[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§ 20. For Points of Order and Debate Thereon; Objections and Inquiries; Calls of the House]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10030-10059]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                 C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
 
Sec. 20. For Points of Order and Debate Thereon; Objections and 
    Inquiries; Calls of the House

    Procedural issues, which manifest themselves in points of or-der, 
parliamentary inquiries, responses to requests or motions put by the 
Chair, are, as a rule, not subject to debate. Whatever debate or 
dialogue ensues is for the benefit of the Chair, and occurs under the 
control of the Chair, who can refuse to recognize for debate at all or 
can curtail it when he has heard sufficient argument.

                            Cross References
Call to order for disorderly debate, see Sec. Sec. 48 et seq., infra.
Objections to reading of papers, see Sec. Sec. 81 et seq., infra.
Parliamentary inquiries in general, see Ch. 31, infra.
Point of no quorum in general, see Ch. 20, supra.
Points of order generally, see Ch. 31, infra.
Points of order against amendments, see Chs. 27, 28, supra.
Points of order against appropriation bills, see Chs. 25, 26, supra.
Points of order against conference reports, see Ch. 33, infra.
Points of order against improperly yielding time, see Sec. Sec. 29-31, 
    infra.
Points of order against Senate amendments, see Ch. 32, infra.
Question of consideration and objection to consideration, see Sec. 5, 
    supra.
Reservations of objection entertained in Speaker's discretion, see 
    Sec. 9, supra.
Yielding for parliamentary inquiries, see Sec. 29, 
    infra.                          -------------------

Parliamentary Inquiries: Recognition Within Discretion of Chair

Sec. 20.1 Recognition for the purpose of propounding a parliamentary 
    inquiry is within the discretion of the Chair.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(11) the Clerk was reading the Journal 
when Mr.

[[Page 10031]]

Robert J. Dole, of Kansas, attempted to raise a parliamentary inquiry. 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated he would not 
``entertain any more parliamentary inquiries at this time.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 114 Cong. Rec. 30214-16, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
            At the time of this ruling, consideration of a bill (S.J. 
        Res. 175), to suspend for the 1968 campaign the equal-time 
        requirements for nominees for the offices of President and Vice 
        President, was being delayed by roll calls. Consideration was 
        delayed for 23 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 13, 1932,(12) Mr. Louis T. McFadden, of 
Pennsylvania, rose to a question of ``constitutional privilege'' and 
offered a resolution of impeachment of President Herbert Hoover. The 
resolution was read by the Clerk. Mr. William H. Stafford, of 
Wisconsin, interrupted the reading of the resolution and asked whether 
the Chair would entertain a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 76 Cong. Rec. 399-402, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Thomas L. Blanton, of Texas, objected that it was improper to 
disturb the reading of the resolution by a parliamentary inquiry and 
that only a point of order ``would reach the matter.''
    Speaker John N. Garner, of Texas, stated:

        That is in the discretion of the Chair. The Chair will 
    recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin to make a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

    In response to Mr. Stafford's inquiry, the Speaker stated that the 
question of consideration could not be raised until the resolution was 
read in full. Following the reading of the resolution, it was laid on 
the table.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For the discretion of the Chair over recognition, see Sec. 9, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 8, 1972,(14) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
declined to entertain a parliamentary inquiry not related to the 
pending question (which was the previous question on a conference 
report):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 118 Cong. Rec. 20339, 20340, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I do want to 
    point out that we have most important provisions affecting the 
    Vocational Educational Act of 1963. Certain of those programs will 
    expire unless the conference report is adopted.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry relate 
    to the previous question?
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, it does not relate to the vote on 
    the previous question.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where no Member has the floor for debate, 
it is solely within the Chair's discretion as to whether he will 
recognize a Member for a parliamentary inquiry, but where a

[[Page 10032]]

Member has been recognized for debate, another Member can raise a 
parliamentary inquiry only if yielded to for that purpose, and the time 
consumed by the inquiry and the Chair's response comes out of the time 
allotted to the Member having the floor.

Parliamentary Inquiry During Call of Roll

Sec. 20.2 On one occasion, the Speaker recognized Members to propound 
    parliamentary inquiries during a call of the roll, relating to the 
    pending vote.

    On Oct. 12, 1962,(15) Mr. Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, 
objected to the vote on a pending appropriation bill on the ground that 
a quorum was not present. During an extended call of the roll, Speaker 
John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, entertained a number of parliamentary inquiries and 
clarified the nature and effect of the pending question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 23423-43, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The House was kept in session on this date 
in order that the two Houses might reach agreement on important issues 
before the adjournment sine die. A quorum was not attained and the 
House met on the following day.

Parliamentary Inquiry During Reading of Journal

Sec. 20.3 The Speaker entertained a parliamentary inquiry during the 
    reading of the Journal.

    On Apr. 9, 1964,(16) while the Journal was being read, 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, entertained a 
parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana. The 
Speaker advised Mr. Halleck that he could gain recognition to speak 
briefly at that time by unanimous consent. Without objection, Mr. 
Halleck was recognized for one minute to discuss the scheduling of 
debate on a bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 110 Cong. Rec. 7356, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parliamentary Inquiry Moot Where Speaker Had Recognized Member To 
    Withdraw Resolution

Sec. 20.4 The Speaker, having recognized one Member to 
    propound a parliamentary 
    inquiry on the status of a resolution as ``unfinished business,'' 
    then recognized another Member to withdraw the resolution, thereby 
    eliminating the reason for the inquiry.

[[Page 10033]]

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(17) the House was considering House 
Resolution 665, providing for taking a bill from the Speaker's table 
and agreeing to Senate amendments thereto. Before a vote was had on the 
resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, declared a 
recess pending the receipt of another bill, H.R. 10222, the Food Stamp 
Act of 1964. When the House reconvened, the Speaker announced that the 
unfinished business was the reading of the latter bill. Mr. Oliver P. 
Bolton, of Ohio, raised a parliamentary inquiry as to the status of the 
resolution pending at the recess and the Speaker, without responding to 
the inquiry, recognized Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, the proponent 
of the resolution, who then withdrew the resolution from consideration. 
In answer to further parliamentary inquiries, the Speaker stated that 
the withdrawal of the resolution terminated the reason for the 
parliamentary inquiry and that the Speaker retained the discretion to 
recognize for a parliamentary inquiry and then to decline to respond 
where the inquiry became moot.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. See Sec. 9.50, supra, for the Chair's discretion to decline to 
        recognize for hypothetical questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member Having Floor Need Not Yield for Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 20.5 A Member may not be interrupted by another Member for a 
    parliamentary inquiry without his consent and if the Member who has 
    the floor refuses to yield and demands regular order the Chair will 
    not recognize another Member to propound a parliamentary inquiry.

