[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§ 13. Of Members of Committee]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9792-9838]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                    B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
 
Sec. 13. -- Of Members of Committee

                            Cross References
Committee management and amendments, see Ch. 27, supra.
House committees, their powers and jurisdiction, see Ch. 17, supra.
Opening and closing debate as prerogative of committee members, see 
    Sec. 7, supra.
Priority of committee members on specific questions and motions, see 
    Sec. Sec. 16 et seq., infra.
Recognition of members of Committee on Rules on special orders, see Ch. 
    21, supra.
Recognition of members of conference committees, see Ch. 33, infra.
Seniority and derivative rights, see Ch. 7, supra.
Special orders vesting control in committee members, see Sec. 28, 
    infra.

[[Page 9793]]

                          -------------------Generally

Sec. 13.1 As a customary practice and in the absence of other 
    considerations, members of the committee which reported a bill are 
    entitled to prior recognition thereon.

    On Feb. 10, 1941,(12) Chairman Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, responded to a parliamentary inquiry on the practice of 
extending priority for recognition to members of the committee 
reporting a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 875, 876, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lyle H.] Boren [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    parliamentary inquiry. I want it thoroughly understood that I 
    recognize fully the custom of members of the committee being 
    recognized ahead of any other Member on the floor, not a member of 
    the committee. I am quite willing to withdraw my amendment for that 
    purpose, but as I understood it the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
    Cooper] rose to make the point of order that my recognition at that 
    time was not in order. I understood the Chair sustained the point 
    of order and recognized the gentleman from New York [Mr. Crowther]. 
    I should like to be enlightened as to under what rule of the House 
    that point of order is sustained after the Chair had recognized me 
    for the purpose of offering an amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Crowther] is a 
    member of the committee reporting the bill and, therefore, entitled 
    to prior recognition.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Nichols: Is there a rule of the House that gives the 
    members of the committee the right to recognition ahead of other 
    Members of the House? Is that a rule of the House?
        The Chairman: It is a procedure of long standing.
        Mr. Nichols: It is not a rule of the House.
        The Chairman: In the absence of other considerations, members 
    of the committee in charge of the bill are entitled to prior 
    recognition. The rule is essential to expedition in legislation and 
    its importance is too obvious to require justification.

    Parliamentarian's Note: No point of order was actually made or 
sustained relative to recognition. The Chair simply gave priority of 
recognition to a committee member, Mr. Crowther, to offer an amendment.

Sec. 13.2 During amendment of a bill in Committee of the Whole, the 
    Chairman first recognizes members of the committee reporting the 
    bill, if on their feet seeking recognition.

    On June 29, 1939,(13) Chairman Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, ruled

[[Page 9794]]

that a Member who had been recognized to offer an amendment could not 
be deprived of recognition by members of the committee reporting the 
bill, if not on their feet seeking recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 8311, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York] (interrupting the 
    reading of the amendment): Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for 
    the committee members to be recognized first to offer amendments?
        Mr. Knutson: I have already been recognized.
        The Chairman: If there is any member of the committee seeking 
    recognition, he is entitled to recognition.

        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized.
        Mr. Knutson: I already have the floor, and have been 
    recognized.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Knutson] has already been recognized.
        The Chairman: Recognition is in the discretion of the Chair, 
    and the Chair will recognize members of the committee first. Does 
    the acting chairman of the committee seek recognition?
        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    ask whether the committee amendments to section 1 have been agreed 
    to?
        The Chairman: The only one the Chair knows about is the one 
    appearing in the print of the bill, and that has been agreed to.
        Mr. Bloom: In line 16, there is a committee amendment.
        Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I was recognized by the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that inasmuch as members of the 
    committee were not on their feet and the gentleman from Minnesota 
    had been recognized, the gentleman is entitled to recognition.

Priority Over Member Who Introduced Bill

Sec. 13.3 Members of the committee reporting a bill are entitled to 
    prior recognition over the Member who introduced the bill.

    On July 8, 1937,(14) Chairman Marvin Jones, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of recognition on the 
pending bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 6946, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, what is the 
    order of priority on the bill? Does the author of the bill precede 
    a member who is not a member of the committee?
        The Chairman: If the Chair understands the rule correctly, the 
    members of the committee which report the bill have preference. 
    After that all members of the Committee of the Whole are on equal 
    standing.

[[Page 9795]]

Opposition to Substitute Amendment--Proponent of Amendment Does Not 
    Have Priority

Sec. 13.4 The proponent of an amendment may be recognized to control 
    the time in opposition to a substitute offered therefor, but a 
    member of the committee reporting the bill has priority of 
    recognition to control such time.

    On May 4, 1983,(15) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding priority of 
recognition for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 11074, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Levitas: In view of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``with 
        negotiators proceeding immediately to pursuing reductions.''. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        My parliamentary inquiry is twofold, Mr. Chairman.
        The first is that under the rule if I am opposed to the 
    amendment being offered as a substitute for my amendment, can I be 
    recognized in opposition thereto?
        My second inquiry is: Is the substitute open for amendment?
        The Chairman: (16) The answer to the second question 
    is the substitute is open for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is appropriate under the rules to offer an amendment. In 
    terms of whom the Chair recognizes in opposition, the Chair would 
    be inclined to recognize a member of the committee, if a member of 
    the committee seeks recognition in opposition to the amendment.
        If a committee member does not seek recognition for that 
    purpose the Chair would be inclined to recognize the gentleman.

Members of Committee or Subcommittee

Sec. 13.5 The Chair, in giving preference of recognition on 
    appropriation bills, does not distinguish between members of the 
    full committee and members of the subcommittee which handled the 
    bill.

    On Apr. 7, 1943,(17) Chairman Luther A. Johnson, of 
Texas, recognized Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, in opposition to a 
pro forma amendment. Mr. Keefe was

[[Page 9796]]

a member of the Committee on Appropriations, which had reported the 
pending bill. Mr. John H. Kerr, of North Carolina, objected that he 
asked to be recognized, as a member of the subcommittee which had 
handled the bill. The Chairman stated as follows on the priority of 
recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 89 Cong. Rec. 3067, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the Chair understands it, a member of the Committee on 
    Appropriations has the same right as those who are members of that 
    committee who happen to be members of a subcommittee. That is the 
    parliamentary procedure, as the Chair understands it. The Chair has 
    recognized the gentleman from Wisconsin. Had he not done so, he 
    certainly would have recognized the gentleman from North Carolina.

Sec. 13.6 Priority of recognition to offer amendments under the five-
    minute rule in Committee of the Whole is extended to members of the 
    full committee reporting the bill, alternating between the majority 
    and minority, and the Chair does not distinguish between members of 
    the subcommittee which considered the bill and other members of the 
    full committee.

    On July 2, 1980,(18) 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 a point of order. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 126 Cong. Rec. 18292, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert C.] Eckhardt [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman will state his 
    inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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 amendment.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the amendment to the 
    substitute amendment.
        Mr. [Edward R.] Madigan [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.

[[Page 9797]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Madigan: Mr. Chairman, 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.
        I further understand that the gentlewoman from Maryland, a 
    member of the subcommittee, was on her feet seeking recognition for 
    the purpose of offering an amendment, as well as the gentleman from 
    North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill). . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will respond to the gentleman by saying 
    to him that the normal procedure is to recognize members of the 
    full committee by seniority, alternating from side to side, which 
    the Chair has been doing. The gentleman was recognized under that 
    procedure, and the Chair's recognition is not in any event subject 
    to challenge.
        Therefore, the gentleman is recognized, and any point of order 
    that the gentleman from Illinois would make on that point would not 
    be sustained.
        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.

Sec. 13.7 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole announced that in 
    recognizing Members under the five-minute rule for consideration of 
    an appropriation bill, he would alternate recognition between the 
    majority and minority sides of the aisle and would follow these 
    priorities: first, members of the 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 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

[[Page 9798]]

    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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chair normally follows the list of full 
committee seniority and is not bound by subcommittee rankings.

Alternation Between Majority and Minority

Sec. 13.8 While recognition of Members to offer amendments is within 
    the Chair's discretion and cannot be challenged on a point of 
    order, the Chair under the precedents alternates recognition 
    between majority and minority members of the committee reporting 
    the bill.

    During consideration of the Outer Continental Shelf Act (H.R. 6218) 
in the Committee of the Whole on June 11, 1976,(1) the 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 122 Cong. Rec. 17764, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: v(2) The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Sec. 13.9 While the Chair endeavors to alternate recognition for the 
    purpose of offering amendments, and controlling time in opposition 
    thereto, between majority and minority Members, members of the 
    committee reporting a pending bill are entitled to prior 
    recognition over non-committee members regardless of their party 
    affiliation.

