[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§ 12. Priorities in Recognition]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9764-9792]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                    B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
 
Sec. 12. Priorities in Recognition

    The order in which Members are recognized, or whether they are 
recognized at all, on matters before the House depends substantially on 
the application of the standing rules and the precedents to each 
specific motion or question. The purpose of this division is to 
delineate the general principles governing recognition during the 
deliberations of the House.
    The discretion of the Speaker to determine the order of recognition 
is based on Rule XIV clause 2:

        When two or more Members rise at once, the Speaker shall name 
    the Member who is first to speak . . . .(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995). For the parliamentary law, 
        see Jefferson's Manual, House Rules and Manual Sec. 356 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has the 
power and discretion to decide the order of recognition,(13) 
without the right of appeal,(14) but he is governed in his 
decisions by the usages and precedents of the House.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See, for example, Sec. 12.1, infra.
14. See Sec. Sec. 9.5, 9.6, supra.
15. For a discussion of practices and precedents on the order of and 
        right to recognition, see Cannon's Procedure in the House of 
        Representatives 150-155, H. Doc. No. 122, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. 
        (1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a Member rises to seek recognition, the Chair first ascertains 
the purpose for which he seeks recognition.(16) If 
recognition for the purpose stated is required under the rules and 
precedents to be first extended to a Member with certain 
qualifications, such as being opposed to a measure, the Chair may 
further inquire whether the Member meets those 
qualifications.(17) The Chair generally takes judicial 
notice of the committee rank and party alignment of a Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 8, supra. The inquiry ``for what purpose does the 
        gentleman rise'' does not confer recognition.
17. For examples of the Chair's inquiry whether a Member is opposed, 
        see Sec. Sec. 15.11, 15.12, 15.14, 15.15, infra. For discussion 
        of recognition of one opposed in order of rank, see Sec. 12.4, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, prior recognition is extended to a member of the 
committee which has reported the bill--often the chairman or senior 
member or other committee member who has been designated as manager of 
the bill.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 754, 756 (1995).
            The rules provide that a committee manager may open and 
        close debate; see Rule XIV clause 3, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 759 (1995). For instances where the priority of committee 
        recognition was discussed, see Sec. Sec. 13.1 et seq., infra.
            Usually, the Member in charge has been authorized by the 
        reporting committee, but on rare occasions a matter has been 
        brought directly before the House by a Member, who is entitled 
        to prior recognition. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 754 
        (1995).

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

[[Page 9765]]

    Where the committee or Member in charge offers an ``essential'' 
motion and the motion is rejected by the House, recognition passes to 
the opposition for controlling debate and for offering amendments and 
motions on the pending matter.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Sec. 15, infra, and House Rules and Manual Sec. 755 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair endeavors to alternate recognition to offer pro forma 
amendments between majority and minority Members (giving priority to 
committee members) rather than between sides of the 
question.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Sec. 12.6, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Order of recognition on questions and motions, see Sec. Sec. 16 et 
    seq., infra.
Order of recognition determined by rules and principles on control and 
    management, see Sec. Sec. 24-27, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Members of Committee; Discretion of Chair

Sec. 12.1 Although members of the committee reporting a bill under 
    consideration usually have preference in recognition, the power of 
    recognition remains in the discretion of the Chair.

    On July 19, 1967,(1) Chairman Joseph L. Evins, of 
Tennessee, recognized in the Committee of the Whole 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 ranking minority member 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 
declared:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 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 to debate his amendment.

Chairman of Committee

Sec. 12.2 In bestowing recognition under the five-minute rule in

[[Page 9766]]

    the Committee of the Whole, the Chair gives preference to the 
    chairman of the legislative committee reporting the bill under 
    consideration.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(2) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule a bill reported from the 
Committee on Education and Labor, chaired by Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of 
Kentucky. Mr. Edward J. Gurney, of Florida, sought recognition and when 
Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, asked for what purpose he rose, 
he stated that he sought recognition to offer an amendment. The 
Chairman then recognized Mr. Perkins, the chairman of the committee, to 
submit 
a unanimous-consent request to limit debate before recognizing Mr. 
Gurney to offer his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seniority as Affecting Priority of Recognition

Sec. 12.3 Recognition of Members to offer amendments under the five-
    minute rule in the Committee of the Whole is within the discretion 
    of the Chair and he extends preference to members of the committee 
    which reported the bill according to seniority.

    On July 21, 1949,(3) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New 
York, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of recognition for 
amendments under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 95 Cong. Rec. 9936, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen:  Mr. Chairman, is it not the custom 
    during debate under the 5-minute rule for the Chair in recognizing 
    Members to alternate from side to side? At least I suggest to the 
    Chair that that would be the fair procedure. The Chair has 
    recognized three Democrats in a row.
        The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman that the 
    matter of recognition of members of the committee is within the 
    discretion of the Chair. The Chair has undertaken to follow as 
    closely as possible the seniority of those Members.
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hope: For the information of the Chair, the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin, who has been seeking recogni

[[Page 9767]]

    tion, has been a Member of the House for 10 years, and the 
    gentleman from Tennessee is a Member whose service began only this 
    year.
        The Chairman: The Chair would refer the gentleman to the 
    official list of the members of the committee, which the Chair has 
    before him.
        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Tennessee.

Sec. 12.4 In recognizing Members to move to recommit, the Speaker gives 
    preference first to the ranking minority member of the committee 
    reporting the bill, if opposed to the bill, and then to the 
    remaining minority members of that committee in the order of their 
    rank.