    On July 8, 1975,(19) the proceedings described above 
occurred in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 121 Cong. Rec. 21628, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell to the amendment in the 
        nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Hebert: . . .

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about which my 
    colleagues have received communications in the last few days from 
    the Sierra Club and from other nationwide conservation 
    organizations. . . .
        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of 
    order to the germaneness of this amendment.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I do not yield for the point of 
    order. The point of order is too late.

[[Page 10034]]

        The Chairman: (20) The Chair rules that the point of 
    order is too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, may we have the regular order. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) refuses 
    to yield.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: That could only be made before the gentleman from 
    Michigan was recognized with respect to his amendment. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask for the regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) refuses 
    to yield.

        Under regular order, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    is recognized.

Recognition for Parliamen-tary Inquiry--May Not Offer Amendment

Sec. 20.6 A Member recognized to propound a parliamentary inquiry may 
    not, having secured the floor for that limited purpose, then offer 
    an amendment.

    On Mar. 12, 1964,(1) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, ruled that where a Member was recognized for a 
parliamentary inquiry, recognition was limited to that purpose and that 
the Member so recognized could not then offer an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 110 Cong. Rec. 5140, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [August E.] Johansen [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Johansen: I direct this inquiry to the Chair as to whether 
    it will be in order if I secure recognition to offer an amendment 
    to the amendment in the nature of a substitute for the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
        The Chairman: Of course, the gentleman, if he is recognized, 
    may offer an amendment.
        Mr. [James H.] Morrison [of Louisiana]: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman secured recognition first and 
    asked the parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has not been recognized, except for 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Morrison: The gentleman has a substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman made the parliamentary inquiry as 
    to whether he could offer an amendment, and the Chair responded 
    that the gentleman could offer an amendment if he was recognized.

Member Recognized for Parliamentary Inquiry May Not Yield

Sec. 20.7 Recognition for a parliamentary inquiry is within the 
    discretion of the Chair, and a Member so recognized

[[Page 10035]]

    may not yield to other Members.

    On Mar. 16, 1988,(2) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 134 Cong. Rec. 4084, 4085, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I was just in my office viewing the proceedings 
    here, and during one of the proceedings, when the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Dornan] was addressing the House, it 
    was drawn to my attention that the Speaker requested that Mr. 
    Dornan's microphone be turned off, upon which Mr. Dornan's 
    microphone was turned off.
        Mr. Speaker, my inquiry of the Chair is: Under what rule does 
    the Speaker decide to gag opposite Members of the House? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The Chair is referring 
    to Mr. Dornan. He requested permission of the Chair to proceed for 
    1 minute, and that permission was granted by the House. Mr. Dornan 
    grossly exceeded the limits and abused the privilege far in excess 
    of 1 minute, and the Chair proceeded to 
    restore order and decorum to the House. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gregg: . . . I have not heard the Chair respond to my 
    inquiry which is what ruling is the Chair referring to which allows 
    him to turn off the microphone of a Member who has the floor?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Clause 2 of rule I.
        Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that that rule be read. I 
    would 
    ask that that rule be read, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It reads, 2. He shall preserve order 
    and decorum, and, in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in 
    the galleries, or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared. . 
    . .
        Mr. Gregg: My parliamentary inquiry is that I want to know how 
    the Chair can specifically turn off the microphone and what rule 
    the Chair does it under, because the Chair has not answered that 
    question.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has responded to the 
    parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from New Hampshire.
        Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time, and yield to the 
    gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin]. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises that a Member may 
    not yield time to another Member under a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry Is Not Intervening Business That Would Preclude 
    Right To Demand Recorded Vote

Sec. 20.8 A parliamentary inquiry relating to a pending motion 
    occurring after the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole has 
    announced the results of a voice vote does not constitute such 
    intervening business as to preclude the right of a Member to demand

[[Page 10036]]

    a recorded vote on the pending motion.

    On July 26, 1984,(4) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration H.R. 11, the Education Amendments of 1984. A motion 
was made to limit debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 130 Cong. Rec. 21249, 21250, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Then, Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the Coats amendment, all substitutes and all 
    amendments thereto, be concluded at 2 p.m.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (5) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [William F.] Goodling [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Goodling: I want to make sure the motion was talking only 
    about this portion of this bill.
        Mr. Perkins: This does not include the Goodling amendment, Mr. 
    Chairman. This does not include the Goodling amendment, the funding 
    of the school programs.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: I want to get a 
    record vote.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: This motion referred to the Coats 
    amendment and all amendments thereto.
        Mr. Walker: That is right, and I want a record vote on the 
    ruling of the Chair.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Those in favor of taking this by 
    recorded vote.
        Mr. Walker: Pending that, Mr. Chairman, I make the point of 
    order that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Richard J.] Durbin [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Durbin: Is it my understanding there was intervening 
    business between the vote which was taken orally, the parliamentary 
    inquiry made by the gentleman?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The intervening business was a 
    parliamentary inquiry that was related to the motion, and no 
    independent business has been taken up.
        Mr. Durbin: As a further parliamentary inquiry of the Chair, 
    does not this parliamentary inquiry and interruption preclude the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania's right to ask for a recorded vote?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: No, it is related to the status of 
    the vote, and of the motion.

Recognition for Parliamentary Inquiry Denied When Point of No Quorum 
    Has Been Made

Sec. 20.9 The Chair has refused to recognize a Member to propound a 
    parliamentary inquiry when a point of no quorum has been made.

    On July 23, 1942,(6) Mr. Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, 
attempted

[[Page 10037]]

to state a parliamentary inquiry directly following a point of no 
quorum by Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
declined to entertain the inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 88 Cong. Rec. 6540, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(7) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled that a parliamentary inquiry could not be 
propounded by Mr. John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, where a point of no 
quorum had been made. After a call of the House had been ordered, the 
Speaker then recognized Mr. Dent to make the point of order relating to 
the call of the House (that the Speaker had ordered the doors to the 
Chamber locked but that not all the doors were in fact closed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 30093, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition for Parliamentary Inquiry Denied After Automatic Rollcall 
    Ordered on Motion To Table Resolution

Sec. 20.10 The Speaker refused to recognize Members to propound 
    parliamentary inquiries after an automatic rollcall had been 
    ordered on a motion to table a resolution.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(8) the House was considering House 
Resolution 1013, establishing a Select Committee on Standards and 
Conduct. The House refused to order the previous question and Mr. Joe 
D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, moved to lay the resolution on the 
table. Mr. Delbert L. Latta, of Ohio, objected to the vote on that 
motion on the ground that a quorum was not present. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, announced that a quorum was not present 
and that a rollcall came automatically on the motion to lay on the 
table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Waggonner attempted to raise a parliamentary inquiry and the 
Speaker ruled:

        The Chair will state that the rollcall has been ordered and at 
    this point there is nothing that can interfere with the proceedings 
    of the automatic rollcall.

