[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§ 23. Recognition for Particular Motions and Debate Thereon]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10123-10187]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
                 C. RECOGNITION ON PARTICULAR QUESTIONS
 
Sec. 23. Recognition for Particular Motions and Debate Thereon

    This section discusses illustrative principles of recognition for 
various types of motions. The general subject of motions is treated 
comprehensively in Chapter 23, supra, and particular motions are 
discussed in detail in that chapter.

    As a general matter where a Member is recognized to offer a 
resolution, after the resolution is read, that Member must again be 
recognized for debate; and between the two recognitions, a proper 
motion may intervene after presentation of the 
resolution.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 6 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where two or more Members rise at the same time seeking recognition 
to offer motions or for debate, the Speaker inquires into their purpose 
in seeking recognition, and then under Rule XIV, clause 2, names the 
Member to speak first.(6) The fact that the Chair asks a 
Member, ``for what purpose does the gentleman rise'' does not confer 
recognition on the Member to offer a motion.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. 23.4, infra.
 7. See Sec. 23.1, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dilatory motions are not entertained by the Chair, and the 
determination of whether a motion is dilatory is within the Chair's 
discretion.(8) The Chair has on occasion indicated a 
reluctance to hold motions to be dilatory,(9) unless it was 
obvious that dilatory tactics were being used.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Sec. 23.7, infra.
 9. See Sec. 23.8, infra.
10. See Sec. 23.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several motions discussed in this section are used in the Committee 
of the Whole. (Proceedings

[[Page 10124]]

in the Committee of the Whole are covered in more detail in Chapter 19, 
supra.) For motions to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration or resumption of consideration of a bill, recognition is 
first accorded the manager of a bill.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. 23.27, infra; and see, generally, Ch. 19 Sec. 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member recognized to offer and debate an amendment may move that 
the Committee of the Whole rise,(12) but a Member yielded 
time for general debate may not make the motion unless yielded to for 
that purpose.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 113 Cong. Rec. 32694, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 15, 1967.
13. See 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 22, 1950. For 
        general discussion of motions to rise, see Ch. 19 Sec. Sec. 22-
        25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is privileged and 
may be offered during the pendency of a motion to limit debate or 
immediately upon the adoption of that motion; similarly, the 
preferential motion that the Committee rise with the recommendation 
that the enacting or resolving clause be stricken may be offered while 
the motion to limit debate is pending.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 23.31, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other motions discussed in this section include the following 
motions used in the House.
    A Member, if recognized for that purpose, may move to suspend the 
rules and pass a bill with amendments. The fact that the amendments 
have not been considered or adopted by a committee does not prevent 
their consideration.(15) Recognition for a motion to suspend 
the rules is within the discretion of the Speaker. Thus, for example, 
the previously announced scheduling of a House bill under suspension 
does not preclude the consideration of a similar Senate bill in lieu 
thereof if recognition is granted by the Speaker.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. 23.16, infra. A second on a motion to suspend the rules, 
        formerly required in some circumstances, is no longer required. 
        See Sec. 23.19, infra.
16. See Sec. 23.17, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker may recognize any Member who signed a motion to 
discharge to call up that motion; and the proponents of a successful 
motion to discharge are entitled to prior recognition to debate the 
discharged bill.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 23.23, infra. See Ch. 18, supra, for further discussion of 
        motions to discharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the previous question is ordered on the passage of a bill 
or joint resolution, a motion to 
recommit is in order, and the Speaker gives preference in recognition 
for such purpose to a

[[Page 10125]]

Member who is opposed to the bill or joint resolution.(18) 
In recognizing Members to move to recommit, the Speaker gives 
preference first to the ranking minority member of the committee 
reporting the bill, if opposed to the bill, and then to the remaining 
minority members of that committee in the order of their 
rank.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Rule XVI, clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 782 (1995).
19. See Sec. 23.45, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A member of the minority has priority of recognition to offer a 
motion to recommit, even where the proposition has been discharged from 
committee and the chairman of the committee has controlled the time in 
opposition thereto.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Ch. 23 Sec. Sec. 25 et seq., supra, for further discussion of 
        the motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XI, clause 4(b)(1) now provides that the Committee 
on Rules shall not report any rule or order which would prevent the 
motion to recommit from being made as provided in clause 4 of Rule XVI, 
including a motion to recommit with instructions to report back an 
amendment otherwise in order (if offered by the Minority Leader or a 
designee), except with respect to a Senate bill or resolution for which 
the text of a House-passed measure has been substituted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of a motion to commit offered pursuant to Rule XVII, 
clause 1, the Member offering 
the motion in some circumstances need not qualify as 
opposed.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. 23.55, infra. For discussion of distinctions between the 
        motion to recommit and the motions to commit or refer, see Ch. 
        23 Sec. 25, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Motions generally, see Ch. 23, supra.
Motions cannot interrupt Member with floor, see Sec. 32, infra.
Motions to close or limit debate, see Sec. Sec. 76, 78, infra (duration 
    of debate in Committee of the Whole).
Motions on conference reports, see Ch. 33, infra.
Motion to resolve into the Committee of the Whole, see Ch. 19, supra.
Motions on Senate amendments, see Ch. 32, infra (amendments between the 
    Houses) and Ch. 33, infra (amendments in disagreement reported from 
    conference).
Nondebatable motions, see, for example, Sec. Sec. 6.4 (motion to 
    correct reference of bill); 6.19 (motion to close debate under 
    five-minute rule); 6.29, 6.30 (motion that Committee of the Whole 
    rise); 6.14 (motion to dispense with proceedings under call of the 
    House); 6.9 (motion to lay on table); 6.35 (motion for previous 
    question); 6.60 (motion returning bill to Senate pursuant to Senate 
    request), supra.
Prior rights to recognition of opposition after rejection of essential 
    motion made by Member in charge, see Sec. 15, supra.

[[Page 10126]]

Yielding for motions, see Sec. 30, 
    infra.                          -------------------

What Constitutes Recognition

Sec. 23.1 The fact that the Speaker or Chairman asks a Member ``for 
    what purpose does the gentleman rise'' does not confer recognition 
    on the Member to offer a motion.

    On Apr. 13, 1946,(3) Mr. Dewey Short, of Missouri, 
sought recognition from Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, after the 
engrossment and third reading of the pending bill had been ordered. The 
Speaker inquired of Mr. Short ``for what purpose does the gentleman 
from Missouri rise?'' and Mr. Short stated that he was offering a 
motion to recommit the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 92 Cong. Rec. 3669, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker recognized Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, to demand the 
reading of the engrossed copy of the bill. Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New 
York, made the point of order that Mr. Short had been recognized to 
offer a motion to recommit. The Speaker stated:

        The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Short] was not recognized. The 
    Chair asked the gentleman for what purpose he rose, and then 
    recognized the gentleman from Georgia.

    On June 26, 1951,(4) Chairman Albert A. Gore, of 
Tennessee, ruled in the Committee of the Whole that his inquiry as to a 
Member's purpose in seeking recognition did not confer recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 97 Cong. Rec. 7174, 82d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York] rose.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from New York 
    rise?
        Mr. [Harold D.] Cooley [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    move----
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, was I not recognized?
        The Chairman: The Chair inquired for what purpose the gentleman 
    rose; that does not entail recognition.

Sec. 23.2 The mere making of a motion does not confer recognition, and 
    where another Member has shown due diligence he may be recognized 
    even though a motion has been made.

    On Apr. 16, 1943,(5) an amendment to a bill being 
considered in the Committee of the Whole was rejected on a division 
vote. Chairman William M. Whittington, of Mississippi, then ruled that 
it was not too late to demand tellers where an intervening motion that 
the Committee rise was made without recognition by the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 89 Cong. Rec. 3502, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The amendment is rejected.

[[Page 10127]]

        Mr. [Malcolm C.] Tarver [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    the Committee do now rise.
        Mr. [John] Taber [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask for 
    tellers.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order that it is 
    too late to demand tellers.
        Mr. Taber: I was on my feet, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Tarver: The Chair had announced the result of the vote, and 
    a motion had been made that the Committee rise.
        Mr. Taber: The gentleman from Georgia had not been recognized 
    by the Chair.
        Mr. Tarver: The Chair had announced the vote.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York demands tellers.
        The gentleman from Georgia makes the point of order that the 
    request comes too late. The Chair would say in deference to the 
    gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Georgia that there 
    had not been formal recognition of the gentleman from Georgia.
        Tellers were ordered, and the Chair appointed Mr. Tarver and 
    Mr. Taber to act as tellers.

Sec. 23.3 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 to 
    speak in opposition to the motion.

    On Mar. 1, 1950,(6) Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, 
offered the preferential motion 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. After debating his motion, Mr. 
Hoffman asked unanimous consent to withdraw his motion. Mr. Francis H. 
Case, of South Dakota, objected to withdrawal of the motion and claimed 
time in opposition to the motion at the same time that Mr. Carl 
Hinshaw, of California, rose in opposition to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 96 Cong. Rec. 2598, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chairman Clark W. Thompson, of Texas, recognized Mr. Hinshaw since 
he was a member of the committee which had reported the bill.
    Mr. Case then inquired whether he had not been recognized to speak. 
The Chairman responded:

        The gentleman was recognized by the Chair to make an objection, 
    but not to speak.

Speaker's Authority To Recognize

Sec. 23.4 Where two or more Members rise at the same time seeking 
    recognition to offer motions or for debate, the Speaker inquires 
    into their purpose in seeking recognition, and then under Rule XIV 
    clause 2, names the Member to speak first.

[[Page 10128]]

    On Apr. 26, 1933,(7) the House was considering House 
Joint Resolution 157 (relating to the Saint Lawrence Seaway) pursuant 
to a special order (H. Res. 112) providing for consideration in the 
House and ordering the previous question on the joint resolution to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. 
Pending was a motion to recommit with instructions, offered by Mr. 
James S. Parker, of New York, on Apr. 25 and coming over as unfinished 
business (the previous question having been ordered on the passage of 
the joint resolution). The previous question was ordered on the motion 
to recommit as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 77 Cong. Rec. 2413, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
            See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 
        (1995): ``When two or more Members rise at once, the Speaker 
        shall name the Member who is first to speak.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bertrand H.] Snell [of New York] and Mr. [Sam] Rayburn [of 
    Texas] rose.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time I desire to be 
    recognized against the motion to recommit. This is the unfinished 
    business before the House.
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        Mr. Snell: Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet demanding recognition. 
    The previous question has not been ordered.
        Mr. [John J.] O'Connor [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I certainly 
    shall object to the establishment of any precedent of debating 
    motions to recommit.
        Mr. Snell: This is not a precedent. Motion to close debate by 
    ordering the previous question has not been made. This is the 
    unfinished business before the House.
        Mr. Rayburn: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. I think 
    I have the right to make this motion.
        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question 
    on the motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Robert F.] Rich [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rich: Mr. Speaker, is it proper procedure, when one Member 
    has obtained recognition, for another Member to be recognized? The 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Snell] had the floor and was 
    recognized.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognized the gentleman from New York 
    to ascertain for what purpose he rose.
        Mr. Rich: Is it proper procedure for the Chair now to recognize 
    the gentleman from Texas?
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.

    The previous question was ordered on the motion to recommit, which 
was rejected.
    Parliamentarian's Note: At the time of this precedent, a motion to 
recommit with instructions, offered after the previous question

[[Page 10129]]

had been ordered on a bill or joint resolution to passage, was not 
debatable; Rule XVI, clause 4 was amended in the 92d Congress to 
specifically allow debate (five minutes for and five minutes against) 
on such a motion to recommit with instructions. Thus in the instant 
precedent the motion to recommit was not debatable regardless of 
whether the previous question was ordered thereon.

Sec. 23.5 Where a Member seeks recognition to call up District of 
    Columbia business, privileged on District of Columbia Monday, and 
    at the same time another Member seeks recognition to move to 
    suspend the rules and agree to a bill, that motion made privileged 
    by unanimous consent, it is within the discretion of the Speaker as 
    to which of the two Members he will recognize.

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(8) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass Senate Joint Resolution 29, 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Mr. 
Thomas G. Abernethy, of Mississippi, made a point of order against such 
recognition on the ground that he wanted recognition to offer a 
District of Columbia bill and that pursuant to Rule XXIV clause 8 of 
the House rules, District of Columbia business was privileged. He 
alleged that the Speaker was permitted only to recognize for District 
of Columbia business. Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated that the 
Suspension Calendar had been transferred by unanimous consent to that 
day and contended that under the rules the Speaker had the power of 
recognition at his discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654, 17655, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as follows:

        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 
    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.

Sec. 23.6 The Speaker may not be compelled by a motion under Rule XXV 
    to recognize Members for scheduled ``special orders'' immediately 
    upon completion of scheduled legislative business, but rather may 
    continue to exercise his power of recognition under Rule XIV clause 
    2 to recognize other Members for unanimous-consent requests

[[Page 10130]]

    and permissible motions; thus, the Speaker has declined to 
    recognize a Member who sought to invoke Rule XXV to interfere with 
    the Speaker's power of recognition.

