[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 12, Chapter 29 (Sections 1-34), Volume 13, Chapter 29 (Sections 35-end, plus index)]
[Chapter 29. Consideration and Debate]
[D. Control and Distribution of Time for Debate]
[Â§ 24. In General; Role of Manager]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10188-10226]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
 
Sec. 24. In General; Role of Manager


    In the practice of the House, one or more designated Members manage 
a measure during its consideration on the floor of the House. The 
manager of the measure has prior right to recognition unless he 
surrenders or loses control or unless a preferential motion is offered 
which is within the province of those who oppose the 
bill.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. For prior rights to recognition of the Member in control, see 
        Sec. Sec. 24.1, 24.2, infra. An example of a motion within the 
        province of the opposition (with priority of recognition to the 
        minority party) is the motion to recommit (see Ch. 23, supra). 
        For the surrendering or losing of control, see Sec. 33, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The manager is generally designated by the committee reporting the 
bill or resolution and is normally the chairman of the full committee 
or of the relevant subcommittee. Where a proposition is considered 
pursuant to a special order from the Committee on Rules, the special 
order typically provides that debate be controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the committee which has applied to the 
Committee on Rules for such an order.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. For management by the reporting committee, see Sec. 26, infra. The 
        effect and forms of special orders are discussed in Sec. 28, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a measure is considered un-der the hour rule in the House, the 
Member calling it up is normally entitled to one hour of debate, which 
he may in his discretion yield to other Members. He may at any time 
move the previous question, thereby bringing the matter to a vote and 
terminating further debate.(5) On conference reports and 
amendments reported in disagreement from conference, the hour is 
equally divided between the majority and minority 
parties.(6) Where a bill is called up in the House under 
suspension of the rules, debate continues for forty minutes, equally 
divided (see Chapter 21, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. For further discussion of the hour rule, see Sec. 68, infra. For 
        the previous question, see Sec. 24.21, infra.
 6. See Ch. 33 (House-Senate Conferences), infra. See also Sec. 26, 
        infra, for the requirement that one-third of debate time be 
        allotted to one opposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a matter is to be considered in the Committee of the Whole, 
general debate therein is controlled and divided by the Members in 
charge. When the bill is read for amendment in the Committee, the 
managers have prior right to recognition for debate and to move to 
limit debate or to move that the Committee rise.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. For priority of recognition to move that the Committee rise, see 
        Sec. 24.15, infra. For priority of recognition to move to close 
        debate, see Sec. 24.16, infra.

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

[[Page 10189]]

    During consideration in the House as in the Committee of the Whole, 
only five-minute debate is conducted, with priority of recognition to 
members of the reporting committee for debate or to move the previous 
question or to limit debate.

                            Cross References
Calling up and passing bills and resolutions generally, see Ch. 24, 
    supra.
Committee procedure as to management of bills, see Ch. 17, supra.
Management of bills called up under suspension of the rules, see Ch. 
    21, supra.
Management of bills on the various calendars, see Ch. 22, supra.
Management of resolutions of impeachment, see Ch. 14, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Manager's Prior Right to Recognition

Sec. 24.1 Where more than one Member seeks recognition, the Speaker 
    recognizes the Member in charge of the bill or resolution if he 
    seeks recognition.

    On Sept. 11, 1945,(8) Mr. Robert F. Rich, of 
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Adolph J. Sabath, of New York, arose at the same 
time seeking recognition on a bill being handled by Mr. Sabath. Speaker 
Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Sabath since he had priority of 
recognition as the Member in charge and then answered parliamentary 
inquiries on the order of recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 91 Cong. Rec. 8510, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Rich: After the reading of section 4 of the bill which 
    contained subsections (a), (b), and (c), could not a Member have 
    risen to strike out the last word and have been recognized?
        The Speaker: The gentleman did not state for what purpose he 
    rose. The gentleman from Illinois who is in charge of the 
    resolution was on his feet at the same time. The Chair recognized 
    the gentleman from Illinois, and the gentleman from Illinois made a 
    preferential motion.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: Must a Member on the floor addressing the Speaker 
    state the purpose for which he addresses the Speaker before he may 
    be recognized?
        The Speaker: Two Members rose. The Speaker always has the right 
    to recognize whichever Member he desires. The Chair recognized the 
    gentleman from Illinois who was in charge of the resolution. The 
    gentleman from Illinois made a preferential motion; the Chair put 
    the motion and it was adopted.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. For more extensive discussion of the priority of recognition for 
        the Member in control, see Sec. 14, supra.

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

[[Page 10190]]

Sec. 24.2 Where the Member handling a bill on the floor and a minority 
    Member both seek recognition, the Chair gives preference to the 
    former.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 2388, economic opportunity amendments, reported by the 
Committee on Education and Labor (chaired by Carl D. Perkins [Ky.]). 
Mr. Edward J. Gurney, of Florida, sought recognition to offer an 
amendment, but Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, recognized Mr. 
Perkins to submit 
a unanimous-consent request (to close debate at a certain hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Gurney made a point of order against recognition of Mr. 
Perkins, and the Chairman overruled the point of order:

        Mr. Gurney: Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the committee. I was 
    on my feet. The Chair recognized me, and I did not yield for a 
    unanimous-consent request on the other side.
        The Chairman: The Chair asked the gentleman for what purpose he 
    rose.
        Mr. Gurney: And I said to offer an amendment, and I was 
    recognized for that purpose.
        The Chairman: The Chair had not recognized the gentleman from 
    Florida at that point.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida.

Manager's Right To Open and Control Debate

Sec. 24.3 A Member calling up a measure or offering a motion in the 
    House is recognized to open and to control debate 
    thereon.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See, for example, 114 Cong. Rec. 30217, 90th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 
        8, 1968 (special order from Committee on Rules); 113 Cong. Rec. 
        14, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 10, 1967 (prior to adoption of 
        rules); 111 Cong. Rec. 23608, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 13, 
        1965 (motion to reconsider); 105 Cong. Rec. 11599, 86th Cong. 
        1st Sess., June 23, 1959 (conference report); 96 Cong. Rec. 
        1514, 81st Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 6, 1950 (question of 
        privilege); 89 Cong. Rec. 7051, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., July 2, 
        1943 (override of veto); 87 Cong. Rec. 3917, 77th Cong. 1st 
        Sess., May 12, 1941 (District of Columbia bills); 80 Cong. Rec. 
        7025-27, 74th Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1936 (motion to discharge 
        a committee); and 78 Cong. Rec. 4931, 73d Cong. 2d Sess., Mar. 
        20, 1934 (unanimous-consent consideration of bill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Control of Time Where Manager Is Opposed

Sec. 24.4 The senior manager on the part of the House at a conference 
    called up for consideration and managed the debate on the 
    conference report, although he had not signed the report and was 
    opposed to it.

