[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§ 11. Limitations on Power of Recognition; Basis for Denial]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9752-9764]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                    B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
 
Sec. 11. Limitations on Power of Recognition; Basis for Denial

    Some limitations on the Speaker's power of recognition are inherent 
in certain House rules (see Rule XIV and XXXII). Other restrictions 
have developed in long-standing practices to which the Speaker adheres.

                            Cross References
Chair's interpretation of special rules as to recognition, see Sec. 28, 
    infra.
Chair's power of recognition limited by rules as to duration of debate, 
    see Sec. Sec. 67 et seq., infra (in the House) and Sec. Sec. 74 et 
    seq., infra (in Committee of the Whole).
Order of recognition as limitation on Chair's power, see Sec. Sec. 12-
    15, infra.                          -------------------

Limitations on Power of Speaker

Sec. 11.1 In response to parliamentary inquiries, the Chair

[[Page 9753]]

    indicated that the Speaker's power of recognition is subject to any 
    limitations imposed by the House rules.

    On July 29, 1970,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 17654, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. 
A pending amendment thereto would have required the Congressional 
Record to contain a verbatim account of floor proceedings. The 
amendment also contained a provision authorizing Members to insert 
remarks not spoken on the floor but requiring their printing in 
distinctive type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 116 Cong. Rec. 26419, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, made a number of parliamentary 
inquiries as to the effect of 
the pending amendment on the Chair's power of recognition. Chairman 
William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, indicated: (1) that unless 
specifically restricted by a rule of the House, the Speaker retains the 
right of recognition; (2) that the Speaker may recognize for unanimous-
consent requests to waive the requirements of an existing rule unless 
the rule in question specifies that it is not subject to waiver, even 
by unanimous consent; and (3) that there are certain rules (such as the 
prohibition against reference to gallery occupants in Rule XIV, clause 
8, and Rule XXXII, clause 1, regarding admission to the floor) which 
the Speaker himself cannot waive and which are not subject to waiver by 
unanimous consent.

Recognizing for Questions of Privilege

Sec. 11.2 While one question of privilege is pending, the Chair does 
    not recognize a Member to present another question of privilege.

    On Apr. 20, 1936,(16) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, ruled that while one Member had stated a question of 
privilege and that question was pending, another Member could not rise 
to another question of privilege:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 80 Cong. Rec. 5704-06, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Blanton [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the privilege of the whole House and offer a privileged 
    resolution, which I ask the Clerk to read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                              House Resolution 490

            Whereas during the House proceedings on April 17, 1936, the 
        gentleman from Washington [Mr. Zioncheck] attempted to speak 
        out of order and to indulge in personalities, when he was 
        admonished by the Chair, as follows----

        Mr. [Marion A.] Zioncheck: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of 
    personal privilege.

[[Page 9754]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman cannot do that while another 
    question of privilege is pending.
        Mr. Zioncheck: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Zioncheck: The point of order is this: I know what the 
    contents are. I have no objection to them.

        The Speaker: The gentleman is not stating a point of order. The 
    gentleman will please remain quiet while this resolution is being 
    read for the information of the House.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 665 (1995) for the principle that 
        two questions of privilege may not be pending at one time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition During Reading of Presidential Messages

Sec. 11.3 The Chair declines to recognize Members to submit 
    parliamentary inquiries during the reading of a message from the 
    President.

    On Jan. 21, 1946,(18) Speaker Pro Tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, laid before the House the message of the 
President on the state of the Union and transmitting the budget. Mr. 
Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, interrupted the reading of the message 
to raise a parliamentary inquiry. The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled that a 
parliamentary inquiry could not be entertained during the reading of 
the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 164, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition on Questions of Equal Privilege

Sec. 11.4 Where two propositions of equal privilege are pending it is 
    for the Chair to decide whom he will recognize to call up one of 
    the propositions, but the House may by unanimous consent determine 
    such precedence.

    On Sept. 11, 1945,(19) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
recognized Mr. Alfred L. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina, to make the 
unanimous-consent request that when the House meets on the following 
day, it immediately proceeds to the consideration of H.R. 3974. Mr. 
Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, stated under a reservation of 
objection that he was under the impression that another bill was to be 
the first order of business on the following day. The Speaker 
responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 8510, 8511, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That is a question for the Chair, as to whether the Chair will 
    recognize the gentleman from Illinois to call up the rule or 
    recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma to call up the bill repealing 
    war time. The request being made at this time is for the war time 
    repeal bill to take precedence.