    Rule XXV, which provides that ``questions as to the priority of 
business shall be decided by a majority without debate,'' merely 
precludes debate on motions to go into Committee of the Whole, on 
questions of consideration, and on appeals from the Chair's decisions 
on priority of business, and should not be utilized to permit a motion 
directing the Speaker to recognize Members in a certain order or to 
otherwise establish an order of business. Thus, for example, on July 
31, 1975,(9) the Speaker(10) refused to recognize 
a Member who sought to make a motion to direct recognition of Members 
for special orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 26249, 26251, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I make a point 
    of order that a quorum is not present.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I make a 
    point of order. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point of order to this 
    effect: Under the new rules of the House, is it not true that once 
    the House has proceeded to the closing business of the day, 
    granting requests for absences and special orders, that it is no 
    longer in order to make a point of order that a quorum is not 
    present?
        The Speaker: The Chair has not started to recognize Members for 
    special orders yet. All the business on the Chair's desk has been 
    completed. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    rules preclude a quorum at this point because personal requests 
    have already been read from the desk. A leave of absence was 
    granted to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Teague).
        Under the new rules, Mr. Speaker, a quorum does not lie after 
    this point of business in the day.
        The Speaker: If the Chair understands the gentleman's point of 
    order, it relates to the fact, which is a new rule, not the rule we 
    used to follow. The rule is that once a special order has started, 
    the Member who has the special order and is speaking cannot be 
    taken off his feet by a point of order of no quorum. However, there 
    is nothing in the rules of which the Chair is aware that requires 
    the Chair to begin to call a special order at any particular time.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move under rule XXV that the House 
    proceed to recognize the Members previously ordered to have special 
    orders today, and on that I ask for a rollcall vote.
        Mr. [Michael T.] Blouin [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.
        The question was taken.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page 10131]]

        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    137, nays 202, not voting 95, as follows: . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, under rule XXV, I again renew my 
    motion that the Chair proceed to the recognition of other Members 
    who have previously been granted special orders for today.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Danielson).
        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise 
    and extend my remarks.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California?
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion pending.
        Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.
        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House do now adjourn.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I demand the 
    yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    142, nays 205, not voting 87, as follows: . . .

Dilatory Motions

Sec. 23.7 Dilatory motions are not entertained by the Chair, and the 
    determination of whether a motion is dilatory is within the Chair's 
    discretion.

    On May 16, 1938,(11) Speaker Pro Tempore Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the 
determination whether a motion is dilatory is within the discretion of 
the Chair:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 83 Cong. Rec. 6938, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John J.] Cochran [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to 
    submit a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Cochran: . . . My parliamentary inquiry is whether a point 
    of order would lie against the motion of a Member to strike out the 
    title when, as a matter of fact, the Member was not in favor of 
    striking out the title.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present occupant of the Chair 
    would have no way of reading a Member's mind or questioning his 
    motives with reference to any amendment that he might offer. The 
    Chair thinks that any Member who gained the floor to offer any 
    permissible amendment would be in order and he would be entitled to 
    the floor.
        Mr. Cochran: It was certainly a violation of the spirit of the 
    rule when one offers an amendment to strike out a title and then in 
    the first sentence after recognition says that he is not going to 
    insist upon his motion and consumes 5 minutes that should be 
    allowed in opposition to the title.

[[Page 10132]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The rule interpreted otherwise would 
    make it pretty hard on the occupant of the chair.
        Mr. [Cassius C.] Dowell [of Iowa]: Where it becomes apparent to 
    the Chair that a motion is made for the purpose of delay, then a 
    point of order may be made and would be sustained, would it not?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The present occupant of the chair 
    understands that the determination of whether a motion is dilatory 
    is entirely within the discretion of the Chair.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Rule XVI clause 10, House Rules and Manual Sec. 803 (1995) provides 
        ``No dilatory motion shall be entertained by the Speaker.''
            Dilatory motions are expressly forbidden during 
        consideration of reports from the Committee on Rules (Rule XI 
        clause 4(b), House Rules and Manual Sec. 729(a) [1995]).
            For an occasion where a motion to recommit was held 
        dilatory under the ``twenty-one day rule'' in effect in the 
        89th Congress, see 111 Cong. Rec. 18087, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        July 26, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.8 The Speaker recognized a Member to move to adjourn 
    notwithstanding a point of order that such motion was dilatory, and 
    referred to 
    the heavy responsibilities involved in holding a motion dilatory.

    On June 5, 1946,(13) there was a series of quorum calls 
and motions to adjourn, to delay reaching the Committee on Labor on 
Calendar Wednesday which intended to call up the federal employment 
practices bill. When a further point of no quorum was made, Mr. Dan R. 
McGehee, of Mississippi, made the point of order that the point of no 
quorum was dilatory. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, overruled the point 
of order, stating that a ``point of no quorum is a question of very 
high privilege.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 92 Cong. Rec. 6352-56, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the yeas and nays had been had on a motion to dispense with 
further proceedings under a call of the House, Mr. L. Mendel Rivers, of 
South Carolina, moved that the House adjourn. Mr. Christian A. Herter, 
of Massachusetts, made a point of order against the motion on the 
ground the motion was dilatory. Due to the importance of the pending 
ruling by the Speaker, a call of the House ensued.
    After debate on the Speaker's power to hold motions dilatory, the 
Speaker ruled as follows:

        . . . One of the greatest responsibilities any occupant of the 
    Chair could assume would be to hold that motions are dilatory. 
    However, that is not to say that the present occupant of the Chair 
    will not, under certain circumstances, hold motions to be dilatory. 
    In the weeks to come and for the remainder of this day the Chair 
    will scrutinize very carefully motions that are made.

[[Page 10133]]

        The Chair is going to put the motion to adjourn.
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    South Carolina [Mr. Rivers].

Sec. 23.9 The Speaker, on a Calendar Wednesday, recognized the chairman 
    of a committee to call up a bill in spite of repeated motions to 
    adjourn, thereby inferentially holding such motions dilatory.

    On Feb. 15, 1950,(14) which was Calendar Wednesday, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, directed the Clerk to call the roll of 
committees and recognized the chairman of the Committee on the District 
of Columbia to call up a bill, ignoring repeated motions to adjourn (in 
effect holding them dilatory):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 96 Cong. Rec. 1811, 1812, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Clerk will call the committees.
        The Clerk called the Committee on the District of Columbia.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The Chair does not yield to the gentleman for a 
    parliamentary inquiry at this time.
        Mr. [Howard W.] Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the 
    House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The Clerk has called the Committee on the District 
    of Columbia. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina 
    [Mr. McMillan].
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do 
    now adjourn. That motion is always in order.
        The Speaker: The Chair has recognized the gentleman from South 
    Carolina [Mr. McMillan].
        Mr. [William M.] Colmer [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan] 
    has been recognized.
        Mr. Colmer: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. McMillan] 
    has been recognized.

Sec. 23.10 A motion that the House adjourn will not be regarded as 
    dilatory merely because the House has rejected such a motion an 
    hour previously.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(15) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
overruled a point of order that a motion to adjourn was dilatory:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Sikes] moves that 
    the House do now adjourn.
        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, a point of 
    order on the motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 10134]]

        Mr. Marcantonio: Mr. Speaker, I submit the motion to adjourn is 
    dilatory. While I recognize that intervening business has been 
    transacted, such as voting on the motion to dispense with Calendar 
    Wednesday business, it seems to me that the House had expressed its 
    will on this matter about an hour ago and the House refused to 
    adjourn. I think it is obvious to the Speaker that the House has 
    refused to adjourn and the motion, therefore, is dilatory.
        The Speaker: The Chair has already entertained the motion. The 
    question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida.

Sec. 23.11 The Chair overruled the point of order that a motion to 
    strike out the enacting clause of a bill was dilatory where the 
    Member offering the motion stated he was opposed to the bill ``in 
    its present form.''

    On Mar. 30, 1950,(16) Chairman Oren Harris, of Arkansas, 
overruled a point of order that a motion was dilatory:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 96 Cong. Rec. 4424, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fulton moves that the Committee do now rise and that 
        the bill be reported to the House with the enacting clause 
        stricken.

        Mr. [Frank B.] Keefe [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
    preferential motion that it is dilatory. The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania is not opposed to this bill and is not in good faith 
    asking that the enacting clause be stricken out; he is advocating 
    this bill vehemently and is simply taking this means to get 5 
    minutes time when many others of us have been waiting for 2 days 
    trying to get time, but in vain.
        The Chairman: The Chair would like to inquire of the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fulton] if he is opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Fulton: In its present form I would be opposed to it.
        The Chairman: The Chair must accept the statement of the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        The Chair overrules the point of order and recognizes the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania in support of his preferential 
    motion.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also 95 Cong. Rec. 5531, 81st Cong. 1st Sess., May 3, 1949 (a 
        second motion that the committee rise and report back the bill 
        with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken held not 
        dilatory, where the first such motion was withdrawn).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.12 The Speaker announced that he would not hold a motion to be 
    dilatory unless it was ``obvious to everybody'' that dilatory 
    tactics were being used.

    On July 25, 1949,(18) the House was considering House 
Resolution

[[Page 10135]]

276, making in order the consideration of H.R. 3199, the Federal Anti-
Poll Tax Act. A series of roll calls intervened to prevent or delay the 
question being put on its adoption. After the previous question had 
been ordered on the resolution, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
entertained a motion by Mr. Robert L. F. Sikes, of Florida, that the 
House adjourn. The Speaker then made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 95 Cong. Rec. 10095-97, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair desires to make a statement. Since the present 
    Speaker has occupied the chair he has yet to hold a motion to be 
    dilatory, and will not until it becomes obvious to everybody that 
    dilatory tactics are being indulged in and that a filibuster is 
    being conducted.

Motions Relating to Quorum

Sec. 23.13 Where a motion that the House resolve into Committee of the 
    Whole had been offered, and pending that motion a unanimous-consent 
    request to limit general debate had been made, the Chair declined 
    to entertain a point of order of no quorum, being proscribed by 
    Rule XV clause 6(e) from recognition for that purpose until the 
    pending question had been put to a vote (notwithstanding precedents 
    to the contrary established prior to adoption of that rule).

    During consideration of the District of Columbia appropriation bill 
for fiscal year 1978 (H.R. 9005) in the House on Sept. 16, 
1977,(19) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 123 Cong. Rec. 29601, 29602, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Madam Speaker, I move 
    that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House 
    on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    9005) making appropriations for the government of the District of 
    Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part 
    against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending 
    September 30, 1978, and for other purposes, and pending that 
    motion, Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate 
    on the bill be limited to 1 hour, the time to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the gentleman from California (Mr. Burgener) and 
    myself.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Reserving the right to 
    object, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is about to put the 
    question, and the Chair has not yet put the question on the motion. 
    Therefore, the point of order is out of order at this time.
        Mr. Bauman: Madam Speaker, Cannon's Precedents, volume VI, 
    section 665, indicates that following a motion

[[Page 10136]]

    to resolve into the Committee of the Whole, and pending a request 
    for unanimous consent to fix control of the time for debate, a 
    point of no quorum may be raised, and no business is in order until 
    the presence of a quorum is ascertained.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would cite to the gentleman 
    from Maryland the new rule, clause 6(e) of rule XV of the 95th 
    Congress, that it shall not be in order to make or entertain a 
    point of order that a quorum is not present unless the Speaker has 
    put the pending motion or proposition to a vote. It is the ruling 
    of the Chair, then, that the point of order is not in order at this 
    time, inasmuch as the Chair has not put the question on the motion 
    to resolve into Committee of the Whole.
        Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request of the 
    gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher)?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher). . . .
        [The] motion was agreed to. . . .
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
    the bill H.R. 9005, with Mr. Fuqua in the chair.

Sec. 23.14 A point of order in the House that a quorum is not present 
    only lies when the Speaker has put the pending proposition or 
    motion to a vote, although the Speaker may recognize for a motion 
    for a call of the House at any time within his discretion.

    On Apr. 20, 1978,(1) Speaker Pro Tempore James C. 
Wright, Jr., of Texas, responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding a 
point of order that a quorum was not present. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 124 Cong. Rec. 10990, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard L.] Ottinger [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Ottinger: Mr. Speaker, it does not appear that there is a 
    quorum on the floor of the House. Does a point of order lie at this 
    time on that fact?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Not until the Chair puts the question 
    on the motion to be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Danielson). At that point, it would be in order, under the rules. 
    The Chair is not going to recognize anybody prior to that motion.
        The Chair is going to recognize the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Danielson). If anyone wants to object to the vote on the 
    ground that a quorum is not present, that would indeed be in order.

