[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§ 14. Of Member in Control]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9838-9855]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                    B. RIGHT TO RECOGNITION
 
Sec. 14. -- Of Member in Control

                            Cross References
Designation of manager and opposition, see Sec. 27, infra.
Interruptions of Member in control, see Sec. 32, infra.
Management by reporting committee, see Sec. 26, infra.
Manager losing or surrendering control, see Sec. 33, infra.
Member in control and amendments, see Ch. 27, supra.
Member in control closing debate, see Sec. Sec. 72 (House debate), 76 
    (general debate in Committee of the Whole), 78 (five-minute debate 
    in Committee of the Whole), infra.
Member in control as member of committee in control, see Sec. 13, 
    supra.
Priority of Member in control on specific motions and questions, see 
    Sec. Sec. 16 et seq., infra.
Role of manager, see Sec. 24, infra.
Special orders and Members in control, see Sec. 28, infra.
Yielding of time by Member in control, see Sec. Sec. 29-31, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Generally

Sec. 14.1 Where more than one Member seeks recognition under the five-
    minute rule in the House as in the Com

[[Page 9839]]

    mittee of the Whole, the Speaker recognizes the Member in charge of 
    the bill or resolution if he seeks recognition.

    On Sept. 11, 1945,(20) Mr. Robert F. Rich, of 
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of Illinois, arose at the same 
time seeking recognition on a resolution called up by Mr. Sabath and 
being considered (by special order) in the House as in the Committee of 
the Whole. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Sabath, since 
he had priority of recognition as the Member in charge, and then 
answered parliamentary inquiries on the order of recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 91 Cong. Rec. 8510, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rich: After the reading of section 4 of the bill which 
    contained subsections (a), (b), and (c), could not a Member have 
    risen to strike out the last word and have been recognized?

        The Speaker: The gentleman did not state for what purpose he 
    rose. The gentleman from Illinois who is in charge of the 
    resolution was on his feet at the same time. The Chair recognized 
    the gentleman from Illinois, and the gentleman from Illinois made a 
    preferential motion.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: Must a Member on the floor addressing the Speaker 
    state the purpose for which he addresses the Speaker before he may 
    be recognized?
        The Speaker: Two Members rose. The Speaker always has the right 
    to recognize whichever Member he desires. The Chair recognized the 
    gentleman from Illinois who was in charge of the resolution. The 
    gentleman from Illinois made a preferential motion; the Chair put 
    the motion and it was adopted.

Sec. 14.2 Where the Member handling a bill on the floor and a minority 
    Member both seek recognition, the Chair gives preference to the 
    former.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 2388, economic opportunity 
amendments, reported by the Committee on Education and Labor, and under 
the management of its Chairman, Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky. Mr. 
Edward J. Gurney, of Florida, sought recognition from the Chair to 
offer an amendment, but Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, 
recognized Mr. Perkins to submit 
a unanimous-consent request (to close debate at a certain hour). Mr. 
Gurney's point of order against recognition of Mr. Perkins was 
overruled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.3 The member of the committee in charge of a bill is

[[Page 9840]]

    entitled to prior recognition over other Members of the Committee 
    of the Whole.

    On July 8, 1937,(2) Chairman Marvin Jones, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of recognition on the 
pending bill and indicated that the legislative committee member in 
charge of the bill would be entitled to recognition over other Members 
of the Committee of the Whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 81 Cong. Rec. 6946, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition Under Five-minute Rule

Sec. 14.4 In bestowing recognition under the five-minute rule in the 
    Committee of the Whole, the Chair gives preference to the chairman 
    of the legislative committee reporting the bill under 
    consideration.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(3) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule a bill reported from the 
Committee on Education and Labor, chaired by Carl D. Perkins, of 
Kentucky. Mr. Edward J. Gurney, of Florida, sought recognition and 
started to offer an amendment. The Chairman then recognized Mr. 
Perkins, the chairman of the committee and manager of the bill, to 
submit a unanimous-consent request on closing debate, and then 
subsequently recognized Mr. Gurney to offer his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.5 Under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole, the 
    Member handling a bill has preference in recognition for debate but 
    the power of recognition remains with the Chair and the Member 
    cannot ``yield'' himself time for debate.