    On June 18, 1957,(4) the House was considering H.R. 
6127, the Civil Rights Act of 1957. In response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that the order of 
recognition for a motion to recommit would be in the order of rank of 
minority members of the committee reporting the bill, the Committee on 
the Judiciary. When two minority members of the committee arose to 
offer the motion, the Speaker recognized the member higher in rank:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 103 Cong. Rec. 9516, 9517, 85th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 
        Sec. 12.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joseph W.] Martin [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, on 
    a motion to recommit, for over 20 years it has been the custom for 
    the minority leader to select the Member who shall make that 
    motion. The leader has selected a member of the committee who is 
    absolutely opposed to the bill. My parliamentary inquiry is, does 
    he have preference over someone who would move to recommit with 
    instructions but who at the same time would not vote for the bill 
    even if the motion to recommit should prevail? So I propound the 
    inquiry whether a gentleman who is absolutely opposed to the bill, 
    who led the fight for the jury trial amendment in the committee, 
    would have preference over someone who would not vote for the bill 
    even in the event a motion to recommit prevailed.
        The Speaker: The Chair in answer to that will ask the Clerk to 
    read the holding of Mr. Speaker Champ Clark, which is found in 
    volume 8 of Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, 
    section 2767.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            The Chair laid down this rule, from which he never intends 
        to depart unless overruled by the House, that on a motion to 
        recommit he will give preference to the gentleman, at the head 
        of the minority list, provided he qualifies, and then go down 
        the list of the minority of the committee until it is gotten 
        through with. And then if no one of them offer a motion to 
        recommit the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Kansas 
        [Mr. Murdock], as the leader of the third party in the House. 
        Of course he would have to qualify. The Chair will state it 
        again. The present occupant of the chair laid down a rule here 
        about a year ago that in making this preferential motion for 
        recommitment the Speaker would

[[Page 9768]]

        recognize the top man on the minority of the committee if he 
        qualified--that is, if he says he is opposed to the bill--and 
        so on down to the end of the minority list of the committee.

        Mr. Martin: Will the Clerk continue the reading of the section? 
    I think there is a little more to it than that.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman desires, the Clerk will read the 
    entire quotation. The Clerk will continue to read.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Then, if no gentleman on the committee wants to make the 
        motion, the Speaker will recognize the gentleman from Illinois, 
        Mr. Mann, because he is the leader of the minority. Then, in 
        the next place, the Speaker would recognize the gentleman from 
        Kansas, Mr. Murdock. But in this case, the gentleman from 
        Kansas, Mr. Murdock, is on the Ways and Means Committee, which 
        would bring him in ahead, under that rule, of the gentleman 
        from Illinois, Mr. Mann.

        Mr. Martin: The Chair does not think that preference should be 
    given to an individual who was going to make a motion to recommit 
    and who was absolutely opposed to the bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair is not qualified to answer a question 
    like that. The Chair in response to the parliamentary inquiry of 
    the gentleman from Massachusetts will say that the decision made by 
    Mr. Speaker Champ Clark has never been overturned, and it has been 
    upheld by 1 or 2 Speakers since that time, especially by Mr. 
    Speaker Garner in 1932.
        In looking over this list, the Chair has gone down the list and 
    will make the decision when someone arises to make a motion to 
    recommit. The Chair does not know entirely who is going to seek 
    recognition.
        Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Poff: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Russell W.] Keeney [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I also 
    offer a motion to recommit, and I, too, am opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: In this instance the Chair finds that no one has 
    arisen who is a member of the minority of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary until it comes down to the name of the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Poff]. He ranks the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Kenney] and is therefore senior. Under the rules and precedents of 
    the House, the Chair therefore must recognize the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Poff].(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Where recognition is required by rule or precedent to pass to the 
        opposition, the Speaker inquires whether the Member seeking 
        recognition is opposed in fact to the measure or motion (see 
        Sec. Sec. 15.11, 15.12, 15.14, 15.15, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.5 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,(6) it was demonstrated that where the 
Com

[[Page 9769]]

mittee 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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:(7) The Chair will attempt to explain 
    the situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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?
        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.

Alternation Between Majority and Minority

Sec. 12.6 In recognizing Members to offer ``pro forma amendments'' 
    under the five-minute rule, the Chair endeavors to alternate 
    between majority and minority Members, giving priority of 
    recognition 


[[Page 9770]]

    to committee members and, having no knowledge of whether specific 
    Members oppose or support the pending proposition, does not 
    endeavor to alternate between both sides of the question.

    On Mar. 21, 1994,(8) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 6 (Improving America's Schools Act of 1994). 
The following exchange took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 140 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles H.] Taylor of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the requisite number of words.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. David E. Price (N.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Taylor of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, is it possible to 
    have some support statements made on the floor, since most have 
    been negative?
        The Chairman: The Chair is to give priority to members of the 
    committee and does not confer recognition by stated position on the 
    issue. The gentleman will be recognized in due course.
        Mr. [Randy] Cunningham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.

Sec. 12.7 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole attempts to 
    alternate recognition during the five-minute rule between the 
    majority and minority, with preference being given to senior 
    members of the reporting committee; and a senior committee majority 
    member has no precedence in recognition over the minority manager 
    of the bill.

    On Sept. 9, 1980,(10) during consideration of the Rail 
Act of 1980 in the Committee of the Whole, the following exchange 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 24865, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Madigan) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk.
        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, am I not 
    entitled to recognition as a senior Member on the floor?
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas 
    (Mr. Eckhardt) rise?
        Mr. Eckhardt: To offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Texas 
    that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Madigan) was on his feet. The 
    Chair heard the gentleman from Illinois first, and the Chair 
    recognized him first. The Chair has the prerogative of recognizing 
    Members at his discretion. The Chair is attempting to be fair. I 
    think the Chair has been fair in this instance.

[[Page 9771]]

        Mr. Eckhardt: The gentleman from Texas was on his feet also.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Madigan).

Sec. 12.8 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole announced that 
    during consideration of an appropriation bill under the five-minute 
    rule he would alternate recognition between the majority and 
    minority sides of the aisle.

    On July 30, 1969,(12) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, made an announcement on the order of recognition during 
consideration under the five-minute rule of H.R. 13111, appropriations 
for the Health, Education, and Welfare and Labor Departments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 115 Cong. Rec. 21420, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair might state, under the procedures of the House, he is 
    trying to recognize first members of the subcommittee on 
    appropriations handling the bill and second general members of the 
    Committee on Appropriations. It is his intention to go back and 
    forth to each side of the aisle to recognize Members who have been 
    standing and seeking recognition the longest. The gentlewoman from 
    Hawaii sought recognition all yesterday afternoon, and the Chair 
    was unable to recognize her because of the procedures of the House, 
    having to recognize Members on both sides of the aisle who are 
    members of the committee. I wish the Members to know that the Chair 
    will recognize them under the normal procedures.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For the practice of alternation of recognition, see House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 756 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Principle as Affected by Recognition for Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 12.9 The fact that the Chair has recognized a Member to raise a 
    parliamentary inquiry does not prohibit the Chair from then 
    recognizing the same Member to offer an amendment, and the 
    principle of alternation of recognition does not require the Chair 
    to recognize a Member from the minority to offer an amendment after 
    recognizing a Member from the majority to raise a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

