[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§ 71. Effect of Special Rules and Unanimous-consent Agreements]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10990-11010]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                   H. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE
 
Sec. 71. Effect of Special Rules and Unanimous-consent Agreements

    The House may vary the period for debate in an infinite variety 
of ways. By unanimous consent 
or special rule, the House can lengthen debate, abbreviate it, divide 
its control between ``proponents and opponents,'' Members representing 
committees, or named individuals.
    Speakers have declined to recognize requests to extend time on 
special-order speeches (beyond one hour) or one-minute speeches. There 
is also a reluctance to recognize for extensions of time under rules--
such as the discharge rule--which have carefully structured debate 
steps.
    Special rules and unanimous-consent agreements may also provide 
that a certain period of debate in the House be controlled by the 
proponents and opponents of a measure. When time in the House is thus 
distributed and controlled, the Members in charge may yield time to 
other Members, who are not entitled to be recognized for a full 
hour.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See, for example, the unanimous-consent agreements under which some 
        impeachment resolutions and articles have been considered, 
        cited at Sec. 71.13, infra.

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

[[Page 10991]]

                            Cross References
Discharge motion and extensions of time, see Ch. 18, supra.
Effect of special rules on control and distribution of time, see 
    Sec. 28, supra.
Effect of special rules and unanimous-consent agreements on duration of 
    debate in the Committee of the Whole, see Sec. 74, infra.
Recognition for unanimous-consent requests, see Sec. 10, supra.
Special rules generally, see Ch. 21, supra.
Special rules and their effect on consideration, see Sec. 2, supra.
Strict five-minute rule for Private Calendar, see Ch. 22, supra.
Unanimous-consent agreements for control and distribution of time, see 
    Sec. Sec. 24-26, supra.
Unanimous-consent consideration in the House as in the Committee of the 
    Whole, see Sec. 4, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Privileged Resolutions

Sec. 71.1 A special rule may provide that a privileged resolution be 
    considered in the House, with more than one hour of debate.

    On May 2, 1933,(13) the House adopted House Resolution 
125, making in order the consideration in the House of House Resolution 
124, also reported by the Committee on Rules, and providing for the 
consideration of certain Senate amendments. House Resolution 125 read 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 77 Cong. Rec. 2693, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of House Resolution 
    124, and all points of order against said resolution shall be 
    waived. That after general debate, which shall be confined to the 
    resolution and shall continue not to exceed 5 hours, to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Rules, the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption or 
    rejection.

Sec. 71.2 A resolution amending the rules of the House, eligible for 
    consideration in the House as privileged business and subject to 
    one hour of debate was, pursuant to a special rule, considered in 
    the Committee of the Whole and debated for two hours.

    On Apr. 3, 1968,(14) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1119 
providing for the consideration, in the Committee of the Whole, of 
another resolution reported from the Committee on Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 8776, 8777, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to

[[Page 10992]]

    move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
    House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
    resolution (H. Res. 1099) amending H. Res. 418, Ninetieth Congress, 
    to continue the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct as a 
    permanent standing committee of the House of Representatives, and 
    for other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined 
    to the resolution and continue not to exceed two hours, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the 
    resolution shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule.

    Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, explained the rationale for, and 
effect of, the resolution:

        Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . .
        The parliamentary situation today is this: As I mentioned, the 
    Rules Committee reported House Resolution 418 creating the 
    committee. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct reported 
    to the Rules Committee, which retained original jurisdiction. The 
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct reported the resolution 
    which is before us, H. Res. 1099, which will continue the committee 
    and establish a code of ethics for the House. The resolution could 
    have come to the floor of the House without a rule, which would 
    have limited debate to 1 hour, 30 minutes on each side, and a vote 
    would then be taken up or down on the resolution.
        But the Rules Committee felt the members of the committee 
    should have an opportunity to be heard, with the result that we 
    have reported a separate resolution providing for 2 hours of 
    general debate, 1 hour on each side, and the resolution will be 
    open for amendment. Had we just reported the resolution, it would 
    be tantamount to a closed rule under which amendments could not be 
    offered. The Rules Committee does not like to report closed rules 
    as a general practice.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Without the special rule, the resolution 
would have been privileged for consideration in the House, under Rule 
XI clause 22, and would have been considered under the general rules of 
the House, the Member in charge controlling an hour of debate, with the 
right to move the previous question.(15) Although the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had recommended that H. Res. 
1099 be adopted, the Rules Committee reported the resolution to the 
House, not the Standards Committee as indicated by Mr. Smith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See also 119 Cong. Rec. 39419, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 4, 1973 
        (H. Res. 738, for the consideration in the Committee of the 
        Whole, for six hours of general debate, of H. Res. 735, 
        confirming the nomination of Gerald R. Ford as Vice President 
        of the United States).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 71.3 Debate under the hour rule in the House on a resolution 
    reported from the