    On Mar. 26, 1965,(4) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
was the Member in charge of debate on H.R. 2362, the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, which was being considered for 
amendment under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. 
Powell arose and stated ``I yield myself 5 minutes.'' Chairman Richard 
Bolling, of Missouri, stated as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 111 Cong. Rec. 6113, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman cannot yield himself 5 minutes. The Chair assumes 
    he moves to strike out the last word.

    Mr. Melvin R. Laird, of Wisconsin, objected that Mr. Powell had not 
moved to strike out the last word, and then made such motion himself. 
However, the

[[Page 9841]]

Chairman recognized Mr. Powell for that motion, since he was the 
manager of the bill and chairman of the Committee on Education and 
Labor.

Sec. 14.6 In recognizing Members to offer amendments, the Chair gives 
    preference to the chairman of the committee reporting the bill.

    On July 12, 1962,(5) Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Michael 
A. Feighan, of Ohio, that he would be recognized at the proper time to 
offer a substitute to a pending amendment. The Chairman then extended 
prior recognition to Mr. Thomas E. Morgan, of Pennsylvania, Chairman of 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs, which had reported the pending bill, 
to offer an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 108 Cong. Rec. 13391, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 14.7 Recognition to offer amendments is first extended to the 
    manager of a bill, and the fact that the Committee of the Whole has 
    just completed consideration of one amendment offered by the 
    manager does not preclude his being recognized to offer another.

    On Apr. 6, 1967,(6) Mr. Robert W. Kastenmeier, of 
Wisconsin, was the Member in charge of H.R. 2512, being considered for 
amendment in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Kastenmeier had offered an 
amendment, which was adopted by the Committee. He then immediately 
offered another amendment. Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, made a 
point of order against recognition for that purpose, and Chairman John 
H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, overruled the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 8617, 8618, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: The gentleman from Wisconsin just 
    offered an amendment, and certainly I as a member of the committee 
    ought to have the privilege of offering an amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin is manager of the 
    bill. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

--After Limitation on Debate

Sec. 14.8 The Committee of the Whole having agreed to limit debate 
    under the five-minute rule on an amendment and all amendments 
    thereto, the Member in charge of the bill may be recognized to 
    speak under the limitation although he has already spoken on the 
    amendment.

[[Page 9842]]

    On June 25, 1952,(7) during consideration of amendments 
to a bill in the Committee of the Whole, a motion was adopted to close 
debate on a pending amendment and all amendments thereto at a certain 
time. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, answered a parliamentary 
inquiry as to the right to recognition, under the limitation, of the 
Member in charge of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 98 Cong. Rec. 8028, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Under this limitation is 
    the chairman of the committee, who has already spoken once on this 
    amendment, entitled to be heard again under the rule?
        The Chairman: The chairman of the committee could rise in 
    opposition to a pro forma amendment and be recognized again.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: Under the limitation?
        The Chairman: Yes; under the limitation.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A limitation on debate abrogates the five-
minute rule, and the Chair may allocate the remaining time among those 
Members desiring recognition, including Members who have already 
spoken. If sufficient time remains under the limitation to allow the 
five-minute rule to continue to operate, a Member who has spoken on an 
amendment may again be recognized to speak in opposition to an 
amendment thereto (including a pro forma amendment).

Manager Designated by Committee

Sec. 14.9 Where the Committee on Rules designates a member to call up a 
    report from the committee, only that member may be recognized for 
    that purpose, unless the resolution has been on the calendar for 
    seven legislative days without action.

    On June 6, 1940,(8) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, 
sought recognition to call up for consideration a special resolution 
from the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill. 
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, inquired whether Mr. Fish had 
been authorized to call up the resolution and Mr. Fish stated he had 
not. He asserted that calling up such a resolution was ``the privilege 
of any member of the Rules Committee.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 86 Cong. Rec. 7706, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker, in declining to recognize Mr. Fish for that purpose, 
stated:

        The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman from New York to call 
    up the

[[Page 9843]]

    resolution unless the Record shows he was authorized to do so by 
    the Rules Committee. The Chair would be authorized to recognize the 
    gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] to call up the rule in the 
    event the resolution offered by the gentleman from New York, which 
    was the unfinished business, is not called up.
        Mr. Fish: Will the Chair permit me to read this rule?
        The Speaker: The Chair would be glad to hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Fish: Rule XI reads as follows:

            It shall always be in order to call up for consideration a 
        report from the Committee on Rules (except it shall not be 
        called up for consideration on the same day it is presented to 
        the House, unless so determined by a vote of not less than two-
        thirds of the Members voting).