    On May 4, 1983,(3) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolu

[[Page 9799]]

tion 13 (nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole, the 
Chair, in responding to an inquiry, indicated that priority in 
recognition is with the committee reporting the pending legislation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. 11068, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Levitas: Strike out the matter proposed to be added to the 
        resolution by the Levitas amendment and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: ``, with reductions to be achieved as soon as 
        possible after the achievement of a mutual and verifiable 
        freeze''.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Solarz) is recognized for 15 minutes, for purposes of 
    debate only, on his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Solarz: Certainly. I am happy to yield for that purpose.
        Mr. Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Martin of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate 
    if the Chair would put a little time over here.
        Is it customary and is it correct order for the business of the 
    House of Representatives for the Chair to sequentially recognize 
    only Members of the majority party time and time again, both to 
    make an amendment, to take the position opposing that amendment, 
    and then to offer the next amendment; is that regular order?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the precedents the priority in 
    this instance is with the committee members to offer an amendment 
    to the amendment.
        Mr. Martin of North Carolina: I beg pardon?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Priority in this instance by the 
    Chair is with the committee members, regardless of party.
        Mr. Martin of North Carolina: That means the Chair will not 
    recognize anyone on the Republican side until after all this has 
    been disposed of, is that what the Chair is saying? Is that the 
    Chair's prerogative?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair has indicated its position 
    on recognition up to this point.

Sec. 13.10 In recognizing members of the committee reporting a bill to 
    offer amendments in the Committee of the Whole, the Chairman has 
    discretion whether to first recognize a minority or majority 
    member.

    On June 4, 1948,(5) while the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6801, the foreign aid appropriation bill, for 
amendment, Chairman Albert M. Cole, of Kan

[[Page 9800]]

sas, recognized Everett M. Dirksen, of Illinois (a majority member), to 
offer an amendment. Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, objected that the 
minority was entitled to recognition to move to amend the bill. The 
Chairman responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 94 Cong. Rec. 7189, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rules of the House, any member of the committee may 
    offer an amendment, and it is in the discretion of the Chair as to 
    which member shall be recognized.

Sec. 13.11 While the Chair endeavors to alternate recognition for the 
    purpose of offering amendments between majority and minority 
    Members, members of the committee reporting a pending 
    bill are entitled to prior recognition over noncommittee members 
    regardless of their party affiliation.

    On July 22, 1974,(6) during consideration of the Surface 
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974,(7) the Chairman 
(8) of the Committee of the Whole indicated that he would 
continue to accord prior recognition to minority members of the 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to offer amendments to a bill 
reported from that committee over majority noncommittee Members, but 
that he would alternate between parties if majority committee members 
sought recognition. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 24454, 24457, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. H.R. 11500.
 8. Neal E. Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment offered by Mrs. Mink as a substitute for 
    the amendment offered by Mr. Hosmer to the committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I do not know 
    whether a point of order or a parliamentary inquiry is in order; 
    but I would like to make one or the other.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Hays: It is my understanding that under the long-standing 
    rules of the House and the Committee of the Whole that we alternate 
    from the Democratic side to the Republican side, or vice versa, 
    whichever the case may be.
        Now, there are Members on this side who want to offer 
    amendments. If the Chair is going to consistently listen to three 
    in a row that the gentleman from California has had, we do not know 
    where we stand.
        The Chairman: The Chair understands the gentleman's 
    parliamentary inquiry; but the Chair believes that as long as 
    members of the committee seek recognition, they are entitled to 
    recognition first; at least, up to a certain point, and if a member 
    of the committee from the majority side stands, he could be 
    recognized.

[[Page 9801]]

Subjects Beyond Jurisdiction of Committee

Sec. 13.12 Where the Committee of the Whole was considering, under a 
    special rule waiving points of order, a bill that extended to a 
    number of legislative subjects that were beyond the jurisdiction of 
    the reporting committee (a general appropriations bill containing a 
    variety of legislative provisions), the Chairman ruled that he 
    would not limit recognition to the members of the committee 
    reporting a bill, but that his decision was not to be taken as a 
    precedent for other bills.

    On Mar. 5 and 6, 1941,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3737, a general appropriation bill, pursuant to House 
Resolution 126, waiving all points of order against the bill. As to 
distribution of recognition for debate on the bill, Chairman John E. 
Rankin, of Mississippi, ruled that, contrary to normal practice, 
recognition would not be limited to members of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 87 Cong. Rec. 1846, 1921, 1922, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Permit the Chair to make a statement.
        On yesterday the question of recognizing members of the 
    committee to the exclusion of other Members of the House was 
    raised. The Chair stated that since we were operating under a rule 
    that makes in order legislation on an appropriation bill, the Chair 
    did not feel the policy that has grown up in recent years of 
    recognizing members of the committee to the exclusion of other 
    Members of the House should be followed. The Chair does not know 
    what attitude future Chairmen of the Committee of the Whole may 
    assume, but the present occupant of the chair wishes to lay down 
    what the Chair believes to be a sound principle in this respect.
        There are 40 members of the Committee on Appropriations. They 
    have control of all the time for general debate on bills coming 
    from that committee just as members of the Committee on Foreign 
    Affairs, members of the Committee on Ways and Means, or other 
    committees have control of the time under general debate on bills 
    coming from their respective committees. There is no written or 
    adopted rule of this House giving members of the committee in 
    control of the bill the exclusive right to recognition under the 5-
    minute rule over other Members of the House, but a custom to that 
    effect seems to have grown up in recent years which the Chair 
    thinks is wrong.
        It is all right to give preference to the chairman of a 
    subcommittee or to the ranking minority member on that subcommittee 
    in connection with important amendments under the 5-minute rule, 
    but the Chair does not think it is fair to the rest of the 
    membership of the House to follow a policy, and gradually petrify 
    it into the rules of the House, of recognizing all mem

[[Page 9802]]

    bers of a committee handling the bill under the 5-minute rule to 
    the exclusion of other Members of the House.

        Mr. [Clarence] Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Chairman, I trust the 
    Chair has no intention of announcing a formal decision, which would 
    be in contravention of the practice of the House, which has been in 
    effect for a hundred years. From time immemorial the members of the 
    committee in control of the bill and charged with its passage have 
    been given precedence in recognition, other things being equal.
        Mr. [Clifton A.] Woodrum of Virginia: Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
        Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: That does not apply alone to the 
    Appropriations Committee; it applies to all committees.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: The gentleman is correct. There is no 
    code applying to any one committee more than to any other 
    committee. And that rule--like all rules of the House--is justified 
    by reason and logic. There is a reason for it. The members of a 
    committee through months--sometimes years--of work on a certain 
    class of legislation or a recurring bill are naturally more 
    familiar with it, and under the rules of the House are responsible 
    for its disposition. And it naturally follows that they must be in 
    position to secure the floor and must be accorded priority of 
    recognition when that subject or that bill is under consideration 
    in order to expedite the business of the House. There is no 
    specific provision in the body of the rules, but the practice has 
    not only been established in the long history of the American 
    Congress but came down to us from the English Parliament from which 
    we received originally our parliamentary code. And as Speaker 
    Cannon and Speaker Reed both said authoritatively, the greater 
    portion of our procedure is the unwritten law--more binding than 
    the letter of the law--because not subject to amendment save 
    through the long processes of evolution.
        In all the years I have been on the floor, 30 years next month, 
    I have never heard from the Chair a decision questioning this rule, 
    nor a suggestion that it was not a reasonable rule, or a rule that 
    should not be strictly enforced. As I understand it, the Chairman 
    is about to decide that while this is the rule and practice of the 
    House, that due to the fact that a resolution was adopted when this 
    bill was brought in, the Chair is warranted for the time being in 
    recognizing another priority; but does not pass on the rule itself 
    under normal circumstances. I realize the Chairman would not at 
    this late date propose to set aside, even temporarily, a rule which 
    has been in effect from the beginning of the Republic and which is 
    based upon sound parliamentary logic.
        The Chairman: Let the Chair say in reply to the gentleman from 
    Missouri, whom the Chair regards as one of the greatest 
    parliamentarians on earth, that the Chair is not setting aside any 
    rule.
        Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw 
    my request for recognition.
        The Chairman: The Chair is not discussing that.
        Mr. Woodrum of Virginia: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my 
    request for recognition.