Parliamentary Inquiry Not Entertained in Absence of Quorum--But 
    Recognition Given for Point of Order Relating to Pending Call of 
    House

Sec. 20.11 While a parliamentary inquiry is not entertained by

[[Page 10038]]

    the Chair in the absence of a quorum, the Chair may recognize a 
    Member on a point of order which relates to a pending call of the 
    House.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(9) Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, of Illinois, 
made a point of order that a quorum was not present, and a call of the 
House was ordered. Mr. John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, attempted to 
raise a parliamentary inquiry after the point of order was made and 
before the ordering of the call, but Speaker Pro Tempore Wilbur D. 
Mills, of Arkansas, ruled that the inquiry could not be raised at that 
time. Mr. Dent then made a point of order relating to the call of the 
House, which was entertained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 114 Cong. Rec. 30093, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dent: Mr. Speaker, a point of order, which relates to the 
    call of the roll.
        The Speaker: (10) The House will be in order. The 
    Clerk will proceed with the call of the roll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dent: Mr. Speaker, the point of order relates to the proper 
    calling of the roll.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Dent: The point of order is the doors were ordered closed, 
    and the doors to the outside of the Chamber are open in the 
    cloakrooms.
        The Speaker: The Chair has given instructions to close all 
    doors and allow no Members out.

Point of No Quorum--Seeking Recognition

Sec. 20.12 The fact that a Member is on his feet does not constitute 
    notice to the Chair that he is seeking recognition to object to a 
    vote on the ground that a quorum is not present.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(11) the House passed S. 1447, amending 
the Teacher's Salary Act for the District of Columbia. Mr. James G. 
Fulton, of Pennsylvania, then rose and objected to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum was not present. Mr. Fulton insisted he had been 
on his feet seeking 
to gain recognition to object for 
that purpose at the proper time. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 108 Cong. Rec. 22649, 22650, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that if a Member is on his 
    feet, that is insufficient. The gentleman did not address the 
    Chair.
        Mr. Fulton: I was saying ``Mr. Speaker,'' and was not heard. I 
    was on my feet.
        The Speaker: If the gentleman asks unanimous consent to vacate 
    the action, the Chair will entertain a request. But the passage of 
    the bill had been completed.
        Mr. Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet addressing the 
    Speaker, but I was not recognized.

[[Page 10039]]

        The Speaker: The Chair does not know what is in the gentleman's 
    mind when the gentleman is on his feet.

    The House by unanimous consent vacated the proceedings by which the 
bill was passed, and a point of no quorum by Mr. Fulton and an 
automatic rollcall ensued.

Under Former Practice, Point of No Quorum in Order at Any Time, Even 
    When Another Had Floor

Sec. 20.13 A point of no quorum was a privileged matter and was in 
    order at any time, even when a Member had the floor in debate 
    (until amendments to the rules in the 93d Congress).

    On May 4, 1949,(12) in the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Henry M. Jackson, of Washington, ruled that a motion to 
adjourn was not in order and that the motion that the Committee rise 
could not be made unless the Member with the floor yielded for that 
purpose. Mr. Donald W. Nicholson, of Massachusetts, then made the point 
of order that a quorum was not present. Mr. Monroe M. Redden, of North 
Carolina, objected that Mr. Nicholson was out of order since he had not 
asked the Member holding the floor [Arthur L. Miller (Nebr.)] to yield. 
Chairman Jackson ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 95 Cong. Rec. 5616, 5617, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that a point of order based on no quorum 
    is a privileged matter and is in order at any time.

    On July 12, 1949,(13) in the Committee of the Whole, Mr. 
William R. Poage, of Texas, who had the floor, declined to yield to Mr. 
Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, who nevertheless made the point of order that a 
quorum was not present. Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, objected 
that Mr. Poage had not yielded for that purpose. Chairman Charles M. 
Price, of Illinois, responded to the point of order, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Id. at p. 9312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rankin: Mr. Chairman, a point of order: A Member has no 
    right to interrupt the speaker to make a point of no quorum.
        The Chairman: A point of no quorum may be made at any time.
        Mr. Rankin: The gentleman from Texas did not yield for that 
    point.
        The Chairman: The point of no quorum is in order at any 
    time.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. For the necessity of a quorum and points of no quorum, see 
        generally, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 52-57 (1995) 
        (Comments to U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 5). For the rule 
        governing points of no quorum and calls of the House, see Rule 
        XV, House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 765 et seq. (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In the 93d and 95th Congresses, Rules

[[Page 10040]]

XV and XXIII were amended to prohibit the making of a point of order 
that a quorum was not present except in certain circumstances; see Ch. 
17, supra.

Chairman in Committee of the Whole May Entertain Point of No Quorum 
    During General Debate

Sec. 20.14 Pursuant to clause 2, Rule XXIII as amended in the 97th 
    Congress, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may in his 
    discretion entertain a point of order of no quorum during general 
    debate.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Dec. 1, 1982,(15) during consideration of H.R. 6995 (Federal 
Trade Commission Authorization Act):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 28205, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Chairman: (16) Under clause 2, rule XXIII, as 
    adopted by the House of Representatives on January 5, 1981, the 
    Chair, in his discretion, may entertain a point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will entertain the point of no quorum and announces 
    that pursuant to the provisions of clause 2, rule XXIII, he will 
    vacate proceedings un-der the call when a quorum of the Committee 
    appears.
        Members will record their presence by electronic device.
        The call was taken by electronic device.

Prayer Is Not Business--Point of No Quorum Not Allowed Before Prayer

Sec. 20.15 The prayer offered at the beginning of the business of the 
    House is not considered as business and the Speaker does not 
    recognize a point of order that a quorum is not present before the 
    prayer.

    On Aug. 4, 1950,(17) the House met at 10 a.m. and 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that the Chaplain would offer 
prayer. Mr. Robert F. Rich, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order 
that a quorum was not present. The Speaker ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 96 Cong. Rec. 11829, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        We will have the prayer first, because that is not considered 
    business.
        Prayer will be offered by the Chaplain.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The rules of the House were amended in the 93d Congress to prohibit 
        points of no quorum at various stages of House proceedings. See 
        H. Res. 998, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. and Rule XV, clause 6, House 
        Rules and Manual Sec. 774c (1995).