        I submit, according to that rule and the reading of that rule, 
    Mr. Speaker, that any member of the Rules Committee can call up the 
    rule, but it would require the membership of the House to act upon 
    it by a two-thirds vote in order to obtain consideration.
        The Speaker: The precedents are all to the effect that only a 
    Member authorized by the Rules Committee can call up a rule, unless 
    the rule has been on the calendar for 7 legislative days without 
    action.
        Mr. Fish: Of course, there is nothing to that effect in the 
    reading of the rule.
        The Speaker: The Chair is relying upon the precedents in such 
    instances.

--Calendar Wednesday Bill

Sec. 14.10 Where a committee designates a member thereof to call up a 
    bill on Calendar Wednesday, no other Member may take such action.

    On Feb. 24, 1937,(9) Speaker Pro Tempore William J. 
Driver, of Arkansas, answered a parliamentary inquiry preceding the 
call of committees on Calendar Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 81 Cong. Rec. 1562, 1563, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, where a bill has been reported 
    favorably by a committee, and the chairman of the committee is 
    authorized to call the bill up on Calendar Wednesday, when the 
    chairman absents himself from the floor, and when other members of 
    the committee are present, is it proper for one of the other 
    members to call up the bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman 
    that under the rules only the chairman or the member designated by 
    the committee is authorized to call up a bill.

Privileged Resolution

Sec. 14.11 Debate on a privileged resolution is under the hour rule and 
    the Member in charge of the resolution has control of the time.

    On Feb. 27, 1963,(10) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of 
Maryland, called

[[Page 9844]]

up, by direction of the Committee on House Administration, House 
Resolution 164, a privileged resolution providing funds for the 
Committee on Armed Services. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to control of the 
time for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 109 Cong. Rec. 3051, 3052, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: As I understand it, the 
    gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] has said that he would yield 
    time to Members on the minority side, and that is what we want. If 
    there is another minority Member who wants to be recognized at this 
    time, it would be in order under the rules for that Member to be 
    granted time in order that he might make such statement as he might 
    want to make.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that under the rules of the 
    House and pursuant to custom that has existed from time immemorial, 
    on a resolution of this kind the Member in charge of the resolution 
    has control of the time and he, in turn, yields time. The gentleman 
    from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] in charge of the resolution has yielded 
    10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio. If the gentleman from Ohio 
    desires to yield to some other Member, he may do so but he may not 
    yield a specific amount of time.

    Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, the Majority Leader, then made the 
following statement on distribution of time to the minority:

        Mr. Albert: . . . Of course, the principle is well established 
    under the rules of the House and has been observed by both parties 
    from time immemorial, that the Member recognized to call up the 
    resolution has control of the time under the 1-hour rule. But, I 
    would like to advise the gentleman, as the gentleman from Maryland 
    has, I am sure the gentleman from Maryland will yield at least half 
    of the time to the minority.

    On Feb. 25, 1954,(11) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control of 
debate on a privileged resolution called up by the Member in charge--
the chairman of the Committee on House Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 100 Cong. Rec. 2282, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Karl M.] LeCompte [of Iowa]: Under the rules the Chairman 
    has control of the time.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has 1 hour to yield to whomsoever he 
    desires.
        Mr. LeCompte: And he has control of the matter of offering 
    amendments.
        The Speaker: A committee amendment is now pending. No other 
    amendment can be offered unless the gentleman yields the floor for 
    that purpose.
        Mr. LeCompte: A motion to recommit, of course, belongs to some 
    member of the minority opposed to the resolution. Would any motion 
    except a motion to recommit be in order except by the gentleman in 
    charge of the bill?
        The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman yields for that purpose.