Sec. 23.15 While a point of order of no quorum is not in order during 
    debate in the House when the Speaker has not put a pending question 
    to a vote, the Speaker retains the

[[Page 10137]]

    right to recognize any Member to move a call of the House, in his 
    discretion un-der Rule XV, clause 6.

    On Mar. 30, 1977,(2) a resolution (H. Res. 445) 
providing for the consideration in the House as in the Committee of the 
Whole of another resolution (H. Res. 433, providing for the 
continuation of the Select Committee on Assassinations) was called up 
for immediate consideration following which a point of no quorum was 
made. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 123 Cong. Rec. 9554, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 445 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 445

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to consider the resolution (H. Res. 433) to 
        provide for the continuation of the Select Committee on 
        Assassinations, in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

        The Speaker: (3) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. J.] Pickle [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of 
    order that a quorum is not present. I move a call of the House.
        The Speaker: The gentleman's point of order is not in order at 
    this particular time.
        Mr. Pickle: Mr. Speaker, I renew my point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri 
    (Mr. Bolling) to move a call of the House.

Motion To Suspend the Rules

Sec. 23.16 If recognized for that purpose, a Member may move to suspend 
    the rules and pass a bill with amendments and the fact that the 
    amendments have not been considered or adopted by a committee does 
    not prevent their consideration.

    On Apr. 8, 1975,(4) during consideration in the House of 
the Older Americans Act (H.R. 3922), Speaker Pro Tempore John J. 
McFall, of California, responded to a parliamentary inquiry as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 9203, 9204, 9213, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John] Brademas [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
    the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3922) to amend the Older 
    Americans Act of 1965 to extend the authorizations of 
    appropriations contained in such act, and for other purposes, as 
    amended.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the

[[Page 10138]]

        United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act 
        may be cited as the ``Older Americans Amendments of 1975''.

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Indiana, representing the 
    Committee on Education and Labor, have the right to offer so-called 
    committee amendments that have been discussed with only a few 
    members but never formally acted upon by the Committee on Education 
    and Labor, since this bill is being offered under suspension of the 
    rules?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state, in answer to the 
    parliamentary inquiry, that the gentleman has moved to suspend the 
    rules and pass the bill in the form in which the bill was sent to 
    the desk. So the answer to the gentleman's inquiry is: Yes, the 
    motion is in order in the form in which it has been sent to the 
    desk, with the amendments therein.

Sec. 23.17 Recognition for a motion to suspend the rules is within the 
    discretion of the Speaker and the previously announced scheduling 
    of a House bill under suspension does not preclude the 
    consideration of a similar Senate bill in lieu thereof if 
    recognition is granted by the 
    Speaker.

    On Mar. 16, 1964,(5) Mr. Chet Holifield, of California, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill S. 2448, to amend the 
Atomic Energy Act. He moved to pass that bill instead of H.R. 9711, 
which had been scheduled for 
consideration under suspension of the rules and which dealt with the 
same subject matter. In response to a parliamentary inquiry, Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that recognition to suspend 
the rules was within the discretion of the Speaker:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 110 Cong. Rec. 5291, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John P.] Saylor [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Saylor: Mr. Speaker, the House Calendar lists a bill to 
    come up under suspension and it is a House bill. Does it not 
    require unanimous consent to suspend the rules and take up a Senate 
    bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, under the rules of the House, the Speaker may 
    recognize a Member on a motion to suspend the rules.
        Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Craig] Hosmer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: Without objection, a second will be considered as 
    ordered.
        There was no objection.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See also 80 Cong. Rec. 2239, 2240, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 
        1936.
            The Committee on Rules has reported and the House has 
        adopted resolutions authorizing the Speaker to recognize 
        Members for motions to suspend the rules on days other than 
        suspension calendar days. See, for example, H. Res. 422, 107 
        Cong. Rec. 16562, 16563, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., Aug. 21, 1961.
            For detailed treatment of recognition to move to suspend 
        the rules, see Ch. 21, supra.

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

[[Page 10139]]

Sec. 23.18 Pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 1, the Speaker may in his 
    discretion decline to recognize a Member to move to suspend the 
    rules.

    On Mar. 5, 1974,(7) a Member of the minority party 
attempted to gain recognition for a motion to suspend the rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 120 Cong. Rec. 5316, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         REQUEST TO SUSPEND RULES AND CONSIDER HOUSE RESOLUTION 807

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules 
    be suspended and the House proceed to the consideration of the 
    resolution, House Resolution 807, disapproving pay increases.
        The Speaker: (8) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Iowa has not consulted the Chair and the Chair is 
    not going to recognize the gentleman from Iowa for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair would like to state further that the request of the 
    gentleman from Iowa violates the ``Gross'' rule whereby he has 
    requested that notification of suspensions be given 24 hours in 
    advance.

        Mr. Gross: What kind of a rule is that?
        The Speaker: The Gross rule.

Sec. 23.19 In recognizing a Member to demand a second on a motion to 
    suspend the rules (under a former rule), the Speaker gave 
    preference to 
    a member of the reporting committee who was opposed to the bill 
    over another Member of the same party.

    On Feb. 20, 1967,(9) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled as follows, on recognition to demand a second on 
the motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill (H.R. 2) reported from 
the Committee on Armed Services:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 113 Cong. Rec. 3829, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: Is a second demanded?
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        The Speaker: For what reason does the gentleman from Michigan 
    [Mr. Nedzi], a member of the committee, stand?
        Mr. [Lucien N.] Nedzi: Mr. Speaker, I demand a second.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Yates: The distinguished gentleman from Michigan is my good 
    friend. Is it in order to inquire as to

[[Page 10140]]

    whether the gentleman from Michigan is opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Nedzi: I will allay the gentleman's fears. He is.
        Mr. Yates: I will withdraw.
        The Speaker: The Chair had not reached that point yet. The 
    Chair would have asked that question.
        Is the gentleman from Michigan opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Nedzi: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies. Without objection, a 
    second will be considered as ordered.

    After the expiration of the 20 minutes of debate in favor of the 
motion, the Speaker then recognized Mr. Nedzi to control the 20 minutes 
against the motion.
    Parliamentarian's Note: The Member demanding a second on the motion 
to suspend the rules was entitled to recognition for debate against the 
motion.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See 105 Cong. Rec. 17600, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 1, 1959.
            For an occasion where the debate in opposition to the 
        motion, allotted to the Member demanding the second, was 
        transferred to another by unanimous consent, see Sec. 25.24, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 23.20 Under clause 2 of Rule XXVII,(11) a Member 
    opposed to a motion to suspend the rules is entitled to control 20 
    minutes of debate in opposition to the motion; ordinarily, the 
    ranking minority member of the reporting committee controls the 20 
    minutes of debate unless he is challenged at the time the 
    allocation is made and does not qualify as being opposed to the 
    motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995). The provision providing for 
        forty minutes of debate on a motion to suspend the rules was 
        formerly contained in clause 3. Former clause 2 of Rule XXVII, 
        requiring certain motions to suspend the rules to be seconded 
        by a majority of tellers if demand was made, was repealed by H. 
        Res. 5, 102d Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 3, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During consideration of the Equal Access Act (H.R. 5345) in the 
House on May 15, 1984,(12) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 130 Cong. Rec. 12214, 12215, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5345) to provide that no 
    Federal educational funds may be obligated or expended to any State 
    or local educational agency which discriminates against any 
    meetings of students in public secondary schools who wish to meet 
    voluntarily for religious purposes.

[[Page 10141]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H.R. 5345

            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
        the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this 
        Act may be cited as the ``Equal Access Act''. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) . . . The gentleman 
    from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) will be recognized for 20 minutes and 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. William F. Goodling, ranking 
    minority member of Committee on Education and Labor] will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins).
        Mr. Perkins: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill. Do I have a 
    right to the full 20 minutes on our side?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    from New York that his objection is not timely. The gentleman is 
    too late. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) controls 
    the time.
        Mr. [Gary L.] Ackerman [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, does the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania oppose this bill? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that any 
    gentleman had the opportunity at the appropriate time to make the 
    appropriate challenge. The Chair has ruled that the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) controls the time and is recognized for 
    20 minutes.

Sec. 23.21 To control the time in opposition to a motion to suspend the 
    rules and pass a bill, the Speaker recognizes a minority Member who 
    is opposed to the bill, and if no minority member of the reporting 
    committee qualifies to control the time in opposition, a minority 
    Member who is opposed may be recognized.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on May 4, 
1981,(14) during consideration of the Cash Discount Act 
(H.R. 3132):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 127 Cong. Rec. 8323, 8324, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3132) to amend the Truth 
    in Lending Act to encourage cash discounts, and for other purposes. 
    . . .
        The Speaker: (15) . . . The gentleman from Illinois 
    (Mr. Annunzio) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman 
    from Delaware (Mr. Evans) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 10142]]

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

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

Sec. 23.22 The Speaker accorded priority of recognition to demand a 
    second on a motion to suspend the rules (under a former rule) to a 
    minority member of the committee reporting the bill who qualified 
    as being opposed to the motion.

    On Sept. 20, 1976,(16) during consideration of H.R. 
14319 (the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act) in the House, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 122 Cong. Rec. 31328, 31333, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
            All three Members demanding a second were minority Members, 
        with Mr. Carter ranking on the committee reporting the bill, 
        Mr. Broyhill junior on that committee, and Mr. Symms not on the 
        committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

                                  short title

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

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) Is a second demanded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. John J. McFall (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Steven D.] Symms [of Idaho]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.
        Mr. [Tim Lee] Carter [of Kentucky]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    second.

[[Page 10143]]

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

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

Motion To Discharge--Who May Move

Sec. 23.23 The Speaker may recognize any Member who signed a motion to 
    discharge to call up that motion, and points of order as to who 
    shall control the bill if the motion is agreed to should be made 
    when the question of consideration of the bill in the Committee of 
    the Whole is moved.

    On Oct. 12, 1942,(18) Mr. Joseph A. Gavagan, of New 
York, who had signed a petition to discharge a bill from committee, 
moved the discharge of the bill and was recognized by Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, for 10 minutes on the motion. Mr. Sam Hobbs, of 
Alabama, made a point of order against the motion--partly on the ground 
that Mr. Gavagan did not have the authority to call up the motion to 
discharge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 88 Cong. Rec. 8066, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker ruled:

        The rule states that the Chair may recognize any Member who 
    signed the petition to make the motion just made

[[Page 10144]]

    by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gavagan], whom the Chair has 
    recognized for that purpose.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Recognition in opposition to the motion to 
discharge is extended to members of the committee sought to be 
discharged in the order of rank.(19) The proponents of a 
successful motion to discharge are entitled to prior recognition to 
debate the discharged bill.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See 80 Cong. Rec. 336, 337, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 13, 1936.
20. See 75 Cong. Rec. 12911, 72d Cong. 1st Sess., June 14, 1932. For a 
        complete discussion of recognition for the motion to discharge, 
        see Ch. 18, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Postpone

Sec. 23.24 A motion to postpone consideration of a measure being 
    considered in the House is in order after the measure is under 
    consideration but before the manager has been recognized to 
    control debate thereon (the measure being ``under debate'' within 
    the meaning of clause 4, Rule XVI, and the Member in charge not 
    being taken from the floor).

    On May 30, 1980,(1) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 554 (supplemental Federal Trade Commission appropriation for 
fiscal year 1980) in the 
House, the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 126 Cong. Rec. 12821, 12822, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the rule adopted a few moments ago, I call up the joint 
    resolution (H.J. Res. 554) making an appropriation for the Federal 
    Trade Commission for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1980, for 
    consideration in the House.
        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 554

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        following sum is appropriated . . . for the fiscal year ending 
        September 30, 1980. . . .

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ashbrook moves to postpone further consideration of 
        House Joint Resolution 554 until June 10, 1980.

        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) be laid on the table.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The question is on the 
    motion to table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Michael L. Synar (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it. . . .
        [T]he motion to table the motion to postpone consideration was 
    agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Under clause 4, Rule XVI, all the mo

[[Page 10145]]

tions except the motion to amend may be made in the House after 
consideration of a measure has begun and before the Member in charge 
has control of the floor. An amendment may not be offered until the 
Member in charge yields the floor for that purpose or the previous 
question is voted down.

Motion To Reconsider

Sec. 23.25 A motion to reconsider must be offered by a Member who voted 
    on the prevailing side of the question to be reconsidered.