    On July 2, 1980,(14) during consideration of the Rail 
Act of 1980 (H.R. 7235) in the Committee of the Whole, it was 
demonstrated that a decision of the Chair on a matter of recognition is 
not subject to challenge. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 126 Cong. Rec. 18292, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 9772]]

        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state his 
    inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I was not aware at the time that 
    this amendment was offered that it would purport to deal with a 
    number of very different subjects. I assume that it would not be in 
    order to raise a point of order concerning germaneness at this late 
    time, not having reserved it, but I would like to ask if the 
    question may be divided. There are several subjects that are quite 
    divisible in the amendment offered here, and that deal with 
    different matters.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Texas 
    that he is correct, it is too late to raise a point of order on the 
    question of germaneness.
        The Chair will further advise the gentleman from Texas that a 
    substitute is not divisible.
        Mr. Eckhardt: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
    amendment offered as a substitute for the amend-ment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
    substitute amendment.
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    or-der. . . .
        I understand that the procedure is that the members of the 
    subcommittee would be recognized for amendments first, and that the 
    gentleman from Texas sought recognition for the purpose of making a 
    parliamentary inquiry and was recognized for that purpose, and was 
    not recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment. . . .
        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 recognition is not in any event subject 
    to challenge. . . .
        Mr. Madigan: Further pursuing my point of order, and with all 
    due respect to the Chair, am I incorrect in assuming that the 
    gentleman from Texas was recognized for the point of raising a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. He was recognized for 
    that purpose; then separately for the purpose of the amendment that 
    he is offering, which the Clerk will now report.

Members Simultaneously Seeking Recognition

Sec. 12.10 Where more than one Member seeks recognition, the Speaker 
    recognizes the Member in charge or a member of the reporting 
    committee, if he seeks recognition.

    On Sept. 11, 1945,(16) Mr. Robert F. Rich, of 
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, arose at the same 
time seeking recognition during the five-minute rule on a bill being 
handled by Mr. Sabath. Speaker Sam Ray

[[Page 9773]]

burn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Sabath since he had priority of 
recognition as the Member in charge and then answered parliamentary 
inquiries on the order of recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 91 Cong. Rec. 8510, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rich: After the reading of section 4 of the bill which 
    contained subsections (a), (b), and (c), could not a Member have 
    risen to strike out the last word and have been recognized?
        The Speaker: The gentleman did not state for what purpose he 
    rose. The gentleman from Illinois who is in charge of the 
    resolution was on his feet at the same time. The Chair recognized 
    the gentleman from Illinois, and the gentleman from Illinois made a 
    preferential motion.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: Must a Member on the floor addressing the Speaker 
    state the purpose for which he addresses the Speaker before he may 
    be recognized?
        The Speaker: Two Members rose. The Speaker always has the right 
    to recognize whichever Member he desires. The Chair recognized the 
    gentleman from Illinois who was in charge of the resolution. The 
    gentleman from Illinois made a preferential motion; the Chair put 
    the motion and it was adopted.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule a bill reported from the 
Committee on Education and Labor, chaired by Carl D. Perkins, of 
Kentucky. Mr. Edward J. Gurney, of Flor-ida, sought recognition and 
when Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, asked for what purpose he 
rose, he stated that he sought recognition to offer an amendment. The 
Chairman then recognized Mr. Perkins, the chairman of the committee, to 
submit a unanimous-consent request to limit debate before recognizing 
Mr. Gurney to offer his amendment.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
18. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995): 
        ``When two or more Members rise at once, the Speaker shall name 
        the Member who is first to speak. . . .'' See id. at 
        Sec. Sec. 754-757 for the usages and priorities which govern 
        the Chair when two or more Members rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Absence of Agreement as to Control of Time

Sec. 12.11 During general debate on District of Columbia business in 
    Committee of the Whole, where there has been no agreement in the 
    House as to control of time, the Chair alternates in recognizing 
    between those for and against the pending legislation, giving 
    preference to members of the Committee on the District of Columbia.

[[Page 9774]]

    On Apr. 11, 1932,(19) Chairman Thomas L. Blanton, of 
Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition in the Committee 
of the Whole during general debate on a District of Columbia bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 75 Cong. Rec. 7990, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, when 
    the Committee on the District of Columbia has the call and the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union is 
    considering legislation, is it necessary, in gaining recognition, 
    that a Member has to be in opposition to the bill or is any Member 
    whatsoever entitled to one hour's time for general debate?
        The Chairman: From the Chair's experience, gained through 
    having been a member of this committee for over 10 years, he will 
    state that where a bill is called up for general debate on District 
    day in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
    and the chairman of the committee has yielded the floor, a member 
    of the committee opposed to the bill is entitled to recognition 
    over any other member opposed to the bill, and it was the duty of 
    the Chair to ascertain whether there were any members of the 
    committee opposed to the bill who would be entitled to prior 
    recognition. The Chair, having ascertained there were no members of 
    the committee opposed to the bill, took pleasure, under the 
    direction of the gentleman from Wisconsin, in recognizing the 
    gentleman from Mississippi.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily, consideration of District of 
Columbia business in Committee of the Whole is preceded by a unanimous-
consent agreement in the House as to division and control of general 
debate.

Announcement by Chair as to Recognition Under Five-minute Rule

Sec. 12.12 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole announced that 
    during consideration of an appropriation bill under the five-minute 
    rule he would alternate recognition between the majority and 
    minority sides of 
    the aisle and would follow 
    the following priorities: first, members of the committee or 
    subcommittee handling the bill; second, members of the full 
    Committee on Appropriations; and finally, other Members of the 
    House.

    On July 30, 1969,(20) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, made an announcement on the order of recognition during 
consideration under the five-minute rule of H.R. 13111, appropriations 
for the

[[Page 9775]]

Health, Education, and Welfare and Labor Departments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 21420, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair might state, under the procedures of the House, he is 
    trying to recognize first members of the subcommittee on 
    appropriations handling the bill and second general members of the 
    Committee on Appropriations. It is his intention to go back and 
    forth to each side of the aisle to recognize Members who have been 
    standing and seeking recognition the longest. The gentlewoman from 
    Hawaii sought recognition all yesterday afternoon, and the Chair 
    was unable to recognize her because of the procedures of the House, 
    having to recognize Members on both sides of the aisle who are 
    members of the committee. I wish the Members to know that the Chair 
    will recognize them under the normal procedures.