[[Page 9803]]

        The Chairman: The Chair desires to finish his statement.
        The Chair may say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] 
    that there is no written rule on this subject, but within the last 
    two or three decades appropriations have been taken away from other 
    committees and concentrated in the hands of one committee. The 
    Chair is not speaking any more with reference to the Committee on 
    Appropriations than any other committee. It is perfectly fair for a 
    committee to have charge of general debate and probably debate 
    under the 5-minute rule to a large extent, but the Chair does not 
    think it is fair--especially under conditions such as we have here, 
    where a rule has been adopted making legislation that ordinarily 
    comes from the Committee on Agriculture and from other committees 
    of the House in order on the bill--the Chair does think it fair to 
    the rest of the membership of the House to recognize members of the 
    Committee on Appropriations under the 5-minute rule to the 
    exclusion of the other Members of the House.
        So far as the present occupant of the chair individually is 
    concerned, if the time should come when that matter is presented, 
    the Chair might go a step further and apply it to all measures 
    coming before the House and considered under the 5-minute rule. If 
    we are going to have legislation by the entire Congress we will 
    have to come to that decision ultimately.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Taber: Would the Chair feel the same way with reference to 
    a bill being considered from the Committee on Agriculture or from 
    the Committee on World War Veterans?
        The Chairman: Yes.
        Mr. Taber: Or from the Committee on Foreign Affairs?
        The Chairman: Yes. The Chair is not singling out any committee. 
    A great many Members of the House are vitally interested in the 
    various provisions of these bills, and the Chair does not think it 
    is right to exclude them until the committee has exhausted and 
    closed debate.
        Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Dirksen: Is this to be regarded as a ruling today, or is it 
    merely an observation of the Chair?
        The Chairman: It is a ruling as far as this bill is concerned.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
        Mr. [John W.] McCormack [of Massachusetts]: Will the gentleman 
    yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. [Hampton P.] Fulmer [of South Carolina]: I yield to the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding that the 
    ruling just made by the Chair confines itself to the pending bill?
        The Chairman: That is right.
        Mr. McCormack: And by reason of the rule adopted making in 
    order certain provisions which are legislative, the Chair feels, 
    under those circumstances, that the broader application should be 
    applied to this bill only?

[[Page 9804]]

        The Chairman: Yes. The Chair may say to the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts that if the present occupant were in the chair when 
    one of these relief bills came in, which also covers a multitude of 
    various phases of legislation, the Chair would assume the same 
    attitude.
        Mr. McCormack: May I say that the Chair is absolutely correct 
    so far as this bill is concerned, but may I say for the Record, so 
    that some future Chairman might not construe the broad remarks of 
    the Chair as a precedent, that the present Chairman is confining 
    himself in his ruling to the present bill.
        The Chairman: That is correct.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
    Fulmer].

May Lose Priority

Sec. 13.13 Members of the committee reporting a bill under 
    consideration usually have preference of recognition, but such 
    preference may be lost if they do not seek recognition in a timely 
    manner.

    On Aug. 8, 1967,(10) Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of 
Illinois, recognized under the five-minute rule a Member not on the 
committee which reported the bill because a committee member's request 
for recognition was untimely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 21842, 21843, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan 
    rise?
        Mr. [James G.] O'Hara of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        Mr. [Clark] MacGregor [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Chairman, is it not customary when two 
    Members rise at approximately the same time that the Chairman 
    recognizes a member of the committee first?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Michigan was on his feet, and the Chair recognized the gentleman 
    from Michigan.
        Mr. MacGregor: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota was 
    on his feet, and had asked for recognition before the teller vote 
    was taken.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Chair saw the 
    gentleman from Michigan on his feet first, and the Chair recognized 
    the gentleman from Michigan.

Where Committee Member Does Not Seek Recognition

Sec. 13.14 In recognizing Members under the five-minute rule, the Chair 
    attempts to give preference to members of the committee reporting 
    the bill; but the Chair may recognize another where a committee 
    member is standing but not actively seeking recognition by 
    addressing the Chair.

    On Aug. 4, 1978,(11) during consideration of the foreign 
aid ap

[[Page 9805]]

propriation bill for fiscal 1979 (H.R. 12931) in the Committee of the 
Whole, it was demonstrated that, in order to be recognized, a Member 
must be on his feet and must address the Chair at the appropriate time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 124 Cong. Rec. 24439, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) The Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                    TITLE II--FOREIGN MILITARY CREDIT SALES

                         Foreign Military Credit Sales

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

        The Chairman: Are there amendments to title II?
        For what purpose does the gentleman from Iowa rise?
        Mr. [Thomas R.] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
    Harkin).

        Mr. [Clarence E.] Miller of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I am a member 
    of the committee.
        The Chairman: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Iowa 
    (Mr. Harkin).
        Mr. Miller of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet at the time.
        The Chairman: The Chair will tell the gentleman that he might 
    have been on his feet, but the Chair was not aware that he 
    addressed the Chair. . . .
        Let the Chair make this announcement for the last time during 
    the consideration of this bill. On yesterday twice the Chair 
    admonished the members of this Committee that if they had 
    amendments pending, it was their duty to be standing and to address 
    the Chair seeking recognition. Otherwise the Chair would have no 
    way of knowing that they had an amendment to offer. The Chair is 
    for the third and last time admonishing the Committee that those 
    who have amendments not only be on their feet but seek recognition. 
    On this particular occasion the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller) 
    did not seek the Chair's attention, and the Chair did recognize the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), who did seek the Chair's 
    attention.

Absence of Chairman

Sec. 13.15 Where the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    reporting committee, named in a resolution to control debate on the 
    bill, are absent, the Speaker or Chairman of the Committee of the 
    Whole may recognize the next ranking majority and minority members 
    (if 
    the chairman and ranking minority member have not designated other 
    members to control the time).

    On July 23, 1942,(13) the House adopted a resolution 
from the

[[Page 9806]]

Committee on Rules providing for debate on a bill to be divided between 
the Chairman and the ranking minority member of the reporting 
committee--the Committee on Election of the President, Vice President, 
and Representatives in Congress. The chairman and ranking minority 
member both being absent, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, declared, in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry, that the Chair would recognize the 
next ranking majority member and the next ranking minority member to 
control debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 88 Cong. Rec. 6542-46, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, we have been unable to 
    find a man in the House on either side who was present when this 
    bill was voted out. A majority of the members of the committee who 
    are here are opposed to the bill. We feel that the time ought to be 
    divided not between the Members who are for the bill but know 
    nothing about it any more than the rest of us, but between the 
    members of the committee who are for the bill and the members of 
    the committee who are opposed to the bill. I would like to have the 
    Chair's ruling on that proposition.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks the Chair has a rather wide range 
    of latitude here. The Chair could hold and some future Speaker 
    might hold that since the chairman and ranking minority member of 
    the committee are not here there could be no general debate because 
    there was nobody here to control it, but the present occupant of 
    the chair is not going to rule in such a restricted way.
        The Chair is going to recognize the next ranking majority 
    member and the next ranking minority member when the House goes 
    into the Committee of the Whole.

    When the House had resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, responded as follows to a similar 
inquiry:

        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, there is not a member 
    of the committee present who was present when this bill was voted 
    out. A majority of the members of the committee who are present are 
    opposed to this bill. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will say in response to the 
    parliamentary inquiry, that the Speaker held only a few moments ago 
    that the ranking majority Member, acting as chairman of the 
    committee, and the ranking minority Member present, would have 
    control of the time under the rule that has been adopted for the 
    consideration of the bill.

Recognition for Points of Order

Sec. 13.16 Members of the committee reporting a bill have

[[Page 9807]]

    priority of recognition to make points of order against proposed 
    amendments to the bill.

    On Mar. 30, 1949,(14) Mr. Henry M. Jackson, of 
Washington, and Mr. Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska, simultaneously arose 
in the Committee of the Whole to make a point of order against a 
pending amendment on the ground that it constituted legislation on an 
appropriation bill. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, recognized Mr. 
Jackson in preference over Mr. Curtis since Mr. Jackson was a member of 
the committee which had reported the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 3520, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 13.17 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,(15) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the National 
Energy Act (H.R. 8444):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 26444, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) The Chair would like to make a 
    statement for the information of the Members of the Committee of 
    the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 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]?
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word.

Opposition to Motion To Discharge

Sec. 13.18 The chairman of a committee having jurisdiction over a bill 
    is entitled to prior recognition for debate in opposition to a 
    motion to dis

[[Page 9808]]

    charge the committee, and if the chairman is not opposed to the 
    motion the next ranking member of the committee is recognized for 
    that purpose, and so on, in order of rank.