[[Page 10993]]

    Committee on Rules may be extended by unanimous consent.

    On June 21, 1972,(16) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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: (17) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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 asked 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) 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. 71.4 Debate on a privileged resolution in the House is under the 
    hour rule and within the control of the

[[Page 10994]]

    Member recognized to call it up, but such debate may be extended 
    beyond one hour by unanimous consent; on one occasion, 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.

    On July 14, 1977,(18) the following proceedings occurred 
when a resolution (19) amending the rules was called up in 
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 22932, 22934, 22942, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. H. Res. 658.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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 
    gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), pending which I yield myself 
    such time as I may consume. . . .
        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: (20) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 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.

Sec. 71.5 By unanimous consent the House extended for an additional 30 
    minutes the time for debate on a special order from the Committee 
    on

[[Page 10995]]

    Rules (with the understanding that such time would be equally 
    divided and controlled).

    The proceedings of July 29, 1977,(1) relating to House 
consideration of House Resolution 727 (providing for consideration of 
H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act of 1977) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 25653-55, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 727 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 727

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move . . . that the House resolve itself 
        into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
        for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8444) to establish a 
        comprehensive national energy policy. . . .

        The Speaker: (2) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Anderson), and pending that, I yield myself such 
    time as I may consume. . . .
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent at this time that in addition to the 1 hour of 
    debate provided for in this resolution, House Resolution 727, the 
    time for debate be extended for an additional 30 minutes.
        Mr. Speaker, there is some precedent for this. Before the Chair 
    puts the request, I would like to state very briefly that there is 
    some precedent on very important resolutions for an extension of 
    the normal amount of time that is used for debate. Just a couple of 
    weeks ago the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss) made a similar 
    request at the time we were considering a resolution for the Select 
    Committee on Intelligence.
        Very frankly, I have had more requests for time on this rule 
    from my side of the aisle than I can accommodate within the 30 
    minutes that has been allotted to the minority. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate 
    on this resolution be extended for 30 minutes.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Illinois? . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that an additional 15 minutes 
    will be allotted to each side.

Sec. 71.6 By unanimous consent, debate on a resolution of censure 
    reported from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was 
    extended to two hours (and the chairman of the committee then 
    yielded one-half hour to the ranking minority member of the 
    committee, and one hour to the Member proposed to be censured).

[[Page 10996]]

    During consideration of a privileged resolution reported from the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (to censure Charles H. 
Wilson) on May 29, 1980,(3) the following proceedings 
occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 126 Cong. Rec. 12649, 12656, 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 . . . 
        .

        The Speaker: (4) . . . The gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Bennett) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in view of the complexities of these 
    proceedings and the need for ample time for all parties, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the ordinary hour that is allotted in these 
    matters be extended for another hour. . . .
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Florida?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 2 
    hours. . . .
        Mr. Bennett: . . . Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I 
    yield one-half hour to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
    Spence), ranking minority member of the committee. For purposes of 
    debate only I yield 1 hour to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Charles H. Wilson), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.

Resolutions of Disapproval

--Curtailing Debate

Sec. 71.7 By unanimous consent, debate on resolutions disapproving 
    reorganization plans has been limited to less than the 10 hours 
    which was allowed under the Reorganization Act of 1949, providing 
    for consideration of such plans.