[[Page 9845]]

        The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 1 hour.

Absence or Death of Manager

Sec. 14.12 Where the chairman and ranking minority member, named in a 
    resolution to control debate on a bill, are absent and have not 
    designated Members to control the time, the Speaker or Chairman of 
    the Committee of the Whole recognizes the next ranking majority and 
    minority members for control of such debate.

    On July 23, 1942,(12) the House adopted a resolution 
from the 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 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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: . . . 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.

Sec. 14.13 Where a Member designated in a resolution to call up a bill 
    dies, the Speaker may recognize another Member in favor of the 
    bill.

    On Oct. 12, 1942,(13) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
overruled a point of order against consideration of a resolution 
discharged from the Committee on Rules, where the resolution named as 
manager a Member no longer living:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 88 Cong. Rec. 8080, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: If no Member wishes to be heard on the point of 
    order the Chair is ready to rule.

[[Page 9846]]

        A matter not exactly on all fours with this, but similar to it, 
    was ruled on a few weeks ago. On that occasion both the chairman 
    and the ranking minority member of the committee were absent. A 
    point of order was made against consideration of the bill because 
    of that fact.
        In ruling on the point of order at that time the Chair made the 
    following statement:

            The Chair thinks the Chair has rather a wide range of 
        latitude here. The Chair could hold, and some future Speaker 
        might hold, that since the chairman and the ranking minority 
        member of the committee are not here there could be no general 
        debate because there was nobody here to control it; but the 
        present occupant of the Chair is not going to rule in such a 
        restricted way.
            The Chair is going to recognize the next ranking majority 
        member and the next ranking minority member when the House goes 
        into the Committee of the Whole.

        We have here even a stronger case than that. The absence of a 
    living Member may be his or her fault; the absence of a dead signer 
    of this petition is not his fault.

        There is a rule followed by the chancery courts which might 
    well be followed here. It is that equity never allows a trust to 
    fail for want of a trustee. Applying that rule to the instant case, 
    the Chair holds that the consideration of this legislation will not 
    be permitted to fail for want of a manager. After all, an act of 
    God ought not, in all good conscience, deprive this House of the 
    right to consider legislation; especially so, since this House has 
    by its vote on the motion to discharge expressed its intent. . . .
        The Chair overrules the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Alabama.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See the similar rulings of Speaker Rayburn, on the same bill, at 88 
        Cong. Rec. 8066, 8120, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unanimous-consent Consideration of Bill

Sec. 14.14 Where the House has agreed to consider a bill called up by 
    unanimous consent, the Member calling up the bill is recognized for 
    one hour, and amendments may not be offered by other Members unless 
    the Member in charge yields for that purpose.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(15) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, asked for the unanimous-consent consideration of a bill 
in the House. Mr. Arch A. Moore, Jr., of West Virginia, a minority 
Member, sought recognition to offer an amendment. Since Mr. Walter was 
recognized to control time (one hour) on the bill, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, asked Mr. Walter whether he was willing to 
accept the amendment, and Mr. Walter answered in the affirmative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 22606-09, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily a Member in charge of a

[[Page 9847]]

bill considered in the House loses the floor if he yields for an 
amendment. In this instance, the amendment was non-controversial and 
the Speaker put the question on the amendment and on the bill.

--Private Bill

Sec. 14.15 When a private bill is called up by unanimous consent for 
    consideration in the House, the Member making the request is 
    recognized for one hour.

    On Mar. 12, 1963,(16) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of private bill 
H.R. 4374, to proclaim Sir Winston Churchill an honorary citizen of the 
United States, in the House. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control and time 
for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 109 Cong. Rec. 3993, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. The Journal indicates 
        that Mr. Eller asked for consideration in the House, although 
        the Record does not. H. Jour. 279, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, under what 
    circumstances will this resolution be considered? Will there be any 
    time for discussion of the resolution, if unanimous consent is 
    given?
        The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry of the 
    gentleman from Iowa, if consent is granted for the present 
    consideration of the bill, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] 
    will be recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from New York may 
    yield to such Members as he desires to yield to before moving the 
    previous question.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, 
    is some time to be allocated to this side of the aisle?
        Mr. Celler: I intend to allocate half of the time to the other 
    side.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Normally a Private Calendar bill called up 
by unanimous consent is considered under the five-minute rule in the 
Committee of the Whole, unless the request specifies consideration ``in 
the House'' (discharging the Committee of the Whole).

