[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§ 9. Power and Discretion of Speaker or Chairman]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9630-9689]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                    B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
 
Sec. 9. Power and Discretion of Speaker or Chairman

    The rules of the House give the Chair considerable discretion in 
deciding whom to recognize, and a decision on recognition is not 
subject to appeal.(9) The Chair is governed in the exercise 
of his power of recognition by the standing rules, which in some cases 
prohibit recognition for specific purposes (10) or which 
extend priority to Members with certain qualifications.(11) 
The Chair is also governed by the usages and precedents of the House 
which establish priorities of recognition based on a fixed order of 
business.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995). See 
        also Sec. Sec. 9.5, 9.6, and 9.61, infra, for further 
        discussion of the principle that decisions on recognition are 
        not subject to appeal. For the parameters of the Chair's 
        discretion, see House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 753-757 
        (1995).
10. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 11.14-11.16, infra.
11. See, for example, Rule XIV clause 3, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 759 (1995) (right of committee member to open and close 
        debate). For prior rights of committee members to recognition, 
        see Sec. 13, infra.
12. See Sec. 12, infra, for the order of recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Chair's discretion as to recognition on specific questions and motions, 
    see Sec. Sec. 16 et seq., infra.
Chair's discretion over recognition for unanimous-consent requests, see 
    Sec. 10, infra.
Chair's discretion over yielding of time, see Sec. Sec. 29-31, infra.
Chair's recognition for interruptions, see Sec. 32, infra.
Chair's recognition of Member to control debate, see Sec. Sec. 24 (role 
    of manager), 26 (management by reporting committee),

[[Page 9631]]

    27 (designation of manager and opposition), and 28 (effect of 
    special orders), infra.
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and his authority generally, see 
    Ch. 19, supra.
Chairman's discretion over duration of debate in Committee of the 
    Whole, see Sec. 74, infra.
Clerk's power of recognition before the election of the Speaker at the 
    convening of Congress, see Ch. 1, supra.
Distribution and alternation of time by Chair, see Sec. 25, infra.
Limitations on Chair's power of recognition, see Sec. 11, infra.
Recognition under limitation on five-minute debate as within Chair's 
    discretion, see Sec. 22, infra.
Recognition for one-minute and special-order speeches, see Sec. 73, 
    infra.
Speaker and his authority generally, see Ch. 6, supra.
Speaker's discretion over duration of debate in the House, see Sec. 67, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Generally

Sec. 9.1 The power of recognition rests with the Speaker and is subject 
    to his discretion.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(13) the House was considering House 
Resolution 665, providing for taking a House bill with Senate 
amendments from the Speaker's table and concurring in the amendments. 
Before consideration of the resolution had been completed, the Speaker 
declared a recess pursuant to previously granted authority. When the 
recess expired, the Speaker announced that the unfinished business was 
the reading of another bill which had just been engrossed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302, 7304, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio, raised a parliamentary inquiry 
whether the business properly before the House as uncompleted business 
was the resolution being considered before the recess. Mr. Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, then withdrew the resolution in question. Mr. 
Bolton objected to the recognition of Mr. Bolling for that purpose, 
stating that recognition of Mr. Bolling was out of order while Mr. 
Bolton's inquiry went unanswered.
    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded that the 
withdrawal of the resolution terminated the inquiry (becoming merely 
hypothetical). Mr. Bolton objected that the inquiry was made before the 
resolution was withdrawn and the Speaker stated: ``The Chair will state 
that the Chair has the power of recognition.''

Sec. 9.2 Although members of the committee reporting a bill under 
    consideration usually have preference of recognition, the power of 
    recogni

[[Page 9632]]

    tion remains in the discretion of the Chair.

    On July 19, 1967,(14) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Joseph L. Evins, of Tennessee, recognized Mr. Edmond 
Edmondson, of Oklahoma, for a parliamentary inquiry and then recognized 
him to offer an amendment to the pending amendment. Mr. William C. 
Cramer, of Florida, made the point of order that William M. McCulloch, 
of Ohio, the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, which had 
reported the bill, had been on his feet seeking recognition to offer an 
amendment at the time and that members of the committee reporting the 
bill had the prior right 
to be recognized. The Chairman overruled the point of order and stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 19416, 19417, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is trying to be fair and trying to recognize Members 
    on both sides. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. McCulloch).

    The Chairman recognized Mr. McCulloch for a unanimous-consent 
request and then recognized Mr. Edmondson for debate on his amendment.

Sec. 9.3 Rule XXV, which provides that ``questions as to the priority 
    of business shall be decided by a majority without debate,'' merely 
    precludes debate on motions to go into Committee of the Whole, on 
    questions of consideration, and on appeals from the Chair's 
    decisions on priority of business, and should not be utilized to 
    permit a motion directing the Speaker to recognize Members in a 
    certain order or to otherwise establish an order of business; thus, 
    the Speaker has declined to recognize a Member who sought to compel 
    recognition of Members for scheduled special orders.

    On July 31, 1975,(15) the Speaker (16) 
declined to recognize a Member who sought to make a motion under Rule 
XXV to compel recognition of Members for scheduled ``special orders'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 121 Cong. Rec. 26249, 26251, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. For further 
        discussion of recognition for special orders, see 
        Sec. Sec. 9.63-9.65 and Sec. 10, infra.
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order that a quorum is not present. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point of order to this 
    effect: Under the new rules of the House, is it not true that once 
    the House has pro

[[Page 9633]]

    ceeded to the closing business of the day, granting requests for 
    absences and special orders, that it is no longer in order to make 
    a point of order that a quorum is not present?
        The Speaker: The Chair has not started to recognize Members for 
    special orders yet. All the business on the Chair's desk has been 
    completed. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    rules preclude a quorum at this point because personal requests 
    have already been read from the desk. A leave of absence was 
    granted to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague).
        Under the new rules, Mr. Speaker, a quorum does not lie after 
    this point of business in the day.
        The Speaker: If the Chair understands the gentleman's point of 
    order, it relates to the fact, which is a new rule, not the rule we 
    used to follow. The rule is that once a special order has started, 
    the Member who has the special order and is speaking cannot be 
    taken off his feet by a point of order of no quorum. However, there 
    is nothing in the rules of which the Chair is aware that requires 
    the Chair to begin to call a special order at any particular time.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move under rule XXV that the House 
    proceed to recognize the Members previously ordered to have special 
    orders today, and on that I ask for a rollcall vote.
        Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. Bauman: 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 
    137, nays 202, not voting 95, as follows: . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, under rule XXV, I again renew my 
    motion that the Chair proceed to the recognition of other Members 
    who have previously been granted special orders for today.

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Danielson).
        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise 
    and extend my remarks.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California?
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion pending.
        Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House do now adjourn.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    142, nays 205, not voting 87, as follows: . . . .

Points of Order Against Chair's Exercise of Discretion

Sec. 9.4 A Member designated in a resolution (discharged from

[[Page 9634]]

    the Committee on Rules) to call up a bill having died, the Speaker 
    overruled a point of order against his recognition of another 
    Member, in favor of the bill, to call it up.

    On Oct. 12, 1942,(17) the following resolution creating 
a special order of business was called up in the House following 
adoption of a successful motion to discharge the Committee on Rules 
from its further consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 88 Cong. Rec. 8080, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the day succeeding the adoption of this 
    resolution, a special order be, and is hereby, created by the House 
    of Representatives, for the consideration of H.R. 1024, a public 
    bill which has remained in the Committee on the Judiciary for 30 or 
    more days without action. That such special order be, and is 
    hereby, created, notwithstanding any further action on said bill by 
    the Committee on the Judiciary, or any rule of the House. That on 
    said day the Speaker shall recognize the Representative from 
    California, Lee E. Geyer, to call up H.R. 1024, a bill to amend an 
    act to prevent pernicious political activities, as a special order 
    of business, and to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
    consideration of said H.R. 1024. After general debate, which shall 
    be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed 4 hours, 
    to be equally divided and controlled by the Member of the House 
    requesting the rule for the consideration of said H.R. 1024 and the 
    Member of the House who is opposed to the said H.R. 1024, to be 
    designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be read for amendment 
    under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the 
    bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, and 
    the amendments thereto, to final passage, without intervening 
    motion, except one motion to recommit. The special order shall be a 
    continuing order until the bill is finally disposed of.

    Mr. Samuel F. Hobbs, of Alabama, made a point of order against 
consideration of the resolution, on the grounds that the Member named 
in the resolution, Mr. Geyer, had died and that therefore the 
resolution should not be in order for consideration by the House. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:

        A matter not exactly on all fours with this, but similar to it, 
    was ruled on a few weeks ago. On that occasion both the chairman 
    and the ranking minority member of the committee were absent. A 
    point of order was made against consideration of the bill because 
    of that fact.
        In ruling on the point of order at that time the Chair made the 
    following statement:
        ``The Chair thinks the Chair has rather a wide range of 
    latitude here. The Chair could hold, and some future

[[Page 9635]]

    Speaker might hold, that, since the chairman and the ranking 
    minority member of the committee are not here, there could be no 
    general debate because there was nobody here to control it; but the 
    present occupant of the Chair is not going to rule in such a 
    restricted way.
        ``The Chair is going to recognize the next ranking majority 
    member and the next ranking minority member when the House goes 
    into the Committee of the Whole.''
        We have here even a stronger case than that. The absence of a 
    living Member may be his or her fault; the absence of a dead signer 
    of this petition is not his fault.
        There is a rule followed by the chancery courts which might 
    well be followed here. It is that equity never allows a trust to 
    fail for want of a trustee. Applying that rule to the instant case, 
    the Chair holds that the consideration of this legislation will not 
    be permitted to fail for want of a manager. After all, an act of 
    God ought not, in all good conscience, deprive this House of the 
    right to consider legislation; especially so, since this House has 
    by its vote on the motion to discharge expressed its intent.
        The Chair will recognize some Member other than Mr. Geyer to 
    call up the bill on tomorrow; for, if the Chair were to hold that 
    only Mr. Geyer could have called up this motion, Mr. Geyer being 
    absent not through any act of his own but through an act of God, 
    the Chair would be making such a restricted ruling that now and in 
    the future it might prevent the House of Representatives from 
    working its will.
        The Chair overrules the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Alabama.

    On the following day, Oct. 13, 1942,(18) the Speaker 
recognized Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of New York, to move that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House 
Resolution 110; the Speaker reiterated his ruling of the previous day 
when Mr. Hobbs made a point of order against the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at p. 8120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Speaker Rayburn had ruled, on July 23, 
1942,(19) that where a resolution creating a special order 
of business provided for general debate in Committee of the Whole to be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of a committee, and both were absent, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole could recognize the next ranking majority and 
minority members of the committee to control the debate in Committee of 
the Whole. The authority to control the general debate may also be 
delegated by the chairman and ranking minority member to the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
the measure (see Ch. 21, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 6542-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appeals From Decision on Recognition

Sec. 9.5 An appeal from the decision of the Speaker on a

[[Page 9636]]

    question of recognition does not lie.

    On June 2, 1930,(20) Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of 
Ohio, ruled that the motion to postpone consideration of a vetoed bill 
was not an essential motion whose defeat required recognition to pass 
to a Member leading the opposition to the motion. Mr. Charles R. Crisp, 
of Georgia, and Mr. John N. Garner, of Texas, objected to the ruling, 
and Mr. Garner attempted to appeal from the Chair's ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 72 Cong. Rec. 9913, 9914, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
            See Rule XIV clause 2, and comments thereto, House Rules 
        and Manual Sec. 753 (1995). The rule provides that the Speaker 
        shall decide on recognition, and since 1881 the Chair has 
        declined to entertain appeals from decisions on recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Carl R. Chindblom, of Illinois, made the point of order that an 
appeal did not lie on a matter of recognition. The Speaker responded:

        This is a matter purely of recognition. The Chair wants to be 
    absolutely fair. If he thought that there was any possible 
    unfairness in recognizing the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
    Knutson), he would be the last one to recognize him. . . .
        The question is whether this was an essential motion dealing 
    with the merits of the question. The Chair does not think so, and 
    the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.

Sec. 9.6 A decision of the Chair on a matter of recognition is not 
    subject to appeal or to a point of order.

    On July 2, 1980,(1) during consideration of the Rail Act 
of 1980 (H.R. 7235) in the Committee of the Whole, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 18292, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment to the substitute amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        I understand that the procedure is that the members of the 
    subcommittee would be recognized for amendments first. . . .
        I further understand that the gentlewoman from Maryland, a 
    member of the subcommittee, was on her feet seeking recognition for 
    the purpose of offering an amendment, as well as the gentleman from 
    North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill). . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman by saying 
    to him that the normal procedure is to recognize members of the 
    full committee by seniority, alternating from side to side, which 
    the Chair has been doing. The gentleman was recognized under that 
    procedure, and the Chair's

[[Page 9637]]

    recognition is not in any event subject to challenge.
        Therefore, the gentleman is recognized, and any point of order 
    that the gentleman from Illinois would make on that point would not 
    be sustained.

Sec. 9.7 A decision of the Chair on the exercise of his discretionary 
    power of recognition (in this case, for a unanimous-consent 
    request) is not subject to appeal.