[[Page 10191]]

    On Dec. 6, 1967,(12) William R. Poage, of Texas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and senior manager for the 
House in conference on H.R. 12144, the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 
1967, called up the conference report on that bill and managed the 
debate thereon. Mr. Poage delivered the following remarks when calling 
up the report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 35144-55, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
        Mr. Speaker, today I find myself in the same position which I 
    occupied when we sent this bill to conference. I have no desire to 
    interfere with or delay consideration of the bill. I full well 
    recognize the very proper desire of every Member of this House to 
    secure and maintain the very best possible meat inspection program 
    for the United States. I join in that desire. The conference report 
    which our committee brings you is intended to achieve that result. 
    I hope it will.
        This report is signed by all of the conferees on the part of 
    the Senate and all but two of the conferees on the part of the 
    House. I am one of those two.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. For occasions where the manager of a bill relinquished control by 
        reason of his opposition thereto, see Sec. Sec. 26.7, 26.8, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manager Recognized in Opposition to Amendment

Sec. 24.5 Where a special rule 
    limits debate on designated amendments and allocates time between 
    the proponent and an opponent, the manager of the bill will be 
    recognized to control debate in opposition to the amendment if he 
    qualifies as opposed.

    On Dec. 1, 1982,(14) during consideration of H.R. 6995 
(Federal Trade Commission Authorization Act) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair responded to an inquiry regarding debate, as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 128 Cong. Rec. 28235, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry with respect to the procedure followed 
    here.
        It is my understanding that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
    Florio) [the manager of the bill] will control the time in 
    opposition to the Luken amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: (15) If the gentleman is opposed to 
    the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: I am, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) will 
    therefore be recognized to control the time in opposition to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.

Sec. 24.6 Where a special rule adopted by the House limits debate on an 
    amendment to be controlled by the propo

[[Page 10192]]

    nent and an opponent, and prohibits amendments thereto, the Chair 
    may in his discretion recognize the manager of the bill if opposed 
    and there is no requirement for recognition of the minority party.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 18, 1986,(16) during consideration of H.R. 4868 (Anti-
Apartheid Act of 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 132 Cong. Rec. 14275, 14276, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (17) Under the rule, the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Dellums) will be recognized for 30 minutes, 
    and a Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized for 30 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Bob Traxler (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Will those gentlemen who are opposed to the Dellums amendment 
    kindly stand so the Chair can designate?
        Is the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) opposed to the 
    amendment?
        Mr. [Don] Bonker [of Washington]: I advise the Chair that I 
    oppose the amendment.
        The Chairman: Then the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Bonker) for 30 minutes in opposition to the Dellums 
    amendment.
        Does the gentleman from Washington wish to yield any of his 
    time or share any of his time?
        Mr. Bonker: Mr. Chairman, I would yield half the allotted time, 
    15 minutes, to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander).
        The Chairman: The time in opposition will be equally divided 
    between the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Bonker) and the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Siljander). . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, do I 
    understand that the process that has just taken place has given the 
    minority side one-quarter of the time.
        The Chairman: The Chair would counsel the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania in regard to his inquiry that the rule provides that a 
    Member will be recognized in opposition. The gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Bonker) was recognized in opposition, and he shared 
    his time with your side.
        Mr. Walker: In other words, the minority, though, was not 
    recognized for the purposes of opposition. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would state that the procedures of the 
    House are governed by its rules, but more importantly in this 
    instance, by the rule adopted by the House as reported from the 
    Committee.

Manager's Right To Make Essential Motion

Sec. 24.7 The Speaker recognized the manager of a special rule, pending 
    when a recess had been declared to await the copy of an engrossed 
    bill, to withdraw the special rule from consideration.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(18) the House was considering a special 
rule (H.

[[Page 10193]]

Res. 665), offered by Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, from the 
Committee on Rules, providing for taking a bill from the Speaker's 
table and agreeing to Senate amendments thereto. Before a vote was had 
on the resolution, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
declared a recess pending the receipt of an engrossed bill, H.R. 10222, 
the Food Stamp Act of 1964. When the House reconvened, the Speaker 
announced that the unfinished business was the reading of the latter 
bill. Mr. Oliver P. Bolton, of Ohio, made a parliamentary inquiry as to 
the status of the resolution pending at the recess and the Speaker, 
without responding to the inquiry, recognized Mr. Bolling, the manager 
of the resolution, who then withdrew the resolution from consideration. 
In answer to further parliamentary inquiries, the Speaker stated that 
the withdrawal of the resolution terminated the reason for the 
parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The rules no longer permit a Member to 
demand the reading of an engrossed bill.

Manager's Right To Withdraw Resolution; Effect on Debate

Sec. 24.8 A Member calling up 
    a privileged resolution from the Committee on Rules is recognized 
    for a full hour notwithstanding the fact that as manager he has 
    previously called up the resolution and withdrawn it after debate.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(19) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
called up at the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 
665, making in order the consideration of 
a bill. As noted above (Sec. 24.7, supra), Mr. Bolling withdrew this 
resolution in order that the engrossed copy of a bill could be taken up 
as unfinished business. In response to a parliamentary 
inquiry, the Speaker, John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
stated that when the Committee 
on Rules resolution was again brought up, the Member calling 
it up would be recognized for a 
full hour despite the fact that it 
had already been brought up and withdrawn:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 110 Cong. Rec. 7303-08, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, in view of 
    the withdrawal of the resolution by the gentleman from Missouri 
    [Mr. Bolling] do I understand that we start all over again on the 
    consideration of the rule for the wheat-cotton bill?
        The Speaker: When the gentleman calls it up, the understanding 
    of the gentleman is correct.

[[Page 10194]]

        Mr. Halleck: We will start all over again with 30 minutes on a 
    side?
        The Speaker: That is correct.

Manager's Right To Offer and Debate Amendments

Sec. 24.9 Recognition to offer amendments is first extended to the 
    manager of a bill, and the fact that the Committee of the Whole has 
    just completed consideration of one amendment offered by the 
    manager does not preclude his being recognized to offer another.

    On Apr. 6, 1967,(20) Robert W. Kastenmeier, of 
Wisconsin, was the Member in charge of H.R. 2512, being considered for 
amendment in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Kastenmeier had offered an 
amendment, which was adopted by the Committee. He then immediately 
offered another amendment. Mr. Byron G. Rogers, of Colorado, made a 
point of order against recognition for that purpose, and Chairman John 
H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, overruled the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 113 Cong. Rec. 8617, 8618, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sec. 24.10 In the Committee of the Whole, the Member in charge of the 
    bill may speak again on an amendment where debate under the five-
    minute rule is limited (and the remaining time is allocated by the 
    Chair).