    During consideration of House Resolution 660 (in the matter 
of Representative Charles H. Wilson) in the House on May 29, 
1980,(3) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 126 Cong. Rec. 12663, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Allen E.] Ertel [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I was in 
    the House when the previous speaker . . . evidently brought in 
    material which was not in the record before the committee, which in 
    my judgment means there has been surprise to the defense in this 
    case in the fact that the gentleman brought up evidence, which is a 
    document from the State of California.
        Mr. Speaker, it seems to me in fairness we are required to give 
    the defendant or the accused in this case, whatever we want to call 
    him, an opportunity to rebut that because, in fact, he did not have 
    the opportunity of cross-examination and to see the document. We do 
    not know the authenticity of that document.
        Now, the defendant is faced with that fact. It seems to me in 
    fairness we ought to continue these proceedings until he has an 
    opportunity to examine the document and give him an opportunity to 
    answer it in detail.
        I would ask the Chair, is there any procedure where I can make 
    a motion so that we can handle this in a fair and expeditious 
    manner and give him the opportunity to respond to that 
    and to get the evidence from California? . . .
        The Speaker: (4) The only motion available that the 
    Chair would know of, unless the gentleman from Florida would yield, 
    would be the motion for reconsideration, if the gentleman voted on 
    the prevailing side of the motion of the gentleman from California 
    (Mr. Rousselot). That was a motion to postpone to a day certain, 
    which was defeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ertel: Mr. Speaker, I did vote on the prevailing side not 
    to postpone. I would not have voted not to postpone, except for 
    this what I consider to be a very unfair procedure.
        I would make that motion, if I could get unanimous consent. I 
    would request that.
        Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote to postpone.

        The Speaker: The gentleman moves to reconsider the vote on the 
    motion to postpone.

Motion To Resolve Into Committee of the Whole

Sec. 23.26 Motions that the House resolve into the Committee

[[Page 10146]]

    of the Whole for initial or further consideration of separate bills 
    pursuant to separate special orders adopted by the House are of 
    equal privilege, and the Speaker may exercise his discretionary 
    power of recognition as to which bill shall be next 
    eligible for consideration.

    Where the Committee of the Whole had risen following completion of 
general debate but prior to reading of a bill for amendment under the 
five-minute rule, the Speaker Pro Tempore indicated in response to 
parliamentary inquiries that he would exercise his power of recognition 
to permit consideration of another bill, rather than return to the bill 
under the five-minute rule. The proceedings of Sept. 22, 
1982,(5) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 128 Cong. Rec. 24690, 24691, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Walter B.] Jones of North Carolina: . . . I make a motion 
    that the Committee do now rise.
        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore 
    (Mr. Bennett) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simon, Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
    that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
    5543) to establish an ocean and coastal resources management and 
    development fund and to require the Secretary of Commerce to 
    provide to coastal States national ocean and resources management 
    and development block grants from sums in the fund, had come to no 
    resolution thereon.
        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Was it not proper that the bill should have been read for 
    amendments while we were sitting at the Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) The Committee has risen 
    now, and the Chair does not know of any way of automatically going 
    back at this point to do that. If the Committee of the Whole had 
    proceeded to consider the bill for amendment, it would have 
    conflicted with a determination made by the leadership as to the 
    legislative schedule, so the House should not resume consideration 
    of the bill anyway at this point. In other words, the leadership 
    had indicated that we would have general debate only today. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Charles E. Bennett (Fla.).
            See Rule XXIII, clause 2 (adopted in the 98th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Jan. 3, 1983) for the process whereby the Speaker 
        declares the House in Committee of the Whole pursuant to the 
        terms of a special order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Jones of North Carolina: . . . Would I have the privilege 
    as the Chairman of this committee to move that the House resolve 
    itself into the Committee once again?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair's understanding is that the 
    leadership does not want to entertain that motion, which would 
    conflict with the legislative schedule.

[[Page 10147]]

        Somebody has sent for the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Waxman), who will make a motion of equal privilege, to arrive, and 
    he is undoubtedly on his way. The Chair would be glad to respond to 
    any further conversation that the gentleman would want to have on 
    this subject which would be in order, until the gentleman arrives.
        Mr. [Joel] Pritchard [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Is it the ruling of the Chair that we cannot by unanimous 
    consent go back into the Committee?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is following the wishes of 
    the leadership and, therefore, would not recognize any Member for 
    the purpose of moving that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill at 
    this time.
        What the gentleman might do, he might contact the Speaker, 
    perhaps after the next matter is taken care of. But it should not 
    be done at this point without the consent of the Speaker.
        The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has now arrived, and 
    he is recognized.
        Mr. [Henry A.] Waxman [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    6173) to amend the Public Health Service Act . . . .

Sec. 23.27 Recognition is first accorded the manager of a bill to move 
    that consideration of a bill be resumed in Committee of the Whole.

    The Committee of the Whole having risen and reported to the House 
that it had come to no conclusion on the bill (7) under 
consideration therein, the Chair stated in response to parliamentary 
inquiries that the bill remained pending in the Committee of the Whole 
and that its consideration could be resumed when the manager of the 
bill moved to resolve into the Committee of the Whole for its further 
consideration, at a time to be determined by the leadership and the 
House when the House was in session. The proceedings of Nov. 3, 
1977,(8) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. H.R. 9179, a bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act with respect 
        to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 36918, 36919, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo J.] Ryan [of California]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I inquire, along with the gentleman from 
    Connecticut, with regard to the status of [H.R. 9179]. We spent 
    several hours yesterday and today on this legislation, and the 
    purpose of my parliamentary inquiry is to find out where the bill 
    stands and when and if at any time it will be brought up again. We 
    ought to have a chance to bring this bill to the vote today. We are 
    just about to ad

[[Page 10148]]

    journ and we will come back on the 29th and for a couple of days 
    then. Will there be the opportunity then for the leadership to 
    bring this up again?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman from California that when a motion is made to go back 
    into the Committee of the Whole, for further consideration of H.R. 
    9179, further action on that bill would take place. . . .
        As the gentleman from California well knows, by previous order 
    of the House the House will recess at 2:15 today. Following the 
    recess, after 3 o'clock a motion to resolve into the Committee of 
    the Whole would be in order. That would be after the recess takes 
    place.
        Mr. Ryan: In the event it does not take place today, is it 
    possible to take that legislation up tomorrow?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That would be a matter to be 
    determined by the leadership and by the House.
        Mr. Ryan: And under the rules already adopted by this House for 
    recess purposes, would it be possible to take that bill up during 
    the time we are scheduled to come back, after the 29th of November?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Following the recess, is that what the 
    gentleman has in mind?
        Mr. Ryan: Yes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair could recognize the manager 
    of the bill for that purpose.

Motions in Committee of the Whole: Motion To Limit Debate

Sec. 23.28 While it is customary for the Chair to recognize the manager 
    of the pending bill to offer motions to 
    limit debate, any Member 
    may, pursuant to Rule XXIII clause 6, move to limit debate at the 
    appropriate time in Committee of the Whole.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on July 31, 1975: 
(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 26223, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays of Ohio: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Hays of Ohio: Would it be in order for a person not a 
    member of the committee to move to close debate on whatever pending 
    amendment there might be, and all amendments thereto, to this bill 
    when we go into the Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker: It is the practice and custom of the House that 
    the Chair looks to the manager of the bill for motions relating to 
    the management of the bill.

        Mr. Hays of Ohio: If I made the motion--and I will make it more 
    specific--would it be out of order or in violation of the rules?
        The Speaker: A proper motion could be entertained at the proper 
    time.
        Mr. Hays of Ohio: I am prepared to make such a motion and I 
    will seek the proper time.

Order of Amendments

Sec. 23.29 When a general appropriation bill has been read,

[[Page 10149]]

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

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Oct. 27, 1983,(12) during consideration of H.R. 4139 
(Department of Treasury and Postal Service appropriations for fiscal 
1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 29630, 29631, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Christopher H.] Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (13) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Philip R. Sharp (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be 
    heard on my point of order. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that this amendment 
    constitutes a limitation on an appropriation and cannot be 
    considered by the House prior to the consideration of a motion by 
    the Committee to rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair must indicate to the gentleman that no 
    such preferential motion has yet been made.
        The gentleman is correct that a motion that the Committee rise 
    and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
    been adopted takes precedence over an amendment proposing a 
    limitation.
        Mr. Morrison of Connecticut: Mr. Chairman, then I move that the 
    committee do now rise. . . .

[[Page 10150]]

        The Chairman: . . . It would be more appropriate if a motion to 
    rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as have 
    been adopted, pursuant to clause 2(d), rule XXI were offered 
    instead. . . .
        Mr. [Edward R.] Roybal [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the 
    House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the 
    amendments be agreed to and that bill, as amended, do pass.
        [The motion was rejected.]
        Mr. Smith of New Jersey: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

Motion To Rise

Sec. 23.30 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise is 
    privileged and may be offered during the pendency of a motion to 
    limit debate or immediately upon the adoption of that motion.

    The proceedings of Oct. 7, 1974, are discussed in Sec. 23.31, 
infra.

Motions Relating to Enacting Clause--May Be Offered While Motion To 
    Close or Limit Debate Pending

Sec. 23.31 The preferential motion under Rule XXIII, clause 7, that the 
    Committee of the Whole rise with the recommendation that the 
    enacting or resolving clause 
    be stricken may be offered while the motion to limit debate is 
    pending.

    On Oct. 7, 1974,(14) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of House Resolution 
988 (to reform the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures of House 
committees):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 120 Cong. Rec. 34170, 34171, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
    by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen), and all 
    amendments thereto, conclude in 5 hours.

[[Page 10151]]

        The Chairman: (15) The question is on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. . . .
        [Several parliamentary inquiries ensued at this point.]
        Mr. [David T.] Martin of Nebraska: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Martin of Nebraska moves that the Committee rise and 
        report the resolution H. Res. 988 to the House with the 
        recommendation that the resolving clause be stricken out.

        The Chairman: The Chair would like to ask the gentleman from 
    Nebraska, is the gentleman opposed to this resolution?
        Mr. Martin of Nebraska: I am, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman qualifies to make the motion.
        The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes in 
    support of his motion.
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, I wish to propound a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the situation is 
    that the question that is now pending is on the motion that I made 
    to limit debate on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
    offered by the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Hansen) and all 
    amendments thereto.
        My parliamentary inquiry is this: If that motion carries, my 
    intention is to move that the Committee then rise.
        Mr. Chairman, is there anything unparliamentary in that?
        The Chairman: The gentleman's motion in that event would be in 
    order.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Dingell moves the Committee do now rise.

        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
        [After rejection of the motion, the Chair put the question on 
    Mr. Martin's motion:]
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Martin) to strike the resolving 
    clause.
        [The preferential motion was rejected.]

        Mr. [John H.] Dent [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        [A]s I understand the motion, the motion is to limit the time 
    to 5 hours on the issue itself, the Hansen amendment and all 
    amendments thereto; is that true?
        The Chairman: The Chair will now state the question.
        The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) moves that debate on 
    the Hansen amendment in the nature of a substitute, and all 
    amendments thereto be limited to 5 hours. . . .
        The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from 
    Missouri (Mr. Bolling) that all debate on the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Washington 
    (Mrs. Hansen), and all amend

[[Page 10152]]

    ments thereto, be limited to 5 hours, on which a recorded vote has 
    been demanded.
        A recorded vote was ordered.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While the provisions of clause 7 of Rule 
XXIII, relating to the privileged status of a motion to strike the 
enacting words, refer only to ``bills,'' the motion has been applied in 
Committee of the Whole to a simple resolution, since it is the only 
motion available to enable a test vote on whether to proceed with 
consideration of a resolution during the five-minute rule in Committee 
of the Whole, and since similar language in Rule XXIII, clause 6, 
permitting motions to limit debate on ``bills'' has consistently been 
construed to apply to simple resolutions being considered in Committee 
of the Whole.

Sec. 23.32 The motion to strike or recommend striking the enacting 
    clause is preferential to the motion to close debate.

    The proceedings of June 28, 1995,(16) demonstrate that 
the motion to strike the enacting clause is preferential to the motion 
to close debate. The Committee of the Whole had under consideration 
H.R. 1868, the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act of 1996:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Porter J.] Goss [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I move that 
    all debate on the Goss amendment and all amendments thereto close 
    immediately.
        Mr. [Harold L.] Volkmer [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    preferential motion at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the preferential motion.

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

        Mr. Volkmer: Mr. Chairman, the attempt by the gentleman from 
    Florida [Mr. Goss] to limit debate on this very important amendment 
    of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] to the gentleman's 
    amendment, I do not think is appropriate at this time.

    On July 13, 1995,(17) a motion to limit debate was made 
during consideration of H.R. 1977, the Department of the Interior and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1996, followed by a motion to 
recommend striking the enacting clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 141 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 104th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I move to limit 
    debate on title I and all amendments thereto to 90 minutes not 
    including vote time.
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    privileged mo

[[Page 10153]]

    tion. I move that the Committee rise and report the bill back to 
    the House with a recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken.
        Mr. Chairman, what is at issue here, in my view, is whether or 
    not this House is going to be able to conduct the business at 
    reasonable times in public view or whether we are going to be 
    reduced to making virtually every major decision in subcommittees 
    and on the floor at near midnight, with minimal public attention 
    and minimal public understanding and minimum attention. . . .
        Mr. Regula: Mr. Chairman, I oppose the motion.
        I was not a party to the earlier negotiations. The gentleman 
    from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and I discussed a possible agreement here 
    that we would finish title I with time limits on the amendments 
    that remain. . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
        The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the 
    noes appeared to have it.