    On July 1, 1959,(5) the Committee of the Whole 
considered for two hours of general debate, as provided by a unanimous-
consent agreement, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 12519, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 19, 1961, the House agreed to a unanimous-consent request 
that general debate in the Committee of the Whole on House Resolution 
328, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1961, be limited to five 
hours.(6) After some debate had been had on the

[[Page 10997]]

resolution, the House limited by unanimous consent further debate on 
the resolution to 30 minutes, to be equally divided by the Member 
moving the consideration of the resolution and the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Government Operations.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 107 Cong. Rec. 12905, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Id. at p. 12932. See also 112 Cong. Rec. 8498, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Apr. 20, 1966; 108 Cong. Rec. 8210, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., May 
        10, 1962; 107 Cong. Rec. 10839, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., June 20, 
        1961; and 107 Cong. Rec. 10448, 10471, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        June 15, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Reorganization Act of 1949, Public Law 
No. 81-109, provided that on a resolution disapproving a reorganization 
plan, there be debate ``not to exceed ten hours,'' equally divided 
between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. The statute 
was enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of both Houses, with 
full recognition of either House to change such rules at any 
time.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Pub. L. No. 81-109, 63 Stat. 207, Sec. Sec. 201-206, June 20, 1946.
            The statute also provided for not to exceed one hour on a 
        motion to discharge a committee from further consideration of 
        such a resolution, which time could be extended by unanimous 
        consent (see Sec. 68.64, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 71.8 The House agreed by unanimous consent that debate on certain 
    resolutions of disapproval be fixed at a lesser number of hours 
    than the 10 hours permitted under the procedure outlined for 
    considering such resolutions under a public law.

    On Mar. 21, 1955,(9) Mr. Carl Vinson, of Georgia, 
announced he would call up House Resolution 170, disapproving the 
disposal 
of certain rubber facilities. The House agreed to his unanimous-consent 
request on the duration of time for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 3233, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Vinson: Mr. Speaker, I desire to announce to the House that 
    tomorrow I will call up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 170) 
    relating to the disposition of the synthetic rubber facilities.
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate on 
    House Resolution 170 be fixed at 6 hours, 3 hours to be controlled 
    by the author of the resolution, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Patman], and 3 hours by myself as chairman of the Committee on 
    Armed Services.

    On the following day, Mar. 22, the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request for the duration of debate on House Resolution 171, a 
similar resolution:

        Mr. Vinson: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general 
    debate on House Resolution 171 be fixed at 2 hours tomorrow, 1 hour 
    to be con

[[Page 10998]]

    trolled by the author of the resolution, the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Doyle], and 1 hour by myself, chairman of the 
    Committee on the Armed Services.
        The Speaker: (10) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Georgia?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 101 Cong. Rec. 3437, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Congress had provided, in Public Law No. 
83-205, a procedure for considering resolutions disposing of synthetic 
rubber facilities. The law provided that on such a resolution being 
considered on the floor there be not to exceed 10 hours of debate, 
equally divided between those favoring and those opposing the 
resolution.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Pub. L. 83-205, 67 Stat. 416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bills Considered ``Under the General Rules of the House''

Sec. 71.9 Where consideration of a bill ``under the general rules of 
    the House'' has been agreed to, the bill may be called up pursuant 
    to the agreement and then by unanimous consent considered in the 
    House as in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 1, 1969,(13) Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South 
Carolina, made a unanimous-consent request for the consideration of a 
bill on the Union Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 115 Cong. Rec. 8136, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of 
    March 27, 1969, I call up for immediate consideration the bill 
    (H.R. 9329) [special pay for naval officers qualified for nuclear 
    submarine duty] . . . and ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
    considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Mar. 27, Mr. Rivers had asked unanimous consent that it be in 
order to consider ``under the general rules of the House'' on Tuesday 
or Wednesday of the following week the bill H.R. 9328.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Id. at p. 7895. Time under the five-minute rule in the House as in 
        the Committee of the Whole may be extended by unanimous consent 
        (see Sec. 70.6, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The effect of considering a Union Calendar 
bill ``under the general rules of the House'' would have been to 
require general debate in Committee of the Whole with each Member 
seeking recognition entitled to one hour, followed by reading for 
amendment under the five-minute rule.

Union Calendar Bills

Sec. 71.10 A special rule may provide that a Union Calendar bill be 
    considered in the

[[Page 10999]]

    House, with more than one hour of general debate.