    On Jan. 13, 1936,(17) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, moved 
to discharge the Committee on Ways and Means from the further 
consideration of H.R. 1, for the immediate cash payment of adjusted 
service certificates. Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of Tennessee, stated 
that 20 minutes' debate would be had on the motion, to be equally 
divided between those for and against the motion. He stated that he 
would recognize Robert L. Doughton, of North Carolina (chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means), to control half the time. Mr. Hamilton 
Fish, Jr., of New York, stated that he wished to be heard in opposition 
to the motion. The Speaker responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 80 Cong. Rec. 336, 337, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The chairman of the committee before which the bill is pending 
    is entitled to be recognized in opposition, if he desires.

    On May 23, 1938,(18) Mrs. Mary T. Norton, of New Jersey, 
moved to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further 
consideration of House Resolution 478, making in order the 
consideration of a bill. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
stated that Mrs. Norton would control 10 minutes' debate in favor of 
the motion. The Speaker further stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 83 Cong. Rec. 7274, 7275, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from New York, chairman of the Committee on 
    Rules, desire recognition in opposition to the resolution?
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor of New York: Mr. Speaker, I cannot 
    qualify in opposition because I am wholeheartedly in favor of the 
    bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Georgia [the next ranking 
    member on the committee]?
        Mr. [Edward E.] Cox [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to 
    say I am in position to qualify. I claim the time and will yield to 
    the gentleman from Texas.
        The Speaker: The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Georgia for 10 minutes in opposition to the resolution, and the 
    gentlewoman from New Jersey is now recognized for 10 
    minutes.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also 96 Cong. Rec. 12543, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 15, 1950; 
        96 Cong. Rec. 12441, 12442, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 14, 1950; 
        89 Cong. Rec. 4807, 4808, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., May 24, 1943; 
        and 88 Cong. Rec. 8067, 8068, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 
        1942.

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

[[Page 9809]]

Where Portion of Bill Is Considered Read and Open to Amendment

Sec. 13.19 Where a pending title of a bill is open to amendment and a 
    unanimous-consent request is made that the next two succeeding 
    titles also be considered as open to amendment, all three titles 
    would be open to amendment, with priority in recognition being 
    given to members of the committee reporting the bill.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Jan. 29, 1980,(20) during consideration of the Water 
Resources Development Act (H.R. 4788):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 973, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ray] Roberts [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that titles III and IV be considered as read and open for 
    amendment at any point.

        The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas? . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, am I 
    under the understanding at this point that titles II, III, and IV 
    are now open to amendment?
        The Chairman: That is correct, if no objection is heard.
        Mr. Ertel: I have no objection.
        Mr. [Don H.] Clausen [of California]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, I want to make sure we are going to be 
    proceeding in an orderly manner. I am assuming we will proceed 
    through title II for the consideration of the amendment and then 
    follow on with the consideration of titles III and IV.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman that if the 
    unanimous-consent request is adopted without objection, titles II, 
    III, and IV will be open for amendment at any point. Committee 
    members will, of course, have priority in recognition.
        Mr. Ertel: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object, and I 
    do object. I think we ought to go by title II, then go to title III 
    and title IV. I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.

Recognition To Offer Substitute--Previous Recognition To Debate 
    Original Amendment

Sec. 13.20 While recognition during the five-minute rule is within the 
    discretion of the Chair and is not subject to a point of order, the 
    Chair will ordinarily recognize a member of a committee reporting a 
    bill to offer a substitute 
    before recognizing a noncommittee member, although that committee 
    member may already have been recognized to debate the original 
    amendment.

[[Page 9810]]

    During consideration of the 
Department of Energy Authorization Act (H.R. 3000) in the Committee of 
the Whole on Oct. 18, 
1979,(2) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 28765, 28767, 28768, 28770, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) Are there further 
    amendments to title IV? If not, the Clerk will designate title V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Title V reads as follows:

        TITLE V--NUCLEAR ASSESSMENT, SPENT FUEL DISPOSITION OPERATIONS, 
                 AND DECONTAMINATION AND DE-COMMISSIONING . . .

        Mr. [John W.] Wydler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Wydler: On page 56, line 21 and 
        22, substitute the following new title: . . .

        Mr. [Philip R.] Sharp [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to this amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, there are two things we have to recognize: First, 
    we are moving ahead to deal with the question of away-from-reactor 
    storage for domestic spent fuel.

    After further debate, Mr. Sharp was recognized to offer an 
amendment:

        Mr. Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute 
    for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Sharp as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Wydler: On page 56, line 21 and 22, 
        substitute the following new title: ``TRANSITIONAL STORAGE OF 
        SPENT FUEL.''
            On page 57, after line 7, insert the following new 
        subsections: . . .

        Mr. Wydler: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order. I believe 
    the gentleman from Indiana was already recognized on this amendment 
    and there were other people standing on the amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Indiana has been 
    recognized to offer a substitute for the gentleman's amendment, and 
    the Clerk is reporting the substitute amendment.
        Mr. Wydler: The gentleman had already been recognized on my 
    amendment. Is the Chairman aware of that?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the amendment. 
    The gentleman is on the committee which considered the pending 
    title and is entitled to separate recognition to offer an 
    amendment, and the Clerk will report the substitute.

Chairman Requesting Conference

Sec. 13.21 The Speaker indicated, in response to a parliamentary 
    inquiry, that only the chairman of the committee having 
    jurisdiction of the subject matter of a bill would be recognized to 
    ask unanimous consent to take the bill from the table, disagree to 
    a

[[Page 9811]]

    Senate amendment and ask for a conference.

    On the legislative day of Aug. 31, 1960,(4) Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 106 Cong. Rec. 18920, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 1, 1960 (Calendar 
        Day).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Halleck: Would it be in order for a unanimous-consent 
    request to be made to send the bill that has just come from the 
    Senate to conference?
        The Speaker: That would be up to the gentleman from North 
    Carolina [Mr. Cooley] [chairman of the committee with 
    jurisdiction].

District of Columbia Business

Sec. 13.22 During the consideration of District of Columbia business in 
    the Committee of the Whole, in the absence of a special agreement 
    controlling time for general debate, 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.

    The above-stated principle is set out in detail in another 
section.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 12.11, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Private Calendar

Sec. 13.23 Recognition for debate in opposition to an amendment to a 
    bill on the Private Calendar goes to a member of the committee 
    reporting the bill in preference to a Member who is not on that 
    committee.

    On Dec. 14, 1967,(6) during the call of the Private 
Calendar, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, extended 
recognition to oppose an amendment to a private bill to Mr. Michael A. 
Feighan, of Ohio, a member of the reporting committee, over Mr. Durward 
G. Hall, of Missouri, not a member of the committee, and stated ``a 
member of the committee is entitled to recognition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 36535-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 13.24 In recognizing for five minutes' debate in opposition to a 
    motion to dispense with business under the Calendar Wednesday call 
    of committees, the Speaker extends preference to a member of the 
    committee having the call.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(7) Mr. Dwight L. Rogers, of Florida, 
moved to

[[Page 9812]]

dispense with the call of committees on Calendar Wednesday. When the 
five minutes' debate by Mr. Rogers in favor of the motion, provided for 
by rule, had expired, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, refused to 
recognize Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, of Wisconsin, who was not a member 
of the committee who had the call. He then recognized Thruston Ballard 
Morton, of Kentucky, who was a member of the committee next to be 
called on the Calendar Wednesday list of committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 96 Cong. Rec. 2157-59, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.25 In recognizing a Member to control time in opposition to a 
    bill on Calendar Wednesday in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
    recognizes minority members in the order of their seniority on the 
    committee reporting the bill.

    On Apr. 14, 1937,(8) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of H.R. 1668, to amend the 
Interstate Commerce Act, called up by the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce under the Calendar Wednesday call of committees. 
Chairman J. Mark Wilcox, of Florida, answered a parliamentary inquiry 
on the order of recognition for debate in opposition to the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 81 Cong. Rec. 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Pehr G.] Holmes [of Massachusetts]: Am I to understand 
    that 1 hour will be extended me in opposition to the bill as a 
    minority member of the committee?
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts opposed to 
    the bill?
        Mr. Holmes: I am, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman from Massachusetts the ranking 
    minority member of the committee?
        Mr. Holmes: I am the ranking minority member opposed to the 
    bill.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is entitled to recognition in 
    opposition to the bill unless a minority member of the committee 
    outranking the gentleman desires recognition.

Minority Committee Member Offered Amendment in Nature of Substitute 
    From Floor

Sec. 13.26 Pursuant to a special rule providing for the consideration 
    of the text of a bill as an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, to be read 
    by titles as an original bill immediately after the reading of the 
    enacting clause of the bill to which offered, the Chair recognized 
    a minority member of the committee to offer the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute from the floor before it could be considered 
    under the rule.

