[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[C. Recognition on Particular Questions]
[Â§ 16. As to Bills]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 9876-9895]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                 C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
 
Sec. 16. As to Bills


    Generally, members of a committee reporting a bill are entitled to 
prior recognition thereon in the House or in the Committee of the 
Whole,(8) debate usually being controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority members.(9) 
Factors affecting recognition or control of debate also include special 
rules,(10) the chairman's opposition to a 
measure,(11) and consideration under a discharge 
procedure.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 16.1, infra.
 9. For further discussion of control of debate time, see Sec. Sec. 24 
        et seq., infra.
10. See Sec. Sec. 16.2, 16.3, infra.
11. See Sec. 16.16, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 16.13-16.15, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This section includes discussion of principles of recognition 
affecting consideration of Calendar Wednesday,(13) Private 
Calendar,(14) and District of Columbia (15) 
bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. Sec. 16.17-16.21, infra.
14. See Sec. Sec. 16.11, 16.25-16.30, infra.
15. See Sec. Sec. 16.22-16.24, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Amendments to bills, see Sec. 19, infra and Ch. 27, supra.
Bill-passage procedure, see Ch. 24, supra.
Consideration of bills in Committee of the Whole, see Ch. 19, supra.
Control and distribution of time for debate on bills, see Sec. Sec. 24 
    et seq., infra.
Discharging bills from committee consideration, see Ch. 18, supra.
Effect of special orders on debate on bills, see Sec. 28, infra.
Factors bearing on consideration; special orders and unanimous-consent 
    agreements, see Sec. 2, supra.
Losing or surrendering control on bills, see Sec. Sec. 33, 34, infra.
Management of bills by reporting committee, see Sec. 26, infra.
Points of order, waiver of, see Ch. 31, infra.
Prior rights of Member in control of bill, see Sec. 14, supra.
Prior rights to recognition of committee in control of bill, see 
    Sec. 13, supra.
Special orders, varying order of business, see Ch. 21, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Priority of Members of Reporting Committee

Sec. 16.1 Under a practice of long standing, members of a committee 
    reporting a bill are 
    ordinarily entitled to prior 
    recognition thereon in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

    On Jan. 12, 1933,(16) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Lindsay C. Warren, of North Carolina, recognized Mr. William

[[Page 9877]]

J. Granfield, of Massachusetts, to offer an amendment to the pending 
bill. Mr. Bertrand H. Snell, of New York, made the point of order that 
recognition should have been granted to a member of the committee 
reporting the bill who was on his feet. The following discussion and 
ruling by the Chair ensued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 76 Cong. Rec. 1679, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Snell: Mr. Chairman, there is no written rule in the book, 
    but it has been the unbroken precedent, as far as I know anything 
    about the practice in this House, that a member of a committee 
    demanding recognition in debate is recognized in preference to 
    anyone not a member of the committee. I would like to call the 
    attention of the Chair to section 750 of the Manual--

            In debate members of the committee, except the Committee of 
        the Whole, are entitled to priority of recognition in debate. . 
        . .

        I respectfully submit to the Chair, as the gentleman from Maine 
    [Mr. Snow] is a member of that committee, he is entitled to 
    recognition before the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
    Granfield]. I trust the present Chair will so hold, as it is 
    certainly in interest of orderly procedure in the consideration of 
    legislation.
        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: If the Chair will 
    indulge me for just a moment, the precedent referred to by the 
    gentleman from New York has been recognized from time immemorial. 
    It has always been the practice first to recognize members of the 
    committee. It is bottomed upon the idea of advancing the 
    consideration of legislation in an orderly way. It is presumed that 
    members of the committee, who have given consideration to the bill 
    under consideration, have given more thorough consideration to the 
    bill than Members outside the committee; and to advance the orderly 
    working of the House is the real reason why in the long-established 
    practice of the House the Speaker and Chairman have recognized 
    members of the committee in priority over other Members--to the end 
    that orderly procedure would be advanced thereby.
        The Chairman: The Chair understands the precedents of the 
    House. The Chair has uniformly given preference to members of the 
    committee on each occasion when he has presided. The Chair agreed 
    to recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Granfield]. The 
    gentleman was on his feet and asking for recognition before any 
    member of the committee. However, the Chair will follow the 
    precedents and recognize the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Snow] to 
    offer an amendment, which the Clerk will report.