    On July 23, 1993,(3) the Chair discussed the 
appealability of the Chair's refusal to recognize for 
a unanimous-consent request for consideration of a reported bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steve] Gunderson [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, my 
    parliamentary inquiry is this: Is it possible to ask unanimous 
    consent to bring H.R. 2667 for its immediate consideration?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The leadership on both 
    sides of the aisle has to agree to allow that unanimous-consent 
    request. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gunderson: Mr. Speaker, I have [a] parliamentary inquiry.
        Is it possible to ask unanimous consent at any time during the 
    day to bring up an appropriation bill for its immediate 
    consideration?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The chairman or his designee could 
    bring the bill up.
        Mr. Gunderson: . . . If, for example, I were to move or ask 
    unanimous consent to do that and the Chair did not recognize me, 
    would it be possible at that point to literally appeal the ruling 
    of the Chair for another Member to bring it up?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous agreement between the 
    leaderships of the Democrat and Republican side, only the chairman 
    of 
    the committee would be recognized to bring up the bill after 
    agreement of both leaderships by a unanimous-consent request. 
    Another Member would not be recognized for that reason, and the 
    denial of recognition to make a unanimous-consent request is not 
    appealable.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The precedents distinguish between 
discretionary exercises of recognition, the conferral or denial of 
which is not appealable, and ``exercises of interpretive authority,'' 
in which the Chair bases his decision on a rule of order. Of course, 
the distinction blurs in some cases. Thus, even where a decision of the 
Chair is couched in terms of a denial or conferral of recognition, a 
decision may be appealable where it is based on an explicit or implicit 
interpretation of the rules and precedents, or where it is in fact a 
decision on a question of order. For further discussion of this issue, 
see Deschler-Brown, Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, Ch. 
31 Sec. 8.

[[Page 9638]]

Decision on Recognition Cannot Give Rise to Question of Privilege

Sec. 9.8 It is not in order to raise as a question of the privileges of 
    the House a proposition to amend or interpret the rules of the 
    House or 
    to impinge on the Chair's power of recognition; thus, where the 
    Speaker Pro Tempore had announced that he would not entertain 
    requests to address the House for one minute prior to legislative 
    business, a resolution directing that the Speaker exercise his 
    prerogative and reinstitute the custom of allowing one-minute 
    speeches at the beginning of the session was held not to raise a 
    question of the privileges of the House.

    On July 25, 1980,(5) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 126 Cong. Rec. 19762-64, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) . . . As the Chair 
    announced yesterday, requests to address the House for 1 minute 
    will be entertained at the conclusion of the legislative business 
    today, rather than at the beginning. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair believes there is genuine value in the 1-minute rule 
    in the exercise of free expression . . . . For all its value, 
    however, the Chair does not believe that the 1-minute rule must 
    necessarily precede, nor be permitted to postpone, the business of 
    the House. . . .
        Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    point of privilege.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    privilege.
        Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Whereas the custom of allowing one-minute speeches is a 
        longstanding tradition of the House. . . .
            Whereas the ability of the 
        Minority to be heard rests to a 
        large degree on the one-minute speeches. . . .
        Now, therefore, be it

            Resolved, That the Speaker exercise his prerogative and 
        reinstitute the custom of allowing one-minute speeches at the 
        beginning of the session.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair must declare that a question 
    of the privileges of the House under rule IX cannot impinge upon 
    the Speaker's right of recognition. The gentleman's proposal is 
    not, under rule IX, a privileged resolution, and the Chair will so 
    rule. The Chair does not entertain the resolution at this time.

    Parliamentarian's Note: As further examples of the above principle, 
Members may not, under the guise of raising a question of the 
privileges of the House, give

[[Page 9639]]

directions to the Speaker infringing on his discretionary power of 
recognition, by requiring that he give priority in recognition to any 
Member seeking to call up a matter highly privileged pursuant to a 
statutory provision, over a member from the Committee on Rules seeking 
to call up a privileged report from that committee; (7)] or 
by requiring that he state the question on overriding a veto before 
recognizing for a motion to refer (thereby overruling prior decisions 
of the Chair to change the order of precedence of 
motions).(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See 133 Cong. Rec. 5403, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 11, 1987.
 8. See 134 Cong. Rec. 20281, 100th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 3, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition for General Debate

Sec. 9.9 Where the time for, and apportionment of, general debate in 
    the Committee of the Whole has not been fixed by the House, the 
    Chair has discretion as to whom he will recognize under the hour 
    rule.

    On July 27, 1937,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
conducting general debate on a bill, where the House had not fixed the 
time of debate or how it should 
be apportioned. Chairman Wright Patman, of Texas, recognized Mr. John 
Taber, of New York, for one hour of debate. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of 
New York, was refused recognition by the Chair, who stated ``the 
question of recognition is one to be determined by the Chair.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 7686, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman then answered a parliamentary inquiry:

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

Sec. 9.10 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole recognized five 
    Members successively for a total of one hour's debate, where such 
    debate had not been fixed by the House.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 87 Cong. Rec. 3917-39, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., May 12, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Announcement of Policies Concerning Recognition

Sec. 9.11 Recognition is a matter within the discretion of the

[[Page 9640]]

    Chair, and the Chair may refuse to curtail his discretion by 
    announcing in advance whom he will recognize if a certain 
    parliamentary situation develops.

    On Mar. 1, 1967,(11) Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of 
Louisiana, stated a lengthy parliamentary inquiry on the procedures for 
consideration of House Resolution 278, relating to the right of Member-
elect Adam C. Powell, of New York, to be sworn in. Part of the inquiry 
referred to control of 
debate and recognition for debate and motions if a hypothetical 
parliamentary situation arose. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, responded as follows to the inquiry on recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question of recognition is one that the Chair will pass 
    upon if that time [situation hypothesized by Mr. Waggonner] should 
    arise.

    On Oct. 8, 1969,(12) Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, 
inquired of Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, whether, if 
the previous question were voted down on the pending appropriation 
bill, he would be recognized to offer an amendment. The Speaker 
responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 29219, 29220, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is not going to give a preliminary opinion as to whom 
    the Chair might recognize.

Sec. 9.12 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole does not 
    anticipate the order in which amendments may be offered nor does he 
    declare in advance the order of 
    recognition, but where he knows a Member desires recognition to 
    offer an amendment, he may indicate that he will protect the 
    Member's rights.

    On Sept. 8, 1966,(13) Chairman Edward P. Boland, of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to the order of 
recognition for offering amendments under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 112 Cong. Rec. 22020, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert G.] Stephens [Jr., of Georgia]: It is my 
    understanding that the procedures will be for the Minish amendment 
    to be considered and after the Minish amendment is disposed of then 
    I will offer a substitute and it is my understanding I will be 
    recognized immediately after the amendment for the purpose of 
    submitting that substitute. Is that the correct parliamentary 
    situation?
        The Chairman: Recognition, of course, is within the discretion 
    of the Chair, but the Chair will protect the gentleman's rights.

Sec. 9.13 The Speaker on occasion has announced his policy concerning 
    recognition for certain purposes, including

[[Page 9641]]

    the times during the legislative day when recognition for such 
    purposes would be granted.

    Formerly, Rule XI prohibited committees from sitting at any time 
when the House was in session; the rule was narrowed to proscribe 
sittings during the five-minute rule by the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1970.(14) 
Subsequently, certain committees were exempted from this rule 
(including the Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and Rules, the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the Committee on Ways and 
Means and the Committee on House Administration). A provision that 
special leave to sit be granted if ten Members did not object was added 
to the rule in the 95th Congress.(15) In the 103d Congress 
the prohibition against sitting during proceedings under the five-
minute rule was stricken altogether (16) but was reinstated 
in modified form in the 104th.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Sec. 117(b); 84 Stat. 1140.
15. H. Res. 5, 123 Cong. Rec. 53-70, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 4, 
        1977. For the Speaker's announcement in the 98th Congress of 
        his policy concerning recognition for requests for committees 
        to sit during the five-minute rule, see 129 Cong. Rec. 3385, 
        98th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 3, 1983.
16. H. Res. 5, 139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 
        1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time the rule was in effect, the Speaker (17) 
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair announces that he will recognize Members to make 
    requests for committees to sit during the 5-minute rule only at 
    certain times during the legislative day. While the precedents 
    indicate that such requests when pending are not votes requiring 
    the presence of a quorum, the Chair wishes to avoid the need for a 
    call of the House pending such requests but at the same time to 
    assure predictability as to when he will accord recognition. 
    Therefore, the Speaker intends to set up the following guidelines: 
    . . .

    The Speaker's guidelines for recognition for requests for 
committees to sit during the five-minute rule pursuant to clause 2(i), 
Rule XI, requiring 10 objections to preclude permission following 
announcement of the legislative schedule, were intended to afford 
predictability as to when recognition would be granted, to avoid 
discretionary calls of the House pending such requests, to distinguish 
between hearing and meeting requests, and to permit meeting requests 
only on days when legislative votes are scheduled but not after the 
completion of legislative business.

Sec. 9.14 Pursuant to the Speaker's policy announced in the

[[Page 9642]]

    98th Congress in regard to recognition for requests that committees 
    and subcommittees be permitted to sit during the five-minute rule, 
    the Speaker Pro Tempore indicated on a day when no rollcall votes 
    were scheduled, that such a request (except as to hearings) should 
    be withheld until the next day, when Members had been advised there 
    could be rollcall votes.

    The following exchange occurred in the House on May 23, 1983: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 13365, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Norman Y.] Mineta [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and 
    Grounds of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation and the 
    Committee on Public Works and Transportation have permission to sit 
    during the 5-minute rule in the House on Wednesday, May 25, 1983.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(19)  The Chair will advise 
    the gentleman that under the Speaker's statement he will have to 
    make that request tomorrow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition To Offer Amendments

Sec. 9.15 Recognition among Members seeking the floor in the Committee 
    of the Whole for the purpose of offering amendments is within the 
    discretion of the Chair.

    On Dec. 15, 1937,(20) Mr. Gerald J. Boileau, of 
Wisconsin, raised 
a parliamentary inquiry as to whether perfecting amendments had 
priority over substitute amendments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 82 Cong. Rec. 1590, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boileau: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I 
    do so to propound a parliamentary inquiry as to the order in which 
    amendments are to be offered. The amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey is now pending. Would not perfecting 
    amendments have priority of consideration over a substitute 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: (1) The Chair has no knowledge of what 
    amendments may be offered; but ordinarily a perfecting amendment 
    has precedence over a motion to substitute insofar as voting is 
    concerned. If the unanimous-consent request is granted, it is the 
    understanding of the Chair that amendments will be offered section 
    by section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Boileau: Nevertheless, it is the amendment offered by the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey that would be before the House.
        The Chairman: That is before the Committee now.
        Mr. Boileau: Would not perfecting amendments have priority over 
    an amendment to substitute?
        The Chairman: So far as voting is concerned, yes.

[[Page 9643]]

        Mr. Boileau: I appreciate that fact, but may I propound a 
    further parliamentary inquiry, whether or not a Member rising in 
    his place and seeking recognition would not have a prior right to 
    recognition for the purpose of offering a perfecting amendment to 
    the amendment now pending?
        The Chairman: It does not necessarily follow that such Member 
    would have a prior right. Recognition is in the discretion of the 
    Chair.
        Mr. Boileau: I recognize it does not necessarily follow, but I 
    am trying to have the matter clarified. Therefore I ask the Chair 
    whether or not a Member who qualifies as offering a perfecting 
    amendment does not have prior right of recognition in offering such 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: . . . [T]he Chair does not feel he should estop 
    himself of his own discretion in the matter of recognitions.
        Mr. Boileau: Does the Chair then rule that is within the 
    discretion of the Chair rather than a right of the Member?
        The Chairman: In answer to the gentleman's inquiry, the Chair 
    is of the opinion it is within the province of the Chair whom the 
    Chair will recognize, having in mind the general rules of the 
    House.

    On June 29, 1939,(2) Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, 
indicated that where a Member 
had been recognized to offer an amendment but not for debate thereon, 
the Chair could in his discretion refuse to recognize members of the 
committee reporting the bill to offer amendments if they had not been 
on their feet seeking recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 84 Cong. Rec. 8311, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the Clerk's desk which I would like to offer at this 
    time.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Knutson: Strike out all of section 
        1 and insert the following----

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York] (interrupting the 
    reading of the amendment): Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for 
    the committee members to be recognized first to offer amendments?
        Mr. Knutson: I have already been recognized.
        The Chairman: If there is any member of the committee seeking 
    recognition, he is entitled to recognition.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized.
        Mr. Knutson: I already have the floor, and have been 
    recognized.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Knutson] has already been recognized.
        The Chairman: Recognition is in the discretion of the Chair, 
    and the Chair will recognize members of the committee first. Does 
    the acting chairman of the committee seek recognition?
        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    ask whether the committee amendments to section 1 have been agreed 
    to?
        The Chairman: The only one the Chair knows about is the one 
    appear

[[Page 9644]]

    ing in the print of the bill, and that has been agreed to.
        Mr. Bloom: In line 16, there is a committee amendment.
        Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I was recognized by the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that inasmuch as members of the 
    committee were not on their feet and the gentleman from Minnesota 
    had been recognized, the gentleman is entitled to recognition.

Sec. 9.16 While recognition of Members to offer amendments is within 
    the Chair's discretion and cannot be challenged on a point of 
    order, the Chair under the precedents alternates recognition 
    between majority and minority members of the committee reporting 
    the bill.

    During consideration of the Outer Continental Shelf Act (H.R. 6218) 
in the Committee of the Whole on June 11, 1976,(3) the 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 17764, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment was agreed to.
        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy of New York; On page 59, 
        lines 12 to 20, strike paragraphs 5(a), (6), (7), and (8) and 
        renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a point 
    of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, the minority has amendments to offer, 
    including a substitute amendment to title II. It is my 
    understanding that the minority would have its turn at the same 
    time as the majority in considering the amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Fish) that that would not come under the category of a 
    point of order; but the Chair would further advise the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Fish) that since the gentleman has raised the 
    point, the Chair will alternate from side to side.

Sec. 9.17 The order of recognition to offer amendments is within the 
    discretion of the Chair, who may either base his initial 
    recognition on committee seniority or upon the preferential voting 
    status of the amendments sought to be offered; thus, where both a 
    pending amendment and a substitute therefor are open to perfecting 
    amendments, the Chair has the discretion of first recognizing 
    either the senior committee member, or a junior committee member 
    whose amendment would be first voted upon, where both

[[Page 9645]]

    amendments could ultimately be pending at the same time.