Recognition for Motion To Strike Enacting Clause Where Another Had Been 
    Recognized To Offer Amendment

Sec. 12.13 Under Rule XXIII clause 7, a motion to strike out the 
    enacting clause takes precedence over a motion to amend, and may be 
    offered where another Member has been recognized to offer an 
    amendment but prior to reading of the amendment by the Clerk.

    During consideration of H.R. 6096, the Vietnam Humanitarian and 
Evacuation Act, in the Committee of the Whole on Apr. 23, 
1975,(1) the principle described above was demonstrated as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 11513, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bob] Eckhardt [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (2) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 preferential motion offered by mr. blouin

        Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Blouin 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. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I recognize that the gentleman has a preferential motion, but 
    is it not so that the Chair had recognized the gentleman from Texas 
    to offer his amendment?
        The Chairman: The Chair had recognized the gentleman from 
    Texas, to offer an amendment but the preferential motion supersedes 
    that amendment.
        Mr. Waggonner: Even after the gentleman had been recognized to 
    proceed?
        The Chairman: He had not been recognized. The amendment had not 
    been read.

[[Page 9776]]

        Mr. Waggonner: The gentleman had been recognized.
        The Chairman: The gentleman had been recognized only for the 
    purpose of finding out the reason for which he sought recognition. 
    The gentleman stated that he had an amendment at the desk. The 
    Chair asked the Clerk to report the amendment, and before the 
    amendment was reported, a preferential motion was made.
        The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Blouin) is recognized.

Amendments to General Appropriation Bill

Sec. 12.14 When a general appropriation bill has been read, or 
    considered as read, for amendment in its entirety, the Chair (after 
    entertaining points of order) first entertains amendments which are 
    not prohibited by clause 2(c) of Rule XXI, and then recognizes for 
    amendments proposing limitations not contained or authorized in 
    existing law pursuant to clause 2(d) of Rule XXI, subject to the 
    preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report 
    the bill to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been agreed to.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Oct. 27, 1983,(3) during consideration of H.R. 4139 
(Department of Treasury and Postal Service appropriations for fiscal 
1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. 29630, 29631, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Christopher H.] Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (4) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order at 
    this time to offer a change in the language that would not be 
    considered under the House rules to be legislating on an 
    appropriations bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair will first entertain any amendment to 
    the bill which is not prohibited by clause 2(c), rule XXI, and will 
    then entertain amendments proposing limitations pursuant to clause 
    2(d), rule XXI.
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        Mr. [Bruce A.] Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I reserve 
    a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: On page 49, 
        immediately after line 2, add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
        expenses in connection with 
        any health plan under the Federal 
        employees health benefit program

[[Page 9777]]

        which provides any benefits or coverages for abortions. . . .

        Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be 
    heard on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that this amendment 
    constitutes a limitation on an appropriation and cannot be 
    considered by the House prior to the consideration of a motion by 
    the Committee to rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair must indicate to the gentleman that no 
    such preferential motion has yet been made.
        The gentleman is correct that a 
    motion that the Committee rise and 
    report the bill to the House with 
    such amendments as may have been adopted takes precedence over an 
    amendment proposing a limitation.
        Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, then I move that the 
    committee do now rise. . . .
        The Chairman: . . . It would be more appropriate if a motion to 
    rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as have 
    been adopted, pursuant to clause 2(d), rule XXI were offered 
    instead. . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the 
    House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the 
    amendments be agreed to and that bill, as amended, do pass.
        [The motion was rejected.]
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of New Jersey: On page 49, 
        immediately after line 2, add the following new section:
            ``Sec. 618. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
        available to pay for an abortion. . . .

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Smith was the only Member seeking 
recognition to offer a limitation after the preferential motion was 
rejected and could have been preempted by a member of the 
Appropriations Committee or a more senior member offering an amendment 
since principles governing priority of recognition would remain 
applicable. A Member who has attempted to offer a limitation before the 
motion to rise and report is rejected is not guaranteed first 
recognition for a limitation amendment.

Member of Minority Opposed to Bill Has Priority Over Majority Member 
    Opposed To Control Time in Opposition to Motion To Suspend Rules

Sec. 12.15 To control the time in opposition to a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass a bill (on which a second is not required), the 
    Speaker recognizes a minority Member who is opposed to the bill, 
    and if no minority member 
    of the reporting committee qualifies to control the time in 
    opposition, a minority Member who is opposed may be recognized.

[[Page 9778]]

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on May 4, 
1981,(5) during consideration of the Cash Discount Act (H.R. 
3132):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 127 Cong. Rec. 8323, 8324, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3132) to amend the Truth 
    in Lending Act to encourage cash discounts, and for other purposes. 
    . . .
        The Speaker: (6) Pursuant to the rule, a second is 
    not required on this motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Annunzio) will be recognized 
    for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Evans) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from 
    Delaware (Mr. Evans) opposed to the bill?
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Evans) opposed 
    to the bill?
        Mr. [Thomas B.] Evans [Jr.] of Delaware: No; Mr. Speaker, I am 
    not opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) 
    opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Walker: Yes; Mr. Speaker, I am.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker) is 
    entitled to the time that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Evans) 
    would have had.
        So the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Annunzio) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Walker) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Annunzio).

    Parliamentarian's Note: Representative Barney Frank, of 
Massachusetts, a majority party member of the Banking Committee, 
desired recognition to control the time in opposition, but a minority 
member opposed is entitled to recognition over a majority member even 
if on the committee.

Special Rule--Control of Time in Opposition

Sec. 12.16 Where a special rule limiting debate on an amendment under 
    the five-minute rule requires the time thereon to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a 
    Member opposed thereto, the Chair has discretion in determining 
    which Member to control the time in opposition, and may recognize 
    the majority chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
    the subject matter of an amendment which has been offered by a 
    member of the minority, over the rank

[[Page 9779]]

    ing minority member of the full committee managing the bill, to 
    control the time in opposition under the principle of alternation 
    of recognition.