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

[[Page 10041]]

Objection to Vote on Ground of No Quorum Is Not Too Late Where No 
    Business Has Intervened

Sec. 20.16 Even though preceded by a parliamentary inquiry and 
    following the Chair's announcement of the result of a voice vote, 
    an objection to a vote on the ground that a quorum was not present 
    and voting does not come too late and is in order where no business 
    has intervened.

    On Mar. 7, 1956,(19) after the vote was put on an 
amendment and the vote announced, Mr. Gordon Canfield, of New Jersey, 
made a point of order and then inquired whether it was too late to have 
the amendment read again to the House. Speaker Pro Tempore John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that reading the amendment was not 
in order after the vote. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, then objected to the 
vote on the amendment on the ground that a quorum had not been present. 
Mr. John Taber, of New York, made the point of order that the point of 
no quorum came too late, since a parliamentary inquiry had been 
submitted after the vote and before the point of no quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 102 Cong. Rec. 4215, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker Pro Tempore ruled as follows:

        The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Canfield] addressed the 
    Chair on a point of order. The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] was 
    justified in waiting until that point of order had been determined 
    by the Chair. Immediately upon that determination the gentleman 
    from Iowa made the point of order that a quorum was not present and 
    objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not present. 
    The Chair feels that the gentleman from Iowa exercised his rights 
    under the rules in such manner that a point of order against his 
    point of order would not lie.

Point of No Quorum as Dilatory After Quorum Has Been Disclosed

Sec. 20.17 The Chair has held dilatory points of no quorum made after a 
    quorum has been disclosed.

    On July 21, 1947,(20) the House was considering under 
suspension of the rules H.R. 29, making unlawful the payment of a poll 
tax as a prerequisite for voting in national elections. A motion to 
adjourn was offered and was rejected on a yea and nay vote,

[[Page 10042]]

resulting in 85 yeas, 299 nays, and 46 not voting. Mr. John E. Rankin, 
of Mississippi, then made a point of order that a quorum was not 
present. Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, ruled:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 9522-51, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman's point of order is dilatory. That is obvious to 
    all Members.

Chair Does Not Recognize Members After Absence of Quorum Has Been 
    Announced

Sec. 20.18 The Chair refuses to recognize Members after the absence of 
    a quorum has been announced by the Chair; no business is in order 
    until a quorum has been established.

    On June 8, 1960,(1) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
made the point of order that a quorum was not present. When Mr. Hoffman 
attempted to speak before and during the call of the House, Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, advised him that the absence of a quorum having been 
announced, following a point of no quorum, recognition for debate was 
not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 106 Cong. Rec. 12142, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Business May Intervene by Unanimous Consent Only Between Quorum Call 
    and Chair's Putting Demand for Recorded Vote on Pending Amendment

Sec. 20.19 No business, including debate, may intervene between a 
    quorum call and the Chair's putting a demand for a recorded vote 
    pending when the point of order of no quorum was made, except by 
    unanimous consent; by unanimous consent in Committee of the Whole, 
    a Member has been recognized to inquire as to the legislative 
    schedule for the remainder of the day, between the conclusion of a 
    quorum call and the request for a recorded vote on a pending 
    amendment.

    During consideration of the housing and community development 
amendments (H.R. 7262) in the Committee of the Whole on Aug. 21, 
1980,(2) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 126 Cong. Rec. 22288, 22289, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (3) . . . The pending 
    business is the demand of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie) for a 
    recorded vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Richard C. White (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. William] Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 10043]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is as 
    follows: Would it be possible, before this vote is taken, for me to 
    be able to ask the majority leader what the procedure is for the 
    balance of the evening after this vote is over? Could I do this by 
    unanimous consent?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Without objection, the gentleman will 
    be recognized for that purpose.

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Stanton: Mr. Chairman, I take this time in order to ask the 
    majority leader if he could announce to the House the schedule for 
    this evening, after the pending Wylie amendment, and perhaps for 
    tomorrow.

Chair Does Not Entertain Point of No Quorum When Question Has Not Been 
    Put on Pending Proposition in House; May Recognize for Motion for 
    Call of House at Any Time

Sec. 20.20 Although the Chair may not entertain a point of order that a 
    quorum is not present when the question has not been put on the 
    pending proposition in the House, the Chair may recognize for a 
    motion for a call of the House at any time in his discretion.

    Under Rule XV, clause 6(e)(2),(4) the Chair may 
recognize for a motion for a call of the House at any time in his 
discretion. Thus, on June 27, 1980,(5) the Chair recognized 
for such motion, although a point of order that a quorum was not 
present did not lie at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 774d (1995).
 5. 126 Cong. Rec. 17369, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Phil] Gramm [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) That point of order 
    does not lie at this time, but the Chair will inquire, does the 
    gentleman move a call of the House?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. John P. Murtha (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gramm: I do, Mr. Speaker. I move a call of the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, a call of the House 
    is ordered.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Gramm) for a call of the House.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.
        So the motion was rejected.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: A call of the House is not ordered and 
    the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

[[Page 10044]]

Discretion of Chair in Recognizing for Call of House

Sec. 20.21 It is within the discretion of the Chair whether to 
    recognize for a call of the House when the question has not been 
    put on the pending motion or proposition under clause 6 of Rule XV.

    An instance in which the Chair declined to recognize a Member to 
move a call of the House occurred, for example, on Oct. 14, 1978: 
(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 124 Cong. Rec. 38378, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: . . . I have been here 
    throughout the 2 hours of debate--it is almost 2 hours--and I do 
    not think there have ever been more than 50 Members on the floor, 
    and most of the time it has been in the neighborhood of 20, about 
    the equal of the number of staff.
        Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the fact that this is considered 
    to be such important legislation, the most important bill we face 
    in this session of Congress, I would move a call of the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) The Chair will state to 
    the gentleman that he cannot recognize the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman) for that request at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

May Recognize for Call of House After Previous Question Before Chair 
    Puts Question on Final Adoption

Sec. 20.22 Although a point of order that a quorum is not present is 
    not in order unless the question has been put on the pending motion 
    or proposition, the Chair may recognize for a call of the House at 
    any time after the previous question is ordered on adoption of a 
    proposition in 
    the House but before the 
    Chair puts the question on 
    final adoption thereof under clause 6(e) of Rule XV.

    On Oct. 14, 1978,(9) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 124 Cong. Rec. 38503, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, the previous question 
    is ordered.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I move a call 
    of the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, a call of the House 
    is ordered.
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, is this now a vote on the bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: This is a call of the House.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I thought the question had been 
    put.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: No; the Chair has not put the 
    question.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Are we going to have a vote on the 
    legislation?

[[Page 10045]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman that after the call of the House, then we will have the 
    final vote on these conference reports en bloc. . . .
        Members will record their presence by electronic device. . . .
        The Speaker: (10) On this rollcall 366 Members have 
    recorded their presence by electronic device, a quorum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were 
    dispensed with.