    The following proceedings occurred during consideration of the 
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979 in the 
Committee of the Whole on May 15, 1979: (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 125 Cong. Rec. 11135, 11136, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: Is this to the Udall substitute?
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
    to the Udall-Anderson bill, which is actually a series of technical 
    amendments which I will ask unanimous consent to offer en bloc. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: Since there is no other amendment pending to the 
    Udall substitute, the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio may be 
    offered. . . .
        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, assuming 
    there is an amendment to be offered to the so-called Breaux-Dingell 
    merchant marine version, that would take precedence over an 
    amendment to the so-called Udall-Anderson interior bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair has the option either to recognize the 
    senior Member first or to first recognize that Member seeking to 
    offer the amendment which will be preferential and first voted 
    upon.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    amendments at the desk for the Breaux-Dingell bill.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the 
    amendments.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Mr. Seiberling was senior to Mr. Huckaby on the Committee on 
        Interior and Insular Affairs, but Mr. Huckaby's amendment was 
        to be voted on first and he represented the majority position 
        on the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don H.] Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Chairman, what is the parliamentary situation? Is there an 
    amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) 
    or the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby)?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Seiberling) sought recognition to amend the Udall substitute, 
    but the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Huckaby) has an amendment to 
    the Merchant Marine and Fisheries amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, and he will be recognized. The Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) later for the purposes of 
    offering his amendment. . . .
        Mr. Huckaby: Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments to the amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendments.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Huckaby's amendments to the original 
amendment were subse

[[Page 9646]]

quently agreed to.(8) Mr. Seiberling then indicated that he 
had amendments to the substitute, and Mr. Huckaby that he had further 
amendments to the original amendment. As noted above, the Chair would 
have discretion to recognize either Member; but the Chair indicated 
that in either case, the question would not be put on amendments to the 
substitute until all amendments to the original amendment had been 
disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 125 Cong. Rec. 11152, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.18 While alternation of recognition between the majority and 
    minority Members controlling debate in the House, or continued 
    recognition of that Member having the most time remaining, are two 
    customary factors governing recognition by the Chair, neither 
    factor is binding on the Chair, who may exercise discretion in 
    conferring recognition where control has been equally divided, and 
    may entertain a motion for the previous question by the manager of 
    the measure if neither side seeks to yield further time.

    On June 23, 1983,(9) Speaker Pro Tempore Jim Moody, of 
Wisconsin, responded to several parliamentary inquiries regarding 
procedures for recognition. The proceedings in the House during 
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 91 (revising the fiscal 
1983 congressional budget and setting forth the fiscal 1984 budget) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 129 Cong. Rec. 17089, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Does the gentlewoman seek recognition?
        Mrs. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, could the Chair 
    inform us how much time each side of the aisle has remaining?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Oklahoma has 35 
    minutes left and the gentleman from Ohio has 21\1/2\ minutes left.
        Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Then we will allow the other side of 
    the aisle to catch up.
        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Does the gentlewoman want to 
    yield back her time?
        Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I am reserving the 
    balance of my time.
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Our side just spoke. If the gentlewoman 
    does not want to use her time and have her side go forward, the 
    gentlewoman can reserve her time and we can reserve ours and we can 
    dispense with the rest of the debate.
        Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the outstanding 
    chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma, will he then yield that time 
    to us?
        Well, we will reserve our time for now and await the 
    gentleman's decision.

[[Page 9647]]

        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, if we reserve our time, is 
    the previous question then in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman restate the 
    question?
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: The gentlewoman has reserved her time. 
    If we reserve our time, is the previous question then in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If neither side yields time, the Chair 
    will entertain a motion for the previous question from the manager 
    of the motion.
        Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, if not the rules of the House, is it 
    not the tradition of the House that the side with the most time 
    remaining takes the floor?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is one variable. Alternating from 
    side to side is another tradition of the House.

--Committee Amendments

Sec. 9.19 Where a bill consisting of several titles was considered as 
    read and open to amendment at any point under a special ``modified 
    closed rule'' permitting germane amendments only to certain 
    portions of titles 
    but permitting committee amendments to any portion of the bill, the 
    Chair first 
    recognized a Member to offer committee amendments to title I and 
    then recognized other Members to offer amendments to that title.

    On Aug. 7, 1974,(10) during consideration of the Federal 
Election Campaign Act of 1974 (H.R. 16090) in the Committee of the 
Whole, Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 120 Cong. Rec. 27258, 27259, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: No amendments, including any amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute for the bill, are in order to the bill 
    except the following:
        In title 1: Germane amendments to subsection 101(a) proposing 
    solely to change the money amounts contained in said subsection, 
    providing they have been printed in the Congressional Record at 
    least 1 calendar day before being offered; and the text of the 
    amendment to be offered on page 13, following line 4, inserted in 
    the Congressional Record of August 5, 1974, by Mr. Butler.
        In title 2: Germane amendments to the provisions contained on 
    page 33, line 17, through page 35, line 11, providing they have 
    been printed in the Record at least 1 calendar day before being 
    offered; and the amendment printed on page E5246 in the Record of 
    August 2, 1974.
        In title 4: Germane amendments which have been printed in the 
    Record

[[Page 9648]]

    at least 1 calendar day before they are offered, except that 
    sections 401, 402, 407, 409 and 410 shall not be subject to 
    amendment; and the text of the amendment printed on page H7597 in 
    the Congressional Record of August 2, 1974.
        Amendments are in order to any portion of the bill if offered 
    by direction of the Committee on House Administration, but said 
    amendments shall not be subject to amendment.
        Are there any Committee on House Administration amendments to 
    title I?
        Mr. [Frank] Thompson [Jr.] of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    three committee amendments to title I of the bill and I ask 
    unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New Jersey?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the committee amendments.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Committee amendments: . . . 

        The Chairman: The question is on the amendments offered by the 
    gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Thompson).
        The committee amendments were agreed to.
        The Chairman: Are there further committee amendments to title 
    I?
        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment to title I.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. du Pont: Page 2, line 16, strike 
        ``$5,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$2,500''.

        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, as required by the rule adopted by 
    the House today, my amendment was published at pages E5306 and 
    E5307 of yesterday's Record.

Yielding for Amendments

Sec. 9.20 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not yield 
    to another Member to offer an amendment (thereby depriving the 
    Chair of his power of recognition), but he may by unanimous consent 
    yield the balance of his time to another Member who may thereafter 
    offer an amendment.

    The proposition described above was demonstrated in the Committee 
of the Whole on Oct. 30, 1975,(11) during consideration of 
H.R. 8603, the Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 34442, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Cohen asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks.)
        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [William S.] Cohen [of Maine]: I yield to the gentleman 
    from Delaware.
        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: (12) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Maine

[[Page 9649]]

    cannot yield for the purpose of the gentleman from Delaware 
    offering an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cohen: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
    balance of my time to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. du Pont).
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Maine?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Delaware is recognized for 2 
    minutes.

                      amendment offered by mr. du pont

        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read the amendment as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. du Pont: Page 32, immediately 
        after line 26, add the following new section:
            Sec. 16. (a) Chapter 6 of title 39, United States Code, is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: 
        . . .

Effect of Special Rules

Sec. 9.21 Where a special rule providing for the consideration of a 
    measure provides for the apportionment of time ``between those 
    favoring and those opposing'' the measure, it is within the 
    discretion of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole as to 
    those Members he will recognize to control the time.

    On Dec. 18, 1929,(13) Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of 
Ohio, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the procedure of recognition 
in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 72 Cong. Rec. 907, 908, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George] Huddleston [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, the rule 
    under which we are to consider the resolution provides that the 
    time in general debate shall be equally divided and controlled by 
    those favoring and those opposing the resolution. I think it would 
    be informative to the House to know just how that division is to be 
    made.
        The Speaker: The Chair would think that that would be in the 
    discretion of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Huddleston: Then the Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole, the Speaker thinks, has discretion to recognize any Member 
    who may gain his attention, and that Member having gained the floor 
    would be entitled to an hour?
        The Speaker: Not necessarily.
        Mr. Huddleston: To what time would he be entitled?
        Mr. [J. Charles] Linthicum [of Maryland]: The resolution 
    provides that.
        The Speaker: The Chair would think that the Member being 
    recognized in favor of the proposition would be entitled to control 
    half the time and the Member announcing himself opposed to the 
    proposition would be entitled to control half of the time.
        Mr. Huddleston: The Speaker thinks that that would be the 
    interpretation even though it gave the Member so recognized an hour 
    and a half, when, under the rules of the House, a Member is 
    entitled only to one hour?
        The Speaker: The resolution provides that the time for general 
    debate

[[Page 9650]]

    shall be equally divided and controlled by those favoring and 
    opposing the resolution.
        Mr. Huddleston: It does not provide that it shall be 
    apportioned to any particular Member.
        The Speaker: The Chair would think that the Member announcing 
    his opposition to the resolution would be entitled to control an 
    hour and a half.

Sec. 9.22 Where a special rule permits both the offering of specified 
    perfecting amendments in a certain order and pro forma amendments, 
    the Chair has discretion to recognize Members to offer pro forma 
    amendments to debate the underlying text between consideration of 
    perfecting amendments.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 26, 1982,(14) during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 345 (the first concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 12141, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: At the appropriate time 
    after we have completed this amendment, I will seek to strike the 
    last word to make other comments that may be of interest to 
    Members.
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madigan: Is the procedure that has just been suggested by 
    the gentleman from California one that would be in order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will entertain pro forma amendments 
    between amendments.

        Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Chairman, how would the gentleman from California be able to be 
    recognized to speak in behalf of something that he says he is not 
    going to offer?
        The Chairman: Between amendments, no amendment is pending. That 
    is why a pro forma amendment presumably to one of the substitutes 
    will be allowed. It provides an opportunity for discussion between 
    amendments.

Sec. 9.23 Where a special rule adopted by the House makes in order a 
    designated amendment to a bill in Committee of the Whole but gives 
    no special priority or precedence to such an amendment, the Chair 
    is not required to extend prior recognition to offer that amendment 
    but may rely on other principles of recognition such as alternation 
    between majority and minority parties and priority of perfecting 
    amendments over motions to strike.

[[Page 9651]]

    On June 21, 1979,(16) during consideration of H.R. 111, 
the Panama Canal Act of 1979, the Chair, after recognizing the manager 
of the bill to offer a pro forma amendment under the five-minute rule, 
recognized the ranking minority member to offer 
a perfecting amendment, prior 
to recognizing another majority member seeking recognition on behalf of 
another committee with jurisdiction over a portion of the bill to move 
to strike that portion, where the motion to strike was made in order 
but given no preferential status in the special rule governing 
consideration of the bill. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 15999, 16000, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Murphy of New York: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time with so many Members in the 
    well and on the floor to ask as many Members as possible to try to 
    stay on the floor throughout the next hour and 50 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bauman: Page 187, strike out line 
        19 and all that follows through line 20 on page 189 and insert 
        in lieu thereof the following:

                             Chapter 2--IMMIGRATION

            Sec. 1611. Special Immigrants.--(a) Section 101(a)(27) of 
        the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)), 
        relating to the definition of special immigrants, is amended--

        Ms. [Elizabeth] Holtzman [of New York] (during the reading): 
    Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, at the time that the last amendment was voted on, 
    I was on my feet seeking to offer an amendment on behalf of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary with respect to striking in its entirety 
    section 1611 of the bill. The right to offer that amendment is 
    granted under the rule, in fact on page 3 of House Resolution 274. 
    I want to ask the Chair whether I am entitled to be recognized or 
    was entitled to be recognized to make first a motion, which was a 
    motion to strike the entire section before amendments were made to 
    the text of the bill.
        The Chairman: (17) Unless an amendment having 
    priority of consideration under the rule is offered, it is the 
    Chair's practice to alternate recognition of members of the several 
    committees that are listed in the rule, taking amendments from the 
    majority and minority side in general turn, while giving priority 
    of recognition to those committees that are mentioned in the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Holtzman) is a member of 
    such a committee, but following the adoption of the last amendment 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy), the chairman of the 
    Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, sought recognition to 
    strike the last word. Accordingly, the Chair then recognized

[[Page 9652]]

    the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) to offer a floor 
    amendment, which is a perfecting amendment to section 1611 of the 
    bill.
        The rule mentions that it shall be in order to consider an 
    amendment as recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, to 
    strike out section 1611, if offered, but the rule does not give any 
    special priority to the Committee on the Judiciary to offer such 
    amendments, over perfecting amendments to that section.
        Ms. Holtzman: Mr. Chairman, may I be heard further? The 
    gentleman said that he was going to recognize members of the 
    committees that had a right to offer amendments under the rule 
    alternately. I would suggest to the Chair that no member of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary has been recognized thus far in the 
    debate with respect to offering such an amendment and, therefore, 
    the Chair's principle, as I understood he stated it, was not being 
    observed in connection with recognition.
        The Chairman: The Chair would observe that the Chair is 
    attempting to be fair in recognizing Members alternately when they 
    are members of committees with priority and that the rule permits 
    but does not give the Committee on the Judiciary special priority 
    of recognition over other floor amendments, which under the 
    precedents would take priority over a motion to strike.
        Second, the Chair would like to advise the gentlewoman from New 
    York that recognition is discretionary with the Chair and is not 
    subject to a point of order. Does the gentlewoman have any further 
    comment to make on the point of order?
        The Chair overrules the point of order and recognizes the 
    gentleman in the well.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The amendment offered by Mr. Bauman struck 
out section 1611 of the bill and inserted a new section, whereas the 
amendment made in order under the rule on behalf of the Committee on 
the Judiciary was an amendment to strike that section; thus adoption of 
the Bauman amendment precluded the offering of the Judiciary Committee 
amendment. It would have made little difference if Ms. Holtzman was 
recognized first, since the Bauman amendment could have been offered as 
a perfecting amendment while the Holtzman motion to strike was pending 
and if the Bauman amendment was adopted the motion to strike would have 
necessarily fallen and would not have been voted on.
    If the Holtzman amendment, and the amendments to be offered on 
behalf of the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Post Office and Civil 
Service, had been committee amendments formally recommended in reports 
on H.R. 111, they would have been automatically considered by the 
Committee of the Whole, but only the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries had formally reported H.R. 111.