[[Page 9755]]

Recognition for Point of No Quorum

Sec. 11.5 The Speaker does not recognize Members for a point of no 
    quorum before the prayer is offered in the House.

    On Apr. 12, 1946,(20) the House met at 10 o'clock a.m. 
Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, immediately made the point of order 
that a quorum was not present but Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
declined to recognize him. The prayer was offered and the Speaker then 
inquired of Mr. Hoffman whether he desired to insist on his point of 
order, and Mr. Hoffman withdrew it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 92 Cong. Rec. 3567, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The prayer is not considered in House 
practice as business requiring the presence of a quorum.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition During Absence of Quorum

Sec. 11.6 The Chair refuses to recognize Members for business after the 
    absence of a quorum has been announced by the Chair, and no 
    business is in order until a quorum has been established.

    On June 8, 1960,(2) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
made a point of no quorum. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, counted and 
announced that a quorum was not present. A call of the House was 
ordered. Mr. Hoffman then attempted to seek recognition. The Speaker 
declined, saying:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 106 Cong. Rec. 12142, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman because a point of 
    order of no quorum has been made, and the Chair announced that 
    there was no quorum.

Sec. 11.7 Pending a point of order of no quorum, the Chair may not 
    recognize a Member to propound a parliamentary inquiry unrelated 
    thereto.

    On July 23, 1942,(3) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, made 
the point of order that a quorum was not present, and Mr. Earl C. 
Michener, of Michigan, immediately attempted to state a parliamentary 
inquiry. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 88 Cong. Rec. 6540, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair doubts the authority of the Chair to recognize the 
    gentleman to propound a parliamentary inquiry when a point of order 
    is made, unless the gentleman from Texas withholds it.

Sec. 11.8 The Chair does not recognize for a demand for a

[[Page 9756]]

    teller vote pending his count of a quorum.

    On Aug. 21, 1950,(4) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Carl T. Durham, of North Carolina, ruled that he would not 
entertain a demand for a teller vote while counting for a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 12960, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition Pending Call to Order

Sec. 11.9 The Chair does not recognize for debate pending the demand 
    that a Member's words be taken down.

    On Jan. 21, 1964,(5) while the House was in the 
Committee of the Whole, certain words used in debate by a Member were 
demanded to be taken down and reported to the House. Before the 
Committee rose, Mr. James Roosevelt, of California, asked unanimous 
consent to proceed for one minute and Chairman William S. Moorhead, of 
Pennsylvania, refused to entertain the request.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 756, 757, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
 6. Pending the demand, no debate is in order and recognition may not 
        be sought for any purpose (except the unanimous-consent request 
        of the Member called to order to withdraw the disorderly 
        words). See Sec. Sec. 48 et seq., infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition To Refer to Visitors

Sec. 11.10 The Chair declines to recognize Members to refer to gallery 
    occupants or to ask unanimous consent for that 
    purpose.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Rule XIV clause 8, House Rules and Manual Sec. 764 (1995) provides 
        ``It shall not be in order for any Member to introduce or to 
        bring to the attention of the House during its sessions any 
        occupant in the galleries of the House; nor may the Speaker 
        entertain a request for the suspension of this rule by 
        unanimous consent or otherwise.'' See Sec. 45, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 27, 1954,(8) during debate on a bill, Mr. 
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, yielded to Mr. Walter H. Judd, of 
Minnesota, who stated his intention to call attention to a ``French 
nurse who is in the gallery.'' Chairman Benjamin F. James, of 
Pennsylvania, ordered Mr. Judd to suspend since the rules of the House 
prohibited references to persons in the gallery. Mr. Judd then asked 
for unanimous consent to proceed out of order, and the Chairman 
answered as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 100 Cong. Rec. 12253, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman may not proceed out of order for the purpose for 
    which he manifestly intends to use the time. The Chair regrets 
    extremely that he must so hold under the rules of procedure of

[[Page 9757]]

    the House. We are all conscious of the great heroism of the person 
    to whom the Chair knows that the gentleman wishes to allude, but it 
    is a matter of extreme regret that because of the rules of the 
    House, reference may not be made to anyone in the gallery.

Recognition for Reference to the Senate

Sec. 11.11 The Chair declines to recognize a Member proposing to refer 
    to Senators or to proceedings of the Senate.