Points of Order: Must Seek Recognition in Timely Fashion

Sec. 20.23 The mere fact that a Member was on his feet does not entitle 
    him to make a point of order against certain language where he has 
    not affirmatively sought recognition by the Chair at 
    the time the language complained of was read for amendment.

    On Apr. 14, 1970,(11) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, sustained a point of order that a point of order against 
language in an appropriation bill came too late, where the Member 
making the point of order was not affirmatively seeking recognition at 
the proper time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 116 Cong. Rec. 11648, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood), 
    care to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
        I do not like to operate this way, but I am the chairman of the 
    subcommittee and obviously I must object, and make a point of order 
    because the point of order comes much, much too late. We have 
    passed that point in the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the Clerk had read past 
    that paragraph of the so-called title I, and stopped at line 14 on 
    page 3. The gentleman was not on his feet seeking recognition at 
    the time the first section, down through line 12 on page 2, was 
    read.
        Mr. William D. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, the paragraphs 
    are not being read. The bill is being read by paragraph headings. I 
    was on my feet at the beginning of the reading. As a matter of 
    fact, I moved from there to here as soon as the Clerk began to 
    read. I was never off my feet from the moment he started the 
    reading. I was trying to get to the point in the bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair cannot observe the movements of the 
    Members from place to place. The gentleman was not seeking 
    recognition at the time when he should have been, under the rules. 
    He should have been seeking recognition vocally, not by standing.
        The Chair sustains the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For the requirement that Members seeking to address the House or to 
        raise any matter must first seek recognition from the Chair, 
        see Sec. 8, supra.

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

[[Page 10046]]

Sec. 20.24 Members seeking to make points of order must address the 
    Chair and be recognized before proceeding.

    On Oct. 24, 1945,(13) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
demanded that Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, be called to order 
for terming him the ``Jewish gentleman from New York'' in debate. 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the appellation violated the 
rules. Discussion ensued, and Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, 
attempted to make a point of order, but the Speaker ruled that no 
Member could make a point of order without first being recognized by 
the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 91 Cong. Rec. 10032, 10033, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recognition To Make Point of Order or Offer Amendment

Sec. 20.25 Members must be on their feet seeking recognition at the 
    proper time in order to protect their rights under the rules to 
    make points of order or to offer amendments.

    On Apr. 14, 1970,(14) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 116 Cong. Rec. 11649, 11650, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        . . . The Chair wishes to say that the Chair is most desirous 
    of occupying this chair with dignity and with fairness to all 
    concerned. There were other amendments that the Chair had been told 
    would be offered, and the gentleman who came and told the Chair 
    were not on their feet seeking recognition, nor did they address 
    the Chair at the time, and therefore the Chair was in the position 
    of allowing the Clerk to continue to read.
        If the Members do not protect their own rights and use the 
    rules of the House to their advantage, the Chair is not here to 
    protect them when they do not insist on their own rights at the 
    proper time.

Not Necessary That Member Yield for Point of Order; Chair Must 
    Recognize for Point of Order

Sec. 20.26 The Chair must recognize a Member to make a point of order 
    relative to the conduct of debate at any time, and it is not 
    necessary that the Member having the floor yield for that purpose.

    During consideration of H.R. 14014 (the Endangered Species Act 
Amendments of 1978) in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 14, 
1978,(15) Representative Dingell held the floor debating an 
amendment. The tone of his de

[[Page 10047]]

bate resulted in the following exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 124 Cong. Rec. 38155, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert B.] Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, may I state a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: (16) The gentleman will state his 
    point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. B. F. Sisk (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Duncan of Oregon: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is---- . 
    . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I do not 
    yield for the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that it is not necessary 
    that the gentleman yield for that purpose. The Chair has a right at 
    any time to recognize a Member on a point of order.

Point of Order as Interrupting Question of Privilege

Sec. 20.27 A point of order may interrupt a Member stating a question 
    of privilege.

    On June 30, 1939,(17) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
was in the process of stating a point of personal privilege based on an 
insertion in the Congressional Record. Mr. Hoffman was interrupted by 
points of order relating to the nature of the question of privilege and 
to the scope of Mr. Hoffman's remarks. Mr. Hoffman objected to the 
interruptions and stated that he did not yield for a point of order. 
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that a Member making a 
point of order could be entitled to recognition while a question of 
privilege was being stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 8468, 8469, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaker Did Not Observe Member Seeking Recognition--Point of Order 
    Entertained After Committee of the Whole Reported Back to House

Sec. 20.28 Where the Speaker failed to observe a Member seeking 
    recognition to make a point of order against a committee report 
    prior to the House resolving itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole, the Speaker recognized the Member for his point of order 
    after the House had resolved into the Committee and the Committee 
    had reported back to the House.

    On July 25, 1966,(18) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to 
consider a bill. Mr. John Bell Williams, of Mississippi, attempted to 
make a point of order but was not recognized because Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, did not hear him. In the Com

[[Page 10048]]

mittee of the Whole, Mr. Williams rose to a point of order and stated 
that he had been seeking recognition at the proper time to make a point 
of order against the bill on the grounds that the committee report did 
not contain a comparative print of changes in existing law as required 
by the rules of the House. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, ruled 
that he did not have the power to entertain the point of order, and on 
appeal his ruling was sustained. The Committee then adopted a motion 
offered by Mr. Williams that the Committee rise and the Speaker then 
recognized Mr. Williams for a point of order (eventually overruled):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 112 Cong. Rec. 16840, 16842, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Mississippi.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the House resolved itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union a moment 
    ago. When the question was put by the Chair, I was on my feet 
    seeking recognition for the purpose of offering a point of order 
    against consideration of the legislation. Although I shouted rather 
    loudly, apparently the Chair did not hear me. Since the [House] 
    proceeded to go into the Committee of the Whole, I would like to 
    know, Mr. Speaker, if the point of order which I had intended to 
    offer can be offered now in the House against the consideration of 
    the bill; and, Mr. Speaker, I make such a point of order and ask 
    that I be heard on the point of order.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the Chair did not hear 
    the gentleman make his point of order. There was too much noise. 
    Under the circumstances the Chair will entertain the point of 
    order.

Member of Committee Has Priority To Make Point of Order Against 
    Amendment

Sec. 20.29 A member of the committee reporting a bill has priority of 
    recognition over one not a member of the committee to make points 
    of order against proposed amendments to the bill.

