[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[I. Duration of Debate in the Committee of the Whole]
[Â§ 75. General Debate]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 11051-11060]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
          I. DURATION OF DEBATE IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
 
Sec. 75. General Debate

    On most bills considered in the Committee of the Whole, a special 
rule reported from the Committee on Rules and adopted by the House 
provides for a certain number of hours of general debate, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the reporting committee.(1) If no special rule provides for 
the duration of general debate, the House may agree by unanimous 
consent to limit such debate.(2) And where the House has 
fixed the time for general debate, the Committee may not, even by 
unanimous consent, extend such time.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 74, supra, for the effect of special rules on the duration 
        of debate in the Committee of the Whole.
 2. See Sec. 75.10, infra.
 3. See Sec. 75.7, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If neither a special rule nor a unanimous-consent agreement has 
provided for the duration of general debate in the Committee, the 
debate proceeds under the hour rule, each Member being recognized for 
one hour, and is unlimited until the Committee or the House acts to 
close the debate.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See Sec. Sec. 75.1-75.4, infra. For the one-hour limitation per 
        Member, see Sec. Sec. 75.5, 75.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Committee of the Whole and debate generally, see Ch. 19, supra.
Control and distribution in general debate, see Sec. Sec. 24-26, supra.
Effect of special orders on duration of general debate, see Sec. 74, 
    supra.
General debate on appropriation bills, see Ch. 25, supra.
Opening and closing debate generally, see Sec. 7, supra.
Recognition generally on bills considered in the Committee of the 
    Whole, see Sec. 16, supra.
Special orders generally, see Ch. 21, supra.

[[Page 11052]]

                          -------------------General Debate Under the 
    Hour Rule

Sec. 75.1 Absent an agreement in the House limiting the time for 
    general debate in the Committee of the Whole, debate in the 
    Committee is under the hour rule.

    On July 28, 1969,(5) Mr. John Dowdy, of Texas, asked 
unanimous consent for the consideration of H.R. 9553, amending the 
District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, in the House as in the Committee 
of the Whole. Mr. Brock Adams, of Washington, reserved the right to 
object and propounded a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 115 Cong. Rec. 20850, 20851, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        If the gentleman from Washington should object to the request 
    and we should go into the Committee of the Whole for the 
    consideration of this bill, then what would be the time 
    requirements? Would there be 1 hour of debate to be divided between 
    the opposition and the proponents?
        The Speaker: (6) The Chair will state that if the 
    unanimous-consent request is objected to, under the rules a motion 
    will be in order to go into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union and the gentleman from Texas would control 1 
    hour, unless the time is fixed by unanimous consent prior to going 
    into the Committee of the Whole.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
 7. See also 93 Cong. Rec. 2464, 2465, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 
        1947; 81 Cong. Rec. 7680-97, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 
        1937; and 81 Cong. Rec. 5754, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., June 15, 
        1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 75.2 General debate in the Committee of the Whole when considering 
    District of Columbia business is under the hour rule and is 
    otherwise unlimited unless the House provides otherwise.

    On May 12, 1941,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of District of Columbia 
legislation pending on the Union Calendar. Since no time for debate had 
been fixed, Chairman William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, recognized 
five Members successively for an hour's debate each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 87 Cong. Rec. 3917-40, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 28, 1969,(9) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that 
should a bill called up by the Committee on the District of Columbia, 
pending on the Union Calendar, be considered in the Committee of the 
Whole, debate in the Committee would be under the hour rule and 
unlimited absent an agreement in the House limiting general debate in 
the Committee.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 115 Cong. Rec. 20850, 20851, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
10. See also 75 Cong. Rec. 7990, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 11, 1932.

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

[[Page 11053]]

Sec. 75.3 Where the time for general debate in Committee of the Whole 
    has not been fixed, the Chair may recognize a Member under the hour 
    rule and then decline to recognize any other Member until that hour 
    is exhausted.

