[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[B. Right to Recognition]
[Â§ 8. In General; Seeking Recognition]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9599-9630]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                    B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
 
Sec. 8. In General; Seeking Recognition


    In order to address the House or speak in relation to any matter, 
or to make a motion or objection, a Member must first secure 
recognition from the Speaker in the House or from the Chairman in the 
Committee of the Whole. Rule XIV clause 1 provides the proper method of 
seeking recognition:

        When any Member desires to speak or deliver any matter to the 
    House, he shall rise and respectfully address himself to ``Mr. 
    Speaker,'' and, on being recognized, may address the House from any 
    place on the floor or from the Clerk's desk, and shall confine 
    himself to the question under debate, avoiding 
    personality.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995). For parliamentary law on 
        seeking recognition, see Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 354 (1995). Proper forms of address are discussed 
        in Sec. 42, infra.

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

[[Page 9600]]

    As indicated by the rule, a recognized Member may be taken off the 
floor by a point of order that he is indulging in disorderly or 
irrelevant language.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. Sec. 43 et seq., infra, for disorderly language and 
        Sec. Sec. 35 et seq., infra, for relevancy in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member may not be interrupted without his consent or taken off 
his feet for ordinary motions.(6) A Member seeking to 
interrupt another must secure recognition from the Chair, and the 
remarks of a Member who has not gained recognition may be stricken from 
the Record.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 32, infra, for control of debate and interruptions of a 
        Member with the floor.
 7. See Sec. Sec. 8.2, 8.3, 8.10, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XIV clause 2 provides:

        When two or more Members rise at once, the Speaker shall name 
    the Member who is first to speak. . . .(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995). This rule modified the 
        parliamentary practice that the Member who first rises has the 
        right to be recognized [see Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 393 (1995)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the rule, the Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole has the power and discretion to determine who will be recognized, 
and for what purpose.(9) To determine a Member's claim to 
the floor, the Chair may ask for what purpose a Member rises, and 
recognition is granted only for the specific purpose 
indicated.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See, generally, Sec. 9, infra.
10. See Sec. Sec. 8.9, 8.12, 8.13, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair's power of recognition is not unlimited, and recognition 
or refusal thereof may be dictated by House rule or by established 
practice and precedent.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For limitations on recognition, see Sec. 11, infra. The order of 
        recognition in specific parliamentary situations is discussed 
        in Sec. Sec. 12-15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognition is governed in specific instances and in specific 
parliamentary situations by principles and rules too extensive to be 
completely covered in this chapter. The reader is advised to consult 
those portions of this work dealing with the order of business, with 
motions, and with the relative privilege of motions and questions.
    Except at the convening of the Congress, a Member-elect (such as 
one elected to fill a vacancy) may not be recognized until he has been 
administered the oath.

                            Cross References
Effect of special orders on recognition, see Sec. 28, infra.
Interruption of Member with the floor, see Sec. 32, infra.
Manner of address and interruptions generally, see Sec. 42, infra.

[[Page 9601]]

Recognition before adoption of rules, see Ch. 1, supra.
Recognition in voting, see Ch. 30, infra.
Recognition on questions of privilege, see Ch. 11, supra.
Recognition in relation to quorums and calls of the House, see Ch. 20, 
    supra.
Recognition for specific motions and questions, see Sec. Sec. 16 et 
    seq., infra.                          -------------------

Member Must Seek Recognition To Obtain Floor

Sec. 8.1 No Member has the floor until the Chair has recognized him for 
    the purpose of proceeding.

    For example, on Mar. 16, 1934,(12) Speaker Henry T. 
Rainey, of Illinois, ruled that until a Member seeking to make an 
announcement or to proceed in debate had been recognized by the Chair 
for that purpose, the Member could not proceed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 78 Cong. Rec. 4691, 73d Cong. 2d Sess. See also 78 Cong. Rec. 4700, 
        73d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 16, 1934; 77 Cong. Rec. 2413, 73d 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 26, 1933.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William P.] Connery [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Condon, and the gentleman from 
    New York, Mr. Mead, are unavoidably absent. If they were here, they 
    would vote ``aye.''
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Snell: Is there any provision in the rules for such an 
    announcement as has just been made by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts?
        The Speaker: There is no provision in the rules for an 
    announcement of that character.
        Mr. Snell: I make the point of order that the gentleman is out 
    of order. If the rules are going to be invoked, let us abide by all 
    of them.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.
        Mr. Connery: Mr. Speaker, the Chair just ruled that all remarks 
    uttered on the floor of the House must go in the Record; therefore 
    my announcement must go in the Record.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman for that 
    purpose under the rules.
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I make the 
    point of order that a Member has no right to make a speech until he 
    is recognized by the Chair.
        The Speaker: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 8.2 The Speaker has repeatedly ruled that under the rules and 
    procedures of the House a Member who wishes to interrupt another 
    who has the floor must first obtain recognition from the Chair.

    On June 7, 1961,(13) while Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan,

[[Page 9602]]

had the floor, he yielded to Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, who 
thereafter attempted to interrupt Mr. Hoffman and to yield to a third 
Member. Mr. Hoffman made a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 107 Cong. Rec. 9681, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. It has become customary 
    here--and I only make this because having served under Speaker 
    Byrns, a man of great ability and dignity who said there was a rule 
    in effect--that Members had to address the Chair or the Speaker 
    before making a request that the Member speaking could yield to 
    anyone. Is that right?
        The Chairman: (14) That is the rule and practice of 
    the House and Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Pardon me, then. I had not noticed 
    that the practice was being observed.

    Similarly, on July 16, 1935,(15) Speaker Joseph W. 
Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows on a point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 79 Cong. Rec. 11256, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The point of order has already been made, and the Chair is 
    about to make a ruling. . . .
        The rules of the House provide that Members of the House shall 
    observe proper decorum in debate. This is the only way in which 
    matters may be discussed in a sound, sensible, sane manner, and a 
    proper conclusion arrived at. Those Members particularly who have 
    been here for years, it seems to the Chair, should be doubly 
    careful to strictly conform to the rule.
        The rules provide that when a Member rises to interrupt another 
    he shall address the Chair and do it respectfully and secure the 
    consent of the Member who is talking.