    On Mar. 21, 1933,(15) the House adopted House Resolution 
61, providing for the consideration of H.R. 3835, a bill on the Union 
Calendar providing agricultural relief, in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 77 Cong. Rec. 665, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3835, and any 
    points of order against said bill or any provisions contained 
    therein are hereby waived. That after general debate, which shall 
    be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 4 hours, 
    to be equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, the previous 
    question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 
    passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

    Similarly, the House adopted on Apr. 22, 1933, House Resolution 
111, for the consideration in the House of H.R. 5081, a bill on the 
Union Calendar:

        Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
    House shall proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5081, and all 
    points of order against said bill shall be considered as waived. 
    That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and 
    shall continue not to exceed 6 hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Military Affairs, it shall be in order for the 
    chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs by direction of that 
    committee to offer amendments to any part of the bill. If there be 
    no such amendments offered by the chairman of the Committee on 
    Military Affairs, then the previous question shall be considered as 
    ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Id. at p. 2076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 71.11 Bills requiring consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
    are considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole under 
    the five-minute rule when unanimous consent is granted for their 
    immediate consideration, but when consent is granted for their 
    immediate consideration in the House, debate is under the hour rule 
    and amendments are only in order if the Member controlling the time 
    yields for that purpose.

    On Apr. 11, 1974,(17) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
responded to an inquiry regarding the consideration of amendments in 
the House as in Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 120 Cong. Rec. 10769, 10770, 10771, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Blatnik [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous

[[Page 11000]]

    consent for the immediate consideration in the House of the Senate 
    bill (S. 3062) the Disaster Relief Act Amendments of 1974.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Minnesota? . . .
        Mr. [Richard W.] Mallary [of Vermont]: Mr. Speaker, if a bill 
    is brought up under a unanimous-consent request and considered in 
    the House at this time, would any amendment be in order?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that since the gentleman is 
    asking that it be considered in the House, the gentleman will then 
    have control of the time.

Omnibus Private Bills

Sec. 71.12 During the consideration of an omnibus private bill the 
    Chair refused to recognize Members for unanimous-consent requests 
    to extend the time for debate.

    On July 20, 1937,(18) the House was considering bills on 
the Omnibus Private Calendar. Mr. Alfred F. Beiter, of New York, was 
speaking for five minutes in opposition to an amendment which had been 
offered and asked unanimous consent to address the House for an 
additional minute when his time expired. Speaker William B. Bankhead, 
of Alabama, ruled that such a request could not be made, the rule 
limiting each side to five minutes' debate.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 7293-95, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. For the rule on consideration of omnibus private bills, see Rule 
        XXIV clause 6 and comments thereto, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 893-895 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impeachment Proposals

Sec. 71.13 The House may consider impeachment resolutions and articles 
    of impeachment under unanimous-consent agreements fixing time for 
    debate at a certain number of hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled.

    On Feb. 24, 1933, Mr. Thomas D. McKeown, of Oklahoma, reported from 
the Committee on the Judiciary a report recommending against the 
impeachment of Judge Louderback (the minority of the committee were 
prepared to offer a substitute for the resolution in order to impeach 
and adopt articles). The House agreed to consider the resolution 
pursuant to the following unanimous-consent request:

        Debate to be limited to two hours, to be controlled by the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. McKeown], that at the end of that time 
    the previous question shall be considered as ordered, with

[[Page 11001]]

    the privilege, however, of a substitute resolution being offered . 
    . . .(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 76 Cong. Rec. 4913-25, 72d Cong. 2d Sess. The House adopted the 
        substitute, offered by Mr. Fiorello H. 
        LaGuardia (N.Y.), and impeached Judge Louderback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 2, 1936, Mr. Hatton W. Sumners, of Texas, called up at the 
direction of the Committee on the Judiciary a resolution and articles 
of impeachment against Judge Ritter. The House agreed to the following 
unanimous-consent request for debate thereon:

        The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sumners] asks unanimous consent 
    that debate on this resolution be continued for 4\1/2\ hours, 2\1/
    2\ hours to be controlled by himself and 2 hours by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Hancock]; and at the expiration of the time the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered. . . 
    .(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 80 Cong. Rec. 3069, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motions To Suspend Rules