                               recorded vote

        Mr. Obey: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    162, noes 236, not voting 36, as follows: . . .

    On one occasion, when a preferential motion to close debate was 
before the Committee of the Whole, the Chair declined to recognize a 
Member to offer another privileged motion until the pending motion had 
been disposed of. On Mar. 26, 1965,(18) Adam C. Powell, of 
New York, Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, offered the 
privileged motion that all debate close on the pending title of H.R. 
2362, the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, reported 
by his committee. Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, advised 
Members that the motion to close debate was not debatable. Mrs. Edith 
S. Green, of Oregon, then sought recognition to offer a preferential 
motion. The Chairman ruled that since the preferential motion to close 
debate was before the Committee of the Whole, no Member could be 
recognized to offer another preferential motion until the pending 
motion was disposed of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 6098, 6099, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. See Sec. 23.31, 
        supra, indicating that while a motion to limit debate is 
        pending, the preferential motion that the Committee of the 
        Whole rise with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
        stricken may be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Qualification To Offer: Opposition to Bill

Sec. 23.33 To obtain recognition to offer a motion that the Committee 
    of the Whole rise and report a bill to the

[[Page 10154]]

    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, 
    a Member, if challenged, must qualify by stating that he is opposed 
    to the bill.

    On May 3, 1949,(19) Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, 
offered the motion 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. Mr. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, made the point of order that Mr. Boggs was not opposed 
to the bill. Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, inquired of Mr. Boggs 
whether he was opposed to the bill. When Mr. Boggs stated he was in 
favor of the bill, the Chairman ruled he did not qualify for 
recognition to offer the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 95 Cong. Rec. 5531, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 6, 1950,(20) Mr. Boggs offered the motion that 
the Committee rise and report back the pending bill with the 
recommendation the enacting clause be stricken. Mr. John Taber, of New 
York, made the point of order that Mr. Boggs had not stated that he was 
opposed to the bill. Chairman Cooper inquired whether Mr. Boggs 
qualified and Mr. Boggs stated he was opposed to the bill, thereby 
qualifying to offer the motion.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 96 Cong. Rec. 6571, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
 1. In recognizing a Member in opposition to the motion, which is 
        debated five minutes for and five minutes against, the Chairman 
        extends priority to a member of the committee handling the bill 
        (see 96 Cong. Rec. 2597, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 1, 1950). 
        For detailed discussion of the motion that the Committee of the 
        Whole rise and report back the bill with the recommendation 
        that the enacting clause be stricken, see Sec. Sec. 77-79, 
        infra, and Ch. 19, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Two Members Recognized To Speak

Sec. 23.34 The Chair recognizes only two Members to speak on the 
    preferential motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report 
    with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

    The principle described above was illustrated on Dec. 18, 
1975,(2) in the Committee of the Whole during consideration 
of the Airport and Airway Development Act Amendments of 1975 (H.R. 
9771):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 41799, 41800, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the

[[Page 10155]]

        bill back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        enacting clause be stricken.

        The Chairman: (3) The gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Conte) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
    amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Anderson).
        Mr. [Glenn M.] Anderson of California: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the gentleman's motion and yield back the balance of 
    my time.

    Mr. Anderson having used only a small portion of his time to speak 
against the motion, Mr. Garry E. Brown, of Michigan, sought recognition 
to speak against the motion. The Chair declined to recognize him, since 
only two Members may be recognized to speak on the motion.

        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte).
        The preferential motion was rejected.

--Ten-minute Debate

Sec. 23.35 Only ten minutes of 
    debate, five for and five against, are permitted on a preferential 
    motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill to 
    the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be 
    stricken.

    During consideration of H.R. 12452 (the comprehensive employment 
and training amendments of 1978) in the Committee 
of the Whole on Aug. 9, 
1978,(4) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 25248, 25249, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    a preferential motion.

        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I do not seek this vehicle as a 
    parliamentary tactic. I make it with deadly seriousness. . . .
        Mr. [Ronald A.] Sarasin [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the preferential motion.
        The Chairman: (5) The gentleman from Connecticut 
    (Mr. Sarasin) is recognized for 5 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sarasin: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dellums). . . .
        The Chairman: The question is on the preferential motion 
    offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums).
        Mr. [Augustus F.] Hawkins [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the preferential motion.

[[Page 10156]]

        The Chairman: The Chair will state that all time for debate on 
    the preferential motion has expired.
        The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums).
        The preferential motion was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: While Mr. Hawkins as manager of the bill 
would have been recognized first in opposition to the motion if he had 
sought recognition at the time Mr. Sarasin was recognized, he was not 
entitled to recognition after Mr. Sarasin had concluded.

--Preferential Motion and Debate Thereon Where Debate Time Has Been 
    Limited

Sec. 23.36 A limitation of all debate time on a bill and all amendments 
    thereto to a time certain does not preclude the offering of a 
    preferential motion to rise with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken, nor debate thereon during time 
    remaining under the limitation; and where the remaining time for 
    debate on 
    a bill and all amendments thereto is consumed by debate on a 
    preferential motion, an amendment pending when the preferential 
    motion was offered is voted on without further debate, if that 
    amendment was not printed in the Record.

    On Oct. 6, 1981,(6) during consideration of H.R. 4560 
(Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations for fiscal year 1982) 
in the Committee of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 127 Cong. Rec. 23361, 23362, 23396, 23397, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the bill and all amendments 
    thereto conclude not later than 5 o'clock.
        The Chairman: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Theodore S.] Weiss [of New York]: . . . I wonder if the 
    distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) would not agree 
    that a 6 o'clock time frame would be more appropriate?
        Mr. Natcher: Mr. Chairman, I would accept the recommendation, 
    and so move.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Kentucky? . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The time will be limited to 6 o'clock. . . .
        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Lott moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the 


[[Page 10157]]

        bill back to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken out. . . .

        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, at the time the gentleman from 
    Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) requested unanimous consent that debate be 
    terminated at 6 o'clock, we were given assurances that all the 
    amendments that . . . any Member had to offer would be entertained. 
    So I now raise the point of order that in fact the gentleman is 
    proceeding out of the regular order that was agreed to.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) has 
    offered a preferential motion which is in order and not precluded 
    by the unanimous-consent agreement, and under the unanimous-consent 
    agreement, the gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
    minutes. . . .
        Mr. Lott: Mr. Chairman, I take this time to make one brief 
    point. This bill is over budget, whether it be the President's 
    budget or the first concurrent resolution on the budget passed by 
    this House. This bill is over budget whether you look at outlays or 
    budget authority. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher) is 
    recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
        Mr. Natcher: . . . When we started debate on this bill, the 
    Members will recall that I said that at the proper time we would 
    offer an amendment 
    to take out of this bill $74 million 
    in budget authority. We offered the amendment, and the $74 million 
    was taken out. That put us in line with the section 302 target for 
    discretionary budget authority. . . .
        The Chairman: All time has expired. The question is on the 
    preferential motion offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Lott).
        The preferential motion was rejected.
        The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
        Mr. [Joseph M.] Gaydos [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Gaydos: Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Chair whether or not 
    I have 5 minutes to respond to the amendment as offered by the 
    gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg).
        The Chairman: All time for debate on the bill and on the 
    pending amendment has expired.
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg). . . .
        So the amendment was rejected.
        Mr. [Donald J.] Pease [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman's amendment printed in the 
    Record?
        Mr. Pease: It is, Mr. Chairman. It is amendment No. 1.
        [Mr. Pease was subsequently recognized to debate the 
    amendment.]

    Parliamentarian's Note: During debate on the preferential motion, 
there was discussion of a prospective motion to recommit. For 
discussion of the distinction between a motion to recommit pending a 
vote on a motion to strike the enacting clause, and the motion to 
recommit pending final passage, see Sec. 15, supra.

[[Page 10158]]

Sec. 23.37 Debate on a preferential motion in Committee of the Whole to 
    strike the 
    enacting clause, and a vote 
    on that motion, takes precedence over remaining debate on a pending 
    amendment on which time has been limited and allocated; thus, where 

    a Member offers a preferential motion to strike the enacting clause 
    in order to obtain five minutes of debate on the pending amendment 
    on which debate has been limited and allocated, the Chair must put 
    the question on the preferential motion immediately after debate 
    thereon, unless unanimous consent is given to combine that debate 
    with time remaining under the allocation on the amendment.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 25, 1986,(8) during consideration of H.R. 5052 
(military construction appropriations for fiscal 1987):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 132 Cong. Rec. 15500-502, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [W. G.] Hefner [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all 
    amendments hereto end in 20 minutes.
        The Chairman: (9) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from North Carolina?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: Members standing at the time the unanimous-
    consent request was agreed to will be recognized for 2 minutes 
    each. . . .
        Mr. [Ronald V.] Dellums [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. Dellums) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion.
        Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I will not insist upon my motion 
    that the Committee do now rise. I simply use this extraordinary 
    tactic in order to gain some opportunity to speak on this terribly 
    important matter. I think that we ought to limit debate only on 
    issues that are noncontroversial. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Dellums) has expired.
        Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I still have 1 minute on the earlier 
    request.
        The Chairman: The preferential 
    motion takes preference over the 1 minute.
        Mr. Dellums: Mr. Chairman, I still have 1 minute after the 
    preferential motion is voted up or down; is that not correct, Mr. 
    Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct. Does the gentleman 
    desire to take that now?
        Mr. Dellums: That is my request, and then I would logically 
    conclude my discussion, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

[[Page 10159]]

        The Chairman: Without objection, the gentleman may proceed for 
    1 additional minute, on the preferential motion, in lieu of his 1 
    minute allocated on the pending amendment.
        There was no objection.

--Where Debate Time Has Expired

Sec. 23.38 The 10 minutes of debate otherwise permitted on a 
    preferential motion to recommend that the enacting clause be 
    stricken is not available where all time for debate under the five-
    minute rule on a bill and all amendments thereto has expired.

    On Apr. 9, 1976,(10) during consideration of the 
military procurement authorization bill (H.R. 12438) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 10245, 10246, 10249, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that all debate on the remainder of the bill, title VII and 
    all amendments thereto, close in 10 minutes.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (11) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: All time for debate has expired. . . 
    .
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Harkin moves that the Committee do now rise and report 
        the bill back to the House with the 
        recommendation that the enacting clause of H.R. 12438 be 
        stricken.

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman's motion is not 
    debatable, in that all time has expired.

        The question is on the preferential motion offered by the 
    gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin).
        The preferential motion was rejected.

Sec. 23.39 When the Committee of the Whole has limited debate on the 
    bill and all amendments thereto to a time certain, even a 
    preferential motion to strike the enacting clause is not debatable 
    if offered after the expiration of time for debate.

    On Aug. 1, 1984,(12) during consideration of H.R. 6028 
(Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare appropriations 
for fiscal 1985) in the Committee of the Whole, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 130 Cong. Rec. 21869, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (13) All time has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a preferential motion at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Clerk will state the motion.

[[Page 10160]]

        The Chair will first advise the gentleman that it is not 
    debatable at this point under the unanimous-consent agreement.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . 
    . .
        Is it not true that on behalf of this motion this Member would 
    have 5 minutes?
        The Chairman: All debate on the bill and all amendments to the 
    bill under the unanimous-consent agreement was to end at 1:30, 
    unless amendments had been printed in the Record.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: This is not an amendment.
        The Chairman: All debate on the bill ended at 1:30, under the 
    unanimous-consent agreement.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Maybe this Member does not understand, but the 
    preferential motion takes precedence over the time limitation that 
    has been agreed to; does it not?
        The Chairman: It could be offered, but there will be no debate 
    on the preferential motion.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: This Member would have no time on behalf of it?
        The Chairman: The gentleman would not have any time under the 
    unanimous-consent agreement.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        The time limitation was on the bill itself; is that correct?
        The Chairman: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Walker: The preferential motion deals with a specific 
    motion before the House which would be my understanding, would 
    permit the gentleman 5 minutes of time to debate his motion. That 
    is the pattern that I have understood we have used before when time 
    limitations have been declared. Is this a change of policy on the 
    part of the Chair?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the precedents of the 
    House are that when the time limit is on the entire bill, that 
    includes all motions thereto.
        Mr. Walker: So that the Chair is ruling that this motion is a 
    part of the debate on the bill?
        The Chairman: That is correct.

--Priority in Recognition of Members in Opposition

Sec. 23.40 The Chair normally recognizes the manager of a bill for five 
    minutes if he rises in opposition to a preferential motion that the 
    enacting clause be stricken, and no preference in recognition is 
    granted to the minority.