    The Speaker then cited Rule XIV clause 1, governing the subject of 
address.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker has ruled on numerous other occasions that it is not in 
order in debate for a Member to interrupt another who has the floor 
without first addressing the Chair and obtaining consent of the Member 
who has the floor.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 102 Cong. Rec. 11455, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., June 29, 1956; 
        83 Cong. Rec. 591, 592, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Jan. 15, 1938; 80 
        Cong. Rec. 2201, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 1936; 80 Cong. 
        Rec. 1665, 1666, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 7, 1936; 79 Cong. 
        Rec. 5461, 74th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 11, 1935; and 78 Cong. 
        Rec. 10630, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., June 6, 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Remarks of Member Not Recognized May Be Stricken

Sec. 8.3 Members are required to seek recognition from the Chair in 
    order to question 
    a Member or address the House, and the remarks of Members who have 
    not secured recognition are not included in the 
    Record.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See, for example, 91 Cong. Rec. 10032, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 
        24, 1945 (making point of order); 81 Cong. Rec. 3588, 75th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 19, 1937 (interjecting remarks into 
        another's speech); and 79 Cong. Rec. 11256, 74th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., July 16, 1935 (interrogating Member having the floor).
            See Rule XIV clause 1, House Rules and Manual Sec. 749 
        (1995): ``When any Member desires to speak or deliver any 
        matter to the House, he shall rise and respectfully address 
        himself to `Mr. Speaker,' and, on being recognized, may address 
        the House from any place on the floor or from the Clerk's desk. 
        . . .''

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

[[Page 9603]]

    On Apr. 14, 1936,(19) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, ruled in response to a point of order that remarks made by a 
Member without having secured recognition from the Chair are properly 
deleted from the Congressional Record:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 80 Cong. Rec. 5478, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: I make the point of order 
    that when a Member is speaking on the floor, as the gentleman from 
    New York was yesterday, and someone attempts to interrupt him and 
    he states he refuses to yield, and he does not yield, no Member 
    then has the right to make remarks and to put them in the Record 
    without being recognized by the Chair or getting permission of the 
    House.
        I think the gentleman from New York would have been well within 
    his rights if he had taken a pencil and wiped out the remarks 
    himself, because the gentleman from Washington did not have any 
    right to make a remark in the Record unless he got permission of 
    the House or permission of the Chair. Mr. Speaker, I make that 
    point of order. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair may say to the gentleman that no Member 
    of the House has the right to have his remarks inserted in the 
    Record unless he has obtained the consent of the House or the Chair 
    or the gentleman addressing the House.

        The present occupant of the chair was not presiding at the 
    time, but the Chair understands from the gentleman from Washington 
    (Mr. Zioncheck) that when he asked the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Boylan) for permission to interrupt him the gentleman from New York 
    declined to yield. Thereupon the gavel fell, and the gentleman's 
    remarks were made after the gavel had fallen and without 
    recognition from the Chair or the permission of the gentleman from 
    New York.
        Mr. [Marion A.] Zioncheck: That is right. I admit I was wrong.
        The Speaker: The Chair, under such circumstances, holds that 
    the remarks were not proper for the Record.

    On Apr. 19, 1937,(20) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Edward W. 
Curley, of New York, that the Speaker could order stricken, from the 
notes of the reporters of debates, the remarks of a Member who had not 
been recognized and to whom the Member having the floor had declined to 
yield:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 81 Cong. Rec. 3588, 3589, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: This is a rather important inquiry that the 
    gentleman

[[Page 9604]]

    from New York (Mr. Curley) has submitted. It has not been raised, 
    so far as the Chair recalls, during the present session of 
    Congress. In order that the rights of Members may be protected, and 
    that the Members may know what the rules and precedents are with 
    respect to this proposition, the Chair will read from section 3466, 
    volume 8, of Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, 
    the following statement:

            The Speaker may order stricken from the notes of the 
        reporters remarks made by Members who have not been recognized 
        and to whom the Member having the floor has declined to yield.

        Before interpreting this statement it is the recollection of 
    the Chair, who was sitting in the Chamber at the time, that when 
    the gentleman from New York now occupying the floor addressed the 
    Chair and asked the gentleman from New York (Mr. Wadsworth) to 
    yield, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Wadsworth) declined to 
    yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Curley).
        On August 4, 1911, Mr. Charles N. Fowler, of New Jersey, rising 
    to a parliamentary inquiry, asked if remarks made by a Member who 
    had not received recognition from the Chair and to whom the Member 
    having the floor had declined to yield, were properly incorporated 
    in the Record.
        The Speaker, Mr. Champ Clark, replied:

            The rule has been that if the gentleman from Illinois, for 
        instance, is addressing the House, and some other Member asks 
        leave to interrupt him, and the gentleman from Illinois 
        declines to be interrupted, and the other Member persists in 
        talking, the Speaker has the right to strike out what the 
        interrupting Member said after he had been notified that 
        interruptions were not desired. . . .

        In this particular instance the Speaker did not authorize the 
    reporter to strike out the interjection of the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Curley) now occupying the floor, because the Chairman of 
    the Committee of the Whole was at that time presiding.
        The Chair may say that in conformity with this precedent, and 
    what the Chair conceives to be sound procedure, the rule should be 
    reiterated that when a Member is occupying the floor and a Member 
    after addressing the Chair and asking the Member then occupying the 
    floor if he will yield for a question or for an interruption, and 
    the gentleman then speaking declines to yield, it is not proper for 
    a Member nevertheless to interject into the Record some remark 
    which he desires to make. . . .
        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dowell: When a Member has the floor and declines to yield, 
    and no one is recognized to propound a parliamentary inquiry or 
    direct an inquiry to the gentleman having the floor, and the other 
    Member, not being recognized by the Chair, makes some statement, 
    has not the Member who has the floor the right to leave those 
    injected remarks out of the Record?
        The Speaker: Under the decision referred to by the Chair, 
    undoubtedly the Member interrupted would have the right to strike 
    those remarks from the Record.

[[Page 9605]]

How To Seek Recognition

Sec. 8.4 A Member must be on his feet and must address the Chair at the 
    appropriate time in order to be recognized.

    On Dec. 17, 1974,(1) during consideration of the Rice 
Act of 1975 (2) in the House, the principle stated above was 
demonstrated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 120 Cong. Rec. 40509, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. H.R. 15263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (3) Under the rule, the previous 
    question is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on the amendment.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Speaker: The question is on the engrossment and third 
    reading of the bill.
        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. I was on my feet, and I would ask at what 
    point is a demand for a separate vote on the amendment in order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the question was put on 
    that, and the action has been taken and has been announced.
        Mr. Alexander: I was on my feet, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Arkansas did not address the 
    Chair.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I sought a record vote on the 
    amendment that was adopted in the committee, and the Speaker did 
    not announce a separate vote procedure on the committee amendment.
        The Speaker: The Speaker followed the proper procedure. He 
    definitely remembers saying:

            The question is on the adoption of the amendment. As many 
        as are in favor, vote aye; those opposed, vote no. The ayes 
        have it. The amendment is agreed to.

        That was announced by the Chair, and the Chair then proceeded 
    to put the questions on engrossment and third reading and on final 
    passage, before the gentleman sought recognition.
        The Chair acknowledges Members by recognition. However, if he 
    is bound by everybody standing up all over the room, he is bound 
    100 times.
        The question is on the passage of the bill.

Sec. 8.5 Pursuant to clause 1 of Rule XIV, a Member desiring to speak 
    must rise and address the Chair, and may not remain seated on the 
    committee table while engaging in debate.