Sec. 71.14 Although the 20 minutes of debate allowed on each side of a 
    motion to suspend the rules may be extended by unanimous consent, 
    the Chair does not normally entertain such a request.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 75 Cong. Rec. 3949, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 15, 1932; and 72 
        Cong. Rec. 765, 71st Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 16, 1929.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 3, 1960,(3) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request to extend debate on a motion to suspend the rules to 
one hour and 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 106 Cong. Rec. 4388, 4389, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 23, 1956,(4) the House was conducting debate on 
a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill. When time had expired, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that he would object to a 
unanimous-consent request that time on the motion be extended:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 102 Cong. Rec. 14075, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] McCulloch [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I should 
    like to renew the request of the gentleman from New York previously 
    made to extend time of debate on this important matter for 20 
    minutes, 10 minutes on each side. I think it is very important that 
    we have that additional time for debate.
        I ask unanimous consent that time be extended to 20 minutes for 
    debate on this bill.
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I join in that 
    request.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not join in that request, because 
    the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Rayburn] is going to object, if 
    nobody else does.
        Mr. [Usher L.] Burdick [of North Dakota]: I object, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: According to the rules of the House, 20 minutes of 
    debate are permitted on each side.

[[Page 11002]]

Sec. 71.15 The House, under a motion to suspend the rules, passed a 
    resolution extending the time for debate to four hours on a motion 
    to suspend the rules and fixing control of debate on such motion.

    On Sept. 20, 1943,(5) Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, moved to suspend the rules and pass House Resolution 
302, which was agreed to by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be extended to 
    4 hours, such time to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs; and said motion to suspend the rules shall be the 
    continuing order of business of the House until finally disposed 
    of.

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Concurrent Resolution 25, reported by 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, related to participation in world 
peace.

Sec. 71.16 A demand for a second on a motion to suspend the rules 
    (under the rule in effect before 1991) was inapplicable where the 
    House had previously adopted a resolution fixing control of debate 
    on such motion and requiring uninterrupted consideration of such 
    motion.

    On Sept. 20, 1943,(6) the House passed a motion to 
suspend the rules and pass House Resolution 302, which provided four 
hours of debate, to be equally divided and controlled by two Members, 
on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a concurrent resolution and 
which provided that said motion to suspend the rules ``shall be the 
continuing order of business of the House until finally disposed of.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 89 Cong. Rec. 5655, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the adoption of the motion, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, recognized Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, to move to suspend the 
rules and pass the concurrent resolution. Mr. Charles A. Eaton, of New 
Jersey, demanded a second on the motion and the Speaker indicated that 
the procedure under which the motion to suspend was being considered 
did not contemplate the demanding of a second:

        Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        Mr. Bloom: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second 
    may be considered as ordered.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 11003]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: May a second be demanded by one who is not opposed 
    to the resolution?
        The Speaker: That was practically cured by the resolution just 
    passed, which provides that the time shall be in control of the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom] and the gentleman from New 
    Jersey [Mr. Eaton]. The formality was gone through.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Normally the Member demanding a second on a 
motion to suspend the rules was entitled to recognition for the 20 
minutes of debate in opposition to the motion. Here, the time for 
debate on the motion had been extended and placed in the control of two 
specified Members. Furthermore, H. Res. 302 made the question of 
consideration (by way of a second) inapplicable, by making the motion 
to suspend the rules a ``continuing order of business until finally 
disposed of.''

Motions To Discharge Committee

Sec. 71.17 On a motion to discharge a committee, debate is limited to 
    20 minutes, and the Speaker does not recognize unanimous-consent 
    requests to extend the time.

    On Aug. 14, 1950,(7) Mr. George P. Miller, of 
California, called up a petition to discharge the Committee on Rules 
from further consideration of House Resolution 667, providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 8195, a bill to rescind an order of the 
Postmaster General. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that he would 
recognize Mr. Miller for 10 minutes on the motion and Edward E. Cox, of 
Georgia, the Chairman of the Committee on Rules, for 10 minutes in 
opposition to the motion. Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, 
inquired how the minority could gain some time for debate on the 
motion, and the Speaker stated that allocation of the 20 minutes was in 
the discretion of Mr. Miller and Mr. Cox.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 12441, 12442, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Martin then asked unanimous consent that the minority be given 
one hour on the motion. The Speaker stated that under the rules he 
could not entertain the request.