[[Page 9813]]

    On Sept. 19, 1974,(9) Chairman Thomas M. Rees, of 
California, recognized James T. Broyhill, of North Carolina, who then 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 120 Cong. Rec. 31727, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: When the Committee rose on Tuesday, September 17, 
    1974, all time for general debate had expired.
        Pursuant to the rule, immediately after the reading of the 
    enacting clause, it shall be in order to consider the text of the 
    bill H.R. 16327 as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
    the bill, and said substitute shall be read for amendment by title.
        The Clerk will read the enacting clause.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. Broyhill of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, under the rule, I 
    offer the following amendment in the nature of a substitute, which 
    is to the text of the bill (H.R. 7917).

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Broyhill of North Carolina: That this Act may be cited as the 
        ``Consumer Product Warranties-Federal Trade Commission 
        Improvements Act''.

                      TITLE I--CONSUMER PRODUCT WARRANTIES

                                   definition

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Broyhill was a minority member of the 
committee and had introduced the bill made in order by the rule. The 
Chair recognized him when the chairman of the then Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce did not immediately seek recognition. 
It should be noted that the Chair could have considered the amendment 
to be pending and could have directed that it be read by title as an 
original bill without being offered from the floor.

Suspension of Rules

Sec. 13.27 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules (under a former rule), the Speaker gave 
    preference to 
    a member of the reporting committee who was opposed to the bill; 
    that Member was then recognized to speak in opposition to the 
    motion.

    On Feb. 20, 1967,(10) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled as follows on recognition to demand a second on 
the motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 3829, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: For what reason does the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr.

[[Page 9814]]

    Nedzi], a member of the committee, stand?
        Mr. [Lucien N.] Nedzi: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Yates: The distinguished gentleman from Michigan is my good 
    friend. Is it in order to inquire as to whether the gentleman from 
    Michigan is opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Nedzi: I will allay the gentleman's fears. He is.
        Mr. Yates: I will withdraw.
        The Speaker: The Chair had not reached that point yet. The 
    Chair would have asked that question.
        Is the gentleman from Michigan opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Nedzi: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies. Without objection, a 
    second will be considered as ordered.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Member demanding a second on the motion 
to suspend the rules was entitled to recognition for debate against the 
motion.(11) 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See 105 Cong. Rec. 17600, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 1, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.28 A member of the committee reporting a bill, who is opposed 
    to the bill, has prior right to recognition to demand a second on a 
    motion to suspend the rules.

    On Dec. 1, 1941,(12) Mr. J. Harry McGregor, of Ohio, and 
Mr. Pehr G. Holmes, of Massachusetts, arose simultaneously to demand a 
second on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill. Mr. Holmes 
responded to the inquiry of Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, by saying 
that he was not opposed to the bill. Mr. McGregor was recognized to 
demand a second after he stated that he was opposed to the bill and was 
a member of the committee which reported it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 9276, 9277, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 13.29 The Speaker accords priority of recognition to demand a 
    second on a motion to suspend the rules to a minority member of the 
    committee reporting the bill who qualifies as being opposed to the 
    motion.

[[Page 9815]]

    On Sept. 20, 1976,(13) during consideration of H.R. 
14319 (the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act) in the House, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 122 Cong. Rec. 31328, 31333, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
            All three Members demanding a second were minority Members, 
        with Mr. Carter ranking on the committee reporting the bill, 
        Mr. Broyhill junior on that committee, and Mr. Symms not on the 
        committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 14319) to amend 
    the Public Health Service Act and the Social Security Act to revise 
    and improve the authorities under those acts for the regulation of 
    clinical laboratories, as amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

                                  short title

            Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Clinical 
        Laboratory Improvement Act of 1976''. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    demand a second.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is each of the gentlemen who request a 
    second opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Symms: I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Broyhill: I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, so am I, in its present form.
        Mr. Symms: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Symms: Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
    Carter) say that he is opposed to the bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Carter) did say he is opposed to the 
    bill, in its present form.
        Mr. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my demand for a second.
        Mr. Broyhill: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from North Carolina 
    opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Broyhill: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, a second will be 
    considered as ordered.
        There was no objection.

    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).

Seniority as Factor

Sec. 13.30 Recognition of Members to offer amendments

[[Page 9816]]

    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,(15) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New 
York, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of recognition for 
amendments under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 95 Cong. Rec. 9936, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offered 
    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 recognition, 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. 13.31 Recognition under the five-minute rule in the Committee of 
    the Whole is within the discretion of the Chair, and the Chair is 
    not required in every instance to recognize members of the 
    legislative committee reporting the bill in order of their 
    seniority.

    On Oct. 2, 1969,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 14000, military procurement 
authorization. Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, recognized 
Robert C. Wilson, of California, a minority member of the Committee on 
Armed Services which had reported the bill, to offer an amendment. Mr. 
Lucien

[[Page 9817]]

N. Nedzi, of Michigan, inquired whether members of the committee were 
not supposed to be recognized in the order of their seniority. The 
Chairman responded ``That is a matter for the Chair's discretion'' and 
proceeded to recognize Mr. Wilson for his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 115 Cong. Rec. 28101, 28102, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.32 The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole gives priority in 
    recognition, in opposition to an amendment printed in the Record 
    and offered after debate is limited, to senior members of the 
    committee reporting the bill regardless of party affiliation.

    On June 7, 1977,(17) during consideration of the Federal 
Employees' Political Activities Act of 1977 (H.R. 10) in the Committee 
of the Whole, Chairman James R. Mann, of South Carolina, responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 17700, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Derwinski [of Illinois]: The Chairman just 
    referred to the situation whereby debate was limited, which is 
    under clause 6, rule XXIII, and under that procedure any Member who 
    has filed and published an amendment is protected in his right to 
    call up the amendment and is entitled to 5 minutes to explain the 
    amendment.
        My parliamentary inquiry is: How will the Chair determine the 
    appropriate Member to speak in opposition to the amendment? In 
    other words, what will qualify a Member to speak in opposition to 
    these pending amendments?
        The Chairman: The Chair will endeavor to recognize committee 
    members who are opposed, and if there is more than one committee 
    member desiring to speak in opposition to the amendment, the Chair 
    will seek to recognize the most senior of the committee members. 
    The matter of party affiliation will not be controlling.

Sec. 13.33 While the matter of 
    recognition to offer amendments in Committee of the Whole under the 
    five-minute rule is within the discretion of the Chairman, members 
    of the reporting committee(s) are normally accorded prior 
    recognition in order of committee seniority.

    During consideration of House Resolution 1186 (providing for 
consideration of H.R. 39, the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act) in the House on May 17, 1978,(18) the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 124 Cong. Rec. 14139-45, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Christopher J.] Dodd [of Connecticut]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 1186 
    and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .

[[Page 9818]]

        The Clerk read the resolution. . . .
        Mr. Dodd: Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1186 provides for the 
    consideration of H.R. 39, the Alaska National Interest Lands 
    Conservation Act of 1978. This resolution provides for an open rule 
    with 3 hours of general debate; 2 hours to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and 1 hour to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. . . .
        Mr. [Morris K.] Udall [of Arizona]: The Chair will tell us, 
    will he not, that the rules and customs of the House would 
    ordinarily indicate that the floor managers of the bill or members 
    of the appropriate committees would be recognized ahead of other 
    Members in case there were more than one substitute to be offered?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The Chair will state 
    that recognition of Members will be under the control of the Chair 
    at the time that the House is in the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Charles A. Vanik (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bauman: I would like to ask the Chair whether it is not 
    true, under the precedents of the House, that any member of either 
    committee has a right to be recognized to offer amendments; of 
    course, the chairman and ranking minority member first and other 
    Members after that, may be recognized to offer amendments, so that 
    no restriction is imposed on any Member's right to offer amendments 
    under this rule?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman has correctly stated the general principles relating to 
    recognition.

--Chair May Base Recognition on Seniority or on Preferential Status of 
    Amendments

Sec. 13.34 The order of recognition to offer amendments is within the 
    discretion of the Chair, who may either base his initial 
    recognition on committee seniority or upon the preferential voting 
    status of the amendments sought to be offered; thus, where both a 
    pending amendment and a substitute therefor are open to perfecting 
    amendments, the Chair has the discretion of first recognizing 
    either the senior committee member, or a junior committee member 
    whose amendment would be first voted upon, where both amendments 
    could ultimately be pending at the same time.