    On Feb. 10, 1941,(17) Chairman Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, responded to a parliamentary inquiry on the nature of the 
practice of extending priority for recognition to members of the 
committee reporting a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 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

[[Page 9878]]

    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.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For more detailed discussion of the priority of committee members 
        in debate, see Sec. 13, supra.
            See, generally, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 753-757 
        (1995). For the opening and closing of debate by the Member 
        reporting a measure from committee, see Rule XIV clause 3, 
        House Rules and Manual Sec. 759 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Chair extends priority of 
recognition to members of the reporting committee, no point of order 
lies against the manner in which the Chair exercises the power of 
recognition.

Consideration Under Special Rule--Bill Must Be Called Up by Member 
    Designated by Committee

Sec. 16.2 The adoption of a resolution making in order the 
    consideration of a bill does not necessarily make such bill the 
    unfinished business the next day and such bill can only be called 
    up by a Member designated by the committee to do so.

    On July 19, 1939,(19) after the House had adopted a 
resolution from the Committee on Rules making in order the 
consideration of a bill, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 84 Cong. Rec. 9541, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude V.] Parsons [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 9879]]

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Parsons: Mr. Speaker, the House having adopted the rule, is 
    not this bill the unfinished business of the House on tomorrow?
        The Speaker: Not necessarily. The rule adopted by the House 
    makes the bill in order for consideration, but it is not 
    necessarily the unfinished business. It can only come up, after the 
    adoption of the rule, by being called up by the gentleman in charge 
    of the bill.

--Special Rule Allowing Speaker To Recognize Any Member of Committee

Sec. 16.3 Where a resolution provides that general debate on a bill be 
    ``equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority 
    members'' of a committee, instead of specifying, as is usual 
    practice, that control of debate be by the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the committee, the Speaker may recognize any 
    member of the committee to call up the bill and control the time.

    On Sept. 26, 1966,(1) the House adopted House Resolution 
923, making in order the consideration of H.R. 1511, the economic 
opportunity amendments for 1966. The resolution provided that eight 
hours of general debate would be ``equally divided and controlled by 
the majority and minority members of the Committee on Education and 
Labor,'' without specifying, as such resolutions usually do, that 
debate be controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 23762, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the adoption of the resolution, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, to move that the 
House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of the bill.
    In the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Jack B. Brooks, of Texas, 
made the following decision on recognition for control of general 
debate:

        Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] will 
    be recognized for four hours to control the time for the majority, 
    and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ayres] will be recognized to 
    control the time for the minority.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Ayres was the ranking minority member 
of the committee and supported the views of Mr. Powell, the chairman, 
that the resolution was an affront to the authority of committee 
chairmen. Mr. Powell had indicated, prior to the offering of the 
resolution on the floor of

[[Page 9880]]

the House, that if he were recognized to move that the House resolve 
into the Committee of the Whole, and recognized to control debate, he 
would not oppose the resolution.

--Absence of Chairman and Ranking Minority Member

Sec. 16.4 In the absence of the chairman and ranking minority member, 
    named in a resolution to control debate on a bill, the Speaker or 
    Chairman of the Committee of the Whole recognizes the next ranking 
    majority and minority members for control of such debate (where the 
    chairman and ranking minority member have not designated other 
    Members to control the time).

    On July 23, 1942,(2) 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 88 Cong. Rec. 6542-46, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Death of Designated Manager

Sec. 16.5 Where a Member designated in a resolution (discharged from 
    the Committee on Rules) to call up a bill had died, the Speaker 
    recognized another Member in favor of the bill to call it up.

    On Oct. 13, 1942,(3) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
rejected a point of order that he had improperly recognized a Member to 
call up a bill, the resolution providing for consideration having named 

as manager a Member no longer 
living (the resolution had been brought up pursuant to a successful 
motion to discharge). The Speaker reiterated his ruling of the previous 
day that the resolution could properly be considered and that another 
Member in favor of the bill could be recognized to manage the 
bill.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 88 Cong. Rec. 8120, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. See the similar rulings of Speaker Rayburn, on the same bill, at 88 
        Cong. Rec. 8066, 8080, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1942.