    On July 27, 1937,(11) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering, under general debate, H.R. 7730, to authorize the 
President to appoint administrative assistants. No time had been fixed 
in the House for the length of general debate. Mr. John Taber, of New 
York, had the floor under 
the hour rule and Mr. Bertrand 
H. Snell, of New York, sought 
recognition, which was refused 
by Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas, Mr. Taber declining to yield or 
relinquish his time. The Chairman then answered a parliamentary 
inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 81 Cong. Rec. 7680-97, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: Under the rules of the House, when we go into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, as we have 
    in this instance, without fixing the time for debate, am I correct 
    in saying that anyone recognized by the Chair is recognized for an 
    hour, and has the Chair the discretion of recognizing certain 
    individuals and then permitting those individuals to yield their 
    time to other individuals, to the exclusion of other Members who 
    are seeking recognition?
        The Chairman: That has been the practice.

Sec. 75.4 When the House resolves itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole for the consideration of an appropriation bill without fixing 
    the time for debate, the Member first recognized is entitled to an 
    hour and may yield such portions of that time as he desires, and 
    after that hour another Member is recognized for an hour.

    On Mar. 24, 1947,(12) Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, 
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of H.R. 2700, an appropriation bill. He proposed a 
unanimous-consent agreement for time for general debate on the bill, 
and Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, objected to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 93 Cong. Rec. 2464, 2465, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on recognition and time for debate in the 
Committee of the Whole, where the time and control of debate have not 
been fixed:

[[Page 11054]]

        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that on the adoption of 
    the motion to go into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union that there will be 1 hour for general debate for each 
    side?
        The Speaker: Under the rule, whoever is first recognized is 
    entitled to 1 hour and, of course, the Member can yield such 
    portions of that time as he wishes. . . .
        Mr. Rooney: Mr. Speaker, is it understood that the minority is 
    to have an equal division of the time for debate this afternoon?
        The Speaker: After the first hour has been used by the 
    majority, the minority then can have 1 hour under the 
    rule.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Since appropriations bills reported by the Committee on 
        Appropriations are privileged for consideration (see Rule XI 
        clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 [1995]), they are 
        normally considered without a special order from the Committee 
        on Rules. See, generally, Ch. 25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One-hour Limitation on General Debate

Sec. 75.5 Although a Member may have control of time for general debate 
    in the Committee of the Whole, he may not consume more than one 
    hour, except by unanimous consent.

    On July 22, 1958,(14) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
was in control of time for debate on 
an appropriations bill. Chairman James J. Delaney, of New York, advised 
him that he had consumed one hour. Mr. Cannon stated he wished to 
consume the remainder of his time, and the Chairman asked whether there 
was objection to Mr. Cannon proceeding for one additional minute. Mr. 
Donald W. Nicholson, of Massachusetts, objected to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 104 Cong. Rec. 14647, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Mar. 6, 1962,(15) Mr. J. Vaughan Gary, of Virginia, 
was in control of time for general debate on an appropriations bill. 
When Chairman W. Homer Thornberry, of Texas, advised him that he had 
consumed one hour of his time, he asked and was given permission to 
proceed for five additional minutes.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 3484-89, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
16. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 21174-78, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 29, 
        1969; and 111 Cong. Rec. 26258, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 7, 
        1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 75.6 Where debate in the Committee of the Whole was proceeding 
    under the hour rule and the Member with the floor had yielded the 
    balance of his time to another, the Chair declined to recognize for 
    a unanimous-consent request that the latter Mem

[[Page 11055]]

    ber be permitted additional time.

    On Mar. 24, 1947,(17) general debate was proceeding 
under the hour rule in the Committee of the Whole on H.R. 2700, the 
Department of Labor and Federal Security Agency appropriation bill. Mr. 
John J. Rooney, of New York, who had the floor, yielded the balance of 
his time to Mrs. Mary T. Norton, of New Jersey, who asked unanimous 
consent for additional time. Chairman Clifford R. Hope, of Kansas, 
ruled that the request was not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 2476, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed 
    for 10 additional minutes.
        The Chairman: The Chair regrets that the request is not in 
    order at this time, as the time is under the control of the 
    gentleman from New York and is restricted under the rules of the 
    House.
        Mrs. Norton: Is it not possible to get that additional time by 
    unanimous consent? I have known it to be done in many, many other 
    cases.
        The Chairman: That would be true under the 5-minute rule, but 
    we are proceeding now in general debate, and under the rules of the 
    House that is not permitted.