    The following proceedings occurred during consideration of the 
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979 in the

[[Page 9819]]

Committee of the Whole on May 15, 1979: (20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 11135, 11136, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Seiberling) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John F.] Seiberling [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: Is this to the Udall substitute?
        Mr. Seiberling: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
    to the Udall-Anderson bill, which is actually a series of technical 
    amendments which I will ask unanimous consent to offer en bloc. . . 
    .
        The Chairman: Since there is no other amendment pending to the 
    Udall substitute, the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio may be 
    offered. . . .
        Mr. [John B.] Breaux [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, assuming 
    there is an amendment to be offered to the so-called Breaux-Dingell 
    merchant marine version, that would take precedence over an 
    amendment to the so-called Udall-Anderson interior bill?
        The Chairman: The Chair has the option either to recognize the 
    senior Member first or to first recognize that Member seeking to 
    offer the amendment which will be preferential and first voted 
    upon.
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    amendments at the desk for the Breaux-Dingell bill.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the 
    amendments.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Mr. Seiberling was senior to Mr. Huckaby on the Committee on 
        Interior and Insular Affairs, but Mr. Huckaby's amendment was 
        to be voted on first and he represented the majority position 
        on the committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Huckaby's amendments to the original 
amendment were subsequently agreed to.(3) Mr. Seiberling 
then indicated that he had amendments to the substitute, and Mr. 
Huckaby that he had further amendments to the original amendment. As 
noted above, the Chair would have discretion to

[[Page 9820]]

recognize either Member; but the Chair indicated that in either case, 
the question would not be put on amendments to the substitute until all 
amendments to the original amendment had been disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 125 Cong. Rec. 11152, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limitation on Debate Under Five-minute Rule as Affecting Priority of 
    Recognition

Sec. 13.35 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited to 5 minutes 
    the remaining time for debate on an amendment, the five-minute rule 
    is in effect abrogated and the Chair may in his discretion 
    recognize two Members to equally control the time in support of and 
    in opposition to the amendment (granting priority of recognition to 
    control the time in opposition to a member of the committee 
    handling a bill).

    On June 22, 1977,(4) during consideration of H.R. 7797 
(the foreign assistance and related agencies appropriation bill for 
fiscal 1978) in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair made an 
announcement regarding debate under the five-minute rule. The 
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 20291, 20292, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto close in 5 
    minutes.
        The motion was agreed to.
        The Chairman: (5) Let the Chair make this 
    announcement. There is no way that the Chair can divide 5 minutes 
    among all who wish to speak. Therefore, under the prerogative of 
    the Chair, the Chair will recognize one proponent and one opponent 
    each for 2\1/2\ minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair at this time recognizes the proponent, the gentleman 
    from New York (Mr. Wolff). . . .
        The Chairman: Is there any member of the committee who wishes 
    to be recognized in opposition to the amendment?
        If not, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Weiss) as an opponent of the amendment.

Sec. 13.36 A limitation on debate abrogates the five-minute rule and 
    the ordinary criteria for priority of recognition, and the Chair 
    may extend priority of recognition under a limitation to Members 
    seeking to offer amendments not printed in the Record, before 
    members of the reporting committee.

    On June 27, 1979,(6) it was demonstrated that, where 
time had been limited for debate under the five-minute rule in 
Committee of

[[Page 9821]]

the Whole, the Chair could continue to recognize Members under the 
five-minute rule and then as the expiration time approached allocate 
the remaining time among Members seeking to offer amendments not 
printed in the Congressional Record, and Members opposing such 
amendments. The proceedings during consideration of H.R. 4389 (the 
Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare 
appropriations) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 125 Cong. Rec. 17018, 17029, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the balance of the bill be considered as 
    read, open to amendment at any point, and that all debate on the 
    bill and all amendments thereto close at 8:30 p.m.
        The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to make an announcement. We 
    have less than 45 minutes of the allocated time. The Chair would 
    like for all those Members who have amendments which are not 
    printed in the Record--not printed in the Record--to please rise 
    and remain standing so that the Chair can get the names of the 
    Members and try to recognize them for the offering of their 
    amendments.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
    for approximately 3 minutes.
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, is it not normal practice to 
    recognize members of the committee before we recognize other 
    Members?
        The Chairman: Not when a time limitation has been imposed. That 
    rule does not apply, but the Chair will try to protect all the 
    Members who do 
    not have amendments printed in the Record.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Conte: If some member of the committee opposes one of these 
    amendments, may that Member rise and speak against an amendment?
        The Chairman: Certainly.

Sec. 13.37 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on a 
    bill and all amendments thereto, the five-minute rule may be 
    abrogated at any time the Chair in his discretion deems it 
    necessary to divide the remaining time; and if such limitation is 
    to a time certain several hours in the future, the Chair may in his 
    discretion continue to proceed under the five-minute rule until he 
    desires to allocate remaining time on possible amendments, and may 
    then divide that time between proponents and com

[[Page 9822]]

    mittee opponents of amendments before they are offered.

    During consideration of the Department of Defense authorization 
bill (H.R. 3519) in the Committee of the Whole on July 16, 
1981,(8) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 127 Cong. Rec. 16005, 16044, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: . . . I was wondering 
    if we could agree that we would limit the debate on this bill and 
    all amendments thereto until 5 o'clock tonight, so we would then 
    know whether or not we have to come back tomorrow. I think that 
    would give the Members ample time and ample opportunity to speak. 
    That still allows 6\1/2\ hours more time for amendment and debate.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
    this bill and all amendments thereto terminate at 5 p.m. today.
        The Chairman: (9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: Under the precedents of the House, the Chairman 
    has the power in this situation to allocate time, a limitation 
    having been imposed. The Chair will on the Moffett amendment, if 
    offered, allocate 9 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
    Moffett) and 9 minutes to the opposition. Following that the Chair 
    will, if time remains, allocate 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Foley) and if he offers an amendment to any 
    opposition if there is any, and then what time may be remaining the 
    Chair will allocate to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Minish) 
    if he offers an amendment, 1 minute, to be divided equally between 
    any proponents or opponents.
        Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Alabama will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Dickinson: I was just wondering if the Chair could clear up 
    for us the definition of ``opponents.'' The Chair is going to 
    recognize the proponent for 9 minutes and the opponent for 9 
    minutes. Does that mean the committee, or does that mean some 
    identified person?
        The Chairman: That means a senior member of the committee in 
    opposition.

Sec. 13.38 Where there was pending an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute for a bill and the permissible degree of amendments 
    thereto, the Chair indicated in response to parliamentary inquiries 
    that a motion to limit debate on the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute and all amendments thereto was in order although the 
    bill itself had not been read, and that all Members would be 
    allocated equal time under the limitation regardless of com

[[Page 9823]]

    mittee membership but that Members seeking to offer amendments 
    could be first recognized.

    On June 10, 1976,(10) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration a bill relating to the State and Local Fiscal 
Assistance Act of 1972 (H.R. 13367), a mo-tion to limit debate was 
offered 
and the proceedings that followed were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 17380, 17381, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on the Brooks amendment and 
    all amendments thereto end by 6 p.m. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . I do not remember 
    the bill being open at any point to amendment.
        The Chairman: (11) The motion of the gentleman from 
    New York, as the Chair understood it, was that all debate on the 
    Brooks amendment and all amendments thereto end at 6 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: So that the motion is in order?
        The Chairman: The motion is in order. It is limited to the 
    Brooks amendment and amendments thereto. . . .
        Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Pickle: Mr. Chairman, under the proposed time limitation, 
    would the Chair tend to recognize a Member who is not a member of 
    the committee? For instance, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Adams) has an important amendment, and if he is not recognized 
    within the time limitation, would the chairman of the committee let 
    the gentleman be recognized?
        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: I do not have control of the 
    time. I think the answer, obviously, is that he will be recognized.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that under limitation of 
    time committee members no longer have priority in seeking 
    recognition. Time is equally allocated.
        So the motion was agreed to.

Sec. 13.39 Where debate under the five-minute rule on a bill and all 
    amendments thereto has been limited by motion to a time certain 
    (with approximately 90 minutes remaining) the Chair may in his 
    discretion continue to recognize Members under the five-minute 
    rule, according priority to members of the committee reporting the 
    bill, instead of allocating time between proponents and opponents 
    or among all Members standing, where it cannot be determined what 
    amendments will be offered.