    On June 25, 1952,(1) during consideration of amendments 
to a bill in the Committee of the Whole, a motion was agreed to to 
close debate on a pending amendment and all amendments thereto at a 
certain time. Chairman Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to the right to be recognized, under the 
limitation, of the Member in charge of the bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 98 Cong. Rec. 8028, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 10195]]

Extension of Debate Time

Sec. 24.11 Although the manager of a bill has control of time for 
    general debate in the Committee of the Whole, he may not consume 
    more than one hour except by unanimous consent.

    For example, on June 22, 1958,(2) Mr. Clarence Cannon, 
of Missouri, was in control of time for debate on an appropriation 
bill. Chairman James J. Delaney, of New York, advised him that he had 
consumed one hour. When Mr. Cannon indicated he needed more time, the 
Chairman asked whether there was objection to Mr. Cannon's proceeding 
for one additional minute. Mr. Donald W. Nicholson, of Massachusetts, 
objected to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 104 Cong. Rec. 14647, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, on Mar. 6, 1962,(3) Mr. J. Vaughan Gary, of 
Virginia, was in control of time for general debate on an appropriation 
bill. When Chairman W. Homer Thornberry, of Texas, advised him that he 
had consumed one hour of his time, he asked and was given permission by 
unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 108 Cong. Rec. 3484-89, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
 4. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 21174-78, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., July 29, 
        1969; and 111 Cong. Rec. 26258, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 7, 
        1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yielding Time to Self

Sec. 24.12 Under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole the 
    Member handling a bill has preference in recognition for debate but 
    the power of recognition remains with the Chair and the Member 
    cannot ``yield'' himself time for debate.

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

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

    Mr. Melvin R. Laird, of Wisconsin, objected that Mr. Powell had not 
moved to strike out the last word, and so moved himself. The Chairman 
first recognized Mr. Powell for the pro forma amendment, as manager of 
the bill and chairman on the Committee on Education and Labor.

[[Page 10196]]

Manager Allotting Time to Others; Effect on Allotted Time Where Manager 
    Loses Floor

Sec. 24.13 A Member in control as manager of the time for debate under 
    the hour rule may allot portions of his time to other Members; but 
    if he loses the floor (by yielding for an amendment), Members who 
    have been promised time by him also lose the right of recognition.

    On Nov. 29, 1967,(6) Mr. William R. Anderson, of 
Tennessee, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House 
Resolution 960, authorizing travel by members of the Committee on 
Education and Labor for investigatory purposes. Mr. Anderson yielded to 
Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, to offer an amendment, thereby 
surrendering control of the resolution to Mr. Hall. When Speaker Pro 
Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated that the question was on the 
resolution, a parliamentary inquiry was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 34136-38, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Smith of California: I was yielded 30 minutes a while ago 
    by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Anderson]. Do I not have that 
    time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
    Anderson] yielded to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hall] for the 
    purpose of offering an amendment, he surrendered all his time, and 
    the Chair 
    so informed the gentleman from Tennessee.
        Mr. Smith of California: If the gentleman has agreed to yield 
    30 minutes to me, I lose it?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the gentleman yielded for the 
    purpose of amendment.

Motion To Postpone

Sec. 24.14 A motion to postpone further consideration of a privileged 
    resolution (to censure a Member) may be offered before the manager 
    of the resolution has been recognized for debate, and is debatable 
    for one hour controlled by the Member offering the motion.

    On May 29, 1980,(7) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 126 Cong. Rec. 12649, 12650, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by 
    direction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, I call 
    up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 660) in the matter of Rep

[[Page 10197]]

    resentative Charles H. Wilson, and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 660

            Resolved,
            (1) That Representative Charles H. Wilson be censured; . . 
        .
            (4) That the House of Representatives adopt the report of 
        the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated May 8, 
        1980, in the matter of Representative Charles H. Wilson.

        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Rousselot moves to postpone further consideration of 
        House Resolution 660 until June 10, 1980.

        The Speaker: (8) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Rousselot) for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manager's Discretion as to Motion To Rise

Sec. 24.15 The motion that the Committee of the Whole rise (thereby 
    cutting off debate) is within the discretion of the Member handling 
    the bill before the Committee.

    On June 16, 1948,(9) Mr. Walter G. Andrews, of New York, 
was handling the consideration of H.R. 6401 in the Committee of the 
Whole. He moved that the Committee rise, and Chairman Francis H. Case, 
of South Dakota, ruled that the motion was within Mr. Andrews' 
discretion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 94 Cong. Rec. 8521, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Andrews of New York: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that 
    two or three Members who have time are not here, I move that the 
    Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The question is on the motion offered by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Andrews].
        Mr. [George A.] Smathers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I would 
    like to be heard on that.
        The Chairman: That is not a debatable motion. It is always 
    within the discretion of the gentleman handling the bill to move 
    that the Committee rise.

Manager's Discretion in Moving To Close Debate

Sec. 24.16 During five-minute debate in the Committee of the Whole, the 
    Member managing the bill is entitled to prior recognition to move 
    to close debate on a pending amendment, over other Members who 
    desire to debate 
    the amendment or to offer amendments thereto.

    On Nov. 25, 1970,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
conducting five-minute debate on H.R. 19504, which was being han

[[Page 10198]]

dled by Mr. John C. Kluczynski, of Illinois. Mr. Kluczynski was 
recognized by Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, to move that all 
debate on the pending amendment immediately close. The motion was 
adopted; Mr. Jonathan B. Bingham, of New York, attempted to offer an 
amendment and Mr. Andrew Jacobs, Jr., of Indiana, attempted to debate 
the amendment on which debate had been closed. The Chairman stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 116 Cong. Rec. 38990, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Closing Debate

Sec. 24.17 The proponents of a bill before the House have the right to 
    conclude debate thereon.