[[Page 9653]]

Effect of Limitation on Five-minute Debate; Allocation of Time

Sec. 9.24 Priority of recognition under a limitation of time for debate 
    under the five-minute rule is in the complete discretion of the 
    Chair, who may disregard committee seniority and consider amendment 
    sponsorship.

    On June 26, 1979,(18) it was demonstrated that where the 
Committee of the Whole has agreed to a limitation on debate under the 
five-minute rule on a section of a bill and all amendments thereto, 
distribution of the time under the limitation is within the discretion 
of the Chair. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 125 Cong. Rec. 16677, 16678, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
            Under consideration was H.R. 3930, the Defense Production 
        Act Amendments of 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on section 3 and all amendments thereto cease at 
    6:40 p.m. . . .
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    209, noes 183, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 41, as follows: . 
    . .
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair will attempt to explain 
    the situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Committee has just voted to end all debate on section 3 and 
    all amendments thereto at 6:40. The Chair in a moment is going to 
    ask those Members wishing to speak between now and then to stand. 
    The Chair will advise Members that he will attempt, once that list 
    is determined, to recognize first those Members on the list with 
    amendments which are not protected by having been printed in the 
    Record. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, did I understand 
    the Chair correctly that Members who are protected by having their 
    amendments printed in the Record will not be recognized until the 
    time has run so that those Members will only have 5 minutes to 
    present their amendments, but that other Members will be recognized 
    first for the amendments which are not printed in the Record?
        The Chairman: Those Members who are recognized prior to the 
    expiration of time have approximately 20 seconds to present their 
    amendments. Those Members whose amendments are printed in the 
    Record will have a guaranteed 5 minutes after time has expired. . . 
    .

        The Chair will now recognize those Members who wish to offer 
    amendments which have not been printed in the Record.
        The Chair will advise Members he will recognize listed Members 
    in opposition to the amendments also for 20 seconds. . . .
        Mr. [Richard] Kelly [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, is it not 
    regular order that the Members of the Committee with amendments be 
    given preference and recognition?

[[Page 9654]]

        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman once the 
    limitation of time has been agreed to and time divided, that 
    priority of recognition is within the complete discretion of the 
    Chair.

Sec. 9.25 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed to a limitation 
    on debate, distribution of the remaining time is largely within the 
    discretion of the Chair.

    On June 19, 1975,(20) during consideration of the Energy 
Conservation and Conversion Act of 1975 (H.R. 6860) in the Committee of 
the Whole, Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, exercised his 
discretion as to recognition for debate, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 121 Cong. Rec. 19785-87, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on the bill and all amendments cease in 2 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Oregon?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the Chairman has the right at 
    this time to recognize one Member on each side. The Chair will do 
    that. All debate on the bill is limited to 2 minutes. The Chair 
    would be unable to recognize 40 or 50 Members for 1 second or 2 
    seconds.
        Mr. [William A.] Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin moves that the Committee do now 
        rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken. . . .

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Why, on a motion which 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin made, is he not allowed 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to state to the gentleman 
    from California that all debate on the bill and all amendments 
    thereto is limited to two minutes. . . .
        Mr. Rousselot: But he has 5 minutes on a preferential motion.
        The Chairman: All time has been fixed on the bill, and all 
    amendments thereto, and the time was 2 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Phillip 
    Burton) for 1 minute in opposition to the preferential motion.

Sec. 9.26 A limitation of debate on a bill and all amendments thereto 
    to a time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and 
    decisions regarding the division of the remaining time and the 
    order of recognition of those Members desiring to speak are largely 
    within the discretion of the Chair, who may defer recognition of 
    listed Members whose amendments have been printed in the Record and 
    who are therefore guaranteed five minutes notwithstanding the 
    limitation.

[[Page 9655]]

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 4, 1975,(1) during consideration of the Voting Rights 
Act Extension (H.R. 6219):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 16899, 16901, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the bill and all amendments thereto terminate at 6:45 
    p.m.
        The Chairman: (2) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: With the permission of the Committee, the Chair 
    will briefly state the situation.
        There are a number of Members who do not have amendments that 
    were placed in the Record, and the Chair feels that he must try to 
    protect them somewhat, so he proposes to go to a number of Members 
    on the list so they will at least get some time. The time allotted 
    will be less than a minute.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la 
    Garza).

Sec. 9.27 A limitation of debate on amendments in the Committee of the 
    Whole to a time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; 
    and decisions regarding the division of the remaining time and the 
    order of recognition are largely within the discretion of the 
    Chair.

    As an example of the Chair's exercise of discretion, on June 14, 
1977,(3) where the Committee of the Whole had limited debate 
under the five-minute rule to a time certain, and an equal division of 
the remaining time among all the Members seeking recognition would have 
severely restricted each Member in his presentation, the Chair 
allocated the time equally between two Members on opposing sides of the 
question, to be yielded by them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 123 Cong. Rec. 18826, 18833, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on these amendments and all amendments thereto, cease at 4 
    o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.
        The Chairman: (4) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair has before him a list of more than 25 
    Members to occupy the next 10 minutes. It has been suggested that 
    it would be possible for the Chair to recognize the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Bevill) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte) to allocate those 10 minutes.
        Accordingly, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Bevill) for 5 minutes.
        Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 9656]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. John T. Myers: How did the Chair make that decision?
        The Chairman: The Chair has the authority to allocate time 
    under a limitation, and it is obvious to the Chair that this is the 
    most rational way to handle the 10 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte).

Sec. 9.28 A limitation to a time certain on debate on an amendment in 
    Committee of the Whole in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; 
    recognition is in the discretion of the Chair under such limitation 
    and the Chair may recognize under the limitation a Member who has 
    already spoken on the amendment.

    On Aug. 4, 1977,(5) during consideration of the National 
Energy Act (H.R. 8444) in the Committee of the Whole, a motion was made 
to limit debate on a pending amendment and the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 123 Cong. Rec. 27006, 27007, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    debate on this amendment conclude at 2 o'clock.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley).
        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Ashbrook) there were--ayes 37, noes 20.
        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: (6) . . . The Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Howard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order. . . .
        Under the rules of the House, are not Members who have already 
    spoken to wait until all other Members are recognized until they 
    speak again on a pending amendment?
        The Chairman: No one was up at the time the Chair rapped the 
    gavel, and the gentleman from New Jersey was standing at the time 
    the Chair recognized him. We will be going back and forth, but of 
    course, the limitation abrogates the 5-minute rule.

Sec. 9.29 Parliamentarian's Note: When a relatively short period of 
    time for debate under the five-minute rule has been fixed in the 
    Committee of the Whole, the Chairman in his discretion may take 
    note of all those Members seeking recognition and divide the 
    remaining time among them, though each may have less than five 
    minutes to speak. But where the Committee of the Whole fixes debate 
    at a longer period, such as an hour and a half, the Chair may 
    decline to apportion the time among those Members on their feet.

[[Page 9657]]

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(7) the Committee of the Whole limited 
debate on a pending amendment and amendments thereto to one hour and a 
half.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 2240, 81st Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 22, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, responded as follows 
to parliamentary inquiries:

        Mr. [Jacob K.] Javits [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Javits: Mr. Chairman, is the Chair disposed to divide the 
    time in view of the fact that it has been limited, and to announce 
    the Members who will be recognized?
        The Chairman: In view of the fact that one hour and a half 
    remains for debate, and since it was impossible for the Chair to 
    determine the number of Members who were on their feet, I believe 
    it is advisable to follow the strict rule.

Sec. 9.30 Where the Committee of the Whole has agreed that debate under 
    the five-minute rule close at a certain 
    time on an amendment and 
    all amendments thereto, the Chair attempts to divide the time 
    equally among the Members desiring recognition; but where part of 
    the fixed time is consumed by voting, it may not be possible for 
    the Chair to reach each Member on his list before the time expires, 
    and no point of order lies against the inability of the Chair to 
    recognize each Member on the list.

    On June 27, 1977,(8) the situation described above 
occurred in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 20916, 20918, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert W.] Kastenmeier [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move that all debate on this amendment and all other amendments to 
    the bill close at 5:40 p.m.
        The Chairman: (9) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kastenmeier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Bill D. Burlison (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. 
    Ashbrook) there were--ayes 46, noes 20. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin 
    (Mr. Kastenmeier) to close debate.
        Mr. Kastenmeier: Mr. Chairman, this is, of course, the Legal 
    Services Liquidation Act of 1977, as proposed by the gentleman from 
    Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook). It must be rejected. . . .
        The Chairman: All time has expired.
        Mr. [Robert] McClory [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, the Chair has 
    not recognized me yet. The Chair read my name, but the Chair has 
    not recognized me yet.
        The Chairman: The Chair would advise the gentleman from 
    Illinois that we have run out of time.

[[Page 9658]]

        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. McClory: Mr. Chairman, when there is a time limitation and 
    Members are standing, it is my understanding that the Chair must 
    divide the time equally among the Members standing.
        Mr. Chairman, I was standing and my name was read.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that 
    according to the motion, which limited all debate to 5:40 p.m., we 
    are bound by the clock. Time consumed by voting has required the 
    Chair to reallocate time. Therefore, the Chair overrules the point 
    of order.

Sec. 9.31 Where debate has been limited to a time certain 
    on an amendment and all amendments thereto, the Chairman may 
    utilize his discretion in allocating debate time and continue to 
    recognize Members under the five-minute rule; but he may choose at 
    a later time to divide any remaining debate time among those 
    Members standing and reserve some time for the committee to 
    conclude debate.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Nov. 2, 1983,(10) during consideration of the Department of 
Defense appropriations for fiscal year 1984 (H.R. 4185):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 30504, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all 
    amendments thereto close at 2 o'clock. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) Is there objection to 
    the unanimous-consent request of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Addabbo) . . . ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Under the unanimous-consent agreement, does that mean only 
    those who were standing at the time the agreement was entered into 
    may enter into the debate?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will continue to allow time 
    under the 5-minute rule.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Approximately 90 minutes of time for debate remained at this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With about 30 minutes remaining under the limitation, the Chair 
(13) stated: (14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 30512, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 2, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes that there are more Members rising that 
    wish to participate in the debate than time will permit.
        The Chair has the discretion of dividing the time among Members 
    who wish to participate in the debate, and the Chair would also 
    make a request that those who have already entered into the debate 
    not seek further time.

[[Page 9659]]

        Those Members who wish to participate in the debate will please 
    rise.
        The Chair will reserve 2 minutes for the gentleman from Alabama 
    (Mr. Edwards) to conclude the debate.
        Members standing will be recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes each.

--Reallocation of Time

Sec. 9.32 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on an 
    amendment to a time certain and the time allocated by the Chair 
    among those initially desiring to speak is not totally consumed, 
    the Chair may either reallocate the remaining time among other 
    Members in his discretion or may proceed again under the five-
    minute rule.

    On Aug. 4, 1977,(15) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the National Energy Act (H.R. 8444) and had agreed 
to limit debate on an amendment when the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 27021, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gary A. Myers [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        The parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, did the House not 
    limit itself to debate until 2 o'clock?
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman is correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gary A. Myers: Under that limitation, I would like to ask 
    unanimous consent to speak on the unclaimed time of the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Whalen).
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania may claim his own time. . . .
        Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania desire to strike the 
    requisite number of words and be recognized?
        Mr. Gary A. Myers: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
    number of words.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Kazen: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Kazen: Supposing there are 20 of us who want to do the same 
    thing.
        The Chairman: If there are 20 who want to do the same thing, 
    and they can all do it before 2 o'clock, they will all be 
    recognized, or if feasible, the Chair could divide the remaining 
    time among other Members seeking recognition who were not included 
    in the original limitation.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gary A. Myers) has now 
    been recognized.

Denial of Recognition for Unanimous-consent Request; Consideration of 
    Bill

Sec. 9.33 The Chair may, by declining recognition to a Member to make a 
    unanimous-consent request for the con

[[Page 9660]]

    sideration of a measure, refuse to permit the request to be 
    entertained, and thus register his personal objection as a Member 
    of the House.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Jan. 23, 1984: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 83, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask unanimous consent that an open rule permitting consideration of 
    House Joint Resolution 100, the voluntary school prayer 
    constitutional amendment, be called up for immediate consideration 
    within the next 10 legislative days.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The Chair cannot and 
    will not entertain that request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Richard B. Ray (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have made a unanimous-consent 
    request. That is a perfectly proper request by any Member of this 
    body, and it is either objected to or is not objected to. I do not 
    understand the procedure that the Chair is using by not 
    entertaining the unanimous-consent request.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will inform the gentleman 
    that the Chair can object by declining recognition.

Sec. 9.34 The Chair himself may object to a unanimous-consent request 
    for the consideration of legislation, by denying recognition for 
    the request, and it is the policy of the Chair to refuse 
    recognition for requests to consider legislation not approved by 
    the leadership.

    The following exchange occurred in the House on Nov. 15, 1983: 
(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 32746, 32747, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the resolution introduced by the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Fish) specifying a rule for consideration of 
    House Joint Resolution 1 be made in order for consideration by the 
    House on Wednesday or any day thereafter.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The Chair cannot 
    entertain that motion without consultation with the leadership. The 
    Chair will not recognize the gentleman for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Ronald Coleman (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is that this 
    is a unanimous-consent request and it is entirely in order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has the same right to object 
    as any Member, and I do so object.

Sec. 9.35 The Chair may refuse to entertain unanimous-consent requests 
    for the consider

[[Page 9661]]

    ation of legislation that does not have the approval of the 
    leadership.