Recognition for Motion or Request To Limit Debate

Sec. 14.16 During five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole, the 
    Member managing the bill is entitled to prior recognition to move 
    to close debate on a pending amendment over other Members who 
    desire to debate 
    the amendment or to offer amendments thereto.

[[Page 9848]]

    On Nov. 25, 1970,(17) the Committee of the Whole was 
conducting five-minute debate on H.R. 19504, which was being handled by 
Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of Illinois. Mr. Kluczynski was recognized by 
Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, to move to close all debate on 
the pending amendment immediately. The motion was adopted. Mr. Jonathan 
B. Bingham, of New York, then attempted to offer another amendment, and 
Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, attempted to debate the amendment 
on which debate had been closed. The Chairman stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 116 Cong. Rec. 38990, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair has not recognized the gentleman from New York or the 
    gentleman from Indiana. The Chair had recognized the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Kluczynski). The gentleman from Indiana misunderstood 
    the Chair had recognized him. The Chair had to recognize the 
    gentleman from Illinois as chairman of the subcommittee.

Sec. 14.17 While it is customary for the Chair to recognize the manager 
    of the pending bill to offer motions to 
    limit debate, any Member 
    may, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, move to limit debate at the 
    appropriate time in Committee of the Whole.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 31, 1975: 
(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 121 Cong. Rec. 26223, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (19) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays of Ohio: Would it be in order for a person not a 
    member of the committee to move to close debate on whatever pending 
    amendment there might be, and all amendments thereto, to this bill 
    when we go into the Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker: It is the practice and custom of the House that 
    the Chair looks to the manager of the bill for motions relating to 
    the management of the bill.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: If I made the motion--and I will make it more 
    specific--would it be out of order or in violation of the rules?
        The Speaker: A proper motion could be entertained at the proper 
    time.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: I am prepared to make such a motion and I 
    will seek the proper time.

Sec. 14.18 Although any Member may move, or request unanimous consent, 
    to limit debate under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the 
    Whole, the manager of the bill has the prior right to recognition 
    for such purpose.

[[Page 9849]]

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 19, 1984,(20) during consideration of the Immigration 
Reform and Control Act (H.R. 1510):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 17055, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel E.] Lungren [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment end at 7:15.
        The Chairman: (1) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: Objection, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Chairman, I move----
        Mr. [Romano L.] Mazzoli [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I should 
    be recognized as the floor manager.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky 
    (Mr. Mazzoli).
        Mr. Mazzoli: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Mazzoli: Mr. Chairman, I believe under the rule, the 
    gentleman from Kentucky, the floor manager, is entitled to be heard 
    and to be recognized on matters limiting debate.
        Let me just respectfully suggest to my friend, the gentleman 
    from California, the House has made it clear we are not going to 
    protract the debate tonight. . . .
        Mr. Lungren: Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, I 
    indulged the gentleman from Texas and asked him to withdraw his 
    motion on the pretext that I would make a motion, as I have the 
    ability to do under the rule, that debate on this amendment shall 
    end in a half hour. Since I had the gentleman agree to withdraw it, 
    I feel bound that I will then continue with this motion, and I so 
    move.
        Mr. Mazzoli: Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman say 45 minutes? I 
    understand 45 minutes will be enough.
        The Chairman: If the gentleman from Kentucky has no motion, the 
    gentleman from California is entitled to make his motion. Does the 
    gentleman offer a motion?
        Mr. Lungren: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I move that debate on the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright) be concluded at 7:30.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 14.19 A Member is not entitled to five minutes of debate on a pro 
    forma amendment in Committee of the Whole until the Chair has 
    recognized him for that purpose; and the subcommittee chairman who 
    is managing the bill is entitled to prior recognition to move to 
    limit debate over a Member seeking recognition to offer a pro forma 
    amendment.