    On Nov. 13, 1941,(11) the House discussed the division 
of time for debate on a pending bill; Speaker Pro Tempore Jere Cooper, 
of Tennessee, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that the 
proponents of a bill had the right to close debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 8880, 8881, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, we have 
    two speakers on our side in opposition to this important measure. I 
    am informed there are two speakers on the other side. I recognize, 
    of course, that the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
    has the right to close the debate, but I insist on the right of the 
    minority that the opposition should be given the next to the last 
    speech on this important measure.
        My inquiry is, if I have not correctly stated the situation?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state in response to 
    the parliamentary inquiry that under the rules of the House the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Bloom], chairman of the committee in 
    charge of the bill, is entitled to close the debate. With reference 
    to recognition of Members prior to close of debate, of course, that 
    is under the control of the gentleman in charge of the time.
        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: With all due respect to the Speaker pro tempore, 
    may I call his attention to the fact that if his ruling is 
    construed literally it will permit the chairman of the committee 
    controlling the time----
        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I shall yield to 
    the gentleman from New York, and will put on a speaker, then he can 
    put on a speaker.
        Mr. Michener: May I finish my parliamentary inquiry?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is entitled to complete 
    his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Michener: Reverting to my question before I was interrupted 
    by

[[Page 10199]]

    the gentleman from New York: If the chairman of the committee 
    controlling the time is permitted to close the debate and is not 
    limited to one speaker in closing the debate, would it not be 
    possible for such a chairman to open the debate, for instance, and 
    then compel the opposition to use all of its time before the 
    proponent used any more time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Michener: That right to close debate means one speech. If 
    it meant two, it might mean three, and if it meant three it might 
    mean four. It might be within the power of the proponents of any 
    bill to compel the other side to put on all their speakers, then 
    wind up with only the speeches of the proponents. Such a precedent 
    should not be set. Am I correct?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct in the 
    statement that the proponents of the bill have the right to close 
    debate. That has been the holding of the Chair and it is in line 
    with an unbroken line of precedents of the House. The Chair has no 
    way of knowing how many different Members the gentlemen in charge 
    of the time on the two sides may desire to yield time to. The Chair 
    holds that the proponents of the bill are entitled to close 
    debate.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See also Sec. 7.13, supra (while the Member who demands a second on 
        a motion to suspend the rules is recognized for 20 minutes of 
        debate, it is customary for the Speaker to recognize the Member 
        making the motion to conclude the debate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 24.18 The manager of a bill in the Committee of the Whole, and not 
    the proponent of the pending amendment, is entitled to close debate 
    on the amendment.

    On July 9, 1965,(13) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965, under the terms of 
a unanimous-consent agreement providing two hours' debate on an 
amendment, to be divided and controlled by Chairman Emanuel Celler, of 
New York, and the ranking minority member, Mr. William M. McCulloch, of 
Ohio, of the Committee on the Judiciary, which had reported the bill. 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, ruled that Mr. Celler, as 
manager of the bill, and not Mr. McCulloch, the proponent of the 
pending amendment, had the right to close debate on the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains on 
    this side?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York has 4 minutes 
    remaining and the gentleman from Ohio 1 minute.
        Mr. Celler: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Ohio yield me 
    1 minute he has remaining so that we can close debate on this side?
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 10200]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. McCulloch: Mr. Chairman, since the debate at this time is 
    on the substitute amendment, pursuant to the rule, would not the 
    privilege of closing debate come to this side of the aisle?
        The Chairman: The closing of debate, the Chair will inform the 
    gentleman from Ohio, would be in the hands of the manager of the 
    bill.

Sec. 24.19 The manager of a bill is entitled to close general debate, 
    and the minority Member controlling one-half the time must consume 
    it or yield it back prior to closing of debate.

    On Mar. 2, 1976,(14) the Committee of the Whole having 
under consideration H.R. 10760 (Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 
1976), the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 122 Cong. Rec. 4979, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John H.] Dent [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, does the 
    gentleman from Illinois have any further requests for time?
        Mr. [John N.] Erlenborn [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I have no 
    further requests for time and reserve the balance of my time.
        Mr. Dent: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time 
    remaining, which is around 3 minutes, I think.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (15) The gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania [manager of the bill] is recognized for 4 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Jim Lloyd (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will ask now whether the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Erlenborn) yields back the balance of his time?
        Mr. Erlenborn: Is that required, Mr. Chairman? I said I would 
    reserve the balance of my time.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
    entitled to close the debate.
        Mr. Erlenborn: Well, I do not intend to upstage the gentleman. 
    I do not intend to use my time. If the gentleman is finished and 
    has no further time, then I will yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 4 
    minutes.

Sec. 24.20 The manager from the committee reporting a bill has the 
    right to close debate on an amendment under the five-minute rule, 
    and not the sponsor of the amendment.

    On July 29, 1982,(16) during consideration of H.R. 6030 
(military procurement authorization for fiscal year 1983) in the 
Committee of the Whole, the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry 
regarding the conclusion of debate, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 128 Cong. Rec. 18582, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward J.] Markey [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 10201]]

        The Chairman: (17) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Markey: Mr. Chairman, is it not my right as the maker of 
    the amendment to make the concluding statement on the pending 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: The Committee has the right to close.

Moving Previous Question

Sec. 24.21 The Member calling up a proposition in the House may move 
    the previous question and cut off further debate.

    On Jan. 4, 1965,(18) at the convening of the 89th 
Congress and before the adoption of rules, Mr. Carl Albert, of 
Oklahoma, offered a resolution and, after some debate, moved the 
previous question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 111 Cong. Rec. 20, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 2) and 
    ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read as follows:

                                   H. Res. 2

            Resolved, That the Speaker is hereby authorized and 
        directed to administer the oath of office to the gentleman from 
        New York, Mr. Richard L. Ottinger.

        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, again this is a resolution involving a 
    Member whose certificate of election in due form is on file in the 
    Office of the Clerk. I ask for the adoption of the resolution.
        Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, will 
    the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Albert: I yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Cleveland: If this resolution is adopted, will it be 
    impossible for me to offer my own resolution pertaining to the same 
    subject matter, either as an amendment or a substitute?
        The Speaker: (19) If the resolution is agreed to, it 
    will not be in order for the gentleman to offer a substitute 
    resolution or an amendment, particularly if the previous question 
    is ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cleveland: Is it now in order, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman from Oklahoma yields to 
    the gentleman for that purpose.
        Mr. Cleveland: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Albert: The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield for that 
    purpose.
        Mr. Cleveland: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. Will there 
    be any opportunity to discuss the merits of this case prior to a 
    vote on the resolution offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Oklahoma has control over the 
    time. Not unless the gentleman from Oklahoma yields for that 
    purpose.
        Mr. Cleveland: Will the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for that 
    purpose?
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I yield for a question and a very 
    brief statement. I do not yield for a speech.

[[Page 10202]]

        Mr. Cleveland: May I inquire if the gentleman will yield so 
    that I may ask for unanimous consent that certain remarks of mine 
    pertaining to this matter be incorporated in the Record?
        Mr. Albert: No. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        Mr. [Thomas G.] Abernethy [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield to the 
    gentleman from Mississippi for the purpose of submitting a 
    parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    resolution.
        The Speaker: The question is on the motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The resolution was agreed to.