    On June 28, 1976,(4) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering the Transportation appro

[[Page 9606]]

priations for fiscal 1977 (H.R. 14234) when the following exchange 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 122 Cong. Rec. 21021, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: Madam Chairman, I 
    move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment.
        (Mr. Goldwater asked and was given permission to revise and 
    extend his remarks.)
        Mr. Goldwater: Madam Chairman, it amuses me that the gentleman 
    from Virginia would seek the supersonic Concorde as the issue on 
    which to wage his campaign against airport noise.
        Mr. [Herbert E.] Harris [II, of Virginia]: Madam Chairman, I 
    make the point of order the gentleman is not standing.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman from California may 
    proceed, if he should desire to rise as required by the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.6 A Member must be on his feet and must address the Chair at the 
    appropriate time in order to be recognized.

    On Aug. 4, 1978,(6) during consideration of the foreign 
aid appropriation bill for fiscal 1979 (H.R. 12931) in the Committee of 
the Whole, it was demonstrated that, in recognizing Members under the 
five-minute rule, the Chair attempts to give preference to members of 
the committee reporting the bill; but the Chair may recognize another 
where a committee member is standing but not actively seeking 
recognition by addressing the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 24439, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (7) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                    TITLE II--FOREIGN MILITARY CREDIT SALES

                         Foreign Military Credit Sales

            For expenses not otherwise provided for, necessary to 
        enable the President to carry out the provisions of sections 23 
        and 24 of the Arms Export Control Act, $648,000,-000. . . .

        The Chairman: Are there amendments to title II?
        For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa rise?
        Mr. [Thomas R.] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Harkin).
        Mr. [Clarence E.] Miller of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I am a member 
    of the committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Iowa 
    (Mr. Harkin).
        Mr. Miller of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet at the time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will tell the gentleman that he might 
    have been on his feet, but the Chair was 
    not aware that he addressed the Chair. . . .

[[Page 9607]]

        Let the Chair make this announcement for the last time during 
    the consideration of this bill. On yesterday twice the Chair 
    admonished the members of this Committee that if they had 
    amendments pending, it was their duty to be standing and to address 
    the Chair seeking recognition. Otherwise the Chair would have no 
    way of knowing that they had an amendment to offer. The Chair is 
    for the third and last time admonishing the Committee that those 
    who have amendments not only be on their feet but seek recognition. 
    On this particular occasion the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller) 
    did not seek the Chair's attention, and the Chair did recognize the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), who did seek the Chair's 
    attention.

Rule on Recognition as Barring Badges Carrying Messages

Sec. 8.7 Clause 1 of Rule XIV, requiring Members desiring to ``speak or 
    deliver any matter to the House'' to rise and address the Speaker 
    to be recognized, proscribes, in effect, the wearing of badges by 
    Members to communicate messages; thus, the Speaker, exercising his 
    authority to preserve order and decorum, has advised Members that 
    the wearing of badges is inappropriate under the rules of the 
    House.

    The following statement was made by the Speaker (8) 
during proceedings on Apr. 15, 1986: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 9. 132 Cong. Rec. 7525, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        All Members wearing yellow badges should be advised that they 
    are inappropriate under the rules of the House.

    The badges in question urged support of military assistance to the 
Nicaraguan Contras. In recent years, some Members and staff have worn 
various badges on the floor to convey political messages to their 
colleagues and to the TV audience. Under the definition of decorum and 
debate in clause 1 of Rule XIV, a Member must first seek recognition 
and then speak his message, or use exhibits as provided in Rule XXX 
subject to approval of the House if objection is made.

Point of Order That Member Has Not Properly Sought Recognition

Sec. 8.8 A point of order that a Member has not properly sought 
    recognition under the five-minute rule comes too late after that 
    Member has been recognized and has be-gun debate.

    During consideration of the Alaska Natural Gas Transpor

[[Page 9608]]

tation Act (S. 3521) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 30, 
1976,(10) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 34132, 34139, 34145, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) . . . Pursuant to the rule, the 
    Clerk will now read the committee amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce, now printed in the reported bill as an original bill for 
    the purpose of amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It shall also be in order to consider an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Interior and 
    Insular Affairs if offered as an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    recommended by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
        The Clerk will read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled,

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Alaska Natural 
        Gas Transportation Act of 1976.''

         amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. melcher

        Mr. [John] Melcher [of Montana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Alaska Natural 
        Gas Transportation Act of 1976''. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Melcher: Page 1 of the 
        amendment, strike out line 6 and all that follows down through 
        line 9 on page 35 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            Sec. 2. The Congress finds and declares that--
            (1) a natural gas supply shortage exists in the contiguous 
        States of the United States. . . .

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the Interior Committee substitute, and in support of 
    the Dingell amendment which was offered to it.
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that the 
    gentleman from Ohio in the well said that he rose in opposition to 
    the Interior Committee substitute, but the pending amendment is not 
    the Interior Committee substitute but the substitute offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), which completely wipes out 
    the Interior Committee substitute.

[[Page 9609]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio has been recognized. The 
    point of order comes too late.

Recognition for a Specific Purpose

Sec. 8.9 Where the Chair recognizes a Member for a specific purpose, 
    the Member has the right to the floor only for that purpose.

    On Jan. 26, 1944,(12) Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, the Minority Leader, asked unanimous consent to proceed 
for one minute. When Mr. Martin attempted to ask the unanimous-consent 
consideration of a bill, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, held that he 
had not been recognized for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 90 Cong. Rec. 746, 747, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to proceed for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: The Chair will not recognize any other Member at 
    this time for that purpose but will recognize the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the 
    generosity of the Chair.
        I take this minute, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make a 
    unanimous-consent request and I think it should be explained.
        I agree with the President that there is immediate need for 
    action on the soldiers' vote bill. A good many of us have been 
    hoping we could have action for the last month. To show our 
    sincerity in having action not next week but right now, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the House immediately take up the bill which 
    is on the Union Calendar known as S. 1285, the soldiers' voting 
    bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts was not 
    recognized for that purpose.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.

    On July 28, 1965,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
reading H.R. 77 for amendment. Chairman Leo W. O'Brien, of New York, 
recognized William H. Ayres, of Ohio, the majority member of the 
committee reporting the bill, to debate a pro forma amendment to strike 
out the last word. Mr. Ayres then offered a substantive amendment 
during his remarks. The Chairman ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 18631, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has not recognized the gentleman for that purpose.
        Does any other Member offer an amendment at this time?

    Parliamentarian's Note: Several majority members of the committee 
were seeking recognition for amendments.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Exceptions to the principle that Members are recognized for a 
        specific purpose are the motion to adjourn and the motion that 
        the Committee of the Whole rise, which are highly privileged 
        and may be made, if in order at the time, by a Member securing 
        recognition for any purpose, except that a Member recognized 
        for purposes of general debate in the Committee of the Whole 
        may not move that the Committee rise, where general debate is 
        governed by the terms of a special rule.