    On Sept. 24, 1984,(7) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration House Joint Resolution 648 (continuing 
appropriations) when an amendment was offered as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 130 Cong. Rec. 26769, 26770, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hank] Brown of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (8) The Clerk will designate the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Colorado: Page 2, line 
        24, strike out the period at the end of section 101(b) and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``: Provided, That 2 
        percent of the aggregate amount of new budget authority 
        provided for in each of the first three titles of H.R. 6237 
        shall be withheld from obliga-tion. . . .

        The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 588, the amendment 
    is considered as having been read.
        The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown) will be recognized for 
    15 minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown). . 
    . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the amendment.
        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is required to choose between these two 
    distinguished gentlemen and would prefer to alternate the parties 
    in this case.
        The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Long). The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 15 minutes in 
    opposition to the amendment.

Sec. 12.17 Where a special rule limited debate time on amendments to be 
    controlled by a proponent and opponent, the Chair accorded priority 
    of recognition in opposition to an amendment to 
    a minority member of one 
    of the reporting committees over a majority Member not on any 
    reporting committee.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Apr. 29, 1987,(9) during consideration of the Trade Reform 
Act of 1987 (H.R. 3):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 133 Cong. Rec. 10488, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (10) The Clerk will designate the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Pepper: On page 278, after line 
        23, add the following section:

[[Page 9780]]

            Sec. 199. The USTR shall request that all relevant agencies 
        prepare appropriate recommendations for improving the 
        enforcement of restrictions on importation of articles from 
        Cuba. . . .

        Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, would 
    the Chair state how the time will be divided on the amendment that 
    has been read?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Pepper] will be 
    entitled to 15 minutes and a Member in opposition will be entitled 
    to 15 minutes.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment, and 
    I would request that that time be assigned to me, if some Member of 
    the committee is not opposed.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Arkansas 
    if there is someone else on the committee who seeks time in 
    opposition, the Chair would designate that person in opposition.
        Does the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] seek time in 
    opposition?
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed 
    to the amendment, and I also seek time in opposition.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] will 
    have 15 minutes in opposition.

--All Amendments Except Pro Forma Amendments Prohibited

Sec. 12.18 Where the Committee of the Whole resumed consideration of a 
    bill under a special rule prohibiting amendments to a pending 
    amendment except pro forma amendments for debate, the Chair 
    announced that he would first recognize Members who had not offered 
    pro forma amendments on the preceding day, priority of recognition 
    being given to members of the reporting committee.

    On Aug. 3, 1977,(11) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the National 
Energy Act (H.R. 8444):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 26444, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) The Chair would like to make a 
    statement for the information of the Members of the Committee of 
    the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Edward P. Boland (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has before it a list of those who spoke on this 
    amendment yesterday. The Chair will recognize those who have not 
    spoken on this amendment first and, of course, preference will be 
    given to the members of the ad hoc committee and any Member, of 
    course, under the rule has the right to offer pro forma amendments. 
    The Chair will adhere to that direction.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) did not speak on this 
    amendment yesterday, so as a member of the ad hoc committee, for 
    what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) [rise]?

[[Page 9781]]

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word.

--Permitting Simultaneous Pendency of Three Amendments in Nature of 
    Substitute Then Perfecting Amendments in Specified Order

Sec. 12.19 Where a special rule permitted the simultaneous pendency of 
    three amendments in the nature of a substitute and then permitted 
    the offering of pro forma amendments and of perfecting amendments 
    in a specified order, the Chair indicated that he would recognize 
    the proponent of each substitute under the five-minute rule and for 
    unanimous-consent extensions of time, then Members offering pro 
    forma amendments to debate any of the substitutes once pending, and 
    then Members designated to offer perfecting amendments.

    The House having agreed to a special rule (13) for the 
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 345, the first concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal 1983, a discussion of the effect of 
the rule took place on May 25, 1982. The special rule stated in part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Res. 477, 128 Cong. Rec. 11085, 11093, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., May 
        21, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 477

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order, section 305(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
    (Public Law 93-344) to the contrary notwithstanding, to move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the concurrent 
    resolution (H. Con. Res. 345) revising the congressional budget for 
    the United States Government for the fiscal year 1982. . . . No 
    amendment to the concurrent resolution shall be in order except 
    those listed in categories A and B as follows: (A) four amendments 
    in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record 
    of May 21, 1982 . . . (B) after all amendments in category A above 
    are disposed of, the following three amendments in the nature of a 
    substitute printed in the Congressional Record of May 21, 1982, 
    which shall be offered and voted on only in the following order but 
    which shall if offered be pending simultaneously as amendments in 
    the first degree and said amendments shall be in order any rule of 
    the House to the contrary notwithstanding: (1) an amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute by, and if offered by, Representative Latta 
    of Ohio; (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute by, and if 
    offered by, Representative Aspin of Wisconsin; and (3) an amendment 
    in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H. Con. 
    Res. 345 if offered by Representative Jones of Oklahoma. None of 
    the

[[Page 9782]]

    said substitutes in category B shall be subject to amendment except 
    by pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate only and by the 
    following perfecting amendments printed in the Congressional Record 
    of May 21, 1982:
        (1) the amendment by Representative Pease; . . .
        (67-68) the amendments by Representative Clausen in the order 
    in which printed.
    These perfecting amendments, if offered, shall be considered only 
    in the order listed in this resolution and shall be in order any 
    rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding.

    The discussion of the effect of the rule was as follows: 
(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 11681, 11682, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., May 25, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: . . . As I understand it, we 
    have now completed the four substitutes under the so-called 
    category A substitutes, and we are prepared to move into category 
    B, where three substitutes may be offered.
        I would like to inquire as to the order in which those three 
    would be offered and what then would be the parliamentary 
    situation.
        The Chairman: (15) Perhaps it would be helpful if 
    the Chair re-read an earlier statement. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair proposes to recognize and allow debate by the three 
    Members proposing to whatever amount of time the committee 
    approves, each in order, until all are pending before the Committee 
    of the Whole. In other words, Mr. Latta will be recognized first. 
    He will have as much debate as is allowed to him under the 5-minute 
    rule by the Committee. Then Mr. Aspin will be recognized, if he 
    rises, to go through the same process. Then Mr. Jones will be third 
    on that list for the same 
    process. Then, the Committee will go 
    back and all the amendments in the 
    nature of a substitute will be subject 
    to amendment in the manner described. . . .
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, in listening to 
    what the Chair has just explained to the minority whip, I assume 
    the procedure will be, after I yield the floor in introducing my 
    substitute, then we will go immediately to Mr. Aspin, and as soon 
    as he yields the floor we will then go to Mr. Jones.
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Latta: So we will not have any intervening debate at that 
    point.
        The Chairman: No. The only possible exception to that is that 
    by unanimous consent--and the Chair tried to imply this--by 
    unanimous consent if the gentleman seeks additional time over 5 
    minutes of that provided, that he will be given that opportunity. 
    No other debate will intervene.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . . Suppose an amendment is offered by the 
    proponent to one substitute but not to other substitutes. At that 
    particular time, as I understand the rule, the amendment would then 
    be available to other Members to offer to the substitutes which had 
    not been considered previous to that time. The question occurs as 
    to whether or not, after the amendment has been disposed of once, 
    whether another Mem