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

[[Page 9881]]

--Special Rule Waiving Points of Order Against Legislation on 
    Appropriation Bill

Sec. 16.6 On one occasion, the Chairman ruled that while members of the 
    Committee on Appropriations are ordinarily entitled to recognition 
    in debate on a general appropriation bill, where a rule is adopted 
    waiving points of order against legislative provisions in the bill, 
    recognition would be divided between members of the committee and 
    other Members interested in the bill.

    On Mar. 5 and 6, 1941,(5) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3737, a general appropriations bill, pursuant to House 
Resolution 126, waiving all points of order against the bill. Chairman 
John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, made the following statement on the 
matter of recognition under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 87 Cong. Rec. 1846, 1921, 1922, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pace] has been seeking 
    recognition. The Chair realizes that this is an appropriation bill, 
    and that ordinarily members of that committee would be entitled to 
    preference, but under the rule adopted yesterday we make this part 
    of it a legislative bill by making certain legislation in order. 
    The Chair is going to divide the time between the members of the 
    Appropriations Committee and the other Members of the House who are 
    vitally interested in this proposition. . . .
        . . . 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.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Chairman Rankin indicated that his ruling 
was not to be taken as a precedent, differing as it did from customary 
practice extending priority of recognition to members of the committee 
reporting a bill.

Unanimous-consent Request for Consideration

Sec. 16.7 In extending recognition for unanimous-consent requests for 
    the consideration of bills, the Speaker may take into account the 
    stage of consideration, whether the bill is of an emergency na

[[Page 9882]]

    ture, and whether the bill is public or private.

    On July 1, 1932,(6) Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, 
made the following statement regarding recognition for the unanimous-
consent consideration of bills:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 75 Cong. Rec. 14511, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In order that gentlemen may understand the situation, let the 
    Chair state how it is the Chair recognizes certain gentlemen. The 
    Chair must decline to recognize a great many gentlemen who have 
    meritorious matters, because the Chair must have some yardstick 
    that can be applied to every Member of the House. The gentleman 
    from Minnesota [Mr. Pittenger] had a bill that had passed the House 
    unanimously, had gone to the Senate, and had an amendment placed on 
    it there, adding one name. The Chair thinks in a case of that kind, 
    where unanimous consent has to be given, it is well enough for the 
    Chair to recognize the Member for that purpose; but the Chair will 
    not recognize gentlemen to take up as an original proposition 
    private claims or other matters unless they are of an emergency 
    nature and apply to the general public rather than to one 
    individual.

Sec. 16.8 The Speaker declines to recognize for a unanimous-consent 
    request for the consideration of a measure until the Member making 
    such request has consulted the leadership.

    On July 11, 1946,(7) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
refused to recognize Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce, of Connecticut--who sought 
to ask for the unanimous-consent consideration of a rent-control 
measure (H.J. Res. 372)--because she had not consulted with or notified 
the Speaker of the request. Following remarks by Mr. John Phillips, of 
California, that consideration of the measure was being refused on a 
``technicality,'' the Speaker made the following comments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 92 Cong. Rec. 8726, 8728, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . [T]he present occupant of the chair knows that when 
    Members intend to ask unanimous consent to bring up a bill they 
    have always properly consulted with both the majority and minority 
    leaders of the House and with the Speaker. That has been the 
    unfailing custom. The Chair is exercising that right and intends to 
    continue to exercise it as long as he occupies the present position 
    because the Chair wants the House to proceed in an orderly fashion.
        Mrs. Luce: Mr. Speaker, may I now ask unanimous consent to 
    bring up the bill tomorrow?
        The Speaker: The Chair will meet that question when the time 
    comes.
        The Chair would certainly like the courtesy of being consulted 
    in advance.

Sec. 16.9 In recognizing a Member to ask unanimous consent for the 
    consideration of a vitally important measure, the

[[Page 9883]]

    Speaker declared that if any amendments were to be offered he would 
    ask the Member to withdraw the request and move to suspend the 
    rules and pass the bill.