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

[[Page 9610]]

Sec. 8.10 Members are not entitled to the floor until recognized by the 
    Chair for debate even though they may have called up a matter for 
    consideration in the House.

    On Feb. 28, 1931,(15) Mr. Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 500, 
restricting for two years immigration into the United States, and 
Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, recognized Mr. Jenkins for that 
purpose. Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, objected that he had the 
floor, on a resolution from the Committee on Rules, which had been 
called up and read but not debated, making in order the consideration 
of the same measure, House Joint Resolution 500. Mr. O'Connor stated 
that he had yielded 30 minutes' debate to another Member on the 
resolution prior to the motion to suspend the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 74 Cong. Rec. 6575-77, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Longworth ruled that neither Mr. O'Connor nor the Member to 
whom he had yielded time were entitled to the floor since the Chair had 
recognized Mr. Jenkins for the motion to suspend the rules but had not 
recognized Mr. O'Connor for debate on the resolution.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although under the precedents a motion to 
suspend the rules is in order even while another matter is pending, it 
is the better practice to first require the withdrawal of the pending 
matter in order that two proposals not be pending simultaneously.

Sec. 8.11 A motion is not pending until the Chair has recognized a 
    Member, who then offers the motion.

    On Oct. 27, 1983,(16) during consideration of H.R. 4139 
(Department of the Treasury and Postal Service appropriations, fiscal 
1984) in the Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 29630, 29631, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bruce A.] Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, my point 
    of order is that this amendment constitutes a limitation on an 
    appropriation and cannot be considered by the House prior to the 
    consideration of a motion by the Committee to rise.
        The Chairman: (17) The Chair must indicate to the 
    gentleman that no such preferential motion has yet been made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).

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

[[Page 9611]]

        The gentleman is correct that a motion that the Committee rise 
    and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
    been adopted takes precedence over an amendment proposing a 
    limitation.
        Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, then I move that the 
    committee do now rise.
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Roybal: Mr. Chairman, where does the committee stand at 
    this moment with regard to the motion that has been made to rise?
        The Chairman: The Chair must indicate that he had actually 
    recognized the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Morrison) on a point 
    of order, and in the process the gentleman concluded his remarks by 
    attempting to offer a simple motion to rise.
        It would be more appropriate if a motion to rise and report the 
    bill to the House with such amendments as have been adopted, 
    pursuant to clause 2(d), rule XXI were offered instead.
        Does the gentleman have such a motion?
        Mr. Roybal: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the gentleman must 
    withdraw his motion; is that not correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Morrison) has 
    not yet been recognized for the purpose of making a motion, to 
    begin with. That is what the Chair is trying to indicate.
        Mr. Roybal: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise 
    and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments.

--Chair May Inquire as to Purpose

Sec. 8.12 Where two or more Members rise seeking recognition the 
    Speaker may inquire into their purpose and determine from their 
    reply which Member he will recognize.

    On Apr. 26, 1933,(18) the following parliamentary 
situation and ruling by Speaker Henry T. Rainey, of Illinois, occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 77 Cong. Rec. 2413, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Snell and Mr. Rayburn rose.
        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, at the 
    appropriate time I desire to be recognized against the motion to 
    recommit. This is the unfinished business before the House.
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous 
    question.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet demanding recognition. 
    The previous question has not been ordered.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I certainly 
    shall object to the establishment of any precedent of debating 
    motions to recommit.
        Mr. Snell: This is not a precedent. Motion to close debate by 
    ordering the previous question has not been made. This is the 
    unfinished business before the House.
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. I think 
    I have the right to make this motion.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question 
    on the motion to recommit.

[[Page 9612]]

        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rich: Mr. Speaker, is it proper procedure, when one Member 
    has obtained recognition, for another Member to be recognized? The 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell] had the floor and was 
    recognized.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognized the gentleman from New York 
    [only] to ascertain for what purpose he rose.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995): 
        ``When two or more Members rise at once, the Speaker shall name 
        the Member who is first to speak. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 8.13 The fact that the Speaker or Chairman asks a Member ``for 
    what purpose does the gentleman rise'' does not confer recognition 
    on the Member.

    On Apr. 13, 1946,(20) Mr. Dewey Short, of Missouri, 
sought recognition from Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, after the 
engrossment and third reading of the pending bill had been ordered. The 
Speaker inquired of Mr. Short ``for what purpose does the gentleman 
from Missouri rise?'' and Mr. Short stated that he was offering a 
motion to recommit the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 3669, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker recognized Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, to demand the 
reading of the engrossed copy of the bill. Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New 
York, made the point of order that Mr. Short had been recognized to 
offer a motion to recommit. The Speaker stated:

        The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Short] was not recognized. The 
    Chair asked the gentleman for what purpose he rose, and then 
    recognized the gentleman from Georgia.

    On June 26, 1951,(1) Chairman Albert A. Gore, of 
Tennessee, ruled in the Committee of the Whole that his inquiry as to 
the purpose for recognition did not confer recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 97 Cong. Rec. 7174, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler rose.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York 
    rise?
        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move----
        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, was I not 
    recognized?
        The Chairman: The Chair inquired for what purpose the gentleman 
    rose; that does not entail recognition.

--Inquiry as to Purpose Does Not Confer Recognition

Sec. 8.14 The fact that the Chair inquires of a Member for what purpose 
    he seeks recognition does not confer rec

[[Page 9613]]

    ognition, and the Chair may recognize another Member who was 
    previously on his feet seeking recognition.

    On Apr. 22, 1980,(2) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 521 (making additional funds available by transfer for the 
Selective Service System), the following exchange occurred in the 
Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 126 Cong. Rec. 8596, 8601, 8602, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (3) The Clerk will report the 
    committee amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendment: On page 2, line 5, strike 
        ``$4,709,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$13,295,- 000''. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Robert] Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the committee amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan of Oregon to the committee 
        amendment: On page 5, line 2:
            Strike ``$13,295,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$21,000,000.''

        (Mr. Duncan of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise 
    and extend his remarks.)
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Gonzalez) rise?
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
    (Mr. Duncan) to the committee amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that that would be in the 
    third degree, and that amendment to the Duncan amendment is not 
    proper.
        For what purpose does the gentleman from Maryland rise?
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    substitute to the committee amendment at the desk.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, may I then be recognized to speak 
    against the amendment?
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Chairman has already 
    recognized the gentleman from Maryland.
        The Chairman: The Chair has not really recognized the gentleman 
    from Maryland. The Chair is determining whether he could recognize 
    the gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Bauman: The gentleman from Maryland thought the Chairman 
    said, ``For what purpose does the gentleman from Maryland rise?'' 
    and then the gentleman from Maryland said, ``I have a substitute to 
    the committee amendment at the desk.'' Perhaps I just misheard all 
    of that.
        The Chairman: No. The gentleman heard correctly. It does not 
    mean that the Chair has recognized the gentleman for the purpose of 
    offering an amendment. . . .
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

Seeking Recognition To Offer Amendment

Sec. 8.15 In order to obtain recognition to offer an amendment, a 
    Member must not

[[Page 9614]]

    only be standing but must also actively seek recognition by 
    addressing the Chair at the appropriate time.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Oct. 26, 1983,(4) during consideration of the Department of 
Defense appropriations for fiscal year 1984 (H.R. 4185):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 129 Cong. Rec. 29430, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (5) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows: . . .