    On Nov. 16, 1983,(1) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 129 Cong. Rec. 33138, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that House Resolution 373 be made in order for 
    consideration in the House on Thursday or any day thereafter.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot recognize for that 
    purpose.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it is a unanimous-consent request.
        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: I object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot recognize for that 
    purpose. There is objection nevertheless.
        Mr. Walker: Let it be noted here this evening that the 
    objection to considering the resolution by which we would consider 
    ERA under the rules of the House and with an amendment and in open 
    debate was objected to from the Democratic side of the aisle. Let 
    that be noted.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state there is 
    precedent for denying the unanimous-consent request of the 
    gentleman dating back to May of 1982 and yesterday and furthermore 
    there was objection heard.

Sec. 9.36 The Speaker's authority to decline to recognize individual 
    Members to request unanimous consent for the consideration of bills 
    and resolutions derives from clause 2 of Rule XIV, on the Speaker's 
    general power of recognition, and from the precedents developed 
    under that rule.

    The following exchange occurred in the House on Jan. 26, 1984: 
(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. 449, 450, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have heard that we have 
    had some addition to the customs or procedures or even the rules of 
    the House, which seems to say that before I as a Member can ask 
    unanimous-consent requests that I must obtain the approval of the 
    leadership of the majority to pose that request.
        My parliamentary inquiry is this, Mr. Speaker. Where in the 
    rules does it say that? What is the specific provision in the rules 
    that authorizes the Speaker to make that kind of a rule for this 
    House? . . .
        The Speaker: (3) Clause 2 of rule XIV.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
 4. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 753-757 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dannemeyer: Is it the position of the Speaker that section 
    2 of rule XIV authorizes what has come to become a gag rule here?
        The Speaker: No. The Chair believes that it has been the custom 
    of

[[Page 9662]]

    this body through the years to give the power to the Speaker of the 
    House that the House be run in an efficient 
    manner and that the business of the 
    House should be done in an orderly 
    fashion and that obstruction should be avoided.

Sec. 9.37 Pursuant to the Speaker's announced policy in the 98th 
    Congress on recognition for unanimous-consent requests for the 
    initial consideration of bills and resolutions, the Chair will 
    decline recognition for such unanimous-consent requests without 
    assurances that the majority and minority leadership and committee 
    and subcommittee chairmen and ranking minority members have no 
    objection thereto.

    On Oct. 2, 1984,(5) the Chair having declined 
recognition for a unanimous-consent request that a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution be brought to the floor for immediate 
consideration, discussion took place relating to the Speaker's power of 
recognition (6) and, specifically, to the effect of 
announced guidelines governing recognition for requests for the initial 
consideration of bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 130 Cong. Rec. 28516-18, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. See Rule XIV, clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas F.] Hartnett [of South Carolina]: . . . If you are 
    sincere, Mr. Chairman, if your colleagues over there who now say 
    let us have a balanced budget really mean what they say, when you 
    know the American people are not going to be fooled by this move. 
    Let us have companion legislation, the balanced budget amendment.
        The Speaker is here. Let us bring by unanimous consent the 
    balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to the floor of the 
    House right now and let us vote on both of these bills if you mean 
    what you say. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, to recall or 
    discharge from the committee the balanced budget amendment to the 
    Constitution so that we can bring it to the floor of the House with 
    House Joint Resolution 243.
        I ask unanimous consent that it be brought before the House 
    right now.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) . . . Under the rules 
    and precedents, the motion is not to be entertained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman did not make a motion, it is my 
    understanding. The gentleman asked unanimous-consent request. Is 
    the Speaker ruling that unanimous-consent requests are not in 
    order? We have already had one previous unanimous-consent request 
    that was granted during the course of debate. How would this one 
    not be in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the Speaker's announcement of 
    guidelines for unanimous-consent requests to consider legislative 
    business, this request is not recognized. . . .

[[Page 9663]]

        Ms. [Bobbi] Fiedler [of California]: Mr. Speaker, before you 
    had dialog with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Hartnett) 
    regarding his parliamentary inquiry as it related to the balanced 
    budget amendment and his right to ask for a unanimous-consent 
    request in relationship to it. . . .
        I would like to ask of the Chair if the Chair will make the 
    inquiry as to whether the Democratic side leadership will also ask 
    to support his right under unanimous consent to bring the balanced 
    budget amendment, attach it to the existing bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has not been advised that 
    there is an intention to change the guidelines that were announced 
    earlier in the year for the purpose that they were issued. . . .
        Ms. Fiedler: Will the Chair inquire as to whether or not the 
    leadership on the Democratic side is willing to change the existing 
    rules? I realize that the Chair has indicated twice now that he has 
    not been informed that they have changed, but I am making a request 
    that he ask the leadership if they will make that change.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair states that this is not a 
    proper parliamentary inquiry. The Chair has not been advised that 
    there is a change in the policy that was issued the first week of 
    the session. . . .
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, we are still trying to sift our way 
    through the Chair's previous ruling with regard to the request of 
    the gentleman from South Carolina.
        Can the requirement that the Chair cites, can that requirement 
    be waived by unanimous consent?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question has to do with whether or 
    not recognition will be granted for that purpose, and the Chair's 
    ruling is based on guidelines that were issued on January 25, 1984, 
    and the Chair would read from the statement that was made at that 
    time by the Speaker.
        The Speaker said:

            As indicated on page 476 of the House Rules and Manual, the 
        Chair has established a policy of conferring recognition upon 
        Members to permit consideration of bills and resolutions by 
        unanimous consent only when assured that the majority and 
        minority leadership and committee and subcommittee chairmen and 
        ranking minority members have no objection.
            Consistent with that policy, and with the Chair's inherent 
        power of recognition under clause 2, rule XIV, the Chair and 
        any occupant of the chair appointed as Speaker pro tempore, 
        pursuant to clause 7, rule I, will decline recognition for 
        unanimous-consent requests for consideration of bills and 
        resolutions without assurances that the request has been 
        cleared by that leadership.
            This denial of recognition by the Chair will not reflect 
        necessarily any personal opposition on the part of the Chair to 
        orderly consideration of the matter in question, but will 
        reflect the determination upon the part of the Chair that 
        orderly procedures will be followed, that is, procedures 
        involving consultation and agreement between floor and 
        committee leadership on both sides of the aisle.

        It is that guideline that the Chair is following in this 
    instance. . . .
        Mr. Walker: The guidelines that the Chair has cited, what I am 
    inquiring is, can those guidelines be set aside by unanimous 
    consent?

[[Page 9664]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It is the Chair's power of recognition 
    that is involved, and that is the question that is being decided in 
    conformance with the guidelines, not other questions.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: If the House so deems that we could set aside those 
    guidelines by unanimous consent, is that a proper request? That is 
    the question of this gentleman.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will again state that what 
    is involved directly or indirectly, is a question of recognition, 
    and not other or further questions, and it is that question that is 
    being decided in conformance with the guidelines.

Demand for Yeas and Nays; Recognition During Division Vote

Sec. 9.38 The Chair declined to recognize a Member to demand the yeas 
    and nays when the Chair was counting on a division vote.

    On June 10, 1937,(8) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of 
Alabama, declined to recognize a Member while counting on a division 
vote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 5574, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit offered 
    by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Jenkins].
        Mr. [Thomas A.] Jenkins of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    division.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio demands a division. All 
    those in favor of the motion will rise and stand until counted.
        Mr. Jenkins of Ohio (interrupting the count): Mr. Speaker, I 
    ask for the yeas and nays.

        The Speaker: The gentleman's request is not in order while the 
    House is dividing.
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it has discretion to conclude the 
    count on a division before entertaining another request.
        Mr. Mapes: I never knew the Chair to make such a ruling before.
        The Speaker: The Chair now makes it.
        Mr. Mapes: As a lawyer said in addressing the court, ``If Your 
    Honor says so, that is the law.''
        The House divided; and there were--ayes 33, noes 176.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks it proper to state to the 
    gentleman from Michigan that he meant no disrespect to the 
    gentleman, and the Chair feels the gentleman was not deprived of 
    any parliamentary privilege.
        Mr. Jenkins of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were refused.
        So the motion to recommit was rejected.

Demand for Tellers; Due Diligence

Sec. 9.39 A demand for tellers on a question in the House is

[[Page 9665]]

    entertained by the Chair after a division vote, a quorum count and 
    announcement by the Chair of the result of the division vote, if a 
    Member was on his feet seeking recognition at the proper time.

    On June 5, 1940,(9) Speaker Pro Tempore Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, ruled that where a recorded vote was refused on a bill, a 
division vote was had, a point of no quorum was made, a quorum was 
counted, and the Speaker announced that the bill had passed, a Member 
could be recognized to demand a teller vote, where he had been on his 
feet seeking recognition for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 86 Cong. Rec. 7626, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demand for Division Vote

Sec. 9.40 Where a Member was on his feet seeking recognition to demand 
    a division vote on an amendment, the Chair recognized him although 
    the Chair had announced that the ayes had it on a voice vote.

    On Feb. 2, 1948,(10) Chairman Charles B. Hoeven, of 
Iowa, recognized Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, to demand a division 
vote on the pending amendment, although the Chair had announced that 
the ayes had it on a voice vote, where Mr. Dingell had shown due 
diligence:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 94 Cong. Rec. 922, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a division.
        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the request 
    comes too late.
        Mr. Dingell: No; it does not come too late. Let the Chair rule 
    on that.
        The Chairman: Was the gentleman on his feet when he made the 
    request?
        Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, we have always been 
    very liberal in the House about the matter of votes or whether 
    Members were on their feet. We have always been very liberal in the 
    matter of allowing division votes. As far as I am concerned I do 
    not care anything about it.
        The Chairman: If there is any doubt in the minds of the 
    membership the Chair will resolve the doubt in favor of the 
    gentleman from Michigan.
        The question was taken; and there were--ayes 202, noes 37.
        So the committee amendment was agreed to.

Recognition for Call of House

Sec. 9.41 While a point of no quorum is not in order during debate in 
    the House when the Speaker has not put a pending question, he may, 
    in his discretion under Rule XV clause 6, recognize any Member to 
    move a call of the House.

[[Page 9666]]

    On Mar. 30, 1977,(11) a resolution (H. Res. 445) 
providing for the consideration in the House as in the Committee of the 
Whole of another resolution (H. Res. 433, providing for the 
continuation of the Select Committee on Assassinations) was called up 
for immediate consideration following which a point of no quorum was 
made. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 9554, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 445 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 445

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to consider the resolution (H. Res. 433) to 
        provide for the continuation of the Select Committee on 
        Assassinations, in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

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

        Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order that a quorum is not present. I move a call of the House.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's point of order is not in order at 
    this particular time.
        Mr. Pickle: Mr. Speaker, I renew my point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri 
    (Mr. Bolling) to move a call of the House.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XI clause 4(b) prohibits dilatory 
motions during the consideration of a privileged report from the 
Committee on Rules, but presumably that clause applies only when the 
report is being considered under the hour rule in the House, and not 
when the report is considered under the provisions of a special rule 
allowing debate and amendments. Although no clear precedents exist as 
to the applicability of ``dilatory'' motions (e.g., to refer, to 
recommit, or to lay on the table) to a report of the Committee on Rules 
being considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, the 
better practice is to view such motions as being in order if properly 
offered.

Motion That Sergeant at Arms Maintain Presence of Quorum

Sec. 9.42 During a filibuster by roll calls in the House the Speaker, 
    in response to a parliamentary inquiry, indicated his reluctance to 
    entertain a motion that the Sergeant at Arms take action to keep a 
    quorum present in the Chamber for the remainder of the day.

[[Page 9667]]

    On Aug. 1, 1946,(13) the House was considering a report 
from the Committee on Un-American Activities on contempt proceedings 
against George Morford. Repeated roll calls were made to prevent 
consideration thereof. Mr. W. Sterling Cole, of New York, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry whether it was in order to make a motion that the 
Sergeant at Arms take whatever action was necessary to keep a quorum 
present in the House Chamber for the remainder of the day, any House 
rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 10639, 10640, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, stated:

        The Chair would rather not recognize the gentleman for such 
    motion at this time.

    Mr. Cole then asked when such a motion would be in order, and the 
Speaker responded:

        Well, the Chair would like to be the judge of that. Not now.

Dilatory Tactics

Sec. 9.43 The Speaker announced that he would not hold a motion to be 
    dilatory unless it was ``obvious to everybody'' that dilatory 
    tactics were being used and that a filibuster was being conducted.

    On July 25, 1949,(14) the House was considering House 
Resolution 276, making in order the consideration of H.R. 3199, the 
Federal Anti-Poll Tax Act. A series of roll calls was demanded to 
prevent adoption thereof. After the previous question had been ordered 
on the resolution, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, entertained a motion 
by Mr. Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida, that the House adjourn. The 
Speaker then made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 10096, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair desires to make a statement. Since the present 
    Speaker has occupied the chair he has yet to hold a motion to be 
    dilatory, and will not until it becomes obvious to everybody that 
    dilatory tactics are being indulged in and that a filibuster is 
    being conducted.

Sec. 9.44 The Speaker declined 
    to recognize a point of no quorum immediately after a vote by yeas 
    and nays which disclosed that 362 Members were present.

    On July 25, 1949,(15) a series 
of roll calls delayed adoption of House Resolution 276, making in order 
the consideration of H.R. 3199, the Federal Anti-Poll Tax Act. A motion 
to adjourn was

[[Page 9668]]

made and entertained by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, and the yeas and 
nays were had on the motion, resulting in 110 yeas and 252 nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 95 Cong. Rec. 10096, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Tom Pickett, of Texas, immediately made the point of order that 
a quorum was not present. The Speaker declined to entertain the point 
of no quorum and stated:

        The roll call just disclosed that there were 362 Members 
    present, quite a substantial quorum.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Speaker's declination to entertain the 
point of no quorum came shortly after he had made the statement that he 
had yet to hold a motion to be dilatory, and would not so hold until it 
was obvious to everybody that dilatory tactics were being indulged in 
and that a filibuster was being conducted.