    Parliamentarian's Note: No limits on debate having been set by the 
House, Mrs. Norton could have consumed the remainder of Mr. Rooney's 
time and then sought recognition for one hour in her own right.

Where Time Fixed by House

Sec. 75.7 Time for general debate in the Committee of the Whole having 
    been fixed by the House, the Committee of the Whole may not, even 
    by unanimous consent, extend it.

    On June 23, 1959,(18) Chairman Clark W. Thompson, of 
Texas, declined to recognize for a unanimous-consent request to extend 
time for debate in the Committee of the Whole, the House having fixed 
the time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 105 Cong. Rec. 11666, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Vanik [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a consent request?
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: I yield.
        Mr. Vanik: I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
    Virginia may be permitted to proceed for 10 additional minutes.
        The Chairman: The time has been fixed in the House. The 
    gentleman's request is not in order.
        The gentleman from Virginia will proceed.

Effect of Special Rule

Sec. 75.8 Where the House pursuant to a special rule has di

[[Page 11056]]

    vided the control of general debate in the Committee of the Whole 
    between the chairman and ranking minority member of the committee 
    which reported the bill, it is not in order for a Member to whom 
    time has been yielded to ask unanimous consent 
    for additional time, although 
    the Members in control may yield additional time.

    On Dec. 17, 1970,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
conducting general debate on H.R. 19446, the Emergency School Aid Act 
of 1970, pursuant to House Resolution 1307, dividing control of general 
debate between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Education and Labor. Mr. John Conyers, Jr., of Michigan, 
who had been yielded time in debate, asked unanimous consent for 
additional time when his yielded time had expired. Chairman James C. 
Corman, of California, indicated that such a request was not in order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 116 Cong. Rec. 42222, 42223, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
    expired.
        Mr. Conyers: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed 
    for 2 additional minutes.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Michigan that the time is under the control of the managers of the 
    bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bell) and the gentleman 
    from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins).
        Mr. [Alphonzo] Bell of California: Mr. Chairman, I yield the 
    gentleman from Michigan 2 additional minutes.

Various Examples of Unanimous-consent Agreements

Sec. 75.9 The House agreed to 
    a unanimous-consent request providing that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a 
    concurrent resolution on the House Calendar and providing that 
    there be one hour of general debate (one-half hour on each side).

    On June 22, 1965,(20) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request for the consideration of a Senate concurrent resolution 
on the House Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 111 Cong. Rec. 14400, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    reconsideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 36 expressing the 
    sense of the Congress with respect to the 20th anniversary of the 
    United Nations during International Cooperation Year, and for other 
    purposes, and that general

[[Page 11057]]

    debate thereon be limited to 1 hour, one-half hour to be controlled 
    by myself and one-half hour to be controlled by the gentlewoman 
    from Ohio [Mrs. Bolton].
        The Speaker: (1) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Florida?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 75.10 In the consideration of the general appropriation bill of 
    1951, containing all the appropriations for the various agencies of 
    the government, it was agreed in the House by unanimous consent 
    that: (1) general debate in the Committee of the Whole be equally 
    divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Appropriations; and (2) following the reading of the 
    first chapter of the bill for amendment, not to exceed two hours' 
    general debate be had before the reading of each subsequent 
    chapter, one-half to be controlled by the chairman and one-half by 
    the ranking minority member of the subcommittee in charge of the 
    chapter.

    On Apr. 3, 1950,(2) Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, moved to resolve into 
Committee of the Whole for consideration of the general appropriation 
bill of 1951 and made the following unanimous-consent request on the 
control of time for debate, which was agreed to by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 96 Cong. Rec. 4614, 4615, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I 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. 7786) making appropriations for the 
    support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, 
    and for other purposes; and pending that I ask unanimous consent 
    that time for general debate be equally divided, one-half to be 
    controlled by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] and one-half 
    by myself; that debate be confined to the bill; and that following 
    the reading of the first chapter of the bill, not to exceed 2 hours 
    general debate be had before the reading of the subsequent chapter, 
    one-half to be controlled by the chairman and one-half by the 
    ranking minority member of the subcommittee in charge of the 
    chapter.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In prior years there had been 11 separate 
appropriation bills for the various government agencies. In 1951 they 
were consolidated into one bill.