Conference Reports

Sec. 71.18 A special rule may provide that there be more than one hour 
    of debate, in the House, on a conference report.

    On Feb. 8, 1938,(8) the House adopted House Resolution 
416,

[[Page 11004]]

providing for four hours of debate on a conference report (normally 
considered under the hour rule):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 83 Cong. Rec. 1645, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the House shall proceed to the consideration of the conference 
    report on the bill H.R. 8505, an act to provide for the 
    conservation of national soil resources and to provide an adequate 
    and balanced flow of agricultural commodities in interstate and 
    foreign commerce, and for other purposes; that all points of order 
    against said conference report are hereby waived; and that after 
    debate on said conference report, which may continue not to exceed 
    4 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on agreeing to the 
    conference report.

Sec. 71.19 Debate on a conference report was, by unanimous consent, 
    extended to two hours.

    On Dec. 19, 1969,(9) Mr. Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
asked unanimous consent that when the conference report on H.R. 13270, 
the Tax Reform Act of 1969, was called up, there be an additional 
hour--a total of two hours--to consider the conference report. There 
was no objection to the request.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 40217, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
10. See also 102 Cong. Rec. 5970, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 9, 1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special-order Speeches

Sec. 71.20 Where a Member has used an hour for a special-order speech, 
    he is not permitted, even by unanimous consent, to secure 
    additional time.

    On June 11, 1969,(11) Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, 
had consumed an hour for a special-order speech. She requested 
additional time and Speaker Pro Tempore Ken Hechler, of West Virginia, 
declined to recognize her for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 15440, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentlewoman has 
    expired.
        Mrs. Green of Oregon: Mr. Speaker is it in order for me to ask 
    unanimous consent that I may continue for an additional 10 minutes?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentlewoman 
    that under clause 2, rule 14, such a request cannot be entertained. 
    However, the Chair can recognize other Members who wish to request 
    a special order.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Speaker also declines to recognize for unanimous-consent 
        requests for additional time on one-minute speeches (see 
        Sec. 73.10, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Termination of Debate Prior to Fixed Time

Sec. 71.21 Where the House by unanimous consent fixed the

[[Page 11005]]

    time and control of debate and ordered the previous question at the 
    conclusion 
    of said debate, the Speaker ruled that it was not necessary for the 
    Members in charge to use or yield the full time agreed upon.

    On Mar. 11, 1941,(13) the House was considering House 
Resolution 131 under the terms of a unanimous-consent request providing 
two hours of debate and dividing control of debate between Mr. Sol 
Bloom, of New York, and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, and 
providing that at the conclusion of said debate the previous question 
be considered as ordered. Mr. Bloom asked for a vote on the resolution 
when he and Mr. Fish had used or yielded all the time they desired, and 
Mr. Martin J. Kennedy, of New York, objected on the ground that the 
unanimous-consent agreement was not being complied with since all the 
time provided had not been consumed. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 87 Cong. Rec. 2177, 2178, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The unanimous-consent request agreed to yesterday 
    left control of the time in the hands of the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Bloom] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish]. At any 
    time those gentlemen do not desire to yield further time, 
    compliance with the request has been had.

Effect of Ordering of Previous Question

Sec. 71.22 The House by unanimous consent vacated the ordering of the 
    previous question in order to permit further debate.

    On Aug. 26, 1960,(14) the House was considering Senate 
amendments reported from conference in disagreement on H.R. 12619, 
making appropriations for the mutual security program. Mr. Silvio O. 
Conte, of Massachusetts, arose 
to object to a motion to concur 
with an amendment to a Senate amendment, but Mr. Otto E. Passman, of 
Louisiana, moved the previous question on the motion (without debate), 
which was ordered without objection. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
advised Mr. Conte that no further debate was in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 17869, 17870, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A call of the House was ordered, and the House then agreed to a 
unanimous-consent request by Mr. Passman that ``the action of the House 
by which the previous question was ordered be vacated,'' in order to 
permit debate on the motion.