Sec. 9.45 The Speaker, on a Calendar Wednesday, recognized the chairman 
    of a committee to call up a bill in spite of repeated motions to 
    adjourn, thereby inferentially holding such motions dilatory.

    On Feb. 15, 1950,(16) which was a Calendar Wednesday, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, directed the Clerk to call the roll of 
committees and recognized the Chairman of the Committee on the District 
of Columbia to call up a bill, ignoring repeated motions to adjourn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 1811, 1812, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Clerk will call the committees.

        The Clerk called the Committee on the District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not yield to the gentleman for a 
    parliamentary inquiry at this time.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The Clerk has called the Committee on the District 
    of Columbia. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina 
    [Mr. McMillan].
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do 
    now adjourn. That motion is always in order.
        The Speaker: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from South 
    Carolina [Mr. McMillan].
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan] 
    has been recognized.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan] 
    has been recognized.

[[Page 9669]]

Demand for Reading of Engrossed Copy of Bill (Under Former Rule); Due 
    Diligence

Sec. 9.46 A Member who was on his feet and who had shown due diligence 
    was recognized to demand the reading of the engrossed copy of a 
    bill even though the bill had been ordered engrossed and read a 
    third time.

    On Apr. 13, 1946,(17) H.R. 6064, extension of the 
Selective Training and Service Act, was ordered engrossed and read a 
third time. Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, then sought recognition to 
demand the reading of an engrossed copy of the bill. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Cox for that purpose, stating that he 
had been on his feet seeking recognition at the proper time (when the 
question was put on the engrossment and third reading).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 92 Cong. Rec. 3669, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: A Member may no longer demand the reading 
of an engrossed bill.

Debate on Points of Order

Sec. 9.47 Debate on points of order against an amendment is within the 
    discretion of the Chair and does not come out of debate time on the 
    merits of the amendment under the five-minute rule; thus, the 
    proponent of an amendment against which a point of order has been 
    reserved does not reserve a portion of his time under the five-
    minute rule to oppose any points of order if made, as separate 
    debate time is permitted on points of order at the discretion of 
    the Chair.

    During consideration of H.R. 7014, the Energy Conservation and Oil 
Policy Act of 1975, on Aug. 1, 1975,(18) the proposition 
described above was demonstrated in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 26945, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (19) Are there further amendments to 
    title III?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio: Strike out Title 
        III, as amended, and reinsert all except for Section 301, as 
        amended.

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order against the amendment.
        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a 
    point of order.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, the thrust of this amendment 
    is to

[[Page 9670]]

    strike from the bill the provisions of the Staggers pricing 
    amendment, section 301, by revising title III to strike the whole 
    title and to reinsert all in the title, except section 301.
        Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the amendment?
        The Chairman: The gentleman has been recognized for 5 minutes, 
    so the gentleman may proceed.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, may I reserve 2 minutes of my 
    time to speak on the points of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman to speak 
    on the points of order at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet made the point of 
    order. I reserved it.
        The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Ohio 
    to speak on the gentleman's amendment for 5 minutes. Then the 
    gentlemen who reserved the points of order may press them or they 
    may not.

Reservation of Point of Order

Sec. 9.48 Reservation of a point of order against an amendment is 
    within the discretion of the Chair, who may permit debate to be had 
    by the proponent on the merits of his amendment before hearing 
    arguments on the point of order.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 12, 1981,(20) during consideration of H.R. 3512 
(supplemental and continuing appropriations, rescissions and deferrals 
for fiscal year 1981):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 127 Cong. Rec. 9320, 9323, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For expenses necessary to carry out the provisions of sections 
    151 through 166 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 
    (Public Law 94-163), $3,883,408,000, to become available for 
    obligation October 1, 1981, and to remain available until expended.
        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Page 63, line 
        19, strike out ``$3,883,408,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$883,408,000''.

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve a 
    point of order on the amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Timothy E.] Wirth [of Colorado]: I ask unanimous consent 
    the gentleman have 3 additional minutes.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Wirth)?
        Mr. [Joseph M.] McDade [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. McDade: Is there not a point of order pending?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: As soon as the time of the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) has expired, the point of order will be 
    disposed of.
        Mr. McDade:  Mr. Chairman, there is a point of order pending 
    which the Chair has yet to rule upon. I have a substitute which I 
    would like to offer to this matter. My understanding of

[[Page 9671]]

    the precedents is that when a point of order is pending, there 
    cannot be discussions on matters other than the point of order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The point of order has only been 
    reserved and debate on the merits of the amendment has begun. It 
    will be disposed of momentarily as soon as the time of the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) has expired.

Debate Under Reservation of Objection

Sec. 9.49 Recognition for a reservation of objection to a unanimous-
    consent request is within the discretion of the Speaker and 
    sometimes he refuses to permit debate under such a reservation and 
    immediately puts the question on the request.

    On Dec. 3, 1969,(1) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mrs. Edith S. Green, of Oregon, to make a 
unanimous-consent request for the granting of a special order to 
address the House. Mr. Roman C. Pucinski, of Illinois, attempted to 
reserve the right to object and to debate the matter, but the Speaker 
immediately put the question on the request:

 1. 115 Cong. Rec. 36748, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that it will not recognize anyone else at 
    this moment. Either the gentlewoman receives permission, or she 
    does not.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from 
    Oregon?
        There was no objection.

Recognition for Hypothetical Questions

Sec. 9.50 The Chair does not recognize Members for hypothetical 
    questions.

    On Sept. 14, 1944,(2) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
raised a parliamentary inquiry as to why a report on the amounts of 
money requested by military establishments, sent to the Committee on 
Appropriations, had been concealed from Members of Congress. Speaker 
Pro Tempore Orville Zimmerman, of Missouri, responded that he had no 
knowledge of any such report and was not in a position to answer the 
inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 90 Cong. Rec. 7772, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Hoffman then stated his inquiry in the form of a ``hypothetical 
question.'' The Speaker Pro Tempore stated:

        The Chair does not entertain a hypothetical question.

    On Mar. 1, 1967,(3) the House was considering House 
Resolution 278, relating to the right to be

[[Page 9672]]

sworn of challenged Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New York. Mr. Joe 
D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, stated a lengthy parliamentary inquiry 
on the procedure for recognition should the previous question be voted 
down on the resolution. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
declined to answer that part of the parliamentary inquiry that involved 
a hypothetical parliamentary situation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: . . . Both the chairman and the ranking minority 
    member of the select committee control the allocation of time. The 
    question of recognition is one that the Chair will pass upon if 
    that time should arise.
        On the other questions of the gentleman from Louisiana the 
    Chair will determine them as they arise in accordance with the 
    rules of the House and the precedents.

Motion To Discharge Bill

Sec. 9.51 The Speaker may recognize any Member who has signed a 
    discharge petition to move to discharge the bill in question.

    On Oct. 12, 1942,(4) Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of New York, 
who had signed a petition to discharge a bill from committee, moved the 
discharge of the bill and was recognized by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, for 10 minutes on the motion. Mr. Sam Hobbs, of Alabama, made a 
point of order against the motion on the ground that Mr. Gavagan did 
not have the authority to call it up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 88 Cong. Rec. 8066, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker declared:

        The rule states that the Chair may recognize any Member who 
    signed the petition to make the motion just made by the gentleman 
    from New York [Mr. Gavagan], whom the Chair has recognized for that 
    purpose.

Suspension of Rules

Sec. 9.52 Recognition for a motion to suspend the rules is entirely 
    within the discretion of the Speaker.

    On Mar. 16, 1964,(5) Mr. Chet Holifield, of California, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill S. 2448, to amend the 
Atomic Energy Act. He moved to pass that bill instead of H.R. 9711, 
which was on the suspension list and which dealt with the same subject 
matter. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 5291, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John P.] Saylor [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 9673]]

        Mr. Saylor: Mr. Speaker, the House Calendar lists a bill to 
    come up under suspension and it is a House bill. Does it not 
    require unanimous consent to suspend the rules and take up a Senate 
    bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, under the rules of the House, the Speaker may 
    recognize a Member on a motion to suspend the rules.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See also 80 Cong. Rec. 2239, 2240, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 
        1936.
            The Committee on Rules has reported and the House has 
        adopted resolutions authorizing the Speaker to recognize 
        Members for motions to suspend the rules on days other than 
        regular suspension days. See, for example, H. Res. 422, 107 
        Cong. Rec. 16562, 16563, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 21, 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.53 Pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 1, the Speaker may in his 
    discretion decline to recognize a Member to move to suspend the 
    rules.

    On Mar. 5, 1974,(7) the proceedings described above were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 120 Cong. Rec. 5316, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         REQUEST TO SUSPEND RULES AND CONSIDER HOUSE RESOLUTION 807

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules 
    be suspended and the House proceed to the consideration of the 
    resolution, House Resolution 807, disapproving pay increases.
        The Speaker: (8) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Iowa has not consulted the Chair and the Chair is 
    not going to recognize the gentleman from Iowa for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to state further that the request of the 
    gentleman from Iowa violates the ``Gross'' rule whereby he has 
    requested that notification of suspensions be given 24 hours in 
    advance.
        Mr. Gross: What kind of a rule is that?
        The Speaker: The Gross rule.

Privileged Questions

Sec. 9.54 The Speaker announced his intention to recognize a Member to 
    call up resolutions disapproving certain Presidential 
    reorganization plans before recognizing another Member to call up a 
    conference report, pending the arrival from the Senate of the 
    original papers accompanying the conference report.

    On Sept. 28, 1970,(9) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, made the following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 33870, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has been informed and understands that the original 
    papers on the next conference report have not been messaged over to 
    the House as yet. They will be here shortly.

[[Page 9674]]

        The Chair will recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Holifield) in connection with the first reorganization plan [H. 
    Res. 1209], and if the papers arrive between consideration of the 
    first and second reorganization plans, the Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman from West Virginia [on the conference report] at that 
    time.

Sec. 9.55 In response to a parliamentary inquiry, the Speaker stated 
    that where matters of equal privilege are pending, the order of 
    their consideration is subject to the Speaker's recognition.

    On Sept. 22, 1966,(10) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 112 Cong. Rec. 23691, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Under the rules of the House, as I understand them, this rule, 
    House Resolution 1007, to bring up the so-called House Un-American 
    Activities Committee bill, is a privileged matter, and if it is not 
    programed, then the gentleman handling the rule or any member of 
    the Rules Committee, may call it up as a privileged matter. Is my 
    understanding correct about that?
        The Speaker: The gentleman's understanding is correct. Of 
    course, the question of recognition is with the Chair, where there 
    are two similar preferential matters, but the gentleman's 
    understanding is correct that after 7 legislative days a member of 
    the Rules Committee could call it up.

        If it were a question of recognition, if the same preferential 
    status existed at the same time, recognition rests with the Chair.

Sec. 9.56 When more than one Member seeks recognition to call up 
    privileged business it is within the discretion of the Speaker as 
    to whom he shall recognize.

    On Aug. 27, 1962, which was District of Columbia 
Monday,(11) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, moved to 
suspend the rules and pass Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Thomas G. 
Abernethy, of Mississippi, made a point of order against recognition of 
Mr. Celler on the ground that he (Mr. Abernethy) wanted to offer a 
District of Columbia bill and that pursuant to Rule XXIV clause 8 of 
the House rules, District of Columbia business was privileged. He 
alleged that the Speaker was permitted only to recognize for District 
of Columbia business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654, 17655, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as follows:

        Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to 
    transfer

[[Page 9675]]

    the consideration of business under suspension of the rules on 
    Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the consideration 
    of a privileged motion, and a motion to suspend the rules today is 
    a privileged motion. The matter is within the discretion of the 
    Chair as to the matter of recognition.

Sec. 9.57 The Speaker declined to recognize a Member to call up a 
    resolution calling on the Office of Price Administration to furnish 
    certain information, the resolution not being privileged.

    On July 17, 1946,(12) Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas, 
offered a ``privileged'' resolution calling on the Office of Price 
Administration to furnish certain information. In response to an 
inquiry by Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, Mr. Thomas stated that a 
similar resolution was pending before the Committee on Banking and 
Currency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 92 Cong. Rec. 9246, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. For the privilege of 
        resolutions of inquiry, see Ch. 15, Sec. 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker refused to recognize Mr. Thomas to call up the 
resolution for consideration:

        The Speaker: The Clerk may read the resolution, if there is no 
    objection, but it is not a privileged resolution and the Chair will 
    not recognize for its consideration at this time because it is not 
    privileged.
        If the gentleman desires, and if there is no objection, the 
    Clerk may read the resolution.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The resolution was not privileged as it was 
directed to the OPA and not to the head of a department.

Sec. 9.58 When a Member asserts that he rises to a question of the 
    privileges of the House, the Speaker may hear the question and may 
    then refuse recognition if the resolution is not admissible as a 
    question of privilege under Rule IX.

    On June 27, 1974,(13) it was demonstrated that a Member 
may not, by raising a question of the privileges of the House under 
Rule IX, attach privilege to a question not otherwise in order under 
the rules of the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 120 Cong. Rec. 21596-98, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.

        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    resolution (H. Res. 1203) involving a question of privileges of the 
    House, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1203

            Whereas on January 31, 1973, the House of Representatives 
        voted to establish a ten-member, bipartisan Select Committee on 
        Committees charged with conducting a ``thorough and complete 
        study of rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives; and
            Whereas the select committee was further ``authorized and 
        directed to report to the House . . .

[[Page 9676]]

            Whereas on March 21, 1974, the select committee reported 
        House Resolution 988 in conformance with its mandate; and
            Whereas the chairman of the select committee has failed to 
        seek a rule making House Resolution 988 in order for 
        consideration by the House; and
            Whereas, clause 27(d)(1) of House Rule XI states, ``It 
        shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee to report 
        or cause to be reported promptly to the House any measure 
        approved by his committee and to take or cause to be taken 
        necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote;'' . . .
            Resolved, That the chairman of the select committee be 
        directed to forthwith seek a rule making in order for 
        consideration by the House, House Resolution 988; and be it 
        further
            Resolved, That the House Committee on Rules be directed to 
        give immediate consideration to such request. . . .