            For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
        and modernization of aircraft, equipment including ordnance . . 
        . and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
        and machine tools in public and private plants . . . 
        $9,994,245,000. . . .

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Nichols) 
    seek recognition?
        Mr. [William] Nichols [of Alabama]: Yes; I do, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment relating to page 20, line 9, 
    of the bill.
        The Clerk proceeded to read the page and line numbers of the 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment. We have 
    already passed that section.
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet at the time.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman was on his 
    feet but did not know that he was seeking recognition.
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I was at the microphone. I was 
    standing. I was prepared to offer my amendment had the Chairman 
    recognized me.
        The Chairman: The Chair will have to make the observation that 
    the gentleman from Alabama was not seeking active recognition. The 
    Chair recognized the gentleman was on his feet but did not notice 
    that he was seeking recognition by any vocal expression. . . .
        Mr. Nichols: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
    permitted to offer my amendment at this point.
        [Objection was heard.]

Sec. 8.16 A Member desiring to offer an amendment under the five-minute 
    rule in Committee of the Whole must seek recognition from the 
    Chair, and a Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not 
    yield to another Member to offer an amendment.

    On Sept. 8, 1976,(6) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 (H.R. 10498) 
when the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 122 Cong. Rec. 29243, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.

[[Page 9615]]

        Mr. [Elliott] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rogers: I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I would 
    like to offer at this point.
        The Chairman: (7) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Georgia that the gentleman will have to seek 
    recognition on his own time and in due order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Levitas: I thank the Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers: I yield back the balance of my time.

Sec. 8.17 Where numerous amendments which might be offered to a bill 
    had been left with the Reading Clerk, the Chair requested all 
    Members seeking to offer amendments not only to stand but to 
    address the Chair seeking recognition at the appropriate time.

    During consideration of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 12931) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 3, 
1978,(8) Chairman Abraham Kazen, Jr., of Texas, made the 
following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 124 Cong. Rec. 24227, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Let the Chair make this request. There are 
    approximately 70 amendments on the desk. This bill will be read 
    paragraph by paragraph. The Chair requests those Members who have 
    amendments not only to be standing, but to address the Chair at the 
    proper time. . . . The Chair has no way of knowing whether or not 
    these amendments will all be presented, so the Chair will request 
    that all Members who have amendments be standing and seek 
    recognition at the proper time.

Sec. 8.18 As the reading of appropriation bills for amendment is 
    ``scientifically'' done by heading and appropriation amount in each 
    paragraph, a Member desiring to amend a paragraph must stand and 
    seek recognition when that paragraph is read, but is not too late 
    if the Clerk has not concluded the reading of the heading of the 
    subsequent paragraph.

    During consideration of the foreign aid appropriations for 1979 
(H.R. 12931) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 3, 
1978,(9) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 24219, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                              military assistance

            Military assistance: For necessary expenses to carry out 
        the provisions of section 503 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
        1961, as amended, 
        including administrative expenses 
        and purchase of passenger motor 


[[Page 9616]]

        vehicles for replacement only for 
        use outside of the United States, $64,500,000: Provided, That 
        none of the funds contained in this paragraph shall be 
        available for the purchase of new automotive vehicles outside 
        of the United States.

        Mr. [Leo J.] Ryan [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan: Page 9, line 13, strike out 
        ``$64,- 500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$59,500,000''. . 
        . .

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I make a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Obey: I make a point of order that the gentleman's 
    amendment comes too late. The Clerk had already read through the 
    next section of the bill.
        The Chairman: The Clerk had begun to read the next section, but 
    he had not completed reading that section. The Chair did observe 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Ryan) on his feet, and the Chair 
    would hold that he was timely recognized.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Ryan).

Seeking Recognition To Offer Motion

Sec. 8.19 A Member desiring to offer a motion in the House must 
    actively seek recognition from the Chair before another motion to 
    dispose of the pending question has been adopted, and the fact that 
    he may have been standing at that time is not sufficient to confer 
    recognition.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 357 (further 
continuing appropriations) in the House on Nov. 22, 
1981,(11) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 127 Cong. Rec. 28751, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (12) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 37. . . .

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fazio moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 37.

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio). All those in favor say 
    ``aye,'' opposed ``no.''
        The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
        The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    motion at the desk. I have a motion. I was standing, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: To what amendment does the gentleman have a 
    motion?
        Mr. Conte: Senate amendment No. 37.

[[Page 9617]]

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the House has already 
    disposed of that amendment.
        Mr. Conte: I was standing here seeking recognition, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        Mr. Speaker, what was the decision?
        The Speaker: The gentleman may have been standing, but he was 
    not seeking recognition, in the opinion of the Chair.
        Mr. Conte: What was the outcome of that, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: Senate amendment No. 37 was disagreed to.
        Mr. Conte: And I was standing with a motion, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognized that there were three or four 
    others standing, and the gentleman was in a conversation with one 
    of his colleagues, and was not asking for recognition.

Seeking Recognition To Demand Recorded Vote

Sec. 8.20 A Member seeking to demand a recorded vote must actively 
    request recognition from the Chair, and the fact that the Member 
    was merely standing at the time a vote is announced is not 
    sufficient to secure recognition.

    On July 9, 1981,(13) during consideration of H.R. 3519 
(Department of Defense authorization) in the Committee of the Whole, it 
was demonstrated that it is too late to demand a recorded vote on an 
amendment after the Chair has announced the result of a voice vote 
thereon, where the Member making the demand is not on his feet seeking 
recognition at the time the result is announced. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 127 Cong. Rec. 15202, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The question is on 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Marilyn Lloyd Bouquard (Tenn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As many as are in favor will say ``aye''; as many as are 
    opposed will say ``no.''
        The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Are there further amendments to title 
    II?
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price).
        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Madam Chairman, I demand the 
    yeas and nays on the Hansen amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    that his request for a recorded vote comes too late.
        Mr. Price: The Chairman was on his feet and waiting for the 
    commotion to die down.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair wishes to advise the 
    gentleman from Illinois that he may be able to demand a separate 
    vote in the House at a later time but his request comes too late at 
    this time. . . .
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Madam Chairman, the 
    House was not in order at the time that the

[[Page 9618]]

    Chair put the vote on the Hansen amendment. Is it in order for a 
    vote to be taken when the chairman of the committee in charge of 
    the bill does not even know that a vote is being taken?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair put the question to the 
    committee, looked to the committee, and then announced the result 
    of the vote.
        Mr. Stratton: But there had been no final announcement of the 
    vote on the Simon amendment before the vote on the Hansen amendment 
    was taken.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair wishes to advise the 
    gentleman that the Chair did announce the vote on the Simon 
    amendment and then on the Hansen amendment and that no Member was 
    standing at the time seeking recognition when the voice vote was 
    announced on the Hansen amendment. . . .
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Madam Chairman, I was 
    on my feet. I was deferring to the chairman, who would normally 
    make such a request. I did not make the request.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    that no one was seeking recognition at the time. Merely standing is 
    not enough.