    On Mar. 11, 1941,(20) the House was considering House 
Resolution 131 under the terms of a unanimous-consent request providing 
for two hours of debate and dividing control of debate between Mr. Sol 
Bloom, of New York, and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York. Mr. Bloom 
moved the previous question prior to the expiration 
of the two hours' time, and Mr. 
Martin J. Kennedy, of New York, 
objected on the ground that 
the unanimous-consent agreement was not being complied with 
in that the previous question 
had been demanded prematurely. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled 
that the previous question could be moved at any time in the discretion 
of the Members controlling debate on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 87 Cong. Rec. 2177, 2178, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 24.22 A Member calling up 
    a bill or joint resolution in 
    the House pursuant to a special order controls one hour 
    of debate thereon and may offer an amendment thereto and move the 
    previous question on the amendment and on the bill or joint 
    resolution.

    On Nov. 3, 1977,(1) the proceedings relating to 
consideration of House Joint Resolution 643 (continuing appropriations) 
in the House were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 123 Cong. Rec. 36970, 36971, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    rule 
    just adopted, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 643) making 
    further 
    continuing appropriations for the fis-cal year 1978, and for other 
    purposes. . . .
        The Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows:

                                 H.J. Res. 643

            Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
        United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
        following sums are appropriated out of any money in the 
        Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of applicable 
        corporate or

[[Page 10203]]

        other revenues, receipts, and funds, for the several 
        departments, agencies, corporations, and other organizational 
        units of the Government for the fiscal year 1978, namely:
            Sec. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary for continuing 
        projects or activities which were conducted in the fiscal year 
        1977, and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority 
        would be available in the District of Columbia Appropriations 
        Act, 1978 (H.R. 9005) as passed the House of Representatives or 
        the Senate. . . .

        The Speaker: (2) The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Mahon) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, Members need to understand what our 
    problem is at the moment. In view of the fact that final action has 
    not been taken on the District of Columbia appropriation bill and 
    on the Labor-Health, Education, and Welfare bill, we have to have a 
    continuing resolution. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mahon: On page 2, line 6, strike 
        the period and insert the following: ``: Provided further, That 
        the rate of operations for the Disaster Loan Fund of the Small 
        Business Administration contained in said Act shall be the rate 
        as passed the Senate. . . .

        Mr. Mahon: It is absolutely urgent that we find a way to get 
    this continuing resolution acted upon by the Congress tomorrow, 
    since we cannot do it tonight. It is imperative that we get through 
    the Congress a continuing resolution on tomorrow and send it to the 
    President. Otherwise, there will be some very serious problems.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and 
    the joint resolution to final passage.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The amendment was agreed to.
        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a 
    third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to 
    reconsider was laid on the table.

--Previous Question as Terminating Debate Time Previously Yielded

Sec. 24.23 The Member recognized to control one hour of debate in the 
    House may, by moving the previous question, terminate utilization 
    of debate time he has previously yielded to the minority.

    On Mar. 9, 1977,(3) it was demonstrated that a Member 
calling up a privileged resolution in the House may move the previous 
question at any time, notwithstanding his prior allocation of debate 
time to another Member:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 123 Cong. Rec. 6816, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (4) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 
    minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Anderson), for the minority, pending which I yield myself 5 
    minutes. . . .

[[Page 10204]]

        Mr. Speaker, the other amendment that the gentleman offers 
    proposes to give the House the opportunity to vote up or down in a 
    certain period of time regulations proposed by the select 
    committee. What that does, and it really demonstrates an almost 
    total lack of understanding of the rules, is to upgrade regulations 
    into rules. The Members of the House will have the opportunity to 
    deal with all laws and 
    rules. That is provided in the resolution. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. . 
    . .
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: I have time remaining. Do I 
    not have a right to respond to the gentleman from Missouri?
        The Speaker: Not if the previous question has been moved, and 
    it has been moved.
        Mr. Anderson of Illinois: Even though the gentleman mentioned 
    my name and made numerous references to me for the last 10 minutes?
        The Speaker: The Chair is aware of that.
        The question is on ordering the previous question.

Bill Called Up in House by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 24.24 Where the House has agreed to consider in the House a bill 
    called up 
    by unanimous consent, the Member calling up the bill is recognized 
    for one hour, and amendments may not be offered by other Members 
    unless the Member in charge yields for that purpose.

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

Sec. 24.25 When a bill is called 
    up by unanimous consent for consideration in the House, the Member 
    making the request is recognized for one hour.

    On Mar. 12, 1963,(6) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of 
private bill H.R. 4374, to proclaim Sir Winston Churchill an honorary 
citizen of the United States. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control and time 
for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 109 Cong. Rec. 3993, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Speaker, under what 
    circumstances

[[Page 10205]]

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

Member Calling Up Privileged Resolution

Sec. 24.26 A Member recognized to call up a privileged resolution by 
    direction of the Committee on Rules controls one hour of debate 
    thereon and may offer one or more amendments thereto, and unanimous 
    consent is not required for such purpose.

    The proceedings of July 29, 1977,(7) relating to House 
consideration of House Resolution 727 (providing for consideration of 
H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act of 1977) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 123 Cong. Rec. 25653-55, 25663, 25664, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 727 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 727

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to 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. 8444) to establish a 
        comprehensive national energy policy. . . .

        The Speaker: (8) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Anderson), and pending that, I yield myself such 
    time as I may consume.
        Mr. Speaker, I am soon going to ask unanimous consent to 
    correct some errors in language. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on page 4, line 7, to 
    strike ``July 28'' and insert ``July 29''.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Missouri?
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Allen [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I object. 
    . . .
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

[[Page 10206]]

            Amendment offered by Mr. Bolling: On page 4, line 7, strike 
        out July 28 and insert July 29.

        The Speaker: The question is on the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling).
        The amendment was agreed to. . . .
        Mr. [Garry] Brown of Michigan: . . . Mr. Speaker, what was the 
    order of business at the time the gentleman offered the amendment 
    to the rule? . . .
        I was not sure whether or not the Chair had decided to take up 
    the rule at that time because the gentleman's unanimous-consent 
    request was made after we started consideration of the rule. Is 
    that correct?
        The Speaker: The rule is pending at the present time. The 
    gentleman has asked unanimous consent for a couple of technical 
    amendments, which the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Allen) objected 
    to.
        The gentleman from Missouri then offered an amendment, which he 
    has authority to do as manager of the resolution and the House has 
    agreed to the first of those.