    An illustration of the proposition described above occurred on Apr. 
23, 1975,(14) in the Committee of the Whole during 
consideration of the Vietnam Humanitarian Assistance Act (H.R. 6096):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 121 Cong. Rec. 11505, 11506, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 10161]]

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

        The Chairman: (15) The Chair recognizes the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill) in support of his 
    preferential motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Otis G. Pike (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 23.41 The chairman of a committee managing a bill is entitled to 
    recognition for debate in opposition to a motion that the Committee 
    rise and report the bill to the House with the recommendation that 
    the enacting clause be stricken, over the minority manager of the 
    bill.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Apr. 28, 1983,(16) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 10425, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) When the Committee of the Whole 
    rose on Thursday, April 21, 1983, pending was the committee 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute which is considered as an 
    original resolution for the purpose of amendment. All time for 
    debate on the text of the resolution had expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Are there further amendments?

                 preferential motion offered by mr. au coin

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

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

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential motion. . . 
    .
        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the preferential motion.

[[Page 10162]]

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

Sec. 23.42 Priority of recognition in opposition to a preferential 
    motion to recommend that the enacting clause be stricken is 
    accorded to a member of the committee reporting the bill.

    During consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 (H.R. 
10498) in the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 15, 1976,(18) 
the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 122 Cong. Rec. 30469, 30470, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        The Chairman: (19) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Wright) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his preferential 
    motion. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Mike] McCormack [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the motion.
        The Chairman: Is the gentleman on the committee?
        Mr. McCormack: No, I am not; but I rise in opposition to the 
    motion.
        The Chairman: For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida 
    (Mr. Rogers) seek recognition? . . .
        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Washington will state his 
    point of order.

        Mr. McCormack: Mr. Chairman, there is a motion on the floor. I 
    rise in opposition to it.
        As I understand, under the rules, one Member is allowed 5 
    minutes to speak in opposition to a motion like this.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that what the gentleman says 
    is absolutely true.
        However, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
    Rogers, a member of the committee and manager of the bill] who is 
    on his feet, if he seeks recognition in opposition to the 
    preferential motion.

Sec. 23.43 Members of the committee managing the bill have priority of 
    recognition for debate in opposition to a preferential motion that 
    the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill back to the 
    House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 5, 1988,(20) during

[[Page 10163]]

consideration of the Department of Defense authorization for fiscal 
1989 (H.R. 4264):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 134 Cong. Rec. 9955, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (1) Does any Member desire 
    to rise in opposition to the preferential motion? Members of the 
    committee have priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--Motion Not Affected by Special Rule Prohibiting Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 23.44 A special rule governing consideration of a bill 
    in Committee of the Whole which prohibits the Chair from 
    entertaining pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate does 
    not preclude the offering of a preferential motion that the 
    Committee rise and report the bill to the House with the 
    recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, since that 
    motion is not a pro forma amendment and must be voted on (or 
    withdrawn by unanimous consent).

    On May 4, 1983,(2) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and 
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being 
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar. 
16,(3) and a special rule providing for additional 
procedures for consideration, including the prohibition of pro forma 
amendments offered for purposes of obtaining debate time, agreed to on 
May 4.(4) A preferential motion was offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 129 Cong. Rec. 11072, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Levitas moves that the Committee rise and report the 
        resolution back to the House with the recommendation that the 
        resolving clause be stricken.

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (5) The gentleman will 
    state his point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Downey of New York: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the 
    rule is that there is a provision in the rule that prohibits 
    motions of this sort for the purpose of debate time. Is that 
    correct?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise the gentleman 
    it only prohibits pro forma amendments, not

[[Page 10164]]

    preferential motions such as the gentleman has offered.

Motions To Recommit, Commit, or Refer

Sec. 23.45 In recognizing Members to move to recommit, the Speaker 
    gives preference first to the ranking minority member of the 
    committee reporting the bill, if opposed to the bill, and then to 
    the remaining minority members of that committee in the or-der of 
    their rank.

    On June 18, 1957,(6) the House was considering H.R. 
6127, the Civil Rights Act of 1957. In response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, stated that the order of 
recognition for a motion to recommit would be in the order of rank of 
minority members of the committee reporting the bill, the Committee on 
the Judiciary. When two minority members of the committee arose to 
offer the motion, the Speaker recognized the member higher in rank:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 103 Cong. Rec. 9516, 9517, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 10165]]

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

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

        Mr. Martin: The Chair does not think that preference should be 
    given to an individual who was going to make a motion to recommit 
    and who was absolutely opposed to the bill?
        The Speaker: The Chair is not qualified to answer a question 
    like that. The Chair in response to the parliamentary inquiry of 
    the gentleman from Massachusetts will say that the decision made by 
    Mr. Speaker Champ Clark has never been overturned, and it has been 
    upheld by 1 or 2 Speakers since that time, especially by Mr. 
    Speaker Garner in 1932.
        In looking over this list, the Chair has gone down the list and 
    will make the decision when someone arises to make a motion to 
    recommit. The Chair does not know entirely who is going to seek 
    recognition.
        Mr. [Richard H.] Poff [of Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Poff: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. [Russell W.] Keeney [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I also 
    offer a motion to recommit, and I, too, am opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker: In this instance the Chair finds that no one has 
    arisen who is a member of the minority of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary until it comes down to the name of the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Poff]. He ranks the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Keeney] and is therefore senior. Under the rules and precedents of 
    the House, the Chair therefore must recognize the gentleman from 
    Virginia [Mr. Poff].(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Where recognition is required by rule or precedent to pass to the 
        opposition, the Speaker inquires whether the Member seeking 
        recognition is opposed in fact to the measure or motion. For 
        general discussion of rights to recognition of the opposition 
        after rejection of an essential motion, see Sec. 15, supra. For 
        full treatment of recognition for the motion to recommit, see 
        Ch. 23, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.46 In response to a parliamentary inquiry the Speaker stated 
    that recognition to offer a motion to recommit is the prerogative 
    of a Member opposed to the bill, that the Speaker will first look 
    to minority members of the committee reporting the bill in their 
    order of seniority on the committee, second to other Members of the 
    minor

[[Page 10166]]

    ity and finally to majority Members opposed to the bill; thus, a 
    minority Member opposed to a bill but not on the committee 
    reporting it is entitled to recognition to offer a motion to 
    recommit over a majority Member who is also a member of the 
    committee.

    On July 10, 1975,(8) during consideration of H.R. 8365 
(Department of Transportation appropriations) in the House, the Speaker 
put the question on passage of the bill and then recognized Mr. William 
A. Steiger, of Wisconsin, a minority Member, to offer a motion to 
recommit. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 22014, 22015, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (9) The question is on the passage of 
    the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
    recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Steiger of Wisconsin: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies. The Clerk will report the 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not a member of the Committee on 
    Appropriations. As I understand the rule, a member of the Committee 
    on Appropriations must offer a motion to recommit.
        The gentleman who offered the motion is not on the Committee on 
    Appropriations.
        The Speaker: A member of the minority has priority over all the 
    members of the majority, regardless of whether he is on the 
    committee.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, may I continue with my statement on the 
    point of order.

        The Speaker: You may.
        Mr. Yates: ``Cannon's Precedents'' states, Mr. Speaker, that if 
    a motion is offered by a person other than a member of the 
    committee, a member of the committee takes precedence in offering a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: A motion to recommit is the prerogative of the 
    minority, and the Chair so rules and so answers the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, may I refer the attention of the Chair 
    to page 311.
        I am quoting from page 311 of ``Cannon's Precedents.''

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

        And, Mr. Speaker, it cites volume 8, page 2768.
        The Speaker: The Chair desires to call the attention of the 
    gentleman on the question of the motion to ``Deschler's Procedure'' 
    chapter 23, section 13. It provides that in recognizing Members who 
    move to recommit, the Speaker gives preference to the minority 
    Member, and these recent precedents are consistent with the one 
    cited by the gentleman from Illinois.

[[Page 10167]]

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

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

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

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

Sec. 23.47 A minority member of 
    a committee reporting a bill 
    is entitled to recognition to offer a motion to recommit, 
    if opposed to the bill, over 
    a minority Member not on 
    the committee, although the Speaker may have failed to notice the 
    committee member seeking recognition at the time the noncommittee 
    Member sought to offer a motion but before it was reported by the 
    Clerk.

    During consideration of the Department of Agriculture appro

[[Page 10168]]

priation bill for fiscal 1976 (H.R. 8561) in the House on July 14, 
1975,(10) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 22620, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (11) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                  motion to recommit offered by mr. michel

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

Sec. 23.48 Until a Member desiring to offer a motion to recommit has 
    had his motion read by the Clerk, he is not entitled to the floor 
    so as 
    to prevent another Member from seeking recognition to offer another 
    recommittal motion.

    During consideration of the State Department authorization bill 
(H.R. 3303) in the House on Apr. 24, 1979,(12) it was 
demonstrated that the fact that the Chair has inquired of a Member 
seeking recognition to offer a 
motion to recommit whether he qualifies as being opposed to the bill 
does not confer recognition on that Member, where the Chair has not 
directed the Clerk to report the motion. The proceedings were as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 125 Cong. Rec. 8360, 8361, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (13) The question is on the engrossment 
    and third reading of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

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

[[Page 10169]]

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

        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
        Mr. Broomfield: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a point of order 
    that the gentleman is not in order in making the motion, since 
    another Member had already been recognized. The Chair has already 
    conferred that recognition and had inquired whether or not the 
    gentleman from Maryland was opposed.
        The Speaker: In the opinion of the Chair, until the motion has 
    been read, the gentleman has not been recognized for that purpose.
        Mr. Bauman: Well, the gentleman did not yield to anyone else to 
    offer a motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman had not been recognized for that 
    purpose and consequently--the Chair asked the gentleman if he was 
    in opposition. The gentleman replied. The gentleman was not then 
    recognized for that purpose.

[[Page 10170]]

     That is the statement and the opinion of the Chair. The Chair did 
    not recognize the gentleman by directing the Clerk to report the 
    motion. The Chair is trying to follow the precedents of the House.
        Now, the Chair has ruled on the gentleman's point of order and 
    the gentleman from Michigan is entitled to 5 minutes. The Chair so 
    recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield).

Sec. 23.49 The ranking minority member of the Committee 
    on Appropriations, who had voted in favor of the passage of a 
    continuing appropriations bill after having stated his opposition 
    to the bill in order to obtain recognition to offer an unsuccessful 
    motion to recommit (without 
    instructions), addressed the House on a following day to explain 
    and to apologize for his failure to vote against the bill.

    On Sept. 25, 1979,(14) during consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 404 (continuing appropriations) in the House, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 125 Cong. Rec. 26152, 26153, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (15) The question is on the engrossment 
    and third reading of the joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
    third time, and was read the third time.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman qualify?
        Mr. Conte: I do, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Conte moves to recommit the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 
        404) to the Committee on Appropriations.

        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered on the motion to recommit.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
        The motion to recommit was rejected.
        The Speaker: The question is on the passage of the joint 
    resolution.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    recorded vote.
        A recorded vote was ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 
    208, noes 203, not voting 23, as follows: . . .

    On Sept. 28, 1979,(16) Mr. Conte was recognized to make 
the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 26810, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Conte asked and was given permission to address the House 
    for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

[[Page 10171]]

        Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 25, 1979, when 
    the House considered House Joint Resolution 404, the fiscal year 
    1980 continuing resolution . . . I voted ``aye.'' . . .
        However, I should have voted ``nay.''
        As the record of debate shows, I offered a motion to recommit 
    House Joint Resolution 404 to the Committee on Appropriations.
        The Speaker asked me if I qualified to offer the motion. As the 
    ranking member of the Appropriations Committee I assumed I was 
    qualified and so stated.
        Upon further reflection and counseling with my friends and 
    colleagues, I came to realize that the honorable, if not the 
    technical, duty of a Member offering a motion to recommit is to 
    vote against the bill on final passage.
        Thus, I wish to take this occasion to apologize to the House 
    for my error in not adhering to the strong expectation that an 
    author of an unsuccessful motion to recommit will in turn vote 
    ``nay'' on final passage.

Sec. 23.50 The previous question having been ordered on a simple 
    resolution in the House, a motion to recommit with or without 
    instructions is in order; it must be offered by a Member who is 
    opposed to the resolution, and is not debatable.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 10, 1980: 
(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 13801, 13819, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (18) The unfinished business is the 
    further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 660) in the matter 
    of Representative Charles H. Wilson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Resolved,
            (1) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be censured;
            (2) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be denied the 
        chair on any committee or subcommittee of the House of 
        Representatives . . . .

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I move the 
    previous question on the resolution, as amended.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. McCloskey: Yes I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman qualifies.
        The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. McCloskey moves to recommit the resolution (H. Res. 
        660) to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct with 
        instructions to report the same to the House forthwith with the 
        following amendment. . . .

        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit offered 
    by the gentleman from California (Mr. McCloskey). . . .

[[Page 10172]]

        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    97, nays 308, answered ``present'' 4, not voting 24. . . .