Time Used for Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 75.11 Where a Member to whom time has been yielded

[[Page 11058]]

    for general debate poses a parliamentary inquiry, the time consumed 
    to answer the inquiry is deducted from his time for debate.

    On Sept. 25, 1975,(3) the Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole responded to a parliamentary inquiry, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 121 Cong. Rec. 30196, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Buchanan).
        (Mr. Buchanan asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        Mr. [John] Buchanan [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Buchanan: May I ask whether the making of this 
    parliamentary inquiry is taken out of my time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that it will be taken out of 
    the gentleman's time.

Relevancy of General Debate

Sec. 75.12 Where a special rule provided for the chairman 
    of the Committee on International Relations to designate Members to 
    equally divide and control two extra hours of general debate on 
    a bill in Committee of the Whole, the chairman of said committee 
    informed the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole of his 
    designation of himself, another member of the majority party and 
    two members of the minor-ity party to control one-half hour each; 
    and the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole advised that such 
    debate was not required by the rule to be confined to any 
    particular issue, but to the bill as a whole.

    On July 31, 1978,(5) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of 
Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, 
made a statement as to the division of control of time for debate 
pursuant to a special rule providing for two extra hours of debate on 
H.R. 12514, foreign aid authorizations for fiscal 1979. The intent 
behind requesting the extra hours had been to afford debate directed at 
the Turkish arms embargo issue, but the rule properly omitted any 
reference to the scope of debate, other than the requirement that all 
general debate be confined to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 23456, 23457, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, under the rule, it is my 
    understanding that

[[Page 11059]]

    the 1 hour for general debate on the entire bill, that that hour is 
    equally divided between myself and the ranking minority member, the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield).
        Then the 2 hours that the rule provides for the Greek-Turkey-
    Cyprus issue, that there be 1 hour in support of lifting the 
    embargo and 1 hour in opposition, and that the hour in support 
    would be divided between myself and the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Broomfield), and those in opposition to lifting the embargo 
    would be managed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) and 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski).
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair will respond to the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) that the Chair has been 
    informed that the gentleman from Wisconsin has designated the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) for 1 hour, and also the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) for 1 hour. The rule, of 
    course, does not confine any such debate to the embargo issue 
    alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limiting Debate Under Statutory Schemes

Sec. 75.13 Pursuant to section 21(b) of the Federal Trade Commission 
    Improvements Act, a motion to limit debate on a concurrent 
    resolution disapproving an FTC regulation in Committee of the Whole 
    is privileged and is not debatable, and is in order pending the 
    motion that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole to consider the concurrent resolution.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on May 26, 
1982,(7) during consideration of a motion that the House 
resolve into the Committee of the Whole to consider Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 60 (disapproving Federal Trade Commission regulations 
regarding the sale of used motor vehicles):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 128 Cong. Rec. 12027, 12029, 9th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    the provisions of section 21(b) of Public Law 96-252, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the Senate 
    concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 60) disapproving the Federal 
    Trade Commission trade regulation rule relating to the sale 
    regulation rule relating to the sale of used motor vehicles; and 
    pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I move that general debate on the 
    Senate concurrent resolution be limited not to exceed 2 hours, 1 
    hour to be controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) 
    and 1 hour to be controlled by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Lee). . . .
        The Speaker: (8) The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Dingell) made the motion that the debate be limited to 2 hours. . . 
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that the motion to limit debate is not 
    debatable.

[[Page 11060]]

        Mr. [Toby] Moffett [of Connecticut]: I cannot yield, Mr. 
    Speaker?
        The Speaker: The motion is pending. . . .
        The Chair will put the question.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) to limit the debate to 2 hours. . . .
        [The motion was agreed to.]
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) that the House resolve itself 
    into the Committee of the Whole House.
        The motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A motion to resolve into Committee of the 
Whole for consideration of a concurrent resolution disapproving an 
agency action is highly privileged and may be offered before the third 
day on which is report thereon is available since, Rule XI, the 
requirement of class 2(l)(6) of that rule that committee reports be 
available to Members for three days is not applicable to a measure 
disapproving a decision by a government.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 244, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------