Sec. 24.27 The Member calling up a privileged resolution from the 
    Committee on Rules controls one hour of debate in the House, and 
    the resolution is not subject to amendment unless the Member in 
    charge yields for that purpose.

    On Feb. 26, 1976,(9) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House relative to calling up a resolution from the Committee on 
Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 4625, 4626, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 868

            Resolved, That Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new clause:
            ``7. It shall not be in order to consider any report of a 
        committee unless copies or reproductions of such report have 
        been available to the Members on the floor for at least two 
        hours before the beginning of such consideration. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is to be considered in 
    the House which would preclude an amendment from being offered by 
    any Member.
        The Speaker: It is a rule that comes from the Committee on 
    Rules. It is under the charge of the gentleman handling the 
    resolution.
        Mr. Bauman: So unless the gentleman yields for the purpose of 
    an amendment, none would be in order?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, what unanimous-consent request might 
    be entertained in order to allow amend

[[Page 10207]]

    ments to be offered generally? Would it be a request to consider it 
    in the House as in the Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker: No. The gentleman from Florida controls the floor 
    under the 1-hour rule in the House because this is a change in the 
    rules brought to the floor by the Committee on Rules as privileged. 
    Rules changes can be considered in the House.

Member Offering Privileged Resolution Prior to Adoption of Rules

Sec. 24.28 Prior to the adoption of the rules, a Member offering a 
    privileged resolution on the seating of a Member-elect is entitled 
    to one hour of debate.

    On Jan. 10, 1967, prior to the adoption of rules, Mr. Morris K. 
Udall, of Arizona, offered as privileged House Resolution 1, 
authorizing the Speaker to administer the oath of office to challenged 
Member-elect Adam C. Powell, of New York, and referring the question of 
his final right to a seat to a select committee. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that Mr. Udall was entitled to 
recognition for one hour.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
            For the privilege and disposition of resolutions before the 
        adoption of rules, see Ch. 1, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limitation on Amendment--Chair May Allocate Time Between Proponent and 
    Opponent

Sec. 24.29 The Chair has discretion to allocate time under a limitation 
    on an amendment between the proponent and an opponent thereof, to 
    be yielded by them.

    On Aug. 5, 1982,(12) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration House Joint Resolution 521 (nuclear freeze 
amendment), when the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 128 Cong. Rec. 17758, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Albert A.] Gore [Jr., of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that debate on all of the perfecting amendments 
    to the resolution end at 6:30 p.m., and that debate on the 
    Broomfield substitute be limited to 1 hour, a half hour allocated 
    to each side. . . .
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair will state the 
    unanimous-consent request as understood by the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Tennessee has asked unanimous consent that 
    all debate on perfecting amendments to the resolution cease at 6:30 
    and that thereafter there will be 1 hour of debate 
    on the Broomfield substitute and all amendments thereto, the time 
    to be equally divided.
        Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
    Tennessee?

[[Page 10208]]

        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chair will inquire if there are other perfecting amendments 
    to the resolution.

        If not, under the previous agreement, by unanimous consent, the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) will be afforded the 
    opportunity to offer his amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        There will be an hour of debate on that substitute and all 
    amendments thereto. The time will be equally divided between the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) and the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Broomfield).

Five-minute Debate May Not Be Reserved

Sec. 24.30 The Member recognized for five minutes in support of her 
    motion to recommit with instructions must use or yield back all of 
    that time, and may not reserve a portion thereof.

    On June 26, 1981,(14) during consideration of H.R. 3982, 
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, in the House, the following 
exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 127 Cong. Rec. 14740, 14792, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Claudine] Schneider [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    offer a motion to recommit.
        The Speaker: (15) Is the gentlewoman opposed to the 
    bill?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mrs. Schneider moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3982, to 
        the Committee on the Budget with instructions to report the 
        bill back forthwith with the following amendments: . . .

        The Speaker: The gentlewoman from Rhode Island (Mrs. Schneider) 
    is recognized for 5 minutes. . . .
        Mrs. Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentlewoman from 
    Rhode Island (Mrs. Schneider) cannot reserve her time. She must use 
    all of it now.
        Mrs. Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
    time.
        The Speaker: The gentlewoman from Rhode Island (Mrs. Schneider) 
    has yielded back her time.

Remaining Time Allocated Between Proponents of Two Amendments; Manager 
    Closes

Sec. 24.31 Where debate in Committee of the Whole on a pending 
    amendment and amendment thereto has been limited to a time certain, 
    the Chair may in his discretion allocate the remaining time between 
    the proponents of the two amendments, one of whom being the manager 
    of the bill, has the right to close debate.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the

[[Page 10209]]

Whole on Mar. 16, 1983,(16) during consideration of House 
Joint Resolution 13 (nuclear freeze resolution):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 5792, 5793, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    that all debate on the pending amendment and amendment thereto end 
    at 9:15 p.m.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Mr. Zablocki was the manager of the bill and the proponent of the 
        amendment to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki). . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: Under the motion just agreed to, debate has been 
    limited to 9:15. The Chair will exercise discretion and apportion 
    the remaining time.
        The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki) for 3 minutes, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton) for 3 minutes. Each of those gentlemen may apportion 
    their 3 minutes as they wish. . . .
        The Chair will inquire, does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Zablocki) wish to exercise his right to allot time?
        Mr. Zablocki: The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves his time. I 
    reserve the balance of my time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin has the right to 
    terminate debate.

Unallocated Time

Sec. 24.32 Where by unanimous consent debate on a pending amendment in 
    Committee of the Whole has been equally divided between the 
    proponent and an opponent of the amendment, those Members control 
    all the remaining time and the Chair does not divide the time among 
    Members standing.

    During consideration of the military procurement authorization for 
fiscal year 1983 (H.R. 6030) in the Committee of the Whole on July 21, 
1982,(19) the Chair responded to inquiries regarding 
recognition for debate time. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 128 Cong. Rec. 17345, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I asked 
    the gentleman to yield for a unanimous-consent request. After 
    consultation with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and 
    with Members on our side, I would like to ask unanimous consent 
    that we agree to vote on the Dicks amendment and all amendments 
    thereto at 7 o'clock, with 1 hour of debate to be controlled by the 
    gentleman from Washington and 1 hour of debate to be controlled by 
    the Member from New York representing the committee.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) The request is for 2 
    hours of debate time equally divided between the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Stratton)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Stratton: That is correct.