    During consideration of the foreign assistance and related agen

[[Page 9850]]

cies appropriation bill for fiscal year 1978 (H.R. 7797) in the 
Committee of the Whole on June 22, 1977,(2) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 123 Cong. Rec. 20288, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jonathan B.] Bingham [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I was on my 
    feet seeking recognition.
        The Chairman: (3) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from Maryland rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask unanimous 
    consent for a limitation on the debate.
        The Chairman: Will the gentleman make his request.
        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
    that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto cease 
    in 10 minutes.
        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, I object.

        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on 
    this amendment and all amendments thereto cease in 10 minutes.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the 
    Chairman recognized the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bingham) and 
    he was halfway down the aisle.
        The Chairman: The Chair saw both gentlemen at the same time, 
    and he did recognize the gentleman from Maryland because the Chair 
    had to, by custom and rule, I believe, recognize the chairman of 
    the subcommittee. . . .
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Long).
        The motion was agreed to.

Recognition for Motion That Committee Rise

Sec. 14.20 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is always 
    within the discretion of the Member handling the bill before the 
    Committee.

    On June 16, 1948,(4) Mr. George W. Andrews, of Alabama, 
was managing the consideration in the Committee of the Whole of a bill 
being read for amendment under the five-minute rule, and moved that the 
Committee rise, several Members desiring recognition be-ing absent. Mr. 
George A. Smath-ers, of Florida, interjected that he would like to be 
heard on the motion. Chairman Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        That is not a debatable motion. It is always within the 
    discretion of the

[[Page 9851]]

    gentleman handling the bill to move that the Committee rise.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Any Member may be recognized under the 
five-minute rule to offer the preferential motion that the Committee 
rise. Under general debate, only a Member controlling time for general 
debate may make the motion.

--Minority Member in Control Where Chairman Opposed to Concurrent 
    Resolution

Sec. 14.21 On one occasion, the ranking minority member of a 
    subcommittee who had introduced and controlled general debate in 
    favor of a concurrent resolution being considered in Committee of 
    the Whole, moved that the Committee rise and report the resolution 
    to the House favorably, where the chairman who had reported the 
    resolution had offered the motion for its consideration but had 
    controlled time in opposition.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 24, 1983,(5) during consideration of House Concurrent 
Resolution 113 (approving MX missile funds):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 129 Cong. Rec. 13594, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the concurrent resolution.
        The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:

                                H. Con. Res. 113

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That the House of Representatives and the Senate 
        of the United States approve the obligation and expenditure of 
        funds appropriated in Public Law 97-377 for MX missile pro-
        curement. . . .

        Mr. [Jack] Edwards of Alabama [ranking minority member of the 
    Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations]: Mr. 
    Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the 
    concurrent resolution back to the House with the recommendation 
    that the concurrent resolution be agreed to.
        The motion was agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although Mr. Joseph P. Addabbo, of New 
York, chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, arguably had the 
responsibility under Rule XI, clause 2(l)(1)(a) to take all necessary 
steps to bring the matter to a vote, he did not want to move that the 
Committee of the Whole rise and report the concurrent resolution 
favorably, since he opposed that motion.

[[Page 9852]]

Recognition in Opposition to Motion Recommending That Enacting Clause 
    Be Stricken

Sec. 14.22 The Chair normally recognizes the manager of a bill for five 
    minutes if he rises in opposition to a preferential motion that the 
    enacting clause be stricken, and no preference in recognition is 
    granted to the minority.

    An illustration of the proposition described above occurred on Apr. 
23, 1975,(7) in the Committee of the Whole during 
consideration of the Vietnam Humanitarian Assistance Act (H.R. 6096):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 121 Cong. Rec. 11505, 11506, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, 
    I offer a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. O'Neill 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: (8) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill) in support of his preferential 
    motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas E.] Morgan [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the preferential motion offered by the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this: 
    Does the grant of time by the Chairman to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Morgan) preclude anyone on the minority side from 
    rising in opposition 
    to the preferential motion and being heard?
        The Chairman: The Chair will say that that is correct.
        Mr. du Pont: Under the rules, is not time designated to the 
    minority side?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that is not a prerogative of 
    the minority on a preferential motion of this sort.