    On July 5, 1943,(8) just prior to an adjournment of two 
months, Mr. John D. Dingell, of Michigan, asked unanimous consent for 
the immediate consideration of S. 35, to authorize the use of certain 
metals for war purposes. Mr. Frederick C. Smith, of Ohio, raised a 
parliamentary inquiry as to whether the bill would be subject to 
amendment. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, indicated that time was of 
the essence and declared:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 89 Cong. Rec. 7213, 7214, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman is correct, it would be subject to amendment, but 
    the Chair is going to be very frank with the gentleman. If there 
    are going to be amendments offered to this bill the Chair will 
    request the gentleman from Michigan to withdraw his request, and 
    then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Michigan to move 
    to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The Chair thinks it vitally 
    important.

--Member Had Been Recognized for Different Purpose

Sec. 16.10 The Minority Leader having been recognized to proceed for 
    one minute and in that time having asked unanimous consent for the 
    consideration of a bill, the Speaker held that the gentleman was 
    not recognized for that purpose.

    On Jan. 26, 1944,(9) Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, the Minority Leader, asked unanimous consent to proceed 
for one minute. When Mr. Martin attempted to ask for the consideration 
of a bill, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, held he had not been 
recognized for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 90 Cong. Rec. 746, 747, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to proceed for 1 minute.
        The Speaker: The Chair will not recognize any other Member at 
    this time for that purpose but will recognize the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts.
        Mr. Martin of Massachusetts: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the 
    generosity of the Chair.
        I take this minute, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make a 
    unanimous-consent request and I think it should be explained.
        I agree with the President that there is immediate need for 
    action on the soldiers' vote bill. A good many of us have been 
    hoping we could have action for the last month. To show our 
    sincerity in having action not next week but right now, I ask 
    unanimous con

[[Page 9884]]

    sent that the House immediately take up the bill which is on the 
    Union Calendar known as S. 1285, the soldiers' voting bill.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Massachusetts was not 
    recognized for that purpose.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.

Private Bill Called Up by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 16.11 When a private bill is called up by unanimous consent in the 
    House, the Member making the request is recognized for one hour.

    On Mar. 12, 1963,(10) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
asked for the unanimous-consent consideration in the House of a private 
bill, H.R. 4374, conferring honorary citizenship on Sir Winston 
Churchill. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that if consent were granted for 
the consideration of the bill, Mr. Celler would be recognized for one 
hour with the right to yield to other Members and to move the previous 
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 109 Cong. Rec. 3993, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Normally a Private Calendar bill called up 
by unanimous consent is considered under the five-minute rule, since 
private bills when reported are referred to the Calendar of the 
Committee of the Whole House.

Recognition Where House Has Agreed To Consider Bill by Unanimous 
    Consent

Sec. 16.12 Where the House has agreed to consider in the House 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 he yields for that purpose.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(11) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, called up S. 3361, relating to entry of alien skilled 
specialists and asked unanimous consent for its ``immediate 
consideration in the House.'' When there was no objection to the 
request, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. 
Walter for one hour. Mr. Arch A. Moore, Jr., of West Virginia, 
attempted to offer an amendment, and the Speaker inquired of Mr. Walter 
whether 
he would accept the amendment since he was in control. Mr. Walter 
accepted the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 22606-09, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The procedure is otherwise if unani

[[Page 9885]]

mous consent is requested only for the ``immediate consideration'' of a 
bill which belongs on the Union Calendar. In that case the bill is 
considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole, and Members may 
be recognized to offer amendments under the five-minute rule unless the 
previous question is ordered.

Discharged Bill

Sec. 16.13 Where a motion to discharge a committee from a resolution 
    providing for consideration of an unreported bill has been agreed 
    to, the proponents of that motion are entitled to prior recognition 
    for the purpose of managing the bill.

    On June 14, 1932,(12) Speaker Pro Tempore Henry T. 
Rainey, of Illinois, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of 
recognition on a bill discharged from committee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 75 Cong. Rec. 12911, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: The House yesterday 
    discharged the Committee on Rules from the consideration of a 
    resolution making it a special order to consider the adjusted-
    service compensation bill. The House then adopted the resolution 
    which makes it today in order as a special order to consider that 
    bill. The House having voted in favor of the proponents of the 
    legislation and the Ways and Means Committee having made an adverse 
    report on it, the effect of the vote of the House is to turn down 
    the Ways and Means Committee and place control of that legislation 
    in the hands of its friends. Under these circumstances and under 
    the parliamentary rules and procedure of the House, are not the 
    friends of the legislation entitled to have charge of the bill when 
    we go into Committee of the Whole to consider it and to have the 
    management of the measure on the floor?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The proponents and the friends of the 
    bill will, of course, have charge of it from now on.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Consideration of bills on which a motion to discharge has prevailed 
        is governed by Rule XXVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 908 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The discharge ``rule'' read as follows:

                            House Resolution 220

        Resolved, That upon the day succeeding the adoption of this 
    resolution a special order be, and is hereby, created by the House 
    of Representatives for the consideration of H.R. 7726, 
    notwithstanding the adverse report on said bill. That on said day 
    the Speaker shall recognize the Representative from the first 
    district of Texas, Wright Patman, to call up H.R. 7726, a bill to 
    provide for the immediate payment to veterans of the face value of 
    their adjusted-service certificates, as a special order of 
    business, and to move that the House resolve itself into the Com

[[Page 9886]]

    mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
    consideration of the said H.R. 7726. After general debate, which 
    shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed four 
    hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the Member of the 
    House requesting a rule for the considering of the said H.R. 7726 
    and a Member of the House who is opposed to the said H.R. 7726, to 
    be designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be read for amendment 
    under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the 
    bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to 
    the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the 
    previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
    the amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
    except one motion to recommit. The special order shall be a 
    continuing order until the bill is finally disposed of.

Sec. 16.14 So as not to interfere with the right of a Member to move to 
    go into the Committee of the Whole for consideration of a bill 
    before the House as a result of a motion to discharge, the Speaker 
    announced he would entertain unanimous-consent requests only for 
    extensions of remarks.

    On Apr. 26, 1948,(14) the House agreed to a motion to 
discharge a committee from the further consideration of a bill. The 
motion had been offered by Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina. 
Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then made the 
following announcement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 4841, 4842, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Without interfering with the rights of the gentleman from South 
    Carolina to move to go into the Committee of the Whole, the Chair 
    will entertain consent requests for extensions of remarks only.

Sec. 16.15 In recognizing a Member to control time for debate in 
    opposition to a bill taken away from a committee through the 
    operation of the discharge rule, the Speaker recognizes the 
    chairman of the committee having jurisdiction of the subject matter 
    if he be opposed (where the rule provides for general debate in 
    opposition to be controlled by ``the Member of the House who is 
    opposed'' to the bill).

    On Aug. 14, 1950, the House agreed to a motion to discharge the 
Committee on Rules from the further consideration of a resolution 
making in order the consideration of a bill within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. The resolution, which 
was then adopted, provided that the bill be considered on the following 
day, and provided

[[Page 9887]]

that general debate be ``equally divided and controlled by the Member 
of the House requesting the rule for the consideration of said H.R. 
8195 and the Member of the House who is opposed to the said H.R. 8195, 
to be designated by 
the Speaker.'' On Aug. 15, 1950, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled 
as follows on recognition to control time for debate in opposition to 
the bill:

        Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 667, the Chair 
    designates the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray], chairman of 
    the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to control time for 
    debate in opposition to the bill H.R. 8195.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 12543, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Chairman Opposed Reported Bill

Sec. 16.16 On one occasion, the chairman of a committee, acting at the 
    President's request, introduced a bill, presided over the hearings 
    in committee, reported the bill, applied to the Committee on Rules 
    for a special order, and moved that the House resolve itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole; when recognized to control one-half of 
    the debate in the Committee, he then announced his opposition to 
    the measure and turned over management of the bill to the ranking 
    majority member of the committee.

    On June 14, 1967,(16) Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of House Joint Resolution 559, providing for the 
settlement of a railroad labor dispute. The House had adopted House 
Resolution 511 making in order the consideration of the bill and 
providing that general debate be controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 113 Cong. Rec. 15822, 15823, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of 
Arkansas, recognized Mr. Staggers to control one-half the time on the 
bill. Mr. Staggers made the following statement:

        Mr. Chairman, I am here today in a most unusual position. I was 
    requested by the President to introduce the bill we have before us 
    today, and because of my responsibilities as chairman of the 
    committee, I introduced the bill. If the House was to be given an 
    opportunity to work its will on this legisla