[[Page 11006]]

Sec. 71.23 The previous question having been ordered on a motion to 
    send a bill to conference under Rule XX clause 1, further debate 
    may be had on the motion only by unanimous consent.

    On July 9, 1970,(15) Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of 
Pennsylvania, moved to take H.R. 15628 from the Speaker's table with 
the Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and 
agree to a conference. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Mr. Morgan for one hour and Mr. Morgan immediately moved the 
previous question, which was ordered by the House on a recorded vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 23524, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Morgan then propounded a unanimous-consent request for debate 
on the motion notwithstanding the fact that the previous question had 
been ordered, but the request was objected to:

        Mr. Morgan: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the 
    previous question has been ordered on my motion to go to 
    conference, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 1 hour of 
    debate, one-half to be controlled by myself and one-half by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Riegle) who has announced that he will 
    propose a motion to instruct the conferees.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan).
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 71.24 Further debate on a measure on which the previous question 
    has been ordered and the yeas and nays ordered on final passage may 
    be had only by unanimous consent.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 341 (waiver of law 
pursuant to Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act) in the House on Dec. 
8, 1981,(16) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 127 Cong. Rec. 30003, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker, having resumed 
    the Chair, Mr. Fuqua, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had 
    under consideration the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 341) providing 
    for a waiver of law pursuant to the Alaskan Natural Gas 
    Transportation Act, had directed him to report the joint resolution 
    back to the House, with the recommendation that the joint 
    resolution do pass.
        The Speaker: (17) Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the joint resolution.

[[Page 11007]]

        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
    third time, and was read a third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the joint 
    resolution. . . .
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Tom] Corcoran [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The Speaker: Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
    proceedings on this question will be postponed.
        The vote will be taken tomorrow, Wednesday, December 9, 1981.
        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that when this is considered tomorrow, there be 
    10 minutes allotted for debate immediately prior to the vote, 5 
    minutes to be allotted to the proponents and 5 minutes allotted to 
    the opponents.
        My reason for doing this is that there was no opportunity for 
    Members who may be voting tomorrow, who are not here, to hear the 
    principal arguments, and I think, in fairness, at least 5 minutes 
    on each side ought to be allotted.
        Mr. [Eugene] Johnston [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

Sec. 71.25 The House having voted to reconsider a motion on which the 
    previous question had been ordered when first voted upon, debate on 
    the motion is in order by unanimous consent only.

    During consideration of House Resolution 660 (in the matter 
of Representative Charles H. Wilson) in the House on May 29, 
1980,(18) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 12663-65, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I was in 
    the House when the previous speaker . . . evidently brought in 
    material which was not in the record before the committee, which in 
    my judgment means there has been surprise to the defense in this 
    case in the fact that the gentleman brought up evidence, which is a 
    document from the State of California. . . .
        I would ask the Chair, is there any procedure where I can make 
    a motion, so that we can handle this in a fair and expeditious 
    manner and give him the opportunity to respond to that 
    and to get the evidence from California? . . .
        The Speaker: (19) The only motion available that the 
    Chair would know of, unless the gentleman from Florida would yield, 
    would be the motion for reconsideration, if the gentleman voted on 
    the prevailing side of the motion of the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Rousselot). That was a motion to postpone to a day certain, 
    which was defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ertel: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote to 
    postpone. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .

[[Page 11008]]

        Mr. Speaker, does a motion to reconsider admit of debate?
        The Speaker: There is no debate on this reconsideration motion, 
    since the previous question was ordered on the motion to postpone. 
    . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ertel moves that the House reconsider the vote on the 
        motion to postpone to a day certain. . . .