    On Mar. 30, 1949,(19) Mr. Henry M. Jackson, of 
Washington, and Mr. Carl T. Curtis, of Nebraska, simultaneously arose 
in the Committee of the Whole to make a point of order against a 
pending amendment on the ground that it constituted legislation on an 
appropriation bill. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, recognized Mr. 
Jackson in preference over Mr. Curtis since Mr. Jackson was a member of 
the committee which had reported the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 3520, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point of Order Against Paragraph Too Late After Debate on Paragraph

Sec. 20.30 A point of order against language in a paragraph of

[[Page 10049]]

    an appropriation bill comes too late after there has been debate on 
    the paragraph.

    On Apr. 3, 1957,(20) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
attempted to make a point of order against 
a paragraph in an appropriation bill. Chairman Aime J. Forand, of Rhode 
Island, ruled that the point of order came too late, there having been 
``a great deal of debate on the rest of the paragraph.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 103 Cong. Rec. 5032, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Germaneness Points of Order Too Late After Debate

Sec. 20.31 Germaneness points of order against a proposed amendment 
    come too late after debate has been had thereon.

    On July 5, 1949,(1) Mr. James P. Richards, of South 
Carolina, made a point of order, on the ground of germaneness, against 
an amendment. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruled that 
the point of order came too late since debate on the amendment had 
commenced.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 95 Cong. Rec. 8852, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. See also 101 Cong. Rec. 4078, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 30, 1955; 
        101 Cong. Rec. 3947, 3948, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 29, 1955; 
        and 101 Cong. Rec. 3204, 3205, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 18, 
        1955.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due Diligence--Member Recognized Even Though Sponsor Had Commenced 
    Debate

Sec. 20.32 A Member who has shown due diligence is recognized to make a 
    point of order against a proposed amendment even though the sponsor 
    of the amendment has commenced his remarks.

    On Sept. 26, 1967,(3) Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of 
Louisiana, offered an amendment on the pending bill in the Committee of 
the Whole, and began his remarks on the amendment. Mr. Carl D. Perkins, 
of Kentucky, rose to make a point of order against the amendment, but 
Mr. Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, objected that the point of order came 
too late since debate on the amendment had begun. Chairman Charles E. 
Bennett, of Florida, determined that Mr. Perkins had shown due 
diligence and was entitled to recognition on the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 113 Cong. Rec. 26878, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order 
    that the gentleman's point of order comes too late.
        The gentleman from Louisiana had started his discussion of the 
    amendment, and there was no previous point of order made prior to 
    the discussion.
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet seeking recognition 
    at the

[[Page 10050]]

    time the gentleman commenced to address the Chair.
        The Chairman: Was the gentleman from Kentucky on his feet 
    seeking recognition?

        Mr. Perkins: I was, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair then overrules the point of order made 
    by the gentleman from Michigan, and the Chair will hear the 
    gentleman from Kentucky on his point of order.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Chairman, how far in the discussion of 
    a man who offers an amendment can such a point of order be made, 
    then?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
    Kentucky was on his feet seeking recognition, and so stated. 
    Therefore, the gentleman from Kentucky will be recognized to make 
    his point of order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. See also 107 Cong. Rec. 17609, 17610, 17612, 17613, 87th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Aug. 30, 1961; 106 Cong. Rec. 6381, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Mar. 23, 1960; 101 Cong. Rec. 12408, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 
        30, 1955; 83 Cong. Rec. 1372, 1373, 75th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 
        1, 1938 (Chair overruled); 84 Cong. Rec. 7673, 76th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., June 21, 1939; and 81 Cong. Rec. 2980, 2981, 75th Cong. 
        1st Sess., Mar. 31, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.33 A point of order against language in a paragraph of an 
    appropriation bill is not precluded by intervening debate where the 
    Member raising the point of order shows due diligence therein.

    On May 11, 1959,(5) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a 
point of order against language contained in an appropriation bill, on 
the ground the language was legislation in an appropriation bill. Mr. 
Albert Thomas, of Texas, objected to the point of order since debate 
had intervened:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 105 Cong. Rec. 7904, 7905, 86th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: I oppose the point of order because the paragraph 
    was read.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair thinks the gentleman 
    from Iowa was within his rights to make the point of order. He 
    observed the gentleman standing when unanimous consent was granted 
    to go back to the previous section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Frank N. Ikard (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Thomas: Well, the point of order is good, then. We admit 
    it, then.
        The Chairman: The Chair sustains the point of order.

    On Sept. 15, 1961,(7) Mr. Gross made a point of order 
against a paragraph in an appropriation bill, after the next paragraph 
had been partially read. Chairman Oren Harris, of Arkansas, stated, in 
response to a point of order that the point of order came too late, 
that Mr. Gross was entitled to recognition since the Chair had observed 
that Mr. Gross was on

[[Page 10051]]

his feet seeking recognition while the Clerk was reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 107 Cong. Rec. 19729, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 20.34 Although a point of order against a paragraph of a general 
    appropriation bill will not lie after an amendment thereto has been 
    debated, the Chair does not permit the reading of an amendment to 
    preclude a point of order made by a Member who has shown due 
    diligence and who sought recognition at the proper time.

    On May 24, 1960,(8) the Clerk read a paragraph of an 
appropriation bill and Mr. Fred Wampler, of Indiana, offered an 
amendment thereto. Parliamentary inquiry was then made of Chairman Hale 
Boggs, of Louisiana, on recognition to raise a point of order against 
the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 106 Cong. Rec. 10979, 10980, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Gross: I have a point of order against the language to be 
    found on this page. Will the discussion of this amendment abrogate 
    my right to make a point of order?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct, it would. If the 
    gentleman has a point of order, it would have to be urged at this 
    point.
        Mr. Gross: The gentleman is trying to obtain recognition from 
    the Chair to make a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman to make the 
    point of order.

Appropriation Bill Considered Read and Open to Amendment--Chair First 
    Inquires as to Points of Order to Remainder of Bill

Sec. 20.35 Where a general appropriation bill is, by unanimous consent, 
    considered read and open for amendment, the Chairman first 
    ascertains whether there are any points of order to the remainder 
    of the bill before recognizing Members to offer amendments.

    On July 30, 1962,(9) the procedure below was followed 
where a unanimous-consent request was made that the remainder of a bill 
be considered as read and open for amendment at any point:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 108 Cong. Rec. 14998, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert] Thomas [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the remainder of the bill 
    be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: And also open to points of order 
    at any point, I take it?
        Mr. Thomas: Yes. . . .

[[Page 10052]]

        The Chairman: (10) Is there objection to the 
    [request of the] gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Are there any points of order to be made to the 
    remainder of the bill?
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
    language on page 27, beginning in line 24 and running through line 
    12 on page 28, as being legislation on an appropriation bill.