[[Page 9888]]

    tion, it was necessary that hearings begin promptly and continue as 
    expeditiously as possible, and I think the record will bear me out, 
    that the hearings before our committee have been prompt, they have 
    not been delayed in any respect.
        In fact we interrupted consideration of a very important piece 
    of health legislation in order to take up this bill. We have heard 
    every witness who wanted to be heard on the legislation. I did this 
    because I felt it to be my responsibility to the House as chairman 
    of the committee.
        Following the conclusion of our hearings I promptly scheduled 
    executive sessions for consideration of the bill and we met as 
    promptly as possible both morning and afternoon and the committee 
    reported the bill to the House.
        Yesterday I went before the Rules Committee as chairman of the 
    committee to present the facts to the Rules Committee and attempt 
    to obtain a rule so that the bill would be considered by the House. 
    I have done these things because I felt it is my responsibility to 
    do so as chairman of the committee.
        Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I was opposed to this bill when I 
    introduced it, and having heard all the witnesses and all the 
    testimony, I am still opposed to it. For that reason I have asked 
    the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] to handle the bill in 
    Committee of the Whole, so that I would 
    be free to express my opposition to it. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes the presentation I desire to make 
    on the bill. At this time I request the gentleman from Maryland 
    [Mr. Friedel], the ranking majority member on the Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce Committee, to take charge of managing the bill on 
    the floor.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The chairman of each committee in the House 
has the responsibility of reporting or causing to be reported any 
measure approved by his committee, and of taking or causing to be taken 
steps to have the matter considered and voted upon in the House, 
regardless of his personal opposition to the measure.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a 
        (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calendar Wednesday Bills

Sec. 16.17 On Calendar Wednesday, debate on bills considered in the 
    Committee of 
    the Whole is limited to two hours, one hour controlled by the 
    Member in charge of the bill and one hour by the ranking minority 
    member of the committee who is opposed to the bill.

    On Apr. 14, 1937,(18) Chairman J. Mark Wilcox, of 
Florida, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that debate on a 
bill (called up under the Calendar Wednesday procedure) in the 
Committee

[[Page 9889]]

of the Whole would be limited to two hours, one hour to be controlled 
by the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
and one hour to be controlled by the ranking minority committee member 
opposed to the bill.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 81 Cong. Rec. 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
19. Rule XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1995), governs 

        the consideration of bills called up 
        by committees under the Calendar Wednesday procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.18 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, if opposed, in the order of their 
    seniority on the committee reporting a bill.

    On Apr. 14, 1937,(20) the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill called up under 
the Calendar Wednesday procedure by the Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce. Chairman J. Mark Wilcox, of Florida, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the order of recognition on the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 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.
        Mr. [Carl E.] Mapes [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts [Mr. Holmes] is the only minority member of the 
    committee who is opposed to the bill.
        The Chairman: Then the gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
    recognized in opposition to the bill.

Sec. 16.19 A Member calling up a bill on Calendar Wednesday must be 
    authorized and directed to do so by the committee having 
    jurisdiction over the bill.

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

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: 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

[[Page 9890]]

    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.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See also 92 Cong. Rec. 8590, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 10, 1946; 
        and 87 Cong. Rec. 5047, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.20 Members of a committee having jurisdiction 
    of a bill on the Union Calendar called up on Calendar Wednesday are 
    entitled to prior recognition to oppose it, but if no member of the 
    committee rises to oppose the bill, any Member may be recognized 
    for the hour in opposition.

    On May 14, 1930,(3) Chairman Scott Leavitt, of Montana, 
ruled that since no member of a committee calling up a bill on Calendar 
Wednesday sought recognition to oppose the bill, any Member of the 
House could be recognized to control one hour's debate in opposition to 
the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 72 Cong. Rec. 8938, 8939, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Duty of Chair To Report Bill

Sec. 16.21 A provision of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 
    later adopted as a House rule, requiring the chairman of each 
    committee to report or cause to be reported promptly any measure 
    approved by his committee or to take or cause to 
    be taken necessary steps to bring a matter to a vote, was cited by 
    the Speaker in overruling a point of order that a committee member 
    did not have authority to call up a bill on Calendar Wednesday.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(4) John Lesinski, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, called up a bill 
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure. Mr. Tom Pickett, of Texas, made 
the point of order that Mr. Lesinski was not entitled to recognition 
for that purpose, not having been expressly authorized by the committee 
to call up the bill under that procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 2162, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, overruled the point of order, 
saying:

        The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Lesinski] has already stated 
    that the committee did give him this authority. The present 
    occupant of the chair has read the minutes of the committee and 
    thinks the gentleman from Michigan is correct.