    On July 29, 1983,(12) during 
consideration of the International

[[Page 9824]]

Monetary Fund authorization (H.R. 2957) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the Chair responded 
to several parliamentary inquiries regarding recognition following 
agreement to a motion to limit debate to a time certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 21649, 21650, 21659, 21660, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill, H.R. 2957, be 
    considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
    any point.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Rhode Island?
        There was no objection.
        The text of title IV and title V is as follows:

                  TITLE IV--INTERNATIONAL LENDING SUPERVISION

            Sec. 401. This title may be cited as the ``International 
        Lending Supervision Act of 1983''. . . .

        Mr. St Germain: I have a motion, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        I now move that all debate on the bill, H.R. 2957, and all 
    amendments thereto, cease at 12 o'clock noon. . . .
        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is for the Chair to 
    please state the process by which we will do our business from now 
    until the time is cut off. . . .
        Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, would 
    it not be in order at this time to ask that the time be divided 
    between the proponents and the opponents of this measure, since 
    there is a limitation on the time?
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair believes not, because 
    the time has been limited on the entire bill. It would be very 
    difficult to allocate time to any one particular party or two 
    parties when the Chair has no knowledge of the amendments that will 
    be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that members of the 
    committee should be given preference in terms of recognition?
        The Chairman: That is true. At the time the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania was recognized, he was the only one seeking 
    recognition.

Sec. 13.40 Where under a time limitation only five minutes of debate is 
    available in opposition both to an amendment and to a substitute 
    therefor printed in the Record, one Member cannot simultaneously be 
    recognized for 10 minutes in opposition to both amendments, but 
    must be separately recognized on each amendment, with preference of 
    recognition being accorded to members of the committee reporting 
    the bill.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the

[[Page 9825]]

Whole on June 27, 1985,(14) during consideration of H.R. 
1872 (Department of Defense authorization for fiscal 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 131 Cong. Rec. 17799-802, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Insert the following new 
    section at the end of title X (page 200, after line 4): . . .

            (a) Limitation of Funds Authorized for Fiscal Year 1986.--
        None of the funds appropriated pursuant to the authorizations 
        of appropriations in this or any other Act may be used for the 
        production of the 155-millimeter artillery-fired, atomic 
        projec-tile. . . .

        Mr. [Vic] Fazio [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Insert the following new 
        section at the end of title X (page 200, after line 4): . . .

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and the 
    amendment to the amendment.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, at this 
    time, I would ask a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. . . .
        My inquiry is that since there were two offerings, an amendment 
    and an amendment to the amendment in the form of a substitute, 
    would the opposition now be exercising its prerogative in using 10 
    minutes in opposition to both?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) That is correct, 
    except that the gentleman from New York rose in opposition to the 
    Markey amendment. There would be 5 minutes of debate left in 
    opposition to the Fazio substitute. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I rose in opposition to both 
    amendments, both the Markey amendment and the Fazio amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman can only rise in opposition to one amendment at a time, 
    and when he rose, the Chair understood him to rise first in 
    opposition to the Markey amendment. That leaves only 5 minutes in 
    opposition to the Fazio substitute amendment.
        Any Member wishing to rise in opposition to the Fazio 
    substitute amendment may, and a member of the committee is 
    recognized before other Members.

Motion To Recommit

Sec. 13.41 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;

[[Page 9826]]

    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,(16) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 121 Cong. Rec. 22014, 22015, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (17) The question is on the passage of 
    the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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 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 Com

[[Page 9827]]

    mittee 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:

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

Sec. 13.42 In recognizing Members to move to recommit, the Speaker 
    gives preference first to the ranking minority member of the 
    committee reporting the bill, and then to the remaining minority 
    members of that committee in the order of their rank.

    On June 18, 1957,(18) 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 
recogni

[[Page 9828]]

tion for a motion to recommit would be determined by 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 103 Cong. Rec. 9516, 9517, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. 
    Keeney] and is therefore senior. Under the rules and precedents of 
    the House, the Chair therefore must recognize the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Poff].(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See also 110 Cong. Rec. 5147, 88th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 12, 1964; 
        and 105 Cong. Rec. 11372, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 19, 1959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.43 Recognition for a motion to recommit is accorded to the 
    ranking minority member of the committee reporting a bill, even 
    though that member is opposed to the measure merely ``in its 
    present form.''

    On Mar. 12, 1964,(20) Mr. Robert J. Corbett, of 
Pennsylvania, offered a motion to recommit a pending bill reported from 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, of which he was a 
minority member. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, inquired 
whether he was opposed to the measure, and he stated he was opposed to 
the bill ``in its present form.'' Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, also a 
minority member of the committee, but lower in rank than Mr. Corbett, 
stated that he should be recognized to offer the motion to recommit, 
being unqualifiedly opposed to the bill. The Speaker declined to 
recognize Mr. Gross and recognized Mr. Corbett for the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 110 Cong. Rec. 5147, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.44 A minority member of 
    a committee reporting a bill 
    is entitled to recognition to offer a motion to recommit, if 
    opposed to the bill, over a minority Member not on 
    the committee, although the Speaker may have failed to notice the 
    committee member seeking recognition at the time the noncommittee 
    Member sought to offer a mo

[[Page 9829]]

    tion but before it was reported by the Clerk.

    During consideration of the Department of Agriculture appropriation 
bill for fiscal 1976 (H.R. 8561) in the House on July 14, 
1975,(1) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 22620, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (2) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rousselot: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

                  motion to recommit offered by mr. michel

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Illinois is the ranking member 
    of the Committee on Appropriations.
        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was recognized.
        The Speaker: The Chair did not see the gentleman from Illinois.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet and I was standing 
    right here. I had the motion at the desk. I was just standing here 
    as a matter of courtesy.
        The Speaker: The Chair was at fault in that the Chair did not 
    see the gentleman from Illinois because the gentleman from 
    California was addressing the Chair and the Chair was looking in 
    that direction.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel).
        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was recognized and the 
    Clerk was proceeding with the motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: The Chair did not 
    see the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) who was entitled to 
    recognition being the senior member on the Committee on 
    Appropriations and entitled to recognition, and the motion to 
    recommit had not been reported by the Clerk.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel).

Sec. 13.45 In granting recognition to offer a motion to recommit, the 
    Chair first recognizes minority members of the committee reporting 
    the bill who are opposed in order of their seniority, and then 
    other minority Members who are opposed; and in one instance, the 
    Chair recognized a senior member of the committee to offer a motion 
    to recommit even though another Member had sought recognition to 
    offer the motion and had been asked by the Chair if he was opposed 
    to the bill and had responded that he was, the Chair ruling in 
    response to a point of order that recognition in such an instance 
    is not conferred until the Chair has directed the Clerk to report 
    the motion.

[[Page 9830]]

    On Apr. 24, 1979,(3) during consideration of the State 
Department authorization (H.R. 3303) in the House, the following 
exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 125 Cong. Rec. 8360, 8361, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (4) The question is on the engrossment 
    and third reading of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a point of order 
    that the gentleman is not in order in making the motion, since 
    another Member had already been recognized. The Chair has already 
    conferred that recognition and had inquired whether or not the 
    gentleman from Maryland was opposed.
        The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, until the motion has 
    been read,

[[Page 9831]]

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

--By Minority Leader

Sec. 13.46 On one occasion, the Minority Leader asserted a ``preemptory 
    right'' over other minority Members to offer a motion to recommit 
    a reprimand resolution to 
    the Committee on Standards 
    of Official Conduct with instructions to report back forthwith an 
    amendment proposing the more severe punishment of censure (although 
    the ranking minority member of that committee opposed to the 
    reported resolution would ordinarily have been entitled to 
    recognition to offer the motion under Rule XVII, clause 1).

    On July 20, 1983,(5) Minority Leader Robert H. Michel, 
of Illinois, was recognized to offer a motion to recommit House 
Resolution 266 (reprimanding Mr. Daniel B. Crane, of Illinois). The 
proceedings in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 129 Cong. Rec. 20028, 20029, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: . . . I am going to exercise my preemptory right of 
    taking the motion to recommit for myself and it will read as 
    follows. Those of you who want to vote for it can, and those who 
    will not I am certainly not going to have any quarrel with you 
    because, frankly, I think the committee recommendations are good 
    and sound and were based on fundamental good reason. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (6) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Michel of Illinois moves to recommit House Resolution 
        266 to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct with 
        instructions to report the resolution back to the House 
        forthwith with the following amendment: Strike all after the 
        resolving

[[Page 9832]]

        clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            (1) That Representative Daniel B. Crane be censured. . . 
        .(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had recommended that 
        Mr. Crane be reprimanded for sexual misconduct. Mr. Michel 
        offered the recommittal motion to give Members the opportunity 
        to vote on a more stringent penalty (censure) and to prevent 
        other motions, such as postponement as part of recommittal. 
        (Expulsion would not have been germane to reprimand.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [The motion to recommit was agreed to.]

