to recommit a simple 
    resolution.

[[Page 10969]]

        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Speaker, is that also true when there are 
    instructions in the motion to recommit?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman that the 
    procedure permitting 10 minutes of debate on a motion to recommit 
    with instructions only applies to bills and joint resolutions.
        The question is on the motion to recommit offered by the 
    gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson).(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XVI clause 4, limits its application as to motions to recommit 
        to bills and joint resolutions. See House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 782 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 69.8 Under Rule XVI clause 4, after the previous question is 
    ordered on passage of a bill or joint resolution, 10 minutes are 
    provided for debate on a motion to recommit with instructions; but 
    such provision for debate applies only to bills and joint 
    resolutions, and is not in order on a motion to recommit a 
    concurrent resolution with instructions.

    The proceedings described above occurred on May 7, 
1975,(13) during consideration of Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 23 (authorizing printing of additional copies of ``The 
Congressional Program of Economic Recovery and Energy Sufficiency'') in 
the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 121 Cong. Rec. 13366, 13367, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Bauman moves to recommit Senate Concurrent Resolution 
        23 to the Committee on House Administration with instructions 
        to report the resolution back forthwith with the following 
        amendment: Page 1, line 3 and 4 strike the word 
        ``Congressional'' and insert in lieu thereof the word 
        ``Democrat''.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Is the gentleman 
    opposed to the Senate concurrent resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form or in any 
    other form.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Am I not permitted time to discuss the motion?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: I would inform the gentleman from 
    Maryland that it is not a debatable motion on a concurrent 
    resolution.

Sec. 69.9 Under Rule XVI clause 4, after the previous question is 
    ordered on passage of a bill or joint resolution 10 minutes are 
    provided for debate on a motion to recommit with instructions; the 
    10 minutes of debate on a motion to recommit with instructions 
    applies only to bills and joint resolutions and is not in

[[Page 10970]]

    order on a motion to recommit a concurrent resolution with 
    instructions.

    On May 7, 1975,(15) during consideration of Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 23 (16) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding debate on a 
motion. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 1366, 1367, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. Authorizing printing of additional copies of ``The Congressional 
        Program of Economic Recovery and Energy Sufficiency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Bauman moves to recommit Senate Concurrent Resolution 
        23 to the Committee on House Administration with instructions 
        to report the resolution back forthwith with the following 
        amendment: Page 1, line 3 and 4 strike the word 
        ``Congressional'' and insert in lieu thereof the word 
        ``Democrat''.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Is the gentleman 
    opposed to the Senate concurrent resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form or in any 
    other form.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: Am I not permitted time to discuss the motion?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: I would inform the gentleman from 
    Maryland that it is not a debatable motion on a concurrent 
    resolution.

Sec. 69.10 After the previous question has been ordered, 
    a motion to recommit a bill 
    or joint resolution with any proper instructions is debatable for 
    10 minutes under Rule XVI clause 4.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 30, 
1975,(18) during consideration of the Postal Reorganization 
Amendments of 1975 (H.R. 8603):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 34448, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (19) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Derwinski moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 8603, to the 
        Committee on Post Office and Civil Service with instructions 
        that said committee shall promptly hold appropriate hearings 
        thereon.

        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) 
    desire to be heard on his motion?

[[Page 10971]]

        Mr. Derwinski: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
        The motion to recommit is normal except that it does require 
    that the committee hold appropriate hearings.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanley) 
    desire to be heard on the motion to recommit?
        Mr. [James M.] Hanley [of New York]: I do, Mr. Speaker. I wish 
    to be heard in opposition to the recommittal motion.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Debate is permitted on any motion to 
recommit with instructions, and not merely a motion with instructions 
to report the bill back forthwith with an amendment.

Sec. 69.11 The 10 minutes of debate permitted on a motion to recommit 
    with instructions by clause 4 of Rule XVI applies only to a bill or 
    joint resolution and not to a simple resolution.

    During consideration of House Resolution 1097 (relating to 
investigative funds for the Committee on the Judiciary) in the House on 
Mar. 29, 1976,(20) a motion to recommit was offered, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 8444, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit.
        The Speaker: (1) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Ashbrook moves that House Resolution 1097 be 
        recommitted to the Committee on House Administration with 
        instructions that said committee forthwith report back to the 
        House said resolution with the following amendment, to wit: on 
        page 2, line 11 of the resolution add the following new 
        sentence: ``Not to exceed $300,000 of the total amount provided 
        by this resolution shall be used to carry out activities within 
        the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary under the 
        provisions of rule X, clause (M) (19) of the Rules of the House 
        of Representatives.