    On May 25, 1937,(9) while the Committee of the Whole was 
considering House Joint Resolution 361, for relief appropriations, Mr. 
Alfred F. Beiter, of New York, stated his intention to read from 
letters he had from members of the Senate, stating their sympathy with 
a movement. Chairman John J. O'Connor, of New York, made a point of 
order, on his own responsibility, against the reading of the 
letters.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 5013, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. For the prohibition against references in debate to the Senate and 
        for the duty of the Chair in relation to such references, see 
        Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 371-374 
        (1995), and Sec. 44, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition for Motion To Adjourn

Sec. 11.12 The Chair cannot refuse to recognize a Member having the 
    floor for a motion to adjourn.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(11) Mr. Robert F. Jones, of Ohio, 
objected to the vote on a motion to recommit a general appropriations 
bill on the ground that a quorum was not present. An automatic rollcall 
was ordered, but a quorum failed to respond. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, was recognized for a parliamentary inquiry and then stated 
his intention to move that the House adjourn. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, asked him to withhold his request and Mr. Hoffman responded: 
``If the Chair is refusing recognition, I will.'' The Speaker stated 
that he could not so refuse recognition for a motion to adjourn. Mr. 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, then moved adjournment and the 
motion was agreed to.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 2379, 2380, 79th Cong. 1st Sess. For an occasion 
        where the Speaker inferentially treated the motion to adjourn 
        as dilatory, see Sec. 9.45, supra.
12. The Chair may refuse to recognize for a motion to adjourn where the 
        motion is obviously dilatory (see Sec. 9.45, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This bill was considered under the general 
rules of the House, since privileged for consideration. The special 
order for consideration of a typical non-privileged bill provides

[[Page 9758]]

that ``the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit.'' While that language would ordinarily 
preclude an intervening motion to adjourn, the failure of a quorum to 
vote on recommital or passage allows a motion to adjourn to intervene.

Requests Prohibited by Rule

Sec. 11.13 During the consideration of an omnibus private bill the 
    Chair refused to recognize Members for unanimous-consent requests 
    to extend the time for debate.

    On July 20, 1937,(13) the House was considering omnibus 
bills on the Private Calendar. Mr. Alfred F. Beiter, of New York, was 
speaking for five minutes in opposition to an amendment which had been 
offered and asked unanimous consent to address the House for an 
additional minute when his time expired. Speaker William B. Bankhead, 
of Alabama, ruled that such a request could not be made, the rule 
limiting each side to five minutes' debate.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 81 Cong. Rec. 7293-95, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. For the rule on consideration of omnibus private bills, see Rule 
        XXIV clause 6 and comments thereto, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 893-895 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.14 The Speaker stated that he would not recognize a Member to 
    request an off-the-record meeting of Members in the House Chamber.

    On Oct. 18, 1943,(15) John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, the Majority Leader, announced that an off-the-record 
meeting of Members would be held in the auditorium of the Library of 
Congress in order to hear the Chief of Staff of the Army and other 
generals on the war situation. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
objected that the meeting was an executive session of the House which 
should be held in the House Chamber. Mr. McCormack responded that the 
meeting was not an ``executive session of Congress.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 89 Cong. Rec. 8433, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Rankin asked Mr. McCormack to modify his announcement to ask 
unanimous consent that the meeting be had in the House Chamber, but 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that he would not recognize a 
Member to make such a request.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Rule XXXI, House Rules and Manual Sec. 918 (1995) for the 
        prohibition against suspending requirements as to the use of 
        the Hall of the House.
            Rule XXIX, providing for executive sessions, has rarely 
        been utilized in modern times. See Sec. 1, supra.

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

[[Page 9759]]

Sec. 11.15 The Speaker has on occasion declined to recognize for 
    unanimous-consent requests that committees may sit during sessions 
    of the House while bills are being read for amendment.