[[Page 10210]]

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from New York?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . 
    .
        [I]f time is to be controlled by the gentleman from Washington 
    and by myself, is it required that those who wish to participate 
    should stand at this time?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The recognition of Members is totally 
    at the discretion of the managers of the time.
        Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Am I given to understand that on this side we have no time; we 
    are not able to have any time? . . .
        [T]he gentleman from Washington has 1 hour and the gentleman 
    from New York has 1 hour. I was inquiring as to what time this side 
    had.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Under the unanimous-consent request 
    the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) is recognized for 1 hour, 
    and under the same unanimous-consent request the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Stratton) is recognized for 1 hour.
        Both managers of time may yield to members of the minority or 
    members of the majority.

Amendment Offered for Which Time Was Not Allocated

Sec. 24.33 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole agreed at 
    the beginning of general debate to limit and divide control of time 
    for 
    debate on any amendments 
    to be offered by designated Members to certain paragraphs (or to 
    amendments thereto); and where total time for debate on any 
    amendments to be offered by two Members had been limited and 
    control in favor thereof given to one of those Members by unanimous 
    consent, time consumed on the first amendment offered was deducted 
    from the total time and a third Member offering an amendment was 
    required to obtain debate time from the Member in control.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
July 23, 1981,(1) during consideration of the energy and 
water development appropriation bill (H.R. 4144):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 127 Cong. Rec. 16983, 16997, 16998, 17014, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the debate on the amendments by the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Pritchard) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Edgar) in title I to the paragraph entitled ``Construction, 
    General'' on page 2, be limited to 2 hours, one-half of the time to 
    be controlled equally by the gentleman from Washington and one-half 
    by myself.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Alabama?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).

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

[[Page 10211]]

        There was no objection. . . .

        Mr. [John T.] Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Myers: On page 3, line 1, strike 
        out ``$1,509,941,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$1,518,941,000''. . . .

        Mr. [Joel] Pritchard [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Pritchard to the amendment offered 
        by Mr. Myers: In the proposed amendment strike the sum 
        ``$1,518,941,000'' and insert ``$1,320,941,000''. . . .

        The Chairman: The Chair would remind the Members, if the 
    gentleman would suspend, that the gentleman from Washington, under 
    the unanimous-consent agreement, has 55 minutes remaining under his 
    control of the time on this particular amendment or on any 
    subsequent amendment he or the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Edgar) may offer to the pending paragraph.
        The gentleman from Alabama has 60 minutes remaining under his 
    control 
    of time on this or such subsequent amendment.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Pritchard) for such further time as he may consume. . . .
        Mr. [Bob] Edgar [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Edgar to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Myers: In the Myers amendment, strike out 
        ``$1,518,941,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``$1,429,941,000''.

        The Chairman: The Chair should point out that under the 
    unanimous-consent agreement, there are 11 minutes remaining under 
    the control of 
    the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Pritchard), and there are 4 
    minutes remaining under the control of the gentleman from Alabama 
    (Mr. Bevill).
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
    Pritchard) to yield such time as he desires.
        Mr. Pritchard: Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
    consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Edgar).

Division of Time on Disciplinary Resolution

Sec. 24.34 The manager of a disciplinary resolution divided his one 
    hour of debate equally among himself, the ranking minority member 
    of the committee, and the Member charged.

    On Dec. 18, 1987,(3) after calling up a privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 335) for consideration in the House, the manager of 
the resolution divided his one hour of debate time, as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 133 Cong. Rec. 36266, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a 
    privileged reoslution (H. Res. 335) in the matter of Representative 
    Austin J. Murphy, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page 10212]]

                                H. Res. 335

            Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the 
        report by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated 
        December 16, 1987, in the matter of Representative Austin J. 
        Murphy of Pennsylvania.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Dixon] is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Dave McCurdy (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dixon: Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Indiana [Mr. Myers], 20 minutes to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, Mr. Austin J. Murphy, and I will retain 20 minutes 
    for myself. I wish to state that the yielding of such time is for 
    purposes of debate only.

Appropriation Bills--Control Where Time Not Fixed

Sec. 24.35 When the House resolves itself into the Committee of the 
    Whole for the consideration of an appropriation bill without fixing 
    the time for general debate by unanimous consent, the majority 
    Member first recognized is entitled to an hour and may yield such 
    portions of that time as he desires, and after that hour, a 
    minority Member may be recognized for an hour.

    On Mar. 24, 1947,(5) Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, 
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of H.R. 2700, an appropriation bill. He proposed a 
unanimous-consent agreement for time for general debate on the bill, 
and Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, objected to the request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 93 Cong. Rec. 2464, 2465, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, then answered a 
parliamentary inquiry on recognition and time for debate in the 
Committee of the Whole, where the time and control of debate had not 
been fixed:

        Mr. Keefe: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that on the adoption of 
    the motion to go into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
    of the Union that there will be 1 hour for general debate for each 
    side?
        The Speaker: Under the rule, whoever is first recognized is 
    entitled to 1 hour and, of course, the Member can yield such 
    portions of that time as he wishes. . . .
        Mr. Rooney: Mr. Speaker, is it understood that the minority is 
    to have an equal division of the time for debate this afternoon?
        The Speaker: After the first hour has been used by the 
    majority, the minority then can have 1 hour under the 
    rule.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Since appropriation bills reported by the Committee on 
        Appropriations are privileged for consideration (see Rule XI 
        clause 4(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 726 [1995]), they are 
        normally considered without a special order from the Committee 
        on Rules. See, generally, Ch. 25, supra.

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

[[Page 10213]]

--Debate Controlled by Three Members

Sec. 24.36 On one occasion, time in general debate on an appropriation 
    bill in the Committee of the Whole was controlled by three Members: 
    the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman 
    and ranking minority member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
    the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies.

    On Feb. 18, 1958,(7) Mr. Michael J. Kirwan, of Ohio, 
made a unanimous-consent request on the control of time for debate on 
an appropriation bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 104 Cong. Rec. 2298, 85th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. 10746) making appropriations for 
    the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal 
    year ending June 30, 1959, and for other purposes; and pending that 
    motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate be 
    limited to 2 hours, 1 hour to be controlled by the gentleman from 
    Missouri [Mr. Cannon] and 1 hour to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Jensen] and myself.
        The Speaker: (8) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Ohio?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Kirwan was the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
Related Agencies; Mr. Ben F. Jensen, of Iowa, was the ranking minority 
member of that subcommittee; and Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, was the 
chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations.

--Legislative Provisions

Sec. 24.37 The Chairman ruled that while members of the Committee on 
    Appropriations are ordinarily entitled to recognition in debate on 
    a general appropriation bill, where a rule was adopted waiving 
    points of order against legislative provisions in the bill, 
    recognition under the five-minute rule would be divided between 
    members of the committee and other Members interested in the bill.