[[Page 9783]]

    ber could come back to that amendment to offer it to another 
    substitute, or are all Members precluded from using an amendment 
    printed in the Record after the amendment which comes after that in 
    sequence, has been considered?
        The Chairman: The Chair has consulted with the Parliamentarian, 
    and agrees that if one proposal is made and there is nobody who 
    rises when the request by the Chair is made, ``Is there an 
    additional offering of that amendment,'' then that amendment will 
    be closed off.
        Amendment No. 1 will be over, and then the Committee will move 
    to amendment No. 2, and move to amendment No. 3 in exactly that 
    same fashion. In other words, each amendment will be dealt with by 
    itself and finally.
        Mr. Rhodes: If I understand the Chair correctly, then if 
    amendment No. 1 is offered to Latta and disposed of, and amendment 
    No. 1 is not then offered to the other substitutes and no other 
    Member other than the proponent desires to offer it, then the 
    Committee goes to amendment No. 2, and any further offerings of 
    amendment No. 1 would be precluded?
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        Mr. Latta: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        As I recall the rule, there is a slight variation. If, in the 
    situation the Chairman just explained, if say amendment No. 5 is 
    offered to our substitute and does not prevail, and then they offer 
    it to the Aspin substitute, or to the Jones substitute, then there 
    are only 10 minutes of debate allowed under the rule.
        The Chairman: That is correct. The second and third offerings 
    would be under a 10-minute rule. . . .
        Mr. [Les] Aspin [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, if we go through 
    the series where Mr. Latta offers his substitute and maybe asks for 
    additional time to explain it, and then explains his substitute; 
    then we go to the coalition substitute and I may ask for additional 
    time, and so forth; we finish the presentation of all three 
    substitutes, is it the intention of the Chair to recognize 
    additional Members for general debate on the substitutes, or is it 
    the intention of the Chair to go directly to the amendments at that 
    point?
        The Chairman: The Chair will entertain pro forma amendments for 
    a time, and at the conclusion of that, he will go to numbered 
    amendments. . . .
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry one more time. . . .
        The question is prompted by the question of the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Aspin) because under normal procedure there would be 
    a presentation of a Member, and joined in by either cosponsors or 
    other Members. Would it make a more orderly process if at least a 
    selected few or limited number be recognized in general support of 
    the proposition that was introduced before getting to that 
    amendment stage?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) can yield for 
    that purpose if he gets extra time, but it would make for a more 
    orderly process to get all three substitutes presented, with only 
    the principal proponent being allowed debate at that point. At the 
    end of those three being set in and available simultaneously, then, 
    as the Chair just said, he would entertain pro forma amendments by 
    Members who desire

[[Page 9784]]

    to support or oppose any one of the three, and at the conclusion of 
    a reasonable time, then proceed to the numbered amendments.

After Rejection of Previous Question

Sec. 12.20 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised 
    that if the previous question on a privileged resolution reported 
    by the Committee on Rules were voted down, the resolution would be 
    open to further consideration and debate, and that the Chair, under 
    the hour rule, would recognize the Member who appeared to be 
    leading the opposition.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(16) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1013, 
establishing a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Mr. Pepper 
was recognized for one hour and offered a committee amendment to the 
resolution, which amendment was agreed to. Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, then answered a series of parliamentary inquiries on 
the order of recognition should Mr. Pepper move the previous question 
and should the motion be defeated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, if the previous 
    question is refused, is it true that then amendments may be offered 
    and further debate may be had on the resolution?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the 
    resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, un-der the rules of the House, is 
    it not equally so that a motion to table would then be in order?
        The Speaker: At that particular point, that would be a 
    preferential motion. . . .
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton of Pennsylvania: Mr. Speaker, if the 
    previous question is refused and the resolution is then open for 
    amendment, under what parliamentary procedure will the debate 
    continue? Or what would be the time limit?
        The Speaker: The Chair would recognize whoever appeared to be 
    the leading Member in opposition to the resolution.
        Mr. Fulton of Pennsylvania: What would be the time for debate?
        The Speaker: Under those circumstances the Member recognized in 
    opposition would have 1 hour at his disposal, or such portion of it 
    as he might desire to exercise. (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. For the practice of recognizing Members opposed after rejection of 
        an essential motion, see House Rules and Manual Sec. 755 
        (1995).

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

[[Page 9785]]

For Motion To Recommit

Sec. 12.21 In response to a parliamentary inquiry the Speaker stated 
    that recognition to offer a motion to recommit is the prerogative 
    of a Member opposed to the bill, that the Speaker will first look 
    to minority members of the committee reporting the bill in their 
    order of seniority on the committee, second to other Members of the 
    minority and finally to majority Members opposed to the bill; thus, 
    a minority Member opposed to a bill but not on the committee 
    reporting it is entitled to recognition to offer a motion to 
    recommit over a majority Member who is also a member of the 
    committee.

    On July 10, 1975,(18) during consideration of H.R. 8365 
(Department of Transportation appropriations) in the House, the Speaker 
put the question on passage of 
the bill and then recognized Mr. William A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, a 
minority Member, to offer a motion to recommit. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 22014, 22015, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 
        Sec. 12.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (19) The question is on the passage of 
    the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
    recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk will report the 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not a member of the Committee on 
    Appropriations. As I understand the rule, a member of the Committee 
    on Appropriations must offer a motion to recommit.