Point of Order Reserved--Chair Permits Proponent 
    of Amendment To Debate Amendment Before Debate on Point of Order

Sec. 20.36 Once a point of order has been reserved against an amendment 
    and debate has commenced under the five-minute rule, the Chair will 
    permit the proponent of the amendment to utilize the time allotted 
    him before hearing arguments on the point of order.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Mar. 21, 1979: (11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 5779-81, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) When the Committee rose on 
    Tuesday, March 20, 1979, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss) 
    had been recognized to offer an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Butler Derrick (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weiss: Page 3, insert after line 5 
        the following:
            Sec. 5. (a) Section 3(b) of the Council on Wage and Price 
        Stability Act is amended by striking out ``Nothing in this 
        Act'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as provided in 
        section 8, nothing in this Act''. . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Moorhead) 
    will be protected on his reservation of the point of order.
        Mr. [Ted] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on 
    the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I am today offering an amendment to H.R. 2283, 
    the Council on Wage and Price Stability Reauthorization Act.
        My amendment would give the President standby authority to 
    impose wage, price, and related economic controls. . . .
        Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I would now like to 
    insist on my point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
        The Chairman: The Chair will point out that the time is under 
    the control of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Marks)

[[Page 10053]]

    had asked if I would yield to him, and I am pleased to yield to him 
    at this point.
        Mr. [Marc Lincoln] Marks [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    thank the gentleman for yielding. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Weiss) has expired.

        The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Moorhead). . . .
        Mr. Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order against the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Weiss).

Point of Order Against Portion of Bill Must Be Ruled on Before 
    Amendments Offered

Sec. 20.37 It is not the practice to permit the reservation of a point 
    of order against a portion of a general appropriation bill and then 
    to consider amendments thereto.

    On Apr. 13, 1949,(13) Mr. Frederic R. Coudert, Jr., of 
New York, reserved a point of order with respect to three lines in a 
paragraph of an appropriation bill, on the ground that they constituted 
legislation. He stated that he would not insist on the point of order 
if the amounts contained in the bill remained the same, but would 
insist on his point of order if 
the amounts were increased by amendment. Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of 
New York, ruled that a point of order must be ruled upon before 
amendments were offered. In answer to a further inquiry 
by Mr. Coudert, the Chairman stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 95 Cong. Rec. 4521, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is informed that it has not been the practice to 
    reserve points of order and then consider amendments. The Chair 
    will entertain the gentleman's point of order if the gentleman 
    presses it.

Debate on Point of Order Is Within Discretion of Chair--Member 
    Recognized on Point of Order May Not Yield

Sec. 20.38 Discussion on a point of order is within the control of the 
    Chair, and a Member recognized on a point of order may not yield to 
    other Members.

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 13367 (to 
extend the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972) in the House 
on Sept. 30, 1976,(14) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 122 Cong. Rec. 34074-76, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jack] Brooks [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 13367) to extend and amend the 
    State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, and for other

[[Page 10054]]

    purposes, and ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 
    managers be read in lieu of the report.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill [and the statement]. . . .
        Mr. [Brock] Adams [of Washing-ton]: Mr. Speaker, I raise a 
    point of 
    order against the conference agreement. . . .(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. For substantive discussion of the point of order, see Sec. 2.37, 
        supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Adams: I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton).
        Mr. Horton: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman understands, does he not, there is 
    no additional amount in fiscal year 1977?
        Mr. Adams: That is correct. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence J.] Brown of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Adams: I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Speaker, I refer to Public Law 93-344, the language that 
    exists on page 22(d)(2).
        Mr. Adams: Would the gentleman refer to the motion, please? I 
    am using both the conference report and the statute.
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Section 401.
        Mr. Adams: Is the gentleman referring to the statute or the 
    conference report?
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Section 401 of the statute.
        The Speaker: (16) The Chair has been liberal in 
    enforcing the rules on arguing on a point of order. The Chair 
    controls the time and each individual Member desiring to be heard 
    should address the Chair and not yield to other Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) desire to be heard?
        Mr. Brown of Ohio: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do desire to be heard.

Sec. 20.39 Recognition and time for debate on a point of order are 
    within the discretion of the Chair, and a Member speaking on a 
    point of order does not control a fixed amount of time which he can 
    reserve or yield.

    On Feb. 23, 1978,(17) a point of order was made with 
respect to the germaneness of an amendment to H.R. 9214 (concerning 
United States participation in the supplementary financing facility of 
the International Monetary Fund). The proceedings in part were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 124 Cong. Rec. 4421, 4426, 4427, 4451, 4452, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 9214

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286-286k-2), as 
        amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new section:
            ``Sec. 27. (a) For the purpose of participation of the 
        United States in

[[Page 10055]]

        the Supplementary Financing Facil-ity . . . the Secretary of 
        the Treasury is authorized to make resources available as 
        provided in the decision numbered 5509-(77/127) of the Fund, in 
        an amount not to exceed the equivalent of 1,450 million Special 
        Drawing Rights.

        Mr. [Thomas R.] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Harkin: Page 3, immediately after 
        line 14, insert the following:
            Sec. 3. The Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 USC 286-286k-
        2), as amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof 
        the following new section: . . .
            ``(b) In accordance with the unique character of the 
        International Monetary Fund, the Secretary of the Treasury 
        shall direct the U.S. Executive Director to take all possible 
        steps to the end that all Fund transactions, including economic 
        programs developed in connection with the utilization of Fund 
        resources, do not contribute to the deprivation of basic human 
        needs. . . .

        Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order against the amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) The Chair will hear the 
    gentleman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, we have just established that we are 
    only considering the so-called Witteveen Facility of the 
    International Monetary Fund, and this amendment goes far beyond 
    that.
        The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) desire 
    to be heard on the point of order?
        Mr. Harkin: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
        I would respond to that argument by saying that my amendment is 
    entirely in order because, if we look at the different sections, 
    the first section of my amendment goes toward instructing the U.S. 
    Executive Director of the IMF to do certain positive things about 
    initiating wide consultations, and so forth, which would help to 
    promote those kinds of programs that would help meet the basic 
    human needs in other countries. . . .
        Mr. [Henry S.] Reuss [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield on his point of order?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman on the 
    point of order.
        Has the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) concluded?
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I have not concluded. I would like to 
    reserve the balance of my time to speak further on the point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: It is not in order to reserve debate time on a 
    point of order. The gentleman has no [block] of time to reserve.
        Mr. Harkin: Then, I would like to continue, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The Chair is hearing arguments on the point of 
    order at the present time. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) 
    will be recognized in support of his amendment at a subsequent time 
    if the point of order is not sustained. . . .
        Mr. Harkin: . . . Mr. Chairman, I want to speak further before 
    the Chair rules on the point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair will hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Georgia 
    (Mr.