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by Mr. Ertel 
    to reconsider the vote on the motion offered by Mr. Rousselot to 
    postpone consideration. . . .
        So the motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to postpone 
    was agreed to. . . .
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) to postpone to June 10.
        Mr. [Wyche] Fowler [Jr., of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
    to ask unanimous consent from this body for 10 minutes, to be 
    equally divided between the opposition and the majority party, to 
    debate the motion now before us by the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Rousselot). . . .
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the 10 minutes' debate?
        The Chair hears none.
        The gentleman from California (Mr. Rousselot) is recognized for 
    5 minutes, and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Fowler) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The above precedent represents the modern 
practice. Earlier precedents (20) supported the view that 
``when a vote taken under the operation of the previous question is 
reconsidered, the main question stands divested of the previous 
question, and may be debated and amended without reconsideration of the 
motion for the previous question.'' In current practice, separate 
reconsideration of the motion for the previous question would be 
required for debate and amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5491, 5492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conference Reports

Sec. 71.26 Following the adoption of a conference report 
    without debate, the House agreed, by unanimous consent, to permit 
    40 minutes' debate to appear in the Record preceding the adoption 
    of the report.

    On May 22, 1968,(1) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, called 
up the conference report on S. 5, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 
and asked unanimous-consent that the statement of the managers be read 
in lieu of the report and that reading of the statement be dispensed 
with. There being no objection, and Mr. Patman not seeking recognition 
for debate, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that 
the question

[[Page 11009]]

was on the conference report, and the report was agreed to without 
debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 114 Cong. Rec. 14405, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Patman thereafter asked unanimous consent to vacate the 
proceedings by which the report was adopted, there having been no 
debate; the request was objected to. The House then agreed to a 
unanimous-consent request by Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma:

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 40 minutes of debate 
    may be had on this matter, to be equally divided between the 
    gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from New Jersey, and that it 
    appear in the Record prior to the adoption of the conference 
    report.

    The Speaker then stated, in response to parliamentary inquiries, 
that the agreement to permit discussion, the conference report having 
been agreed to, did not reopen the report to permit the making of 
motions thereon, such as the motion to recommit, the adoption of which 
would alter the prior action of the House in agreeing to the report.

Sec. 71.27 While debate on a conference report is limited to one hour 
    (2) to be equally divided between majority and minority 
    parties,(3) the House may, by unanimous consent, either 
    extend that time or permit debate by ``special order'' on the 
    conference 
    report prior to actual consideration thereof; thus, on 
    one occasion, by unanimous 
    consent, two Members, the chairman and ranking minority member of 
    the House conferees, were permitted ``special orders'' of one hour 
    each to debate a conference report following adoption of a 
    resolution making in order the consideration of the report but 
    prior to actual consideration of the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 758 (1995).
 3. See Rule XXVIII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 26, 1975,(4) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House relative to consideration of the conference report on H.R. 
2166, the Tax Reduction Act of 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 8899, 8900, 8916, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Spark M.] Matsunaga [of Hawaii]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 
    minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman).

         conference report on h.r. 2166, tax reduction act of 1975

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon] submitted the following conference 
    report and statement on the bill (H.R. 2166) to amend the Internal 
    Revenue Code of 1954 . . . to increase the investment credit and 
    the surtax exemption, and for other purposes:

[[Page 11010]]

                      Conference Report (H. Rept. 94-120)

            The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
        two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
        2166) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 . . . having 
        met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend 
        and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
            That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
        amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment 
        as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by 
        the Senate amendment insert the following:

                   Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents.

            (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tax 
        Reduction Act of 1975''. . . .

        Mr. Ullman: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that upon the 
    adoption of the rule I be granted a 60-minute special order.
        The Speaker: (5) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oregon?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to 
    object, Mr. Speaker, we have in the rules 
    of the House an adequate rule for 
    the consideration of conference reports . . . . I have no way of 
    knowing, nor does any Member in this Chamber know, who will control 
    the time during a special order, except the gentleman from Oregon, 
    whether questions, once raised, will be answered, or whether or not 
    debate will deteriorate into partisan debate.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is very effectively but improperly 
    stating the rules. The minority has 30 minutes and the majority has 
    30 minutes on the conference report.
        Mr. Bauman: I am talking about the lack of protection contained 
    in the request for the 1-hour special order that was just made by 
    the gentleman from Oregon.
        The Speaker: Any Member of the House may make a request for a 
    special order.
        Mr. Bauman: I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        Mr. [Herman T.] Schneebeli [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, 
    further reserving the right to object, I also ask for a 60-minute 
    special order following that of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
    Ullman).
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania?
        There was no objection.