    On July 1, 1947,(17) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, refused to recognize a Member for a unanimous-consent 
request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 93 Cong. Rec. 8054, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel K.] McConnell [Jr., of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I ask unanimous consent that a subcommittee of the Committee on 
    Education and Labor holding hearings on minimum wages be allowed to 
    sit tomorrow during the session of the House.
        The Speaker: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman for that 
    purpose. Tomorrow the House will be reading the civil functions 
    appropriation bill for amendment, and committees cannot sit during 
    sessions of the House while bills are being read for amendment; 
    only during general debate.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See then Rule XI clause 3, House Rules and Manual Sec. 739 (1973): 
        ``No committee of the House (except the Committee on 
        Appropriations, the Committee on Government Operations, the 
        Committee on Internal Security, the Committee on Rules, and the 
        Committee on Standards of Official Conduct) may sit, without 
        special leave, while the House is reading a measure for 
        amendment under the five-minute rule.'' The present rule (Rule 
        XI clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 710 (1995) states: 
        ``No committee of the House may sit during a joint session of 
        the House and Senate or during a recess when a joint meeting of 
        the House and Senate is in progress.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 11.16 During the consideration of the Private Calendar, no 
    reservation of objection is in order and the Chair does not 
    recognize Members for requests to make statements.

    On May 5, 1936,(19) objection was made to the 
consideration of a bill on the Private Calendar. Mr. Theodore 
Christianson, of Minnesota, made the following request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 80 Cong. Rec. 6691, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, will not the gentlemen withhold their objection 
    for a moment? Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to make a 
    statement regarding this bill.

    Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, ruled as follows:

        The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman for that purpose under 
    the express provisions of the rule. Otherwise the Chair would be 
    glad to hear the gentleman. (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 (1995) for 
        the basis for the Speaker's ruling: ``Should objection be made 
        by two or more Members to the consideration of any bill or 
        resolution so called (from the Private Calendar), it shall be 
        recommitted to the committee which reported the bill or 
        resolution, and no reservation of objection shall be 
        entertained by the Speaker.''

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

[[Page 9760]]

Control of Debate Time Prescribed by Statute

Sec. 11.17 Debate on an implementing revenue bill must 
    be equally divided and controlled among those favoring and those 
    opposing the bill under section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, 
    and unanimous consent is required to divide the time between the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the committee if both favor 
    the 
    bill; in the absence of such 
    a unanimous-consent agreement, a Member opposed to the bill is 
    entitled to control 10 hours of debate in opposition, with priority 
    of recognition to opposing members of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means; and the Member recognized to control the time in opposition 
    may not be compelled to use less than that amount of time unless 
    the Committee rises and the House limits further debate in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    During consideration of the Trade Agreement Act of 1979 (H.R. 4537) 
in the House on July 10, 1979,(1) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 17812, 17813, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 
    151(f) of Public Law 93-618, the Trade Act of 1974, I move that the 
    House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
    State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4537) to 
    approve and implement the trade agreements negotiated under the 
    Trade Act of 1974, and for other purposes, and pending that motion, 
    Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate on the 
    bill be equally divided and controlled between the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Conable) and myself. . . .
        The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object. . . .
        I take this reservation for the purpose of propounding a 
    parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.
        The rule, section 151, before consideration says:

            Debate in the House of Representatives on an implementing 
        bill or approval resolution shall be limited to not more than 
        20 hours which shall be divided equally between those fa

[[Page 9761]]

        voring and those opposing the bill or resolution. . . .

        My query to the Chair as a part of my reservation is, if the 
    unanimous-consent request of the chairman is granted can the 
    chairman then move to terminate debate at any time during the 
    course of debate before the 20 hours have expired?
        The Speaker: Reading the statute a motion further to limit the 
    debate shall not be debatable, and that would be made in the House, 
    either now or later, and not in the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to 
    object, if the gentleman from Ohio were to be recognized as 
    opposing the bill, does the gentleman have the absolute right to 
    the 10 hours regardless of the time that would be taken on the 
    other side?
        The Speaker: Unless all general debate were further limited by 
    the House a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who is 
    opposed to the bill could seek to control the 10 hours of time. The 
    gentleman would be entitled to the 10 hours unless a request came 
    from a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who would be in 
    opposition. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: I thank the Speaker.
        I ask this for a very specific purpose. Further reserving the 
    right to object, it is my understanding then that the gentleman 
    from Oregon could not foreclose debate as long as whoever controls 
    the opposition time still has part of the 10 hours remaining. Is 
    that correct, under the statute providing for consideration of this 
    trade bill? . . .
        The Speaker: Not unless the committee rose and the House 
    limited all debate.
        A motion to limit general debate would not be entertained in 
    the Committee of the Whole and the Chair cannot foresee something 
    of that nature happening.