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized for 5 minutes?
        The Speaker: The rule regarding debate does not apply to a 
    motion to recommit a resolution.
        The question is on the motion to recommit.

Motions Relating to Nongermane Senate Amendments

Sec. 69.12 Where a Member opposed to a section of a conference report 
    demanded a separate vote on the section pursuant to a special order 
    permitting such procedure, that Member and the Member calling up 
    the conference report were each recognized for 20 minutes of debate 
    as required by Rule XX clause 1.

[[Page 10972]]

    On Nov. 10, 1971,(2) Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, 
called up a conference report. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated 
that the special order under which the report was being considered, 
House Resolution 696, provided that a separate vote could be demanded 
on certain sections of the conference report. Mr. Donald M. 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 of the 
House rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 117 Cong. Rec. 40483, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then stated the order of recognition pending the 
separate vote:

        Under clause 1 of rule XX, 40 minutes of debate are permitted 
    before a separate vote is taken on a nongermane Senate amendment, 
    one-half of such time in favor of, and one-half in opposition to 
    the amendment.
        Pursuant to that rule, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
    Hebert) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Fraser) will be recognized for 20 minutes.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The provisions of clause 1, Rule XX with 
respect to debate on a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a 
conference report were transferred to clause 4, Rule XXVIII in the 92d 
Congress on Oct. 13, 1972.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. H. Res. 1153, 118 Cong. Rec. 36023, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motions To Suspend Rules

Sec. 69.13 Debate on a motion to suspend the rules is limited to 40 
    minutes, 20 minutes controlled by the mover and 20 minutes 
    controlled by the Member demanding a second.

    On June 30, 1959,(4) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the time and distribution of time 
for debate on a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 105 Cong. Rec. 12306, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cannon: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Taber] will demand a second on the motion to suspend 
    the rules on the Temporary Appropriations Act of 1960. How will the 
    time for debate be distributed under the circumstances?
        The Speaker: Twenty minutes on a side.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The demand for a second on a motion to 
suspend the rules is no longer used.

Sec. 69.14 On a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill with

[[Page 10973]]

    amendments there is 40 minutes of debate, 20 minutes on each side; 
    the five-minute rule does not apply to such amendments, and 
    amendments other than those included in the motion are not in 
    order.

    On June 19, 1948,(5) Mr. Harold Knutson, of Minnesota, 
moved 
to suspend the rules and pass a 
bill with committee amendments. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the time for debate 
on the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 94 Cong. Rec. 9185, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Herman P.] Eberharter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Eberharter: I notice the motion stated ``permission to 
    offer amendments.'' Am I correct?
        The Speaker: The gentleman misheard the request. The request 
    was to suspend the rules and pass the bill with committee 
    amendments.
        Mr. Eberharter: Does that allow those who oppose the amendments 
    5 minutes on each amendment?
        The Speaker: The rule provides for 20 minutes on each side. 
    That is, the Republican side will have 20 minutes and the gentleman 
    from North Carolina [Mr. Doughton], who will demand a second, will 
    have 20 minutes.
        Mr. Eberharter: Mr. Speaker, the only amendments that may be 
    considered then are those that the committee acted upon?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct. The Clerk will report 
    the bill.

Sec. 69.15 Where a Member moving to suspend the rules uses a portion of 
    the 20 minutes available to him for debate, and then yields the 
    ``balance of his time'' to another who does not, in fact, consume 
    all the remaining time, the 
    unused time reverts to the mover who may continue debate.

    On Sept. 19, 1966,(6) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill. He used part of the 20 
minutes available to him under the rules and then yielded the 
``balance'' of his time to Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan. Mr. O'Hara 
delivered a short address, and Mr. Powell then yielded time to Mr. John 
H. Dent, of Pennsylvania. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of 
order that Mr. Powell had lost control of the floor, and Speaker John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 22933, 22934, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] yielded his remaining time to 
    the gentleman from

[[Page 10974]]

    Michigan [Mr. O'Hara] and that he therefore cannot yield time.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan consumed 3 minutes.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York yielded the 
    remainder of his time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara].
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state, when that is done on either 
    side, when a Member does not consume the remainder of the time, 
    control of the remaining time reverts to the Member who has charge 
    of the time.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: When the Member in charge of time yields the 
    remainder of his time to another Member, Mr. Speaker, I would not 
    know how he would then be able to yield time to any other Member.
        The Speaker: The Chair will rule that when the gentleman in 
    control of time yields the remainder of his time to another Member, 
    and the other Member does not use up all the time, then the 
    remainder of the time comes back under the control of the Member 
    who originally had control of the time.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        How may a Member yield the remainder of his time and still 
    control that time?
        The Speaker: Well, that is not a parliamentary inquiry, but the 
    Chair will assume, just making an observation, that every Member in 
    the House is aware that happens, and has happened frequently.