        The gentleman who offered the motion is not on the Committee on 
    Appropriations.
        The Speaker: A member of the minority has priority over all the 
    members of the majority, regardless of whether he is on the 
    committee.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, may I continue with my statement on the 
    point of order.
        The Speaker: You may.
        Mr. Yates: ``Cannon's Precedents'' states, Mr. Speaker, that if 
    a motion is offered by a person other than a member of the 
    committee, a member of the committee takes precedence in offering a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: A motion to recommit is the prerogative of the 
    minority, and

[[Page 9786]]

    the Chair so rules and so answers the parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, may I refer the attention of the Chair 
    to page 311.
        I am quoting from page 311 of ``Cannon's Precedents.''

            A member of the committee reporting the measure and opposed 
        to it is entitled to recognition to move to recommit over one 
        not a member of the committee but otherwise qualified.

        And, Mr. Speaker, it cites volume 8, page 2768.
        The Speaker: The Chair desires 
    to call the attention of the gentleman 
    on the question of the motion to ``Deschler's Procedure'' chapter 
    23, section 13. It provides that in recognizing Members who move to 
    recommit, the Speaker gives preference to the minority Member, and 
    these recent precedents are consistent with the one cited by the 
    gentleman from Illinois.
        What the gentleman is saying is that because he is a member of 
    the Committee on Appropriations, he is so entitled. The Chair has 
    not gone over all the precedents, but the Chair can do it if the 
    gentleman desires him to do so.
        The rule is not only that a member of the minority on the 
    Committee on Appropriations has preference over a majority member, 
    but any Member from the minority is recognized by the Speaker over 
    any Member of the majority, regardless of committee membership.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker will permit me to 
    continue----
        The Speaker: The only exception is when no Member of the 
    minority seeks to make a motion to recommit.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, in that respect may I say that 
    ``Cannon's Precedents'' is clear on that point; that where none of 
    those speaking, seeking recognition, are members of the committee 
    and otherwise equally qualified, the Speaker recognizes the Member 
    from the minority over the majority.
        But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that I am a member of the 
    committee where the gentleman offering the motion to recommit on 
    the minority side is not a member of the committee.
        I suggest, therefore, that under the precedents, I should be 
    recognized.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that in order that there can 
    be no mistake the Chair will ask the Clerk to read the following 
    passage from the rules and manual of the House.
        The Clerk read as follows (from section 788):

            Recognition to offer the motion to recommit, whether in its 
        simple form or with instructions, is the prerogative of a 
        Member who is opposed to the bill (Speaker Martin, Mar. 29, 
        1954, p. 3692); and the Speaker looks first to minority members 
        of the committee reporting the bill, in order of their rank on 
        the committee (Speaker Garner, Jan. 6, 1932, p. 1396; Speaker 
        Byrns, July 2, 1935, p. 10638), then to other Members on the 
        minority side (Speaker Rayburn, Aug. 16, 1950, p. 12608). If no 
        Member of the minority qualifies, a majority Member who is 
        opposed to the bill may be recognized (Speaker Garner, Apr. 1, 
        1932, p. 7327).

        The Speaker: The Chair states that that definitely settles the 
    question, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to 
    offer the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 9787]]

            Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
        8365 to the Committee on Appropriations.

--Conference Report; Bill Reported by Two Committees

Sec. 12.22 On one occasion, the Speaker Pro Tempore recognized the 
    ranking minority member of one of the two committees which had 
    originally reported a bill in the House, who was not a conferee on 
    the bill, to move to recommit a conference report, rather than the 
    second highest ranking minority member of the other committee which 
    had reported the bill, who was a conferee (although the highest 
    ranking minority member of a select committee normally has the 
    right to recognition to move to recommit a bill reported from a 
    select committee).

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 27, 
1980,(20) during consideration of the conference report on 
S. 1308 (Energy Mobilization Board):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 17371, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the conference report.
        The previous question was ordered.

                             motion to recommit

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) For what reason does 
    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel L.] Devine [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit.
        Mr. [Manuel] Lujan [Jr., of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I am a 
    member of the conference committee, and I am opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Ohio (Mr. Devine).
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit, and I am 
    opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman qualifies.
        Mr. Lujan: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Lujan: Mr. Speaker, does not a member of the conference 
    committee have preference in recognition to the ranking minority 
    member on the standing committee working on the bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 
    was on his feet at the time of the recommital motion. Does the 
    gentleman from Ohio, the second ranking minority member of the 
    conference committee, have a motion?
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: I am unqualified for the 
    motion to recommit. I was standing, however, to make sure that the 
    motion to recommit was protected for the minority, and when the 
    Chair recognized the gen

[[Page 9788]]

    tleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine), the ranking minority member of the 
    Commerce Committee, I took my seat. . . .
        Mr. Lujan: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear an answer to my 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: As the gentleman knows, the Chair's 
    control over recognition is not subject to challenge and the Chair 
    recognized the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine).
        The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Devine) is recognized for a 
    motion.
        Mr. Devine: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    conference report?
        Mr. Devine: I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman qualifies.
        The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Devine moves to recommit the conference report to 
        accompany the Senate bill, S. 1308, to the committee of 
        conference.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily, the prior right to recognition 
to move to recommit should belong to a member of a conference committee 
(the committee reporting the bill).

For Motion To Refer

Sec. 12.23 While recognition to offer a motion to recommit a bill or 
    joint resolution (previously referred to committee) under clause 4 
    of Rule XVI is the prerogative of the minority party if opposed to 
    the bill, recognition to offer a motion to refer under clause 1 of 
    Rule XVII after the previous question has been moved or ordered on 
    a resolution (not previously referred to committee) does not depend 
    on party affiliation or upon opposition to the resolution.

    During consideration of House Resolution 1042 (directing the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate the 
unauthorized publication of the report of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence) in the House on Feb. 19, 1976,(2) the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 122 Cong. Rec. 3914-21, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: I rise to a question 
    involving the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged 
    resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 1042

            Resolution requiring that the Committee on Standards of 
        Official Conduct inquire into the circumstances leading to the 
         public publication of a report containing classified material 
             prepared by the House Select Committee on Intelligence

            Whereas the February 16, 1976, issue of the Village Voice, 
        a New

[[Page 9789]]

        York City newspaper, contains the partial text of a report or a 
        preliminary report prepared by the Select Committee on 
        Intelligence of the House, pursuant to H. Res. 591, which 
        relates to the foreign activities of the intelligence agencies 
        of the United States and which contains sensitive classified 
        information . . . Now, therefore, be it
            Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct be and it is hereby authorized and directed to inquire 
        into the circumstances surrounding the publication of the text 
        and of any part of the report of the Select Committee on 
        Intelligence, and to report back to the House in a timely 
        fashion its findings and recommendations thereon.