--Motion To Recommit

Sec. 8.21 While a Member desiring to offer a motion to recommit must 
    normally be on his feet seeking recognition when the Speaker states 
    the question to be on passage of the bill, it is not too late to 
    seek recognition where another minority Member has qualified as 
    opposed to the bill but where his motion has not been read by the 
    Clerk.

    On Apr. 24, 1979,(15) during consideration of the State 
Department authorization bill in the House, it was demonstrated that 
until a Member desiring to offer a motion to recommit has had his 
motion read by the Clerk, he is not entitled to the floor so as to 
prevent another Member from seeking recognition to offer another 
recommittal motion. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 8360, 8361, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (16) The question is on the engrossment 
    and third reading of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the bill.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    motion at the desk.
        The Speaker: The Chair is aware that the gentleman is standing 
    and the Chair intends to recognize the gentleman. . . .
        Is there any member of the committee that desires to make a 
    motion to recommit on the minority side? . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

[[Page 9619]]

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will----
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I was recognized.
        The Speaker: The Chair under the precedents of the House, will 
    recognize the gentleman from Michigan to make a motion if he 
    qualifies. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, had not the Speaker said to the 
    gentleman from Maryland, ``Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?''
        And the gentleman from Maryland was thus recognized.
        The Speaker: The Chair appreciates that the gentleman is 
    opposed to the bill; but under the precedents of the House, the 
    Clerk has not reported the motion. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: I make a point of order against recognizing the 
    gentleman from Michigan or anyone else, because he did not rise in 
    a timely fashion to make the motion. Once the Chair recognizes a 
    Member, the precedents will support the fact that he has the right 
    to offer the motion.
        The Speaker: On the point of order, the gentleman's motion has 
    not been read yet; so the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Michigan, a senior member of the committee, who is standing. . . .
        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Broomfield: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Broomfield moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3363, to 
        the Committee on Foreign Affairs. . . .

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a point of order 
    that the gentleman is not in order in making the motion, since 
    another Member had already been recognized. The Chair has already 
    conferred that recognition and had inquired whether or not the 
    gentleman from Maryland was opposed.
        The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, until the motion has 
    been read, the gentleman has not been recognized for that purpose.
        Mr. Bauman: Well, the gentleman did not yield to anyone else to 
    offer a motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman had not been recognized for that 
    purpose and consequently--the Chair asked the gentleman if he was 
    in opposition. The gentleman replied. The gentleman was not then 
    recognized for that purpose. That is the statement and the opinion 
    of the Chair. The Chair did not recognize the gentleman by 
    directing the Clerk to report the motion. The Chair is trying to 
    follow the precedents of the House.
        Now, the Chair has ruled on the gentleman's point of order and 
    the gentleman from Michigan is entitled to 5 minutes. The Chair so 
    recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield).

Minority Leader Recognized in Opposition to Motion To Recommit

Sec. 8.22 The Speaker recognized the Minority Leader to call

[[Page 9620]]

    up a reported bill in the House, pursuant to unanimous consent 
    previously obtained by the Minority Leader permitting its 
    consideration under the hour rule, and subsequently recognized the 
    Minority Leader in opposition to a motion to recommit with 
    instructions offered by the ranking minority member of the 
    reporting committee.

    The following proceedings took place in the House on Sept. 29, 
1982,(17) during consideration of the Export Administration 
Act Amendments (H.R. 6838):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 26019, 26031-33, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, under the 
    special order granted on Tuesday, September 28, 1982, I call up the 
    bill (H.R. 6838) to amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to 
    terminate certain export controls imposed on December 30, 1981, and 
    June 22, 1982, and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
        The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                                   H.R. 6838

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
        section 6 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 
        App. 2405) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new subsection:
            ``(1) Termination of Certain Controls.--Those export 
        controls imposed under this section on December 30, 1981, and 
        June 22, 1982, on goods or technology shall not be effective on 
        or after the date of the enactment of this subsection.''.

        The Speaker: (18) Under the agreement, the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Michel) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The question is on the 
    engrossment and third reading of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Joseph G. Minish (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and 
    was read the third time.
        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Broomfield: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    recommit. . . .
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) is recognized for 
    5 minutes in support of the motion to recommit. . . .
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
    recommit.

Sec. 8.23 A Member must be on his feet actively seeking recognition to 
    demand a recorded vote when the Chair puts the question on agreeing 
    to an amendment, and the demand comes too late

[[Page 9621]]

    after the Chair has inquired as to the purpose of another Member 
    rising and an amendment has been tendered.

    On July 21, 1983,(20) during consideration of H.R. 2969 
(Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1994) the following 
proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 129 Cong. Rec. 20187, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) For what purpose does 
    the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gore) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [Jr., of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    an amendment at the desk.
        Mr. [Raymond J.] McGrath [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that a quorum is not present, and I demand a 
    recorded vote on the last amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman's request comes too 
    late on the last amendment.
        Mr. McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I was standing.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman was not seeking 
    recognition for that specific purpose.
        Mr. McGrath: I was on my feet, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the Gore 
    amendment. The Chair did not see the gentleman on his feet and the 
    gentleman was not actively seeking recognition when the Chair put 
    the question on the amendment.

Sec. 8.24 A Member must be on his feet seeking recognition to demand a 
    recorded vote when the Chair announces the result of a voice vote 
    on an amendment to an amendment, and the demand comes too late when 
    the Chair has then put the question on an amendment to the 
    substitute.

    On Sept. 6, 1979,(2) during consideration of the foreign 
assistance appropriations for fiscal year 1980 (H.R. 4473) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 23351, 23353, 23355, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of Ohio: On page 23, after 
        line 12, insert the following section:
            Sec. 527. Of the total budget authority provided in this 
        Act, for payments not required by law, 5 per centum shall be 
        withheld from obligation and expenditure: . . .

        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Obey as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Miller of Ohio: On page 23, after line 
        12, insert the following:
            ``Sec. 527. Of the total budget authority provided in this 
        Act, except

[[Page 9622]]

        for payments required for law two percentum shall be withheld 
        from obligation and expenditure: . . .