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Would 
    that be in violation of the rules of the House?
        The Speaker: The Chair sees no violation of the rules under 
    those circumstances, but a protection of the right for full debate.

Sec. 69.16 Debate on a motion to suspend the rules is limited to 20 
    minutes on a side so that if a portion of the time is used and the 
    House then adjourns, the time begins to run on the next day the 
    motion is in order at that point where it was terminated.

    On Feb. 28, 1931,(7) Mr. Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 500, further 
restricting immigration into the United States. Mr. Samuel Dickstein, 
of New York, demanded a second, the vote on the second was taken by 
tellers, and Mr. Fiorello H. LaGuardia, of New York, made a point of 
order that 
a quorum was not present. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, counted 
and stated that a quorum was present. The Speaker then answered 
parliamentary inquiries on the resumption of the consideration of the 
motion to suspend the rules should the House adjourn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 74 Cong. Rec. 6575-77, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell] asked if, 
    when a

[[Page 10975]]

    second is ordered or a quorum is present, this matter would be 
    unfinished business at the next meeting of the House. The Chair 
    replies, ``Yes.'' The Chair holds it would be unfinished business 
    at the next meeting of the House, inasmuch as a second has been 
    ordered, a quorum being present.
        Mr. [Henry W.] Temple [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    House adjourns now, will the 20 minutes debate on each side begin 
    where we left off to-night?
        The Speaker: It would. It would be in exactly the same position 
    we are now.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily, a motion to suspend the rules 
pending at adjournment could not be resumed until the next regular day 
on which the motion was in order under Rule XXVII clause 1. However, 
the motion is in order at any time during the last six days of a 
session.

Sec. 69.17 Under a former practice, a member of the minority who was 
    opposed to a bill considered under suspension of the rules had the 
    right to recognition, over a majority Member opposed to the bill, 
    to demand a second thereon and to control the 20 minutes of debate 
    in opposition thereto.

    On Nov. 17, 1980,(8) the House had under consideration 
S. 885 (Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act 
of 1980) when the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 29788-801, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 885) to assist the 
    electrical consumers of the Pacific Northwest through use of the 
    Federal Columbia River Power System to achieve cost-effective 
    energy conservation, to encourage the development of renewable 
    energy resources, to establish a representative regional power 
    planning process, to assure the region of an efficient and adequate 
    power supply, and for other purposes, as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause of S. 885 and 
        insert the text of H.R. 8157 as amended.

                       short title and table of contents

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the ``Pacific Northwest Electric 
        Power Planning and Conservation Act''. . . .

        The Speaker: (9) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I demand a second.
        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Wisconsin from the minority is 
    entitled to the second.
        Mr. Weaver: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman opposed to the bill? 
    I am opposed to the bill.

[[Page 10976]]

        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Wisconsin opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: I am opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Sensenbrenner) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen).

    Parliamentarian's Note: The demand for a second on a motion to 
suspend the rules is no longer used.

Sec. 69.18 By unanimous consent, debate was extended to one hour, to be 
    equally divided by those controlling the time, on a motion to 
    suspend the rules and agree to a conference report.

    During consideration of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (H.R. 
4242) in the House on Aug. 4, 1981,(10) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 127 Cong. Rec. 19520, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Madam Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the bill 
    (H.R. 4242) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage 
    economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates, 
    the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small 
    businesses, and incentives for savings, and for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the conference report. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. Shannon) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        Mr. Rostenkowski: Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
    time for this debate be extended from 40 minutes to 1 hour, to be 
    equally divided by those controlling the time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Illinois?
        There was no objection.

Previous Question Ordered on Proposition Not Debated

Sec. 69.19 Forty minutes of debate is allowed wherever the previous 
    question is ordered on a debatable proposition on which there has 
    been no debate.