[[Page 9891]]

        Also the latest rule on this matter is section 133, paragraph 
    (c), of the Legislative Reorganization Act, and there is very good 
    reason for this rule because in times past the chairmen of 
    committees have been known to carry bills around in their pockets 
    for quite a while and not present them.
        The rule is as follows:

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

        The Chair overrules the point of order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. The statute cited was later adopted as part of the standing rules; 
        see Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a 
        (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

District of Columbia Bills

Sec. 16.22 During general debate on District of Columbia business in 
    the Committee of the Whole, in the absence of 
    a unanimous-consent agreement in the House allocating control of 
    general debate, the Chair alternates in recognizing between those 
    for and those against the pending legislation, giving preference to 
    members of the Committee on the District of Columbia.

    On Apr. 11, 1932,(6) Chairman Thomas L. Blanton, of 
Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition in the Committee 
of the Whole during general debate on a District of Columbia 
bill.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. For the proceedings dealing with this principle, see Sec. 12.11, 
        supra.
 7. For District of Columbia business, see Rule XXIV clause 8, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 899 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Privileged Resolution and Other Business Was Considered Before 
    District Business

Sec. 16.23 On a District of Columbia Monday, the Speaker recognized a 
    member of the Committee on Rules to call up a privileged resolution 

    relating to the order of 
    business, and later recognized the chairman of another committee to 
    call up 
    the business made in order thereby, prior to recognizing the 
    chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia to call up 
    District business.

    On Sept. 24, 1962,(8) which was District of Columbia 
Monday, the Committee on the District of Columbia did not assert its 
right to call up District business. Speaker

[[Page 9892]]

John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. William M. Colmer, 
of Mississippi, of the Committee on Rules to call up House Resolution 
804 (privileged resolution making in order the consideration of S.J. 
Res. 224, authorizing the President to call up armed forces 
reservists). Following the adoption of the House resolution, the 
Speaker recognized Carl Vinson, of Georgia, Chairman of the Committee 
on Armed Services, to call up and control 
debate on the measure made 
in order thereby. Thereafter, the Speaker announced it was District of 
Columbia day and then recognized John L. McMillan, of South Carolina, 
Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, to call up 
District business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 20489, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Suspend Rules Is of Equal Privilege

Sec. 16.24 Where a Member seeks recognition to call up District of 
    Columbia business, privileged on District of Columbia Monday, and 
    another Member seeks recognition to suspend the rules and agree to 
    a bill made privileged by unanimous consent, it is within the 
    discretion of the Speaker as to which of the two Members he shall 
    recognize.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(9) which was District of Columbia 
Monday, Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, moved to suspend the rules and 
pass Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to the United 
States Constitution (to prohibit the use of a poll tax as a 
qualification for voting). Thomas G. Abernethy, of Mississippi, a 
member of the Committee on the District of Columbia, made a point of 
order against the motion on the ground that under the rules of the 
House District of Columbia business was privileged and mandatory on 
District of Columbia day. Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, asked to be 
heard on the point of order and stated that suspension motions had been 
transferred to the present day by a unanimous-consent agreement several 
days prior. Mr. Abernethy debated the point of order, as did Mr. Howard 
W. Smith, of Virginia, asserting that Rule XXIV clause 8 required the 
Speaker to recognize for District of Columbia business. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654, 17655, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to 
    transfer the consideration of business under suspension of the 
    rules on Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the

[[Page 9893]]

    consideration of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the 
    rules today is a privileged motion. The matter is within the 
    discretion of the Chair as to the matter of recognition.
        The Chair overrules the point of order.

Private Calendar Bills

Sec. 16.25 Under clause 6 of Rule XXIV, the call of the Private 
    Calendar on the third Tuesday of a month is entirely within the 
    discretion of the Speaker.