[[Page 10056]]

    Mathis) has raised an interesting point. . . .
        Mr. [Dawson] Mathis [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman from Iowa yield further on the point of order?
        The Chairman: Has the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) 
    concluded his statement on the point of order?
        Mr. Harkin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the 
    gentleman.
        The Chairman: There is no yielding on a point of order.

Must Rise To Object to Unanimous-consent Request

Sec. 20.40 A Member must rise to object to a unanimous-consent request; 
    if the Member has done so, the objection to a unanimous-consent 
    request is timely if entered before the Chair enters an order 
    thereon (as by saying, ``Without objection, so ordered'').

    On Nov. 7, 1991,(19) discussion arose in the House as to 
whether a Member had risen to object 
to a unanimous-consent request in timely fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 137 Cong. Rec. 30633, 102d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Would it be an 
    appropriate parliamentary inquiry to ask unanimous consent that the 
    letter the gentlewoman just referred to be placed in the Record at 
    this point?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) The Chair would inform 
    the gentleman that that is really not a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am asking whether or not it would be 
    appropriate in the procedures of the House at the moment for there 
    to be a unanimous-consent request that the letter to which the 
    gentlewoman just referred be put in the Record at this point?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is normally the prerogative of 
    the Member possessing the letter. Is the gentleman asking that the 
    letter be put in the Record?
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that the 
    letter be included in the Record.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
        Mr. [Bill] Alexander [of Arkansas]: I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Walker: The gentleman was not standing when he made the 
    objection.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I object. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Walker: It was not a timely objection, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair looked at the gentleman 
    sitting and nothing else had transpired. Then the Chair recognized 
    that the gentleman was standing and the Chair put the question 
    again.

    Similarly, on June 23, 1992,(1) the Chair made an 
announcement

[[Page 10057]]

concerning the proper manner of seeking recognition to object to a 
unanimous-consent request:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 138 Cong. Rec. p.  ____, 102d Cong. 2d Sess. See also 
        Sec. Sec. 8.27-8.31, supra, for further discussion of 
        recognition to object to unanimous-consent requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Miller of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to address the House for 1 minute, and to revise and extend 
    my remarks.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Washington?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (Miss.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lawrence J.] Smith of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.

                  announcement by the speaker pro tempore

        The Chair would advise Members that if they wish to object, 
    they should please stand, so that the Chair will see the objector.

Recognition for Objection to Unanimous-consent Request Does Not Extend 
    Recognition in Opposition to Motion

Sec. 20.41 Recognition of a Member to object to a unanimous-consent 
    request for the withdrawal of a motion in the Committee of the 
    Whole to strike out the enacting clause does not extend recognition 
    in opposition to the motion.

    On Mar. 1, 1950,(3) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
moved that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the pending bill 
back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
stricken and after debating the motion asked unanimous consent to 
withdraw it. Mr. Francis H. Case, of South Dakota, rose to object to 
the withdrawal of the motion and to seek recognition in debate to 
oppose the motion. Chairman Clark W. Thompson, of Texas, then 
recognized Mr. Oren Harris, of Arkansas, a member of the committee 
reporting the bill, for five minutes' debate in opposition to the 
motion. Mr. Case inquired whether he had not been recognized. The 
Chairman stated: ``The gentleman was recognized by the Chair to make an 
objection, but not to speak.'' (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 2597, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. Generally, recognition is limited to a specific purpose; see 
        Sec. 8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair May Refuse To Permit Debate Under Reservation of Objection to 
    Unanimous-consent Request

Sec. 20.42 Recognition for a reservation of objection to a unanimous-
    consent request is within the discretion of the Speaker and 
    sometimes

[[Page 10058]]

    he refuses to permit debate under such a reservation and 
    immediately puts the question on the request.

    On Dec. 3, 1969,(5) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, refused to recognize a Member for a reservation of 
objection to a unanimous-consent request, stating that the Member 
requesting unanimous consent ``receives permission, or she does not.'' 
The Speaker immediately put the question on the unanimous-consent 
request and there was no objection heard.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 115 Cong. Rec. 36748, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. The demand for the ``regular order'' precludes recognition for a 
        reservation of the right to object; see the proceedings of May 
        16, 1979, discussed in Sec. 20.43, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate Under Reservation of Objection to Unanimous-consent Request May 
    Not Continue When Regular Order Demanded

Sec. 20.43 Debate under a reservation of the right to object to a 
    unanimous-consent request may not continue when the regular order 
    is demanded.

    On May 16, 1979,(7) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Alaska 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1979:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 125 Cong. Rec. 11369, 11420, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Breaux to the amendment in the 
        nature of a substitute offered by the Committee on Merchant 
        Marine and Fisheries: Page 278: Strike out all after line 2 on 
        page 278 through line 9 on page 622 and insert in lieu thereof 
        the following: . . .

        The Chairman: (8) The gentleman from Louisiana has 
    asked unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the 
    amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Louisiana?
        Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Chairman, reserving the 
    right to object, I would like to ask our distinguished colleague in 
    the well, is this the 479-page amendment that the gentleman has 
    before the House? . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I believe on 
    this reservation which is now pending, we ought to proceed with the 
    regular order.
        The Chairman: The question is, Is there objection to the 
    request of the gentleman from Louisiana.
        Mr. Phillip Burton: I am reserving the right to object.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I demand regular order.
        The Chairman: Regular order has been demanded.
        Mr. Phillip Burton: I would like to make this point, Mr. 
    Chairman: I was

[[Page 10059]]

    on the floor. I have the time, and I reserve the right to object.
        The Chairman: When regular order is demanded, the Chair is 
    required to put the request to the body.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I will not demand regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan withdraws his demand 
    for regular order, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Phillip 
    Burton) is recognized.

Where Member Recognized for One Hour Makes Unanimous-consent Request, 
    Time Under Reservation of Objection Not Charged to Member

Sec. 20.44 Where a Member has been recognized for one hour of debate 
    but has not begun his remarks, and makes a unanimous-consent 
    request, time consumed by a Member who reserves the right to object 
    to that request is not charged to the Member who has been 
    recognized for an hour.

    On Apr. 15, 1970, Mr. Louis C. Wyman, of New Hampshire, was 
recognized for one hour of debate (on a ``special-order'' speech). 
Before he commenced to address the House, Mr. Wyman asked unanimous 
consent to revise and extend his remarks; Mr. Phillip Burton, of 
California, reserved the right to object and made several remarks on 
the pending resolution. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that Mr. Wyman still had one 
hour of debate time available, and that the time consumed by Mr. Burton 
would not be charged to Mr. Wyman's hour.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 116 Cong. Rec. 11917, 11918, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------