        Mr. [Clarence E.] Miller of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Miller of Ohio to the amendment 
        offered by Mr. Obey as a substitute for the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Miller 
        of Ohio: In line 2, in lieu of ``two 
        per centum'' insert ``five per centum''. . . .

        Mr. [Matthew F.] McHugh [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McHugh to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Miller of Ohio:
            Strike out ``five'' appearing in the first sentence and 
        insert in lieu thereof ``two''. . . .

        The Chairman: (3) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The question now is on the Miller amendment to 
    the Obey substitute. For what purpose does the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Miller) rise?
        Mr. Miller of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman that his 
    request comes too late. The Chair held back as long as he could on 
    the announcement, and the gentleman was not on his feet before the 
    Chair put the question on the next amendment.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Miller) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) as a substitute for the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).

Seeking Recognition To Ask for Yeas and Nays

Sec. 8.25 Where the Chair has put a question to a voice vote, announced 
    the result and by unanimous consent laid the motion to reconsider 
    on the table, it is then too late to ask for the yeas on that 
    question where the Member was not seeking recognition at the time 
    the question was put.

    On Oct. 13, 1978,(4) during consideration of House 
Resolution 1434 (providing for consideration of several conference 
reports) in the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 36966, 36975, 36976, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.R. 1434

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, any rule 
    of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, it shall be in order 
    in the House to consider en bloc the conference reports on

[[Page 9623]]

    the bills H.R. 4018, H.R. 5146, H.R. 5037, H.R. 5289 (and H.R. 5263 
    if first adopted by the Senate), and all points of order against 
    said conference reports are hereby waived. After debate in the 
    House on said conference reports, which shall continue not to 
    exceed four hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Ad Hoc Committee on 
    Energy, the first hour of which shall be confined solely to the 
    conference report on the bill H.R. 5289, the previous question 
    shall be considered as ordered on said conference reports to one 
    vote on their final adoption, and the vote on said conference 
    reports shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
    question or to a motion to reconsider. . . .
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I yield 
    back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
    the resolution.
        The Speaker: (5) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    207, nays 206. . . .
        So the previous question was ordered.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, has the 
    question on the passage of the rule been put?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair has put the 
    question and announced that the ayes had it and the resolution was 
    agreed to and that the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
        The gentleman from Maryland must be fully aware of what took 
    place.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland was 
    listening for the question and failed to hear it.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair waited and 
    nobody asked for a vote on the rule.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland was on his 
    feet and did not hear the question being put. I wish to ask for the 
    yeas and nays.
        The Speaker: The gentleman was given ample time to ask for a 
    vote on the rule. The Chair has been nothing but patient.
        The House appreciates the seriousness of the pending motions 
    and would appreciate having the Members take their seats.

Members Seeking Allocation of Time Under Limitation

Sec. 8.26 Members seeking an allocation of time under a limitation of 
    debate in Committee of the Whole should stand when the limitation 
    is agreed to, and not after a Member recognized before the 
    limitation was agreed to has concluded his remarks.

[[Page 9624]]

    On Aug. 1, 1978,(6) the Committee of the Whole had under 

consideration the foreign aid 
authorization bill (H.R. 12514) 
when the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 124 Cong. Rec. 23716, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the pending amendments and all amendments 
    thereto conclude at 4:30. . . .
        So the motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: (7) The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    (Mr. Yatron) is recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will allocate the time to the standing Members after 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania concludes.
        Mr. [Benjamin S.] Rosenthal [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rosenthal: Mr. Chairman, when is it appropriate for Members 
    requesting time to stand? Now, or at the conclusion of the 
    gentleman's remarks?
        The Chairman: The Members will stand now.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Yatron) has the floor and 
    may proceed.

Objecting to Unanimous-consent Request

Sec. 8.27 A Member who is objecting to a unanimous-consent request must 
    stand to be recognized by the Chair.

    On Apr. 28, 1976,(8) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 611, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 1977:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 11622, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert L.] Leggett [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed for 3 
    additional minutes.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (9) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Gillis W. Long (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland is not 
    standing to make the objection.

Sec. 8.28 A Member must stand and address the Chair to object to a 
    unanimous-consent request.

    During consideration of the Nuclear Fuel Assistance Act (H.R. 8401) 
in the Committee of the Whole on July 30, 1976,(10) the 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 24768, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I may be permitted

[[Page 9625]]

    to yield my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner).
        The Chairman: (11) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I make the 
    point of order that the objection is not in order since the 
    gentleman from New York was not standing at the time he made the 
    objection.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
    request of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) to yield his time 
    to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Waggonner)?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 8.29 A Member must stand when objecting to a unanimous-consent 
    request.

    On Oct. 13, 1978,(12) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of S. 2727 (the 
Amateur Sports Act of 1978):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 37071, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent to be allowed to proceed for 2 additional 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: (13) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. John H. Krebs (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James F.] Lloyd of California: Mr. Chairman, I object. . . 
    .
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, under the rules 
    of the House, I understand that a Member must stand in order to 
    object.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Lloyd) did stand at the time.

Sec. 8.30 In order to object to a unanimous-consent request, a Member 
    must rise and be identified.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 2, 
1984,(14) during consideration of H.R. 6300, the balanced 
budget bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec. 28522, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Guy V.] Molinari [of New York]: I would like to ask 
    unanimous consent that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Weber) be 
    permitted to proceed in order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (15) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from New York? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [Objection was heard, but the Member making the objection was 
    not identified.]
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, who is 
    the objector? Can we identify the objector, please?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair states that objection was 
    heard.
        Mr. Walker: The Record would have to reflect the objection. Who 
    objected, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair placed the request and 
    objection was heard.

[[Page 9626]]

        Mr. Molinari: A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, we have others in this room besides Members of the 
    House. It is conceivable that somebody who is not a Member of this 
    House could have uttered those statements and I think we are 
    entitled to know who it is, if anybody is a sitting Member of this 
    body that has raised an objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct. Is there 
    objection?
        Mr. [Leon E.] Panetta [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. [Anthony L.] Coelho [of California]: I object.