    On Oct. 16, 1990,(10) the Chair responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding the Private Calendar:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 136 Cong. Rec. 29646, 101st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, 
    pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIV, today is the day for the call of 
    the Private Calendar. Is the Private Calendar not going to be 
    called today?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore:(11) The Chair will notify 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] that the Chair has 
    complete discretion on the third Tuesday whether to call the 
    Private Calendar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 16.26 The rules do not permit pro forma amendments to bills on the 
    Private Calendar.

    On Feb. 16, 1954,(12) during consideration of the 
Private Calendar, Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, moved to strike 
out the last word and asked unanimous consent to revise and extend his 
remarks. There was no objection to the request and Mr. Hoffman was 
recognized. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then made 
a statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 100 Cong. Rec. 1826, 1827, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair wishes to make a statement in order to clarify the 
    rules of procedure during the calling of the Private Calendar. 
    Inadvertently, the Chair recognized the gentleman from Michigan to 
    strike out the last word. Under the rules of the House, of course, 
    that may be done on bills on the Consent Calendar, but not on the 
    Private Calendar.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 36535-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 14, 
        1967; and 81 Cong. Rec. 7295, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., July 20, 
        1937.
            The consideration of bills on the Private Calendar is 
        governed by Rule XXIV clause 6, House Rules and Manual Sec. 893 
        (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Recognition To Request Extension of Time Declined

Sec. 16.27 During amendment of omnibus private bills the Chair refuses 
    to recognize Members for the purpose of requesting an extension of 
    time under the five-minute rule.

    On July 20, 1937,(14) the House was considering under 
the five-

[[Page 9894]]

minute rule omnibus bills on the Private Calendar. Mr. Alfred F. 
Beiter, of New York, who had the floor, asked unanimous consent to 
proceed for one additional minute when his five minutes expired. 
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 7293-95, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule governing the consideration of these bills, 5 
    minutes on each side is the limit for debate.

    The Speaker then ruled that Mr. Beiter could not be recognized to 
offer a pro forma amendment to the pending bill.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For the basis of the Speaker's ruling, see Rule XXIV clause 6, and 
        comments thereto, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 893-895 
        (1995).
            See also 113 Cong. Rec. 36535-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Dec. 14, 1967; 80 Cong. Rec. 5900, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 
        22, 1936; and 80 Cong. Rec. 3890, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 17, 
        1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Unanimous-consent Request To Address House

Sec. 16.28 During consideration of bills on the Private Calendar, the 
    Chair refuses to recognize Members for unanimous-consent requests 
    to address the House on such bills.

    On May 7, 1935,(16) the Clerk called a bill on the 
Private Calendar and Mr. Charles V. Truax, of Ohio, asked unanimous 
consent to ``proceed for five minutes.'' Speaker Pro Tempore John J. 
O'Connor, of New York, refused to recognize Mr. Truax for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 79 Cong. Rec. 7100, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Recognition in Opposition to Amendment

Sec. 16.29 Recognition in opposition to an amendment to a bill on the 
    Private Calendar goes first to a member of the committee reporting 
    the bill.

    On Dec. 14, 1967,(17) the House was considering a 
private bill under the five-minute rule. Mr. Durward G. Hall, of 
Missouri, rose to be heard in opposition to an amendment, but Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, extended recognition for that 
purpose to Mr. Michael A. Feighan, of Ohio, a member of the committee 
reporting the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 113 Cong. Rec. 36535-37, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Unanimous-consent Requests To Take Up Similar Senate Bills

Sec. 16.30 Where an omnibus private bill is passed containing House 
    bills similar to Senate bills on the Speaker's table, the Speaker 
    recognizes Mem

[[Page 9895]]

    bers for unanimous-consent requests to take up such Senate bills 
    for consideration.

    On Aug. 21, 1935,(18) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of 
Tennessee, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 79 Cong. Rec. 13993, 74th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Permit the Chair to make a statement. In the omnibus bills 
    which were passed on yesterday there were included several bills 
    which had previously passed the Senate and were on the Speaker's 
    table. The Chair feels that those Members who are interested in 
    those particular bills should have an opportunity to ask unanimous 
    consent for the immediate consideration of the Senate bills, so 
    that they can be taken out of the omnibus bills when they are 
    reported to the Senate. The Chair will therefore first recognize 
    Members who have such bills. . . .

    The Speaker then recognized Mr. William A. Pittenger, of Minnesota, 
to ask unanimous consent for the consideration of one of the Senate 
bills.