Sec. 23.51 Where there was pending in the House under the hour rule a 
    resolution and 
    a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, 
    the Chair indicated that an amendment to the committee amendment 
    could be offered only if the manager yielded for that purpose or if 
    the previous question were rejected, and that a motion to recommit 
    with instructions containing a direct amendment could not be 
    offered 
    if the committee substitute were adopted (since it is not in order 
    to further amend a measure already amended in its entirety).

    On Mar. 22, 1983,(19) after House Resolution 127 was 
called up for consideration in the House, Speaker Pro Tempore John F. 
Seiberling, of Ohio, responded to several parliamentary inquiries, as 
indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 6447, 6448, 6455, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on House Administration, I call up a privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 127), providing amounts from the contingent 
    fund of the House for expenses of investigations and studies by 
    standing and select committees of the House in the 1st session of 
    the 98th Congress.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 127

            Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent 
        fund of the House in accordance with this primary expense 
        resolution not more than the amount specified in section 2 for 
        investigations and studies by each committee named in such 
        section . . . .
            Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: Strike 
        out all after the resolving clause and insert:
        That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the 
        House in accordance with this primary expense resolution not 
        more than the amount specified in section 2 for investigations 
        and studies by each committee named in such section . . . .

            Sec. 2. The committees and amounts referred to in the first 
        section are: Select Committee on Aging, $1,316,057; Committee 
        on Agriculture, $1,322,669; Committee on Armed Services, 
        $1,212,273 . . . .

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        If this Member from California would now offer an amendment to 
    the total in this resolution . . . would that amendment now be in 
    order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would rule that the 
    amendment would be in order if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Annunzio) would yield to the gentleman from Cali-fornia . . . .

[[Page 10173]]

        Mr. Dannemeyer . . . What if we were successful in defeating 
    the previous question with respect to this issue? If we did, would 
    an amendment to reduce spending consistent with what I stated 
    previously then be in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    if the previous question were defeated a germane amendment to the 
    committee amendment would be in order at that time. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        We have a motion to commit which is available at the conclusion 
    of a matter of this type. Is the procedure under which this process 
    is now considered by the floor such that the motion to commit can 
    be used with instructions to reduce spending by a certain amount or 
    is it a motion to recommit without instructions?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is agreed to no further direct amendment 
    could be made by a motion to recommit.

Sec. 23.52 The ten minutes of debate permitted on a motion to recommit 
    with instructions by clause 4 of Rule XVI applies only to a bill or 
    joint resolution and not to a simple resolution.

    During consideration of House Resolution 1097 (relating to 
investigative funds for the Committee on the Judiciary) in the House on 
Mar. 29, 1976,(20) a motion to recommit was offered, as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 8444, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to recommit.
        The Speaker: (1) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    resolution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Ashbrook: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ashbrook moves that House Resolution 1097 be 
        recommitted to the Committee on House Administration with 
        instructions that said committee forthwith report back to the 
        House said resolution with the following amendment, to wit: on 
        page 2, line 11 of the resolution add the following new 
        sentence: ``Not to exceed $300,000 of the total amount provided 
        by this resolution shall be used to carry out activities within 
        the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary under the 
        provisions of rule X, clause (M) (19) of the Rules of the House 
        of Representatives.

        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized for 5 minutes?
        The Speaker: The rule regarding debate does not apply to a 
    motion to recommit a resolution.
        The question is on the motion to recommit.

Sec. 23.53 The Speaker has taken the floor to be recognized 
    for five minutes pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XVI in opposition to 
    a motion to recommit a bill with instructions.

    On Dec. 18, 1979,(2) during consideration of H.R. 5860 
(author

[[Page 10174]]

izing loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation) in the House, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 125 Cong. Rec. 36838, 36840, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [J. William] Stanton [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (3) Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Stanton moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5860 to the 
        Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs with 
        instructions to report back the same forthwith with the 
        following amendment: On page 23, after line 18, add the 
        following new section: . . .

        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. . . .
        Today I rise as Tip O'Neill, the Congressman, not as a Democrat 
    or a Republican, just as a fellow that has been in public life for 
    43 years. I have seen recessions and depressions, upturns and 
    downturns. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to 
    recommit.

--Motion To Commit

Sec. 23.54 A Member seeking recognition to offer a motion to commit a 
    concurrent resolution after the previous question has been ordered, 
    pursuant to clause 1 of Rule 
    XVII, must qualify by being 
    opposed to the resolution (whether or not the concurrent resolution 
    has been reported from committee).

    On Nov. 28, 1979,(4) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House during consideration of the second concurrent resolution 
on the budget for fiscal year 1980 (S. Con. Res. 53):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 125 Cong. Rec. 33904, 33914, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Pursuant to the order 
    of the House of November 27, the previous question is considered as 
    having been ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman opposed to the 
    concurrent resolution?
        Mr. Latta: I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    commit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Latta moves to commit Senate Concurrent Resolution 53 
        to the Committee on the Budget with the following instructions: 
        For fiscal year 1980, after excluding the National Defense and 
        Veterans Affairs functions, reduce the remaining total amount 
        of new budget authority and total amount of outlays by two 
        percent . . . . The Committee on

[[Page 10175]]

        the Budget is further instructed to report S. Con. Res. 53 back 
        to the House promptly with these changes.

Sec. 23.55 Where the previous question had been ordered on a privileged 
    resolution electing minority Members to committees, a minority 
    Member offered a motion to commit the resolution to a select 
    committee to be appointed by the Speaker with instructions to 
    report back forthwith with an amendment increasing the number of 
    minority Members on the Committee on Ways and Means by two.

    On Jan. 28, 1981,(6) during consideration of House 
Resolution 45 (electing minority Members 
to standing committees) in the House, Minority Leader Robert H. Michel, 
of Illinois, offered the resolution and the proceedings that followed 
were as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 127 Cong. Rec. 1142, 1144, 1146, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 45), and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 45

             Resolution designating membership on certain standing 
                            committees of the House

            Resolved, That the following named Members, Delegates, and 
        Resident Commissioner be, and they are hereby, elected to the 
        following standing committees of the House of Representatives:

                         committee on agriculture . . .

        The Speaker: (7) The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
    consume. . . .
        I have no more requests for time, Mr. Speaker, but before 
    moving the previous question, I would simply advise the membership 
    of the House that the parliamentary situation is such that the 
    gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), after the previous question 
    has been ordered, will move to commit. That is a nondebatable 
    motion, and there will be a vote immediately following which will 
    give Members an opportunity to express themselves on the substitute 
    which is embodied in the gentleman's motion.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
        The previous question was ordered.
        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion to commit.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion to 
    commit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Lott moves to commit the resolution (H. Res. 45) to a 
        select committee to be appointed by the Speaker and to be 
        composed of nine members not more than five of whom shall be 
        from the same political party, with instructions to report the 
        same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:

[[Page 10176]]

            Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following:
        The following named Members . . . be, and they are hereby, 
        elected to the following standing committees of the House of 
        Representatives:

                       committee on ways and means . . .

        [T]he motion to commit was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion to commit under clause 1 of Rule 
XVII is applicable to simple resolutions and may create a select 
committee with instructions to report back forthwith with a germane 
amendment. The Member offering the motion need not qualify as opposed 
where the resolution is offered from the floor as privileged and has 
not been reported from committee, and the minority party has no prior 
right to recognition in such a situation. As noted by Mr. Michel, a 
motion to commit is not debatable after the previous question has been 
ordered on a resolution, but is amendable unless the previous question 
is separately ordered thereon.

Sec. 23.56 It is the prerogative of the minority, prior to adoption of 
    the rules, to offer a motion to commit the resolution adopting the 
    rules; 
    and instances have occurred where, the previous question having 
    been ordered on a resolution adopting the rules of the House, the 
    Minority Leader has offered a motion to commit the resolution to 
    a select committee with instructions to report back to the House 
    within a specified number of days with an amendment.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Jan. 3, 1983: 
(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 129 Cong. Rec. 49-51, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             RULES OF THE HOUSE

        The Speaker: (9) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    249, nays 156, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows: . 
    . .
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
        The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
        Mr. Michel: Indeed I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 10177]]

            Mr. Michel moves to commit the resolution, House Resolution 
        5, to a select committee to be appointed by the Speaker and to 
        be composed of ten members, not more than six of whom shall be 
        from the same political party, with instructions to report the 
        same back to the House within two legislative days with only 
        the following amendment: Strike clause ``(5)'' relating to 
        restrictions on the offering of certain amendments to 
        appropriations bills, and redesignate succeeding clauses 
        accordingly. . . .

        The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is 
    ordered on the motion to commit.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion to commit. . . .
        So the motion to commit was rejected.

    Similarly, in the 97th Congress,(10) the Minority Leader 
offered a motion to commit the resolution to a select committee with 
instructions to report back to the House within seven calendar days 
with an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 127 Cong. Rec. 98, 111-13, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 5, 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Michel moves to commit the resolution (H. Res. 5) to a 
        select committee to be appointed by the Speaker and to be 
        composed of nine members, not more than five of whom shall be 
        from the same political party, with instructions to report the 
        same back to the House within 7 
        calendar days with the following amendment:
            On page 10, after line 8, add the following:
            (19) In rule X, clause 6(a) is amended by adding the 
        following new subparagraph:
            ``(3) The membership of each committee (and of each 
        subcommittee, task force or subunit thereof), shall reflect the 
        ratio of majority to minority party members of the House at the 
        beginning of this Congress. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (11) Without objection, the 
    previous question is ordered on the motion to commit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Bill Alexander (Ark.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to 
    commit. . . .
        So the motion to commit was rejected.

    Parliamentarian's Note: On the opening day of the 63d Congress, a 
motion to commit the resolution adopting the rules to a select 
committee with instructions ``to report back to the House a substitute 
therefor, together with the views and recommendations of the select 
committee, in substance as fol-lows . . .'' was held in order by 
Speaker Champ Clark.(12) At the beginning of the 65th 
Congress, the motion to commit with instructions to report back 
forthwith with an amendment to the rules was offered and not 
challenged.(13)

[[Page 10178]]

 Under modern practice, the motion to commit should not include 
instructions to report ``forthwith'' a rules change which would be 
immediately effective, particularly since the view is now held that, 
prior to adoption of the rules, a resolution to adopt the rules is not 
subject to amendment unless the previous question is voted down or the 
Member in control yields for that purpose.(14) Generally, 
the defeat of the previous question is considered the only method by 
which the minority may offer an amendment to the rules proposed by the 
majority, although the question may depend upon the extent to which the 
Chair would rely upon House rules (such as Rule XVII, permitting the 
motion to commit with instructions to report back forthwith with an 
amendment) prior to adoption of the rules. It should also be noted that 
where a Member of the minority offers a motion to commit the resolution 
adopting the rules, such Member need not qualify as opposed to the 
resolution.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2755.
13. See also the proceedings of Dec. 6, 1915, at the beginning of the 
        64th Congress.
14. See Ch. 1 Sec. 9.3, supra.
15. See, for example, 127 Cong. Rec. 98, 112, 97th Cong. 1st Sess., 
        Jan. 5, 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Motion To Refer

Sec. 23.57 While recognition to offer a motion to recommit a bill or 
    joint resolution (previously referred to committee) under clause 4 
    of Rule XVI is the prerogative of the minority party if opposed to 
    the bill, recognition to offer a motion to refer under clause 1 of 
    Rule XVII after the previous question has been moved or ordered on 
    a resolution (not previously referred to committee) does not depend 
    on party affiliation or upon opposition to the resolution.

    During consideration of House Resolution 1042 (directing the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate the 
unauthorized publication of the report of the Select Committee on 
Intelligence) in the House on Feb. 19, 1976,(16) the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 122 Cong. Rec. 3914-21, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 10179]]

                                  H. Res. 1042

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

            Whereas the February 16, 1976, issue of the Village Voice, 
        a New York City newspaper, contains the partial text of a 
        report or a preliminary report prepared by the Select Committee 
        on Intelligence of the House, pursuant to H. Res. 591, which 
        relates to the foreign activities of the intelligence agencies 
        of the United States and which contains sensitive classified 
        information . . . Now, therefore, be it
            Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct be and it is hereby authorized and directed to inquire 
        into the circumstances surrounding the publication of the text 
        and of any part of the report 
        of the Select Committee on Intelligence, and to report back to 
        the House in a timely fashion its findings and recommendations 
        thereon.