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Michel's assertion of ``preemptory 
right'' as Minority Leader was valid only if no member of the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct qualified as opposed to the resolution 
in its reported form. Apart from members of the committee who are 
opposed to the bill or resolution, however, the Minority Leader can 
preempt all other minority Members of the House in recognition for 
recommittal of a reported bill or resolution.

Opposition to Recommendation To Strike Enacting Clause

Sec. 13.47 In recognizing a Member in opposition to a motion that the 
    Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill back to the House 
    with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, the 
    Chair extends preference to a member of the committee handling the 
    bill.

    On Mar. 1, 1950,(8) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered the preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
and report back the bill under consideration with the recommendation 
that the enacting clause 
be stricken. Chairman Clark W. Thompson, of Texas, ruled that a member 
of the committee reporting the bill had priority of recognition in 
debate to oppose the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 96 Cong. Rec. 2597, 2598, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, I object, 
    and claim time in opposition to the motion.
        Mr. [Carl] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the motion.
        Mr. [Oren] Harris [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Harris: This is a preferential motion to strike out the 
    enacting clause, and I believe a committee member is entitled to 
    recognition.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Hinshaw].
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 9833]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: The gentleman from South Dakota was 
    recognized, was he not?
        The Chairman: The gentleman was recognized by the Chair to make 
    an objection, but not to speak.
        Mr. Hinshaw: Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from South Dakota 
    desires time, I will be glad to yield to him for a minute or so.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Case had objected to a unanimous-
consent request to withdraw the motion.

Sec. 13.48 When no member of the committee from which a bill is 
    reported seeks recognition in opposition to a motion to strike the 
    enacting clause, the Chair may recognize for that purpose a Member 
    from the party other than that of the Member making the motion.

    On Aug. 2, 1955,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 7718, reported from the 
Committee on the District of Columbia. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of 
Michigan, a Republican, offered the motion that the Committee rise and 
report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
clause be stricken. When no member of the Committee on the District of 
Columbia rose to seek recognition in opposition to the motion, Chairman 
Aime J. Forand, of Rhode Island, declined to recognize Mr. H. R. Gross, 
of Iowa, also a Republican, and recognized a Member of the opposite 
party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 101 Cong. Rec. 12997, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 13.49 Priority of recognition in opposition to a preferential 
    motion to recommend that the enacting clause be stricken is 
    accorded to a member of the committee reporting the bill.

    During consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 (H.R. 
10498) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 15, 1976,(10) 
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 30469, 30470, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        The Chairman: (11) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Wright) is recognized

[[Page 9834]]

    for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the motion.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman on the committee?
        Mr. McCormack: No, I am not; but I rise in opposition to the 
    motion.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Rogers) seek recognition? . . .
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington will state his 
    point of order.
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, there is a motion on the floor. I 
    rise in opposition to it.
        As I understand, under the rules, one Member is allowed 5 
    minutes to speak in opposition to a motion like this.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that what the gentleman says 
    is absolutely true.
        However, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Rogers, a member of the committee and manager of the bill] who is 
    on his feet, if he seeks recognition in opposition to the 
    preferential motion.

Sec. 13.50 Members of the committee managing the bill have priority of 
    recognition for debate in opposition to a preferential motion that 
    the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill back to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 5, 1988,(12) during consideration of the Department of 
Defense authorization for fiscal 1989 (H.R. 4264):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 134 Cong. Rec. 9955, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (13) Does any Member 
    desire to rise in opposition to the preferential motion? Members of 
    the committee have priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John G.] Rowland of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the motion.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Connecticut is 
    recognized for 5 minutes.

Debate on Committee Amendment

Sec. 13.51 When a bill is being considered under a closed rule 
    permitting only committee amendments, only two five-minute speeches 
    are in order on an amendment--one in support and one against the 
    amendment--and the Chair gives preference in recognition to members 
    of the committee reporting the bill.

    On May 18, 1960,(14) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 9835]]

ering H.R. 5, amending the Internal Revenue Code, pursuant to House 
Resolution 468, permitting only amendments offered by the reporting 
committee, the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Cleveland M. Bailey, of 
West Virginia, not a member of the committee, stated a parliamentary 
inquiry on whether he could gain recognition under the five-minute 
rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 106 Cong. Rec. 10576, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bailey: I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I oppose 
    the legislation in general.
        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (15) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bailey: On what ground may I get recognition for the 
    purpose of opposing the legislation?
        The Chairman: The Chair recognized the gentleman from Louisiana 
    [Mr. Boggs] for 5 minutes in support of the committee amendment, so 
    the gentleman from Louisiana would have to yield to the 
    distinguished gentleman from West Virginia.
        Mr. Bailey: At the expiration of the 5 minutes allowed the 
    gentleman from Louisiana, may I be recognized to discuss the 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: If no other member of the committee rises in 
    opposition to the amendment, the Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman.

Sec. 13.52 In recognizing members of the committee reporting a bill, 
    the Chair generally recognizes a member in fa-vor of a committee 
    amendment prior to recognizing a member thereof who is opposed.

    On Jan. 30, 1957,(16) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering House Joint Resolution 1311, to authorize the President to 
cooperate with nations of the Middle East, under a resolution 
permitting only committee amendments. A committee [Foreign Affairs] 
amendment was offered, and Mr. Brooks Hays, of Arkansas, a member of 
the committee, rose in opposition to the amendment. Pursuant to a point 
of order, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, extended recognition to 
Mr. Frank M. Coffin, of Maine, a member of the committee who authored 
and supported the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 103 Cong. Rec. 1311, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opposition to More Than One Amendment

Sec. 13.53 Where the Committee of the Whole fixes the time for debate 
    on amendments to a substitute amendment, the Chair in counting 
    those seeking recognition may in his discretion allot a portion of

[[Page 9836]]

    the opposition time to the reporting committee, and may recognize 
    the same committee member in opposition to each amendment.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(17) the Committee of the Whole fixed 
time for 
debate on amendments to a committee substitute. Chairman Chet 
Holifield, of California, then stated, in response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, that the Chair could recognize the same committee member in 
opposition to each amendment offered where no other member of the 
committee sought such recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 1691, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.

        Mr. Case of South Dakota: Under what precedent or ruling is the 
    Chair recognizing a certain member of the committee for 1 minute in 
    opposition to each amendment being offered? That was not included 
    in the motion. Had it been included in the motion, it would have 
    been subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is trying to be fair in the conduct of 
    the committee, and the only gentleman that has arisen on the 
    opposite side has been the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray]. 
    There was no point of order raised at the time that I announced 
    that I would recognize the committee for 1 minute in rebuttal to 
    each amendment.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: But the gentleman from South Dakota 
    got up at the time the Chair proposed to recognize the gentleman 
    from Tennessee a second time. Obviously, when the committee avails 
    itself of the opportunity to make a motion to limit debate it, in a 
    sense, is closing debate, and unless it does seek to limit time and 
    is successful in so doing, in principle it forfeits that courtesy. 
    The Members who have proposed amendments here have been waiting all 
    afternoon to be heard, and if the committee adopted the procedure 
    of seeking to close debate on 20 minutes' notice, with 10 
    amendments pending, it would seem as a matter of courtesy that the 
    committee should restrain itself to one member of the committee who 
    might have been on his feet, but to recognize one gentleman a 
    succession of times seems entirely out of keeping with the spirit 
    of closing debate.
        The Chairman: The Chairman, in the list of names, also read the 
    name of the committee. If the Chair was 
    so inclined, the Chair could recognize two Members for 5 minutes 
    each on amendments, on each side, and that would preclude the 
    others from having any voice in the amendments that are pending, or 
    in the debate.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: That, of course, is true, the Chair 
    could do that. But, ordinarily, under the precedents always 
    followed in the House, when time is closed on amendments, the time 
    is divided among those who are seeking to offer amendments, and 
    unless the motion specifically reserves time to the committee, it 
    has been the precedent to divide the time among

[[Page 9837]]

    those who are seeking to offer amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that the committee is entitled to 
    a rebuttal on any amendment that is offered, and has so announced, 
    and there was no point of order made at the time. The Chair 
    sustains its present position.

Debate Provisions of Trade Act

Sec. 13.54 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,(18) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 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: (19) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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 favoring 
        and those opposing the bill or resolution. . . .

        My query to the Chair as a part of my reservation is, if the 
    unanimous-

[[Page 9838]]

    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.