Sec. 14.23 The chairman of a committee managing a bill is entitled to 
    recognition for debate in opposition to a motion that the Committee 
    rise and report the bill to the House with the recommendation that 
    the enacting clause be stricken, over the minority manager of the 
    bill.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Apr. 28, 1983,(9) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 129 Cong. Rec. 10425, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Thursday,

[[Page 9853]]

    April 21, 1983, pending was the committee amendment in the nature 
    of a substitute which is considered as an original resolution for 
    the purpose of amendment. All time for debate on the text of the 
    resolution had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there further amendments?

                 preferential motion offered by mr. au coin

        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. AuCoin moves that the committee do now rise and report 
        the resolution back to the House with the recommendation that 
        the resolving clause be stricken out.

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion. . . 
    .
        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the preferential motion.
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin] [Chairman of Committee 
    on Foreign Affairs]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
    preferential motion and ask for a vote.

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the preferential motion.

Where Committee Discharged From Consideration of Privileged Resolution

Sec. 14.24 If a motion to discharge a committee from the further 
    consideration of a privileged resolution is agreed to, the 
    resolution is debatable under the hour rule, and the proponent of 
    the resolution is entitled to prior recognition.

    The principle described above was illustrated on Sept. 29, 
1975,(11) during proceedings in the House relating to House 
Resolution 718 (a resolution of inquiry, directing the Secretary of the 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to furnish documents 
relating to public school systems to the House):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 30748, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James M.] Collins of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    privileged motion to discharge the Committee on Education and Labor 
    from consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 718).
        The Speaker: (12) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the motion as follows:

            Mr. Collins of Texas moves to discharge the Committee on 
        Education and Labor from consideration of House Resolution 718.

        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 718

            Resolved, That the Secretary of Health, Education, and 
        Welfare, to the extent not incompatible with the

[[Page 9854]]

        public interest, is directed to furnish to the House of 
        Representatives, not later than sixty days following the 
        adoption of this resolution, any documents containing a list of 
        the public school systems in the United States which, during 
        the period beginning on August 1, 1975, and ending on June 30, 
        1976, will be receiving Federal funds and will be engaging in 
        the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance, and any 
        documents respecting the rules and regulations of the 
        Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with respect to 
        the use of any Federal funds administered by the Department for 
        the busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance.

        The Speaker: The question is on the privileged motion to 
    discharge.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Mr. Collins of Texas: Mr. Speaker, basically, what I am 
    concerned with here is full documentation from the Secretary of 
    HEW.
        I filed this in the Congressional Record and have met the 
    necessary requirements for a resolution of inquiry. . . .
        The other body at this time is discussing the appropriation 
    bill on HEW and has raised the subject over and over again 
    regarding transportation of students to achieve racial balance and 
    how that is affecting the budget. Therefore, it is absolutely 
    essential to us, in our deliberations here in this House, that we 
    have a concise, clear, complete, and factual statement from the 
    Secretary of HEW as defined in my House Resolution 718.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.

Moving the Previous Question

Sec. 14.25 A Member calling up a privileged resolution in the House may 
    move the previous question at any time, except to take another 
    Member from his feet, notwithstanding his prior allocation of 
    debate time to another Member.

    On Mar. 9, 1977,(13) it was demonstrated that the Member 
recognized to control debate in the House may, by moving the previous 
question, terminate utilization of debate time he has previously 
yielded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 6816, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (14) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 
    minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson), for the 
    minority, pending which I yield myself 5 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the other amendment that the gentleman offers 
    proposes to give the House the opportunity to vote up or down in a 
    certain period of time regulations proposed by the select 
    committee. What that does, and it really demonstrates an almost 
    total lack of understanding of the rules, is to upgrade regulations 
    into rules. The Members of the House will have the opportunity to 
    deal with all laws and 


[[Page 9855]]

    rules. That is provided in the resolution. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. . 
    . .
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: I have time remaining. Do I 
    not have a right to respond to the gentleman from Missouri?
        The Speaker: Not if the previous question has been moved, and 
    it has been moved.
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Even though the gentleman mentioned 
    my name and made numerous references to me for the last 10 minutes?
        The Speaker: The Chair is aware of that.
        The question is on ordering the previous question.