        The Speaker: (17) The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 10180]]

    motion comes too late. The Chair has already put the previous 
    question and it has been moved.
        The Speaker: The motion to refer a resolution is in order after 
    the previous question is ordered under clause 1, rule XVII. . . .
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts, the distinguished majority leader, has offered, 
    in effect, a motion to recommit the original resolution. Is it not 
    true that under the practices and procedures of this House one who 
    is opposed to the motion and who is on the minority side of the 
    aisle is entitled to control of the motion to recommit? Would I not 
    be entitled to preference over the gentleman from Massachusetts in 
    offering a motion to recommit which is, in effect, what the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts has offered?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is referring to the procedure under 
    rule XVI. In this rather unique situation, the resolution has not 
    been before a committee and the House technically cannot recommit a 
    resolution that has never been previously referred to committee. 
    This is a motion to commit or refer under rule XVII and not a 
    motion to recommit under clause 4, rule XVI.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See also 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        The question this gentleman would like to put is when a 
    question of privilege is before the House, is a motion to refer 
    which would, in effect, avoid a final vote on the question of 
    privilege, in order prior to a vote on the question of privilege 
    itself?
        The Speaker: It is. The remedy of the House is to vote down, if 
    the House is in opposition, to vote down the motion of the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts.
        The question is on the motion to refer offered by the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    172, nays 219, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 39, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the motion was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If the Majority Leader had offered the 
motion to refer under clause 1 of Rule XVII when the previous question 
was moved but before it was ordered, the motion to refer would itself 
have been debatable as well as amendable.
    Under Rule XXIII, clause 7,(19) when a bill is reported 
from the Committee of the Whole with an adverse recommendation, a 
motion to refer the bill to any committee with or without instructions 
is in order pending a vote on the motion to strike the enacting clause 
in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 875 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Right of recognition to offer a motion to recommit pending final

[[Page 10181]]

passage, which is the prerogative of the minority if opposed, should be 
distinguished from the right of recognition for a motion to refer under 
Rule XXIII clause 7 pending a vote in the House on a motion to strike 
out the enacting clause. In the latter case, a Member seeking 
recognition need not be opposed to the bill, since the motion to refer 
in this case is a measure designed to avert final adverse disposition 
of the bill. As stated by Speaker Frederick H. Gillett, of 
Massachusetts, on May 19, 1924 (see 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2629), 
``apparently the provision for a motion to refer was inserted so that 
the friends of the original bill might avert its permanent death by 
referring it again to the committee, where it could again be considered 
in the light of the action of the House.'' By the same reasoning, 
Speaker Gillett pointed out, rejection of the motion to refer should 
not give the right of recognition to sponsors of the bill, but to one 
supporting the motion to strike the enacting clause.

Sec. 23.58 A motion to refer (where the previous question has not been 
    ordered on the pending proposition) is debatable for one hour, 
    controlled by the Member offering the motion.

    During consideration of House Resolution 142 (to expel Charles C. 
Diggs, Jr.) in the House on Mar. 1, 1979,(20) the following 
exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 125 Cong. Rec. 3746, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 142) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                    H.R. 142

            Resolved, That Charles C. Diggs, Jr., a Representative from 
        the Thirteenth District of Michigan, is hereby expelled from 
        the House of Representatives.

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

            Mr. Wright moves to refer House Resolution 142 to the 
        Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

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

Sec. 23.59 Pursuant to clause 4 of Rule XVI, a motion to refer takes 
    precedence over a motion to amend and the Chair recognizes the 
    Member seeking to offer the preferential motion before the less 
    preferential motion is read.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Aug. 13,

[[Page 10182]]

1982,(2) during consideration of House Resolution 560 
(waiving certain points of order against H.R. 6957, Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
1983). The previous question having been rejected, an amendment to the 
resolution was offered, then ruled out of order as not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 128 Cong. Rec. 20977, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Trent] Lott [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, in view of the 
    ruling of the Chair,(3) I have a substitute rule at the 
    desk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. An amendment in the nature of a substitute previously offered by 
        Mr. Lott was ruled out of order as not germane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Leo C.] Zeferetti [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        Mr. Lott: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (4) The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Lott: Mr. Speaker, should not the substitute rule be read 
    first, before the preferential motion?
        The Speaker: A preferential motion to refer takes precedence 
    over the motion to amend, as ascertained by the Chair's inquiry 
    ``for what purpose did the gentleman rise?''
        The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Zeferetti moves to refer House Resolution 560 to the 
        Committee on Rules.

Sec. 23.60 The motion to refer a resolution offered as a question of 
    the privileges of the House, which is in order pending the demand 
    for the previous question or after the previous question is 
    ordered, is not subject to debate; and a Member offering the motion 
    need not qualify as stating his opposition to the resolution since 
    it has not been reported from committee but has been offered as an 
    original proposition on the floor of the House.

    On Apr. 28, 1983,(5) the House had under consideration a 
resolution,(6) presented as a question of the privileges of 
the House, of refusal to comply with a subpena duces tecum issued by a 
U.S. District Court served on the Clerk for the production of records 
in his custody (documents of a select committee from a prior Congress).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 129 Cong. Rec. 10417, 10423, 10424, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. H. Res. 176, concerning privileges of the House related to 
        investigative records of the Select Committee on Aging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Foley) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [After debate:]
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington: . . . Mr. Speaker, I move 
    the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page 10183]]

        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I offer a motion to refer.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Sensenbrenner moves to refer the resolution to the 
        Committee on the Judiciary.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered on the motion to refer.
        There was no objection.
        [The motion to refer was rejected, the previous question was 
    ordered, the resolution agreed to.]

Sec. 23.61 When a resolution is offered as a question of privilege and 
    is debatable under the hour rule, a motion to refer is in order 
    before debate begins and is debatable for one hour under the 
    control of the offeror of the motion.

    On Mar. 4, 1985,(8) during consideration of House 
Resolution 97 (to seat Richard D. McIntyre as a Member from Indiana) in 
the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 131 Cong. Rec. 4277, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of privilege.
        Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. 
    Res. 97) and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                   H. Res. 97

            Whereas a certificate of election to the House of 
        Representatives always carries with it the presumption that the 
        State election procedures have been timely, regular, and fairly 
        implemented; and . . .
            Whereas the presumption of the validity and regularity of 
        the certificate of election held by Richard D. McIntyre has not 
        been overcome by any substantial evidence or claim of 
        irregularity: Now, therefore be it
            Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and 
        directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from 
        Indiana, Mr. Richard D. McIntyre.
            Resolved, That the question of the final right of Mr. 
        McIntyre to a seat in the 99th Congress is referred to the 
        Committee on House Administration.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore:  (9) The gentleman states a 
    valid question of privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander).
        Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the resolution be referred to the Committee on House 
    Administration.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is recognized.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, for what period of time am I 
    recognized?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is entitled to 1 hour 
    under that motion, during which time the gentleman from Arkansas 
    controls the time.

[[Page 10184]]

        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, does the minority wish time on the 
    motion?
        Mr. Michel: Yes.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would yield 30 minutes for 
    purposes of debate only, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel).

Motions To Instruct Conferees

Sec. 23.62 A member of the minority is first entitled to recognition 
    for a motion to instruct conferees, on a bill being sent to 
    conference, other factors influencing recognition being equal.

    On Oct. 31, 1939,(10) a resolution asking for a 
conference on a bill with Senate amendments was offered and agreed to. 
Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, with jurisdiction over the bill, and Mr. 
James A. Shanley, of Connecticut, a majority member of the committee, 
arose simultaneously to offer a motion to instruct the conferees on the 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 85 Cong. Rec. 1092-1105, 76th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that Mr. Fish was 
entitled to prior recognition for the motion if he so 
desired.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For full discussion of the motion to instruct conferees, see Ch. 
        33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motions To Adjourn

Sec. 23.63 A motion to adjourn is not in order while a Member has the 
    floor unless he yields for the motion.

    On Oct. 18, 1945,(12) Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, who 
had the floor, yielded to Mr. John Edward Sheridan, of Pennsylvania, at 
the latter's request. Mr. Sheridan then moved that the House adjourn, 
and Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, inquired of Mr. Cox whether he 
yielded for that purpose. Mr. Cox replied:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 9814, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for that purpose, and the gentleman 
    should not have taken advantage of the courtesy I extended to 
    him.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For general discussion of the motion to adjourn, see Ch. 40, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.64 The Chair cannot refuse to recognize a Member having the 
    floor for a motion to adjourn.

    On Mar. 16, 1945,(14) Mr. Robert F. Jones, of Ohio, 
objected to the vote on a question to recommit on the ground that a 
quorum was not present. A call of the House was ordered and a quorum 
failed to vote. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, was recognized for a

[[Page 10185]]

parliamentary inquiry and then stated that if there was not a quorum, 
he moved that the House adjourn. Speaker Sam Rayburn, 
of Texas, asked him to withhold 
his request and Mr. Hoffman responded ``If the Chair is refusing 
recognition, I will.'' The Speaker stated that he could not so refuse 
recognition for a motion to adjourn. Mr. John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, then moved adjournment and the motion was agreed 
to.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 91 Cong. Rec. 2379, 2380, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. The Chair may decline to recognize for a motion to adjourn which is 
        dilatory (see Sec. Sec. 23.8-23.10, 23.12, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 23.65 A Delegate to the House may offer the motion to adjourn (in 
    this instance while serving as Acting Majority Leader).

    On Jan. 9, 1981,(16) Mr. Fofo I. F. Sunia, the Delegate 
from American Samoa, made the following motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 127 Cong. Rec. 248, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Sunia: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
        The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 25 
    minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until 
    Tuesday, January 13, 1981, at 12 o'clock noon.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A non-voting Delegate may offer any motion 
except the motion to reconsider, but he may not vote on any motion so 
offered.

Sec. 23.66 While the motion to adjourn takes precedence over any other 
    motion under clause 4 of Rule XVI, the Speaker may through his 
    power of recognition recognize the Majority Leader by unanimous 
    consent for one minute to announce the legislative program prior to 
    entertaining the motion to adjourn; and on one occasion, the 
    Speaker recognized the Majority Leader to announce the program for 
    the remainder of the day and declined to recognize a Member to 
    offer a motion to adjourn pending that announcement, although the 
    Majority Leader had neglected to obtain unanimous consent to 
    address the House for one minute. The Speaker then suggested that 
    decorum would best be maintained by unanimous-consent permission to 
    announce the leadership program pending a motion to adjourn.

    On Dec. 14, 1982,(17) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 128 Cong. Rec. 30549, 30550, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 10186]]

        The Speaker: (18) The Chair recognizes the majority 
    leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Denny] Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential 
    motion I send to the desk.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will be seated. The Speaker has the 
    right of recognition.
        Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I have a preferential motion.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Regular order, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the majority leader, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wright).

                            LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, let me 
    simply announce for the benefit of the Members that it is our 
    intention now to have no further votes tonight. We plan to take up 
    the things that we put off last night in order that Members might 
    go and attend the reception in the White House, the remaining 
    suspension, as was agreed with the Republican leadership and our 
    leadership last night, but we will not have any votes. We will roll 
    the votes until tomorrow, let the votes be the first thing 
    tomorrow.
        Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential 
    motion.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his preferential motion.
        Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now 
    adjourn.
        The Speaker: The question is on the preferential motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith).
        The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
    nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    122, nays 202, not voting 109, as follows: . . .

                        ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

        The Speaker: The Chair will make the following statement:
        It is the usual and customary practice in this House that when 
    we come to the end of a proceeding, as we did, that the majority 
    leader then announces the program for the remainder of the night. 
    The majority leader had informed me that he was going to make that 
    announcement. Normally it is a unanimous-consent request, and that 
    is what the Chair anticipated that the majority leader would do.
        It is the prerogative and the duty of the Speaker of the House 
    to run this body in an expeditious manner and he should be informed 
    when motions are going to be made, whether they are privileged or 
    otherwise, and when he is suddenly confronted with a privileged 
    motion, then it is my opinion, while the Chair appreciates that he 
    follows the rules of the House, it does not improve the decorum of 
    the House. The Speaker at all times tries to be fair, and thought 
    he was being fair with the Members when he was recognizing the 
    majority leader to inform the membership what the program was for 
    the remainder of the evening.

Sec. 23.67 On one occasion, the Speaker Pro Tempore having attempted by 
    unanimous consent to adjourn the House

[[Page 10187]]

    at the end of special-order speeches, there being an objection by a 
    minority Member on the floor, the Member objecting was then 
    recognized to move adjournment; there was no majority Member on the 
    floor at the time.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on May 23, 
1984:(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 130 Cong. Rec. 13960, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Without objection, the 
    House stands adjourned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sander M. Levin (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
    (Mr. Walker) have a motion?
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have always wanted to do this.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair is going to recognize the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Walker).
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
        The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 37 
    minutes p.m.) the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 24, 
    1984, at 10 a.m.

Sec. 23.68 Where the two Houses have adopted a concurrent resolution 
    permitting an adjournment of the House to a day certain in excess 
    of three days upon motion made by the Majority Leader or a Member 
    designated by him, the Speaker may recognize the Member so 
    designated to move to adjourn pursuant 
    to the concurrent resolution, over another Member whose motion to 
    adjourn if agreed to would only permit the House to adjourn 
    overnight.

    On Aug. 4, 1983,(1) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 129 Cong. Rec. 23244, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William H. Gray, 3d (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hank] Brown of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged 
    motion. I move the House adjourn.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Texas.
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    House Concurrent Resolution 153, I move that the House do now 
    adjourn.
        The motion was agreed to.

[[Page 10188]]