Member Recognized in Opposition Yielding Back Time

Sec. 11.18 Where debate on an amendment has been limited and equally 
    divided between the proponent and a Member opposed, and the Chair 
    has recognized the only Member seeking recognition in opposition to 
    the amendment, no objection lies against that Member subsequently 
    yielding back all the time in opposition.

    On May 4, 1983,(3) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and 
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being 
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar. 
16,(4) and a special rule providing for additional 
procedures for consideration, agreed to on May 4.(5) Mr. 
William S. Broomfield, of

[[Page 9762]]

Michigan, rose in opposition(6) to an 
amendment(7) offered by Mr. Henry J. Hyde, of Illinois, to a 
substitute amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. 11077, 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. Id. at p. 11077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman is recognized for 15 
    minutes in opposition to the amendment, for purposes of debate 
    only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
    time.
        Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and 
    request a vote.
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, we have 
    15 minutes in order to oppose the amendment?
        The Chairman: No one stood up on that side of the aisle, and 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) represented to the 
    Chair that he opposed the amendment and was recognized for 15 
    minutes in opposition, and he yielded back the balance of his time, 
    as did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). . . .
        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my inquiry is this: This side, which opposes the 
    amendment, has been foreclosed an opportunity, not on this 
    amendment but on the previous amendment, to have 15 minutes in 
    opposition to the amendment because a Member on that side who voted 
    against an amendment that was hostile to the exact amendment said 
    he was opposed to it.
        My parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, is that in order?
        The Chairman: As the Chair previously explained, no one on the 
    majority side of the aisle rose in opposition to that amendment. 
    The Chair looked to the other side of the aisle and the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) rose, represented that he was in 
    opposition to the amendment and was recognized.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had another Member also been seeking to 
control time in opposition at the time the first Member was recognized 
and yielded back, the Chair could have allocated the time to that 
Member so that it could have been utilized.

Member May Not Proceed After Debate Time Expires

Sec. 11.19 Where a Member has been notified by the Chair that his 
    debate time has expired, he is thereby denied further recognition 
    in the absence of permission of the House to proceed, and he has no 
    right to further address the House after that time.

    On Mar. 16, 1988,(9) at the expiration of his one-minute 
speech, a Member who persisted in address

[[Page 9763]]

ing the House was repeatedly notified by the Chair that his time had 
expired and he had no further right to continue. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 134 Cong. Rec. 4081, 4084, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert K.] Dornan of California: In 10 years . . . I have 
    never heard on this floor so obnoxious a statement as I heard from 
    Mr. Coelho, which means ``rabbit'' in Portuguese, as ugly a 
    statement as was just delivered. Mr. Coelho said that we on our 
    side of the aisle and those conservative Democrats, particularly 
    those representing States which border the Gulf of Mexico, sold out 
    the Contras. That is absurd . . . . Panama is in chaos and 
    Communists in Nicaragua, thanks to the liberal and radical left 
    leadership in this House are winning a major victory, right now.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(10) The time of the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dornan of California: Wait a minute. On Honduran soil and 
    on Nicaraguan soil.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Dornan of California: And it was set up in this House as 
    you set up the betrayal of the Bay of Pigs.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Dornan of California: I ask--wait a minute--I ask unanimous 
    consent for 30 seconds. People are dying.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Dornan of California: People are dying.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, regular 
    order, regular order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired. 
    Will the Sergeant at Arms please turn off the microphone?
        Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: . . . Under what rule does 
    the Speaker decide to close down the debate and pursue a policy of 
    shutting up the opposition by [not] allowing us access to the 
    public and to the media and to our own microphones, the microphones 
    of this House? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . Mr. Dornan grossly exceeded the 
    limits and abused the privilege far in excess of 1 minute, and the 
    Chair proceeded to restore order and decorum to the House. . . .
        The Chair will state that unless a person receives permission 
    to address the House, under the rules of the House he is not 
    addressing the House. . . .
        Mr. Gregg: . . . I have not heard the Chair respond to my 
    inquiry which is what ruling is the Chair referring to which allows 
    him to turn off the microphone of a Member who has the floor?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Clause 2 of rule I. . . 
    .(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Rule XIV, clause 4, would also be applicable. It reads, 2. He shall 
        preserve order and decorum, and, in case of disturbance or 
        disorderly conduct in the galleries, or in the 
        lobby, may cause the same to be cleared. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair repeatedly rapped the gavel quite loudly for all to 
    hear and told the gentleman from California

[[Page 9764]]

    [Mr. Dornan] that his time had expired.