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    make the point of order that the resolution offered by the 
    gentleman from Illinois does not raise the question of privilege. . 
    . .
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard on 
    the point of order. My question of privilege arises under rule IX 
    which provides that, and I quote:

            Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
        rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity and the 
        integrity of its proceed-ings. . . .

        Mr. Speaker, I rest my question of privilege on that clause 
    which declares those questions privileged which relate to the 
    integrity of the proceedings of the House. It is my contention that 
    there has been a deliberate attempt to delay House consideration of 
    House Resolution 988, the so-called Bolling-Martin Committee Reform 
    Amendments of 1974, and that this intentional delay not only 
    interferes with and flouts the integrity of the proceedings of this 
    body, but is in clear violation of clause 27(d)(1) of rule XI of 
    the Rules of the House.
        Under that rule, and I quote:

            It shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee to 
        report or cause to be reported promptly to the House any 
        measure approved by his committee and to take or cause to be 
        taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. . . .

        The Speaker: (14) The Chair is ready to rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) has submitted a 
    resolution which he asserts involves a question of the privileges 
    of the House under rule IX. Following the preamble of the 
    resolution, the resolution provides that:

            Resolved, That the chairman of the Select Committee be 
        directed to forthwith seek a rule making in order for 
        consideration by the House, House Resolution 988, and be it 
        further
            Resolved, That the House Committee on Rules be directed to 
        give immediate consideration to such request.

        As indicated in ``Hinds' Precedents,'' volume III, section 
    2678, Speakers are authorized to make a preliminary determination 
    as to those questions presented which may involve privileges. As 
    reaffirmed by Speaker McCormack on October 8, 1968 (Record p. 30214 
    to 30216) when a Member asserts that he

[[Page 9677]]

    rises to a question of the privileges of the House, the Speaker may 
    hear the question and then, if the matter is not one admissible as 
    a question of privilege of the House he can refuse recognition.
        The Chair has listened to the arguments concerning the 
    privileged status of this resolution and has examined the 
    precedents of the House in this regard. It will be noted that the 
    gentleman from Illinois has relied heavily on section 2609, volume 
    III of ``Hinds' Precedents,'' in which it was held by Speaker Reed 
    that a report having been ordered to be made by a select committee 
    but not being made within a reasonable time, a resolution directing 
    the report to be made raised a question of the privileges of the 
    House.
        That case is distinguishable from the present instance in that 
    in this instance the chairman has made the report and the 
    resolution is pending on the calendar of the House and it does not 
    become privileged until the House has adopted a resolution reported 
    from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of 
    House Resolution 988. The Chair does not feel that a question of 
    privilege of the House under rule IX should be used as a mechanism 
    for giving privilege to a motion which would not otherwise be in 
    order under the Rules of the House, in this case, namely, a motion 
    to direct the Committee on Rules to take a certain action.
        The Chair now would refer to Hinds' Precedents, volume III, 
    section 2610, wherein Speaker Crisp ruled that a charge that a 
    committee had been inactive in regard to a subject committed to it 
    did not constitute a question of privilege of the House. . . .
        The rules did not provide at the time of Speaker Reed's ruling, 
    as is now the case in clause 27(d)(2) of Rule XI, for a mandatory 
    filing of the reports within 7 calendar days after the measure has 
    been ordered reported upon signed request by a committee majority.
        In the instant case, however, the Select Committee on 
    Committees has filed its report and the Chair is not aware that the 
    chairman of the Select Committee on Committees has in any sense 
    violated the rule cited by the gentleman from Illinois. For these 
    reasons, the Chair holds that the gentleman's resolution does not 
    present a question of the privileges of the House under [rule] IX 
    and the resolution may not be considered.

One-minute Speeches

Sec. 9.59 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion 
    of the Speaker, and he sometimes withholds such recognition in the 
    hopes of expediting the business of the House.

    On June 17, 1970,(15) after the disposition of a voting 
rights bill, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized a 
Member for a unanimous-consent request to address the House for one 
minute. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, stated, under a reservation of 
objection to the request, that the Speaker had announced at the

[[Page 9678]]

beginning of the day that he was not recognizing for one-minute 
speeches, in order to expedite the legislative business of the House. 
Mr. Gross suggested that the refusal to so recognize was motivated by a 
desire to prevent debate on the bill to be considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 20245, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker responded:

        The Chair will state to the gentleman from Iowa that earlier in 
    the day the Chair did make the statement that the Chair would not 
    entertain unanimous-consent requests for 1-minute speeches to be 
    delivered until later on in the day.
        I am sure that the gentleman from Iowa clearly understood that 
    statement on the part of the Speaker. At that particular time the 
    Chair stated that the Chair would recognize Members for unanimous-
    consent requests to extend their remarks in the Record or 
    unanimous-consent requests to speak for 1 minute with the 
    understanding that they would not take their time but would yield 
    back their time.
        I think the Chair clearly indicated that the Chair would 
    recognize Members for that purpose at a later time during the day. 
    As far as the Chair is concerned the custom of the 1-minute speech 
    procedure is adhered to as much as possible because the Chair 
    thinks it is a very healthy custom.
        The Chair had the intent, after the disposition of the voting 
    rights bill, 
    to recognize Members for 1-minute speeches or further unanimous-
    consent requests if they desired to do so.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 114 Cong. Rec. 22633, 22634, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., July 22, 
        1968, for a colloquy between the Speaker and minority Members 
        on the importance of the ``one-minute'' speech and recognition 
        by the Speaker for that purpose.
            For a discussion of the use of the ``one-minute'' speech in 
        the practice of the House, see Sec. 73, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.60 Recognition for one-minute speeches is within the discretion 
    of the Speaker; and when the House has a heavy legislative 
    schedule, he sometimes refuses to recognize Members for that 
    purpose until the completion of legislative business.

    On July 24, 1980,(17) Speaker Pro Tempore James C. 
Wright, Jr., of Texas, made an announcement regarding one-minute 
speeches, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 19386, 19387, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair desires to announce that in 
    view of the need to complete the legislative schedule, which has 
    been long delayed, the Chair will recognize Members at this time 
    only for unanimous-consent requests to revise and extend their 
    remarks and not for 1-minute speeches.
        Members will be recognized for 1-minute speeches at the 
    conclusion of the legislative business today.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 9679]]

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, it has, of course, been traditional in 
    the House to allow 1-minute speeches at the discretion of the 
    Chair, as the Chair has just indicated.
        Is this denial of 1-minute speeches to be the policy for the 
    remainder of the session, or is it just for today?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot and would not attempt 
    to set a policy for the remainder of the session. For the remainder 
    of this week, today and tomorrow, the Chair desires to complete the 
    legislative program that is scheduled for this week and to allow 
    Members to leave at 3 o'clock tomorrow.

    Subsequently, a Member took the floor for a special-order speech to 
criticize the decision of the Speaker Pro Tempore to refuse to 
recognize for one-minute speeches prior to legislative business on that 
day: (18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Id. at pp. 19445, 19446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under a previous order of the House, 
    the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is recognized for 60 
    minutes.
        (Mr. Bauman asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks.)
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I take this time to observe with 
    sorrow the events that occurred earlier today. I did not wish to 
    explore them at length during the 1-minute speech which I was 
    finally permitted, but I do think they deserve some comment. I will 
    try to confine myself to the 1-hour the House permits me under 
    special order.
        I happen to believe that the conduct of the President's 
    brother, Billy Carter, has raised valid questions that need to be 
    answered. . . .
        So I would just suggest that we all re-examine our position and 
    only put aside the traditions of the House and the free speech of 
    Members if it is absolutely necessary for good reason.

Sec. 9.61 A point of order against the manner in which the Chair is 
    conducting the proceedings of the House may interrupt the reading 
    of an enrolled bill (by title) by the Clerk; but in this instance, 
    the Chair's refusal to recognize for unanimous-consent requests to 
    address the House before legislative business was held not to be 
    subject to a point of order, since such question of recognition is 
    within the discretion of the Chair, who may refuse to entertain 
    such requests at all.

    The proceedings of the House on July 25, 1980,(19) 
wherein a point of order was overruled, were as follows:

19. 126 Cong. Rec. 19762-64, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) . . . As the Chair 
    announced yesterday, requests to address the House for 1 minute 
    will be entertained at the conclusion of the legislative business 
    today, rather than at the beginning. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair believes there is genuine value in the 1-minute rule 
    in the exer

[[Page 9680]]

    cise of free expression . . . . For all its value, however, the 
    Chair does not believe that the 1-minute rule must necessarily 
    precede, nor be permitted to postpone, the business of the House.

    Subsequently, a resolution was offered relating to structural 
deficiencies in the West Front of the Capitol, and a motion to table 
the resolution was agreed to. Thereupon the following point of order 
was raised:

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair lays before the House the 
    following enrolled bill.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order at this point. . . .
        The Clerk proceeded to read the enrolled bill.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will suspend.
        A Member is seeking recognition to make a point of order. . . . 
    [T]he Chair will ask the gentleman to state his point of order.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, prior to the privileged or 
    nonprivileged motions just offered by the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, the Chair unilaterally issued a ruling regarding the 
    1-minute speeches and stated in essence, if I recall, that these 
    speeches would not be permitted today or during his tenure as 
    Speaker pro tempore because of the press of legislative business in 
    the remainder of the session. . . .
        I make a point of order against the ruling of the Chair. I make 
    a point of order that the Chair cannot in fact deny the 1-minute 
    speeches on the ground which he stated, and as authority for that, 
    I cite chapter 21, section 7 of Deschler's, wherein there are 
    several instances, including those referring to July 22, 1968; June 
    17, 1970; and October 19, 1966, where the Chair declined to 
    recognize Members for 1-minute speeches because of the press of 
    business, a heavy legislative schedule, which is Deschler's phrase, 
    and proceeding to unfinished business.
        Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the traditions of the 
    House, as evidenced in these precedents, indicate the Chair has the 
    discretion to deny 1-minute speeches on those grounds, but that the 
    ruling of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright), the Speaker pro 
    tempore, has, in fact, allowed an arbitrary ground to be used at a 
    time when there is no press of heavy legislative business 
    manifested by the fact that the Speaker and others have announced 
    that we will adjourn today at 3 o'clock when we can easily stay 
    here and deal with any pressing legislative business if that 
    exists.
        Further my point of order is that the Speaker has departed from 
    past traditions and, therefore, has exceeded his discretion in 
    regard to 1-minutes as supported by the traditions of the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule on the 
    point of order, unless other Members insist on being heard. The 
    Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman's point of order in the first place comes too 
    late. But the Chair is prepared to state that in any event it is 
    not a sustainable point of order.

[[Page 9681]]

        The gentleman from Maryland is aware, because he is a scholar 
    of the rules of the House, and he is aware of the great thrust of 
    the very section to which he made reference, paragraph 7 of chapter 
    21 of Deschler's Procedure.
        The Chair would simply recite one or two of the precedents 
    therein reported. Recognition for 1-minute speeches is within the 
    discretion of the Speaker, and his evaluation of the time consumed 
    is a matter for the Chair and is not subject to challenge or 
    question by parliamentary inquiry.

    Parliamentarian's Note: In the above instance, the Chair 
entertained an appeal from his ruling that no point of order lay 
against his refusal to entertain unanimous-consent requests to address 
the House before legislative business, even though such a point of 
order, addressed to a question of recognition, is not ordinarily 
subject to appeal.(1) The appeal was laid on the 
table.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1425-1428; 6 Cannon's Precedents 
        Sec. 292; and 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. Sec. 2429, 2646, 2762.
 2. 126 Cong. Rec. 19764, 96th Cong. 2d Sess., July 25, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 9.62 Recognition is within the discretion of the Chair, who may 
    deny a Member recognition to speak under the ``one-minute rule'' in 
    order to uphold order and decorum in the House as required under 
    clause 2 of Rule I; thus, the Speaker inquired of a Member in the 
    well seeking recognition, as to his purpose in utilizing an object 
    for demonstration in debate, and then denied that Member 
    recognition pursuant to his authority under clause 2 of Rule XIV, 
    when he determined that the object might subject the House to 
    ridicule.

    On Aug. 27, 1980,(3) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 126 Cong. Rec. 23456, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (4) The Chair would ask the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) what he intends to do with the 
    doll. The Chair is not going to allow the Congress to be held up to 
    ridicule and will object to any such exhibit being used in debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, if I may 
    respond, I simply want to introduce this duck as a symbol of the 
    lameduck session that I want to speak to.
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion the Member would be 
    holding the House up to ridicule and would ask the gentleman to 
    make the speech without utilizing the apparatus or the doll or 
    anything of that nature.
        Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not the intention.
        The Speaker: That is the way the Chair feels about it and the 
    Chair so rules.

[[Page 9682]]

        (Mr. Shuster asked and was given permission to address the 
    House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

    Parliamentarian's Note: The original transcript shows that the 
Speaker first inquired as to Mr. Shuster's purpose and then denied him 
recognition, and that Mr. Shuster was then recognized for one minute. 
Thus, the Speaker was exercising his power of recognition, and was not 
unilaterally preventing the use of a demonstration during debate, which 
would be a matter to be determined by a vote of the House, under Rule 
XXX.

Special-order Speeches

Sec. 9.63 The Speaker is not required to recognize Members for 
    scheduled ``special order'' speeches immediately upon completion of 
    legislative business but may continue to recognize other Members 
    for unanimous-consent requests and permissible motions.