    On June 8, 1943,(11) the House was considering Senate 
amendments reported from conference 
in disagreement on H.R. 2714, 
urgent deficiency appropriations. Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
offered a motion to concur in 
a Senate amendment with an

[[Page 10977]]

amendment and moved the previous question on his motion. Mr. John 
Taber, of New York, attempted to demand a second on the motion for the 
previous question and Mr. Cannon stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 89 Cong. Rec. 5506, 5507, 5509, 5510, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, we have 20 minutes on a side. I have moved the 
    previous question. Therefore, when the gentleman demands a second, 
    we have 20 minutes on a side.

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, responded:

        The previous question must be ordered before any time at all is 
    fixed.
        The question is on the motion for the previous question.

    The House then rejected the previous question on Mr. Cannon's 
motion to concur with an amendment, and Mr. Taber offered an amendment 
to Mr. Cannon's motion. The previous question was immediately ordered 
on Mr. Taber's amendment and the Speaker recognized Mr. Taber for 20 
minutes and Mr. Cannon for 20 minutes on the amendment 
to the motion, pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 3.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XXVII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995) 
        provides that ``whenever the previous question has been ordered 
        on any proposition on which there has been no debate,'' it 
        shall be in order ``to debate the proposition to be voted upon 
        for forty minutes, one-half of such time to be given to debate 
        in favor of and one-half to debate in opposition to, such 
        proposition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 69.20 Where the previous question is ordered on a debatable motion 
    without debate, a Member may demand the right to debate; and the 40 
    minutes permitted under the rule is divided between the person 
    demanding the time and some Member who represents the opposing view 
    of the question.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(13) the previous question was 
ordered, without debate, on the motion to approve the Journal, as read. 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated, in response to 
a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, that 
pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 3, any Member could demand the right to 
debate the motion since it was debatable and since the previous 
question had been ordered without debate. The Speaker recognized Mr. 
Hall for 20 minutes and then recognized a Member in opposition, Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 23602, 23604-06, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 69.21 The right to recognition for 20 minutes of debate under Rule 
    XXVII clause 3, does not apply unless the

[[Page 10978]]

    previous question has been ordered on a proposition on which there 
    has been no debate.

    On May 14, 1963,(14) the House was considering Senate 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement. Mr. Albert Thomas, 
of Texas, moved that the House concur with an amendment to a certain 
Senate amendment and moved the previous question on that motion. Before 
the previous question was ordered, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, indicated that the right to debate the motion for 40 
minutes, 20 for and 20 against, only applied after the previous 
question was ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 109 Cong. Rec. 8508-11, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Before Adoption of Rules

Sec. 69.22 Prior to adoption of 
    the rules, when the motion 
    for the previous question is moved without debate, the 40 minutes' 
    debate prescribed by House rules during the previous Congress does 
    not apply.

    On Jan. 7, 1959,(15) at the convening of the 86th 
Congress and before the adoption of rules, Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, offered House Resolution 1, a privileged resolution 
authorizing the Speaker to administer the oath of office to a 
challenged Member-elect and providing that the question of final right 
of the Member-elect to his seat be referred to the Committee on House 
Administration. Mr. McCormack moved the previous question on the 
resolution without any debate, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the effect of the previous question 
before the adoption of rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 14, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    may I make an inquiry on a point of parliamentary procedure.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, when the previous order has been 
    moved and there is no debate, under the rules of the House are we 
    not entitled to 40 minutes debate?
        The Speaker: Under the precedents, the 40-minute rule does not 
    apply before the adoption of the rules.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 23-25, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nongermane Provision in Conference Report

Sec. 69.23 A motion to reject a portion of a conference report is in 
    order immediately

[[Page 10979]]

    after the Speaker sustains a point of order that it would not have 
    been germane if offered to the House bill, and is debatable for 40 
    minutes, 20 minutes for and 20 minutes against the motion.

    On Sept. 11, 1973,(17) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, 
called up the conference report on H.R. 7645, to authorize 
appropriations for the Department of State, and for other purposes. 
Before the statement of the managers was read, Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of 
Michigan, made a point of order against section 13 of the report on the 
ground that the section would not have been germane if offered in the 
House to the bill and was therefore subject to a point of order under 
Rule XXVIII clause 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 119 Cong. Rec. 29235-37, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Ford and Mr. Hays delivered arguments on the point of order, 
and Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, then ruled that the language 
objected to would not have been germane if offered to the House bill 
and sustained the point of order.
    Mr. William S. Mailliard, of California, then offered, pursuant to 
Rule XXVIII clause 4, a motion to reject section 13 of the conference 
report. The Speaker recognized, under the rule, Mr. Mailliard for 20 
minutes in favor of the motion and Mr. Hays for 20 minutes in 
opposition to the motion.