        The Speaker: (3) The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: I yield for the purposes of debate only to the 
    distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. O'Neill). . . .
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, 
    some of the Members have been curious as to why the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Stratton) has the floor at this time and why the 
    resolution is privileged.
        It is privileged because he believes that the rules of the 
    House and the processes of the integrity of the House have been 
    transgressed.
        I believe that Mr. Stratton's motion to usurp the normal 
    procedure is transgressing on the rights of all our membership 
    here, and especially the rights of the members of the Rules 
    Committee which normally would have jurisdiction over this issue. 
    We should demand the normal course. We should not just say, ``Here, 
    we will send this to the Ethics Committee and the Ethics Committee 
    will make an investigation, because we are going to bypass the 
    Committee on Rules.'' That is exactly what Mr. Stratton desires. I 
    want the Members to know that when the time comes, after the hour 
    provided to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) is over, and 
    after that gentleman has moved the previous question, that I will 
    rise, and I will expect that the Speaker will recognize me and I 
    will then move, at that time, that, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 
    XVII, that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Rules. . 
    . .
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time 
    and I move the previous question on the resolution.
        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XVII, clause 1, I 
    move to refer the resolution to the Committee on Rules.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland will state the point 
    of order.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    gentleman's motion comes too late. The Chair has already put the 
    previous question and it has been moved.
        The Speaker: The motion to refer a resolution is in order after 
    the previous question is ordered under clause 1, rule XVII. . . .
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
    from Mas

[[Page 9790]]

    sachusetts, the distinguished majority leader, has offered, in 
    effect, a motion to recommit the original resolution. Is it not 
    true that under the practices and procedures of this House one who 
    is opposed to the motion and who is on the minority side of the 
    aisle is entitled to control of the motion to recommit? Would I not 
    be entitled to preference over the gentleman from Massachusetts in 
    offering a motion to recommit which is, in effect, what the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts has offered?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is referring to the procedure under 
    rule XVI. In this rather unique situation, the resolution has not 
    been before a committee and the House technically cannot recommit a 
    resolution that has never been previously referred to committee. 
    This is a motion to commit or refer under rule XVII and not a 
    motion to recommit under clause 4, rule XVI.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See also 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the Majority Leader had offered the 
motion to refer under clause 1 of Rule XVII when the previous question 
was moved but before it was ordered, the motion to refer would itself 
have been debatable as well as amendable.

Under Motion To Suspend Rules

Sec. 12.24 Alternation of recognition is not followed during the 40 
    minutes of debate on a motion to suspend the rules.

    On Sept. 20, 1961,(5) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill. After a second was ordered, 
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 107 Cong. Rec. 20491, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I understand that under the rules it is not necessary to rotate 
    time under a suspension of the rules.

    Speaker Pro Tempore John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, responded 
``That is correct.''
    On Apr. 16, 1962,(6) Mr. James Roosevelt, of California, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill. Speaker Pro Tempore Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry by 
Mr. Gross, that under suspension of the rules it was not necessary to 
rotate the time between opposing and favoring sides of the 
question.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 108 Cong. Rec. 6682, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. The practice of alternation is not followed where a limited time is 
        controlled by Members in the House, as in the 40 minutes' 
        debate provided for suspension of the rules and where the 
        previous question has been moved without debate on a debatable 
        question (see 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1442).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.25 In recognizing a Member to demand a second (under a former 
    rule) on a

[[Page 9791]]

    motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill or agree to 
    an amendment, the Speaker gave preference to a majority Member 
    opposed to the bill or amendment over a minority Member who did not 
    qualify as being opposed.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 644 (further 
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1981) in the House on Dec. 
15, 1980,(8) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 126 Cong. Rec. 34191, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois demands a second.

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order. Does the gentleman object to the resolution?
        The Speaker: There is no objection. This is for suspension of 
    the rules.
        Mr. Stratton: Well, he fails to qualify for a second. I demand 
    a second.
        Mr. Michel: I recognize the gentleman's prerogative, Mr. 
    Speaker. I am not opposed to the joint resolution.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York has the second, since 
    he qualifies as being opposed to the motion.
        Without objection, a second will be considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) will 
    be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton) will be recognized for 20 minutes.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the 102d Congress, certain motions 
to suspend the rules were required to be seconded, if demanded, by a 
majority by tellers, but this requirement was eliminated from Rule 
XXVII in the 102d Congress (see H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991).

Sec. 12.26 A Member of the minority who was opposed to a bill 
    considered under suspension of the rules had the right to 
    recognition, over a majority Member opposed to the bill, to demand 
    a second thereon (under a former rule) and 
    to control the twenty minutes of debate in opposition thereto.

    On Nov. 17, 1980,(10) the House had under consideration 
S. 885 (Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act 
of 1980) when the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 29788-801, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 885) to assist the 
    electrical con

[[Page 9792]]

    sumers of the Pacific Northwest through use of the Federal Columbia 
    River Power System to achieve cost-effective energy conservation, 
    to encourage the development of renewable energy resources, to 
    establish a representative regional power planning process, to 
    assure the region of an efficient and adequate power supply, and 
    for other purposes, as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause of S. 885 and 
        insert the text of H.R. 8157 as amended.

                       short title and table of contents

            Section 1. This Act, together with the following table of 
        contents, may be cited as the ``Pacific Northwest Electric 
        Power Planning and Conservation Act''. . . .

        The Speaker: (11) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I demand a second.
        Mr. [James] Weaver [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Wisconsin from the minority is 
    entitled to the second.
        Mr. Weaver: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman opposed to the bill? 
    I am opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman from Wisconsin opposed to the 
    bill?
        Mr. Sensenbrenner: I am opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Sensenbrenner) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen).

    Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the 102d Congress, certain motions 
to suspend the rules were required to be seconded, if demanded, by a 
majority by tellers, but this requirement was eliminated from Rule 
XXVII in the 102d Congress (see H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1991).