    On July 31, 1975,(5) the proposition stated above was 
demonstrated in the House as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 121 Cong. Rec. 26243-47, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. John L. Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: (6) The motion is not in order since we 
    just had a vote on a similar motion and there has been no 
    intervening business or debate. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will take unanimous-consent requests.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House recess subject to the call of the Chair.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman that is not 
    a privileged motion. The Chair cannot entertain that motion at this 
    time.
        Mr. [William L.] Armstrong [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is 
    will the Chair state what is the pending business before the House?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state there is no pending business. 
    . . .
        Mr. Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, under a previous order of the House 
    I have been granted a special order for 60 minutes. I ask to be 
    recognized at this time for that purpose.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Colorado does not have the 
    first special order.
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    believe I have the first special order, and I ask to be recognized.
        The Speaker: The Chair is not going to recognize any special 
    order at this time, and the Chair has that authority. . . .
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: . . . Mr. Speaker, 
    is it not correct to say that if a unanimous-consent request to 
    allow the Committee on Rules until midnight to file a report on

[[Page 9683]]

    the Turkish aid issue now being debated by the other body, was 
    granted, that the House could then adjourn and at the same time 
    work its will because then, if the Committee on Rules files a 
    report, it could be considered then under the rules of the House, 
    and if they did not file a report, the issue would be moot?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that that is an 
    accurate statement of the situation, as the Chair understands it. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Dante B.] Fascell [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, there have 
    been some remarks made that the House would be denied its will and 
    there would be no way to consider the matter in the event the other 
    body agreed to some legislation tonight. Am I correct in the 
    proposition that if a bill is passed by the other body tonight, 
    there is a procedure under the rules whereby the matter could be 
    considered tomorrow? . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will state this. The regular rule is 
    that a report from the Rules Committee has to go over 1 day or it 
    takes a two-thirds vote for consideration on the day reported. The 
    other way is that a unanimous-consent request can be made, and if 
    the Committee on Rules can file it by 10 o'clock tomorrow, and the 
    House adjourns tonight, then it will take a majority vote for 
    consideration tomorrow after the House meets, just as it always 
    does on a subsequent legislative day.

Sec. 9.64 The Speaker may not be compelled by a motion under Rule XXV 
    to recognize Members for scheduled ``special orders'' immediately 
    upon completion of scheduled legislative business, but rather may 
    continue to exercise his power of recognition under Rule XIV clause 
    2 to recognize other Members for unanimous-consent requests and 
    permissible motions; thus, the Speaker has declined to recognize a 
    Member who sought to invoke Rule XXV to interfere with the 
    Speaker's power of recognition.

    Rule XXV, which provides that ``questions as to the priority of 
business shall be decided by a majority without debate,'' merely 
precludes debate on motions to go into Committee of the Whole, on 
questions of consideration, and on appeals from the Chair's decisions 
on priority of business, and should not be utilized to permit a motion 
directing the Speaker to recognize Members in a certain order or to 
otherwise establish an order of business. Thus, for example, on July 
31, 1975,(7) the Speaker (8) refused to recognize 
a Member who sought to make a motion to direct recognition of Members 
for special orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 26249, 26251, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order that a quorum is not present.

[[Page 9684]]

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point of order to this 
    effect: Under the new rules of the House, is it not true that once 
    the House has proceeded to the closing business of the day, 
    granting requests for absences and special orders, that it is no 
    longer in order to make a point of order that a quorum is not 
    present?
        The Speaker: The Chair has not started to recognize Members for 
    special orders yet. All the business on the Chair's desk has been 
    completed. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    rules preclude a quorum at this point because personal requests 
    have already been read from the desk. A leave of absence was 
    granted to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague).
        Under the new rules, Mr. Speaker, a quorum does not lie after 
    this point of business in the day.
        The Speaker: If the Chair understands the gentleman's point of 
    order, it relates to the fact, which is a new rule, not the rule we 
    used to follow. The rule is that once a special order has started, 
    the Member who has the special order and is speaking cannot be 
    taken off his feet by a point of order of no quorum. However, there 
    is nothing in the rules of which the Chair is aware that requires 
    the Chair to begin to call a special order at any particular time.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move under rule XXV that the House 
    proceed to recognize the Members previously ordered to have special 
    orders today, and on that I ask for a rollcall vote.
        Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. Bauman: 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 
    137, nays 202, not voting 95, as follows: . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, under rule XXV, I again renew my 
    motion that the Chair proceed to the recognition of other Members 
    who have previously been granted special orders for today.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Danielson).
        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise 
    and extend my remarks.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California?
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion pending.
        Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House do now adjourn.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    142, nays 205, not voting 87, as follows: . . . .

[[Page 9685]]

Sec. 9.65 Once special orders have begun, it is customary not to resume 
    legislative business, however this custom is not binding on the 
    House and the Speaker has the authority to recognize for further 
    business; thus, on occasion the Speaker has announced that he would 
    begin to call the special orders, which action would not prejudice 
    calling up of further legislative business later that day.

    On Aug. 1, 1975,(9) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 26952-54, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: . . . The normal procedure, as the Members know, 
    special orders are called when the legislative business has ended. 
    We have not called special orders yet.

        We have at least three bills, to my knowledge, that may come 
    over here from the Senate.
        The Chair would like to take the special orders and reserve the 
    authority to call up these bills at a later time. . . .

                        ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

        The Speaker: Without prejudice to calling up other legislative 
    business which might come over to the House from the Senate, the 
    Chair will call the special orders at this time.

Recognition for Legislative Business After Special-order Speeches

Sec. 9.66 The Speaker announced, after a point of order had been 
    sustained against the consideration of further scheduled 
    legislative business for the day (necessitating consideration of a 
    resolution by the Committee on Rules and by the House), that he had 
    the prerogative and intention to recognize Members for 
    consideration of further legislative business after special-order 
    speeches had been conducted in order to complete the schedule for 
    the day, notwithstanding the customary, but non-binding, practice 
    that legislative business is not conducted once special-order 
    speeches have begun.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Mar. 22, 1983: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 129 Cong. Rec. 6501, 6503, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.

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

[[Page 9686]]

    POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
      91, FIRST CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 1984

        Mr. [Tom] Loeffler [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of 
    order against consideration of this budget resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) The gentleman will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Loeffler: Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the 
    consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 91, which is the House 
    concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 1984, on the grounds 
    that its consideration would violate the provisions of clause 
    2(l)(6) of rule XI of the rules of the House [prohibiting the 
    consideration of any measure or matter in the House reported by any 
    committee (except the Committee on Rules) unless copies of the 
    report and reported measure have been available to Members for at 
    least three days]. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair believes that while House 
    Resolution 144 was intended to permit immediate consideration of 
    House Concurrent Resolution 91, the provisions of clause 2(l)(6), 
    rule XI do technically--under the second sentence of that clause--
    separately require a 3-day availability of the Budget Committee's 
    report. That part of the rule was not separately waived, and 
    although the 10-day rule was waived effectively, the Chair will 
    sustain the point of order and advise that under that rule the 
    Rules Committee may immediately report out and call up a special 
    order waiving the 3-day rule.
        The Speaker: (12) The Chair's understanding now is 
    that the Rules Committee will meet and will report back somewhere 
    around the time of 8:30. The Chair will go to Special Orders at 
    this particular time and we could ask for a recess subject to the 
    call of the Chair and the reporting of the Rules Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following a parliamentary inquiry that interceded at this point, 
the Speaker made the following announcement:

        The Speaker: The Chair announces, it is the intention and the 
    prerogative of the Speaker after special orders to call up 
    business, in case there is anybody lingering out there that thinks 
    the Speaker does not have that power.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I had 
    understood that it is not formalized by the rules, but there is an 
    informal arrangement that had been agreed to early in the Congress 
    that we would not take up business after special orders had been 
    started.
        Is that now going to be canceled at the discretion of the 
    Chair, is that my understanding of what the Speaker is saying?
        The Speaker: I am sure as the gentleman appreciates, it is the 
    special duty of the Speaker to see that the program of the day is 
    put through. When the occasion arises when there is an exception, 
    the Speaker would act in the best interests of the majority of the 
    House and not just an individual or

[[Page 9687]]

    two in the eyes of the Speaker, and consequently it would be 
    understood by the precedents that that is the way the Speaker would 
    act and the Speaker would recognize for consideration of 
    legislation.

Motion To Recommit

Sec. 9.67 The Chair will generally recognize a minority Member (who is 
    opposed to the measure) to offer a motion to recommit, but is not 
    required to recognize any particular minority Member where no 
    minority committee member seeks recognition.

    On Feb. 3, 1944,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering S. 1285, providing voting for members of the armed 
services. A discussion about recognition for a motion to recommit 
ensued, and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, took the floor to explain 
the Chair's position:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 90 Cong. Rec. 1221, 1222, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr.], of Massachusetts: I might say to 
    the gentleman from Missouri there has been a good deal of 
    discussion about this motion to recommit. We have had one contest 
    which was wrongly interpreted in which we fought to preserve the 
    integrity of the rules of the House and to protect a right that has 
    always belonged to the minority. . . .
        I am perfectly willing for the Chairman to recognize the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Anderson] to make that motion, and 
    he is, I know, opposed to the bill. . . .
        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Unless he is opposed to 
    the bill he is not qualified.
        Mr. [John Z.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cochran: I yield to the gentleman from California.
        Mr. Anderson of California: I will say to the gentleman from 
    Missouri that I have a motion to recommit which will request the 
    Committee on Election of President, Vice President, and 
    Representatives in Congress to report back the bill forthwith with 
    the Worley bill in it. I trust that I will be recognized. . . .
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cochran: I yield to the distinguished Speaker of the House.
        Mr. Rayburn: I trust that this colloquy will not take away from 
    the Speaker what has always been his prerogative, to recognize any 
    member of the minority to offer a motion to recommit when no member 
    of the committee offers a motion.
        Mr. Cochran: In my opinion no Member on the minority side who 
    is a member of the committee can stand up, in view of the fact that 
    they all signed the report, and say he is opposed to the bill. 
    Therefore some person outside of the committee will have to do it.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Cochran: I yield.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: There will be no minority member 
    of the com

[[Page 9688]]

    mittee, in my opinion, who can stand up and say he is opposed to 
    the bill, but I would like to address a word or two to my beloved 
    friend, the Speaker. I realize it rests with the Speaker to 
    recognize the Member to make the motion to recommit. The clear 
    intent of the rule, however, in my opinion, is to give that weapon 
    of recommitment to the minority and not to any minority of the 
    minority.
        Mr. Rayburn: I just wanted to make it entirely clear that I 
    always recognize somebody in the minority if they qualify, but I 
    could not allow anybody to commit me to recognize any particular 
    member of the minority.

Motion To Adjourn

Sec. 9.68 Where the two Houses have adopted a concurrent resolution 
    permitting an adjournment of the House to a day certain in excess 
    of three days upon motion made by the Majority Leader or a Member 
    designated by him, the Speaker may recognize the Member so 
    designated to move to adjourn pursuant to the concurrent 
    resolution, over another Member whose motion to adjourn if agreed 
    to would only permit the House to adjourn overnight.

    On Aug. 4, 1983,(14) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 129 Cong. Rec. 23244, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(15) The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Gray, 3d (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hank] Brown of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged 
    motion. I move the House adjourn.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Texas.
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    House Concurrent Resolution 153, I move that the House do now 
    adjourn.
        The motion was agreed to.

Recognition for Debate Under Reservation of Right To Object to Adoption 
    of Adjournment Resolution

Sec. 9.69 A concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of more 
    than three days for the House and Senate is not debatable, but the 
    Chair may in his discretion recognize for debate under a 
    reservation of the right to object (to adoption of the resolution).

    On Aug. 27, 1980,(16) the following proceedings occurred 
in 
the House during consideration 
of Senate Concurrent Resolution 118:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 126 Cong. Rec. 23459, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker laid before the House the privileged Senate 
    concurrent reso

[[Page 9689]]

    lution (S. Con. Res. 118) providing for a recess of the Senate from 
    August 27 to September 3, 1980, and an adjournment of the House 
    from August 28 to September 3, 1980.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate concurrent resolution.
        The Clerk read the Senate concurrent resolution, as follows:

                                S. Con. Res. 118

            Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
        concurring), That when the Senate completes its business on 
        Wednesday, August 27, 1980, it stand in recess until 10 o'clock 
        a.m. on Wednesday, September 3, 1980, and that when the House 
        completes its business on Thursday, August 28, 1980, it stand 
        adjourned until 12 o'clock noon on Wednesday, September 3, 
        1980.

        The Speaker:(17) Without objection, the Senate 
    concurrent resolution is concurred in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, are we 
    permitted to debate this matter?
        The Speaker: No, it is not debatable.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I 
    wondered whether any Member intended to explain the necessity for 
    the recess, in view of the fact there has been some objection quite 
    obviously from the minority about recessing at all because of the 
    announced lameduck session. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that this is a long-announced 
    recess, since the beginning of the year, and Members from both 
    sides of the aisle expect to be home, of course, and in their 
    district through Labor Day. . . .
        The leadership, I am sure, was in agreement with this earlier 
    in the year when the schedule for the year was printed.
        The question comes on adoption of the Senate concurrent 
    resolution. Without objection----
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I would further reserve the right to 
    object, unless the Chair wants to put the question.
        The Speaker: The Chair would like to put the question unless 
    the gentleman desires to say something further. Does the gentleman 
    reserve the right to object to adopting the concurrent resolution 
    by unanimous consent?
        Mr. Bauman: I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.
        I am only saying, Mr. Speaker, that the legislative schedule 
    has been changed before. We have been told that we will recess on 
    October 4, as opposed to staying and completing our work, and then 
    we will come back into further session after the election. If that 
    kind of a major change can be made, it seems to me there is still 
    time for us to consider the possibility of staying in session, as 
    has been suggested by the minority leader, the gentleman from 
    Arizona (Mr. Rhodes).
        The Speaker: The Chair will put the question, and the Members, 
    if they desire to vote on it, may vote as they see fit.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the Chair and I urge a vote against the 
    recess so that we can stay here and finish our business and avoid a 
    lameduck session.
        The Speaker: The question is on the Senate concurrent 
    resolution.

[[Page 9690]]