Sec. 69.24 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, where the Speaker sustains 
    a point of order that a portion of a conference report containing a 
    Senate amendment is not germane to the House bill, a motion to 
    reject that portion of the conference report is in order and is 
    subject to 40 minutes of debate.

    For example, see the proceedings of Jan. 29, 1976, discussed in 
Sec. 69.25, infra.

Sec. 69.25 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, 40 minutes for debate on a 
    motion to reject a nongermane portion of a conference report is 
    equally divided between the proponent and an opponent of the motion 
    to reject, and recognition is not based upon party affiliation; and 
    the House conferee who has been recognized for 20 minutes in 
    opposition to a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a 
    conference report is entitled to close debate on the motion to 
    reject.

    H.R. 5247, a bill reported from the Committee on Public Works

[[Page 10980]]

and Transportation, consisted of one title relating to grants to state 
and local governments for local public works construction projects. A 
new title added by the Senate and contained in a conference report 
provided grants to state and local governments to assist them in 
providing public services. On Jan. 29, 1976,(18) a point of 
order was made in the House, pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, against 
the title added by the Senate. The title was held to be not germane, 
because it proposed a revenue-sharing program within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Government Operations, and because the approach 
taken in the Senate version was not closely related to the methods used 
to combat unemployment as delineated in the House bill.(19) 
After the Speaker had ruled on the point of order, a motion was made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 1582, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
19. For further discussion of the ruling on the issue of germaneness, 
        see Ch. 28, Sec. 4.99, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Brooks moves that the House reject title II of H.R. 
        5247, as reported by the committee of conference.

        The Speaker:(20) The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
    Jones) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Brooks) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Do 
    we have 20 minutes on the minority side?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the division of time is 
    between those in favor and those opposed to the motion to reject 
    title II. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Jones) has 20 minutes and 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) has 20 minutes.
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas, on behalf of Mr. Jones]: 
    Mr. Speaker, I have one other speaker, the majority leader. I do 
    not know what the courtesy is, or the appropriate protocol, in a 
    matter of this kind.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will rule that the gentleman 
    from Texas [Mr. Wright] may close debate.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For another instance in which the Speaker acknowledged that the 
        House conferee who has been recognized for 20 minutes in 
        opposition to a motion to reject a nongermane portion of a 
        conference report is entitled to close debate on the motion to 
        reject, see Ch. 28, Sec. 26.23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where the House agrees to a motion to 
reject a nongermane portion of 
a conference report pursuant to Rule XXVIII clause 4, the pending

[[Page 10981]]

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 separate vote, and one hour of debate, equally divided 
between the majority and minority parties, is permitted on that pending 
question.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 68.24, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 69.26 Where the Chair sustains a point of order pursuant to clause 
    4 of Rule XXVIII, that a conference report contains a Senate 
    provision which would not have been germane if offered in the 
    House, it is in order to offer a motion to reject the matter 
    covered by the point of order, which motion is 
    debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by those 
    in favor of, and those opposed to, the motion.

    On Sept. 25, 1980,(3) during 
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 4310 (Recreational 
Boating Safety and Facilities Improvement Act of 1980) in the 
House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 126 Cong. Rec. 27410, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mario] Biaggi [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 4310) to amend the Federal Boat 
    Safety Act of 1971 to improve recreational boating safety and 
    facilities through the development, administration, and financing 
    of a national recreational boating safety and facilities 
    improvement program, and for other purposes.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(4) Un-der the rule, the 
    conference report is considered as read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order under clause 4 of rule XXVIII that 
    title III of the conference report accompanying H.R. 4310 is a 
    nongermane amendment.
        Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4310, as it passed the House, related to 
    boating safety. It did not amend the Internal Revenue Code. Title 
    III now in the conference report relates to a trust fund for 
    reforestation and contains a significant amendment to the Internal 
    Revenue Code. It would have been nongermane to H.R. 4310 when that 
    bill was originally considered by the House. . . . I contend, Mr. 
    Speaker, that title III should be ruled nongermane and considered 
    in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI.
        Mr. Speaker, I understand the point of order will not be 
    contested.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Biaggi).
        Mr. Biaggi: Mr. Speaker, we concede the point of order.

[[Page 10982]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Frenzel moves that the House reject title III of the 
        conference report accompanying H.R. 4310.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
    Frenzel) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Biaggi) will be recognized for 20 minutes.