Sec. 8.31 While a Member must be on his feet to object to a unanimous-
    consent request, the Chair may, in his discretion, entertain a 
    parliamentary inquiry to permit an explanation of a unanimous-
    consent order to which no Member objected in timely fashion.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 19, 1985,(16) during consideration of H.R. 1872 
(Department of Defense authorization for fiscal 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 131 Cong. Rec. 16367, 16368, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: . . . I would propose that we 
    limit time on these two amendments until 5:30, with the time to be 
    divided equally between the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) 
    and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell), who would have half 
    of the time, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the 
    gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Byron), who would have half of the 
    time, and that if additional amendments are offered after that, we 
    have an equal division of time after the amendments are offered, 
    and that there be 10 minutes on that side for the amendment and 10 
    minutes in opposition to the amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John Edward] Porter [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I might suggest to the chairman of the 
    committee that we simply make it an hour on each side rather than 
    try to divide it up in any other way.
        Mr. Aspin: In other words, an hour on each side.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The unanimous-consent request, then, 
    is that there be 1 hour of debate on each side of the two pending 
    amendments, followed by 20 minutes, equally divided, on any other 
    amendment offered to the Porter amendment or to a substitute 
    therefor.
        Mr. Aspin: On the pending amendments, Mr. Chairman, with the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) and the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Fascell) controlling 1 hour and the gentleman from Missouri 
    (Mr. Skelton) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Byron) 
    controlling 1 hour. At that point we will proceed to vote on

[[Page 9627]]

    those amendments. If at that point other amendments are offered, 
    Members will have 10 minutes on that side to debate those 
    amendments at the time.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman proposing that there 
    be 10 minutes allowed for each side for each other amendment to the 
    Porter amendment or to a substitute amendment therefor?
        Mr. Aspin: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin?
        Hearing none, it is so ordered.
        Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: Reserving the 
    right to object, Mr. Chairman----
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman was not on his feet 
    seeking recognition when the Chair asked for any objection to the 
    request.
        Mr. Hartnett: There are only two microphones, Mr. Chairman, and 
    we cannot have them all. I was on my feet----
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Even if the gentleman was not at the 
    microphone, if he had been standing on his feet at that time, the 
    Chair would have recognized him, the Chair will say to the 
    gentleman from South Carolina. The Chair was looking in his 
    direction and saw the gentleman sitting in his chair. . . .
        Mr. Hartnett: Mr. Chairman, if I might make a parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that when a gentleman or 
    gentlewoman wishes to be recognized, they must rise from their 
    seat. I was in my seat, and I was rising to be heard. I do not 
    think you have to be standing at all times in order to be 
    recognized. I was in my seat, I asked to be recognized, and I rose 
    to a point of recognition. . . .
        Mr. Aspin: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Chair to ask the 
    gentleman from South Carolina if he would tell us what his concern 
    is with the unanimous-consent request?
        Mr. Hartnett: I did not understand it, Mr. Chairman. That is 
    what I wanted to ask.
        Mr. Aspin: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to try to 
    answer the gentleman's question.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: For the purpose of clarification of 
    what the unanimous-consent agreement was, the Chair will then ask 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin to restate what his request was. . . .
        Just for the clarification of the members of the Committee, the 
    unanimous-consent request was already agreed to. The gentleman from 
    Wisconsin was clarifying the unanimous-consent request for the 
    benefit of the gentleman from South Carolina.

Member Permitted by Unanimous Consent To Take Seat After Yielding for 
    Debate

Sec. 8.32 A Member recognized to offer an amendment (to a substitute) 
    under the five-minute rule was permitted, by unanimous consent, to 
    take his seat while yielding to another Member for purposes of 
    debate.

[[Page 9628]]

    On July 28, 1983,(2) during consideration of H.R. 2760 
(prohibition on covert assistance to Nicaragua) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. 21413, 21414, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Boland to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Mica as a substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Young 
        of Florida: . . .

        Mr. Boland: . . . Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Solarz).
        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I thank 
    the gentleman for yielding once more.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) may sit while I engage in my remarks.
        The Chairman: (3) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from New York?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [E. Thomas] Coleman of Missouri: Mr. Chairman . . . does 
    the gentleman have the time or does the chairman have the time?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland) has 
    the time.
        Mr. Boland: Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

        Mr. Coleman of Missouri: I yield.
        Mr. Boland: My understanding is that the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Solarz) asked unanimous consent that I be permitted to 
    sit and there was no objection to it. So I yielded the time to the 
    gentleman from New York so he could continue.

Member-elect Permitted by Unanimous Consent To Debate

Sec. 8.33 During debate on a privileged resolution disposing of the 
    question of the right of a Member-elect to be sworn, the Member-
    elect may participate in the debate only by unanimous consent.

    On Jan. 3, 1985,(4) during the organization of the 
House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 131 Cong. Rec. 380-82, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (5) According to the precedents, the 
    Chair will swear in all Members of the House at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, upon my 
    responsibility as a Member-elect of the 99th Congress, I object to 
    the oath being administered to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
    McIntyre, and I base this upon facts and statements which I 
    consider to be reliable. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged resolution at the Clerk's 
    desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

[[Page 9629]]

        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                   H. Res. 1

            Resolved, That the question of the right of Frank McCloskey 
        or Richard McIntyre to a seat in the Ninety-ninth Congress from 
        the Eighth Congressional District of Indiana shall be referred 
        to the Committee on House Administration, when elected, and 
        neither Frank McCloskey nor Richard McIntyre shall be sworn 
        until the Committee on House Administration reports upon and 
        the House decides such question. . . .

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright), under the 
    precedents, is recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. Wright: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I shall 
    yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel), and 
    pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 
    minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. McIntyre.
        The Speaker: The gentleman does not have the right to 
    participate in debate unless the House agrees. If there is an 
    objection from the House, the gentleman may not 
    speak.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See also 1 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without objection, the gentleman is entitled to 5 minutes.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Richard] McIntyre [of Indiana]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In Seeking Recognition on Point of Personal Privilege, Member Must 
    Inform Chair of the Basis for His Question Before the Chair Will 
    Bestow Recognition

Sec. 8.34 A Member was recognized for one hour on a question of 
    personal privilege based on violation of his rights as a Member, 
    arising from unauthorized printed alterations in his statements 
    made during subcommittee hearings in the prior Congress.

    On June 28, 1983,(7) Mr. Judd Gregg, of New Hampshire, 
rose to a question of personal privilege, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 129 Cong. Rec. 17674, 17675, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal 
    privilege.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The gentleman will 
    state the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, on July 21 and July 22, of last year, I 
    participated as a member of the Science and Technology Committee in 
    joint hearings before that committee. The printed hearing record of 
    those hearings was not received until April 27, of this year. Upon 
    review of that official record, I discovered that several 
    statements which I had made during the course of those hearings 
    were materially altered in such a way as to reflect upon my in

[[Page 9630]]

    tegrity and conduct during those hearings.
        While the falsification of a House document is clearly a matter 
    involving the integrity of the proceedings of this body, the 
    alterations of my remarks, without my permission, affects my rights 
    as an individual Member in my representative capacity. I therefore 
    rise to a question of privilege in order to clarify the record on 
    this matter.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman states an appropriate 
    point of personal privilege, and the gentleman is therefore 
    recognized for 1 hour.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Questions of personal privilege under Rule 
IX normally involve cases where a Member's reputation has been damaged, 
particularly in press accounts; but Rule IX describes as the second 
category of privileged questions, the ``rights, reputation, and conduct 
of Members, individually.''