    On Mar. 5 and 6, 1941,(9) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3737, a general appropriation bill, pursuant to House 
Resolution 126, waiving all points of order against the bill.

[[Page 10214]]

 The Committee discussed and Chairman John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, 
ruled on the procedure for distribution of time, which departed from 
normal practice:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 87 Cong. Rec. 1846, 1921, 1922, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pace] has been seeking 
    recognition. The Chair realizes that this is an appropriation bill, 
    and that ordinarily members of that committee would be entitled to 
    preference, but under the rule adopted yesterday we made this part 
    of it a legislative bill by making certain legislation in order. 
    The Chair is going to divide the time between the members of the 
    Appropriations Committee and the other Members of the House who are 
    vitally interested in this proposition. . . .
        The Chair may say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] 
    that there is no written rule on this subject, but within the last 
    two or three decades appropriations have been taken away from other 
    committees and concentrated in the hands of one committee. The 
    Chair is not speaking any more with reference to the Committee on 
    Appropriations than any other committee. It is perfectly fair for a 
    committee to have charge of general debate and probably debate 
    under the 5-minute rule to a large extent, but the Chair does not 
    think it is fair--especially under conditions such as we have here, 
    where a rule has been adopted making legislation that ordinarily 
    comes from the Committee on Agriculture and from other committees 
    of the House in order on the bill--the Chair does think it fair to 
    the rest of the membership of the House to recognize members of the 
    Committee on Appropriations under the 5-minute rule to the 
    exclusion of the other Members of the House.
        So far as the present occupant of the chair individually is 
    concerned, if the time should come when that matter is presented, 
    the Chair might go a step further and apply it to all measures 
    coming before the House and considered under the 5-minute rule. If 
    we are going to have legislation by the entire Congress we will 
    have to come to that decision ultimately.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Chairman indicated that his ruling on 
recognition and distribution of time on the appropriation bill was not 
to be taken as a precedent, differing as it did from normal practice.

--Unanimous-consent Agreement

Sec. 24.38 In the consideration of a general appropriation bill, 
    containing all the annual appropriations for the various agencies 
    of the government, it was agreed by unanimous consent that: (1) 
    general debate would run without limit to be equally divided 
    between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Appropriations; (2) following the reading of the first 
    chapter of the bill for amendment, not to exceed two hours' gen

[[Page 10215]]

    eral debate would be had before the reading of each subsequent 
    chapter, one-half to be controlled by the chairman and one-half by 
    the ranking minority member of the subcommittee in charge of the 
    chapter (to be followed by operation of the five-minute rule on 
    each chapter).

    On Apr. 3, 1950,(10) the House was considering H.R. 7786 
(the general appropriation bill for 1951). Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, made the 
following unanimous-consent request on the control of time for debate, 
which was agreed to by the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 96 Cong. Rec. 4614, 4615, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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. 7786) making appropriations for the 
    support of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, 
    and for other purposes; and pending that I ask unanimous consent 
    that time for general debate be equally divided, one-half to be 
    controlled by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] and one-half 
    by myself; that debate be confined to the bill; and that following 
    the reading of the first chapter of the bill, not to exceed 2 hours 
    general debate be had before the reading of each subsequent 
    chapter, one-half to be controlled by the chairman and one-half by 
    the ranking minority member of the subcommittee in charge of the 
    chapter.

--Amendments to Appropriation Bill: General Priorities

Sec. 24.39 On one occasion, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    announced that in recognizing Members under the five-minute rule 
    for amendments to an appropriation bill, he would alternate 
    recognition between the majority and minority sides of the aisle 
    and would follow these priorities: first, members of the 
    subcommittee handling the bill; second, members of the full 
    Committee on Appropriations; and finally, other Members of the 
    House.

    On July 30, 1969,(11) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, made an announcement on the order of recognition during 
consideration under the five-minute rule of H.R. 13111, appropriations 
for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 115 Cong. Rec. 21420, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair might state, under the procedures of the House, he is 
    trying to recognize first members of the subcommittee on 
    appropriations handling

[[Page 10216]]

    the bill and second general members of the Committee on 
    Appropriations. It is his intention to go back and forth to each 
    side of the aisle to recognize Members who have been standing and 
    seeking recognition the longest. The gentlewoman from Hawaii sought 
    recognition all yesterday afternoon, and the Chair was unable to 
    recognize her because of the procedures of the House, having to 
    recognize Members on both sides of the aisle who are members of the 
    committee. I wish the Members to know that the Chair will recognize 
    them under the normal procedures.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Normally subcommittee membership does not 
accord a priority in recognition, full committee seniority being the 
determining factor.

Motion To Instruct Conferees

Sec. 24.40 Under a former practice, a Member recognized to offer a 
    motion to instruct conferees managed its consideration under the 
    hour-rule and was not required to divide the hour or to yield time 
    for debate.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 15, 
1988,(12) during consideration of a motion to instruct 
conferees on H.R. 3051, the Airline Passenger Protection Act:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 134 Cong. Rec. 14621, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [E. Clay] Shaw [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    rule XXVIII, clause 1(b), I offer a privileged motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (13) The Clerk will report 
    the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Shaw moves that the managers on the part of the House 
        at the conference on H.R. 3051 and the Senate amendments 
        thereto be instructed to agree to section 4 of the Senate 
        amendment. . . .

        Mr. Shaw: Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I 
    yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
    on the motion.
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Florida will 
    withhold the motion for the previous question.
        The gentleman from Texas will state his parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Speaker, at this point, is it not still the 
    rule that an allotted time be permitted to this side of the House 
    inasmuch as the privileged resolution entitles the author of the 
    resolution to 1 hour? I understood the rules provide for some 
    opportunity to discuss this.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    from Texas that the gentleman from Florida may, if he wishes, yield 
    time, but he is not required under the rule to divide the time or 
    to yield.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The debate on a motion to instruct is now 
divided according to Rule XXVIII clause (1)(b), House Rules and Manual 
Sec. 909a (1995).

[[Page 10217]]

Control of Debate on Conference Report

Sec. 24.41 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a) (as amended in the 92d 
    Congress, 1st Session), one hour of debate, equally divided and 
    controlled by the majority and minority parties, is permitted on a 
    conference report.

    On Jan. 19, 1972,(14) Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, called 
up the conference report on S. 382, Federal Elections Campaign Act of 
1972. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry that the total time for debate on the report was 
limited to one hour, ``30 minutes to each side'' (the majority and 
minority). Mr. Hays controlled 30 minutes of debate and Mr. William 
Springer, of Illinois, controlled the 30 minutes of debate for the 
minority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 118 Cong. Rec. 319-24, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Prior to the 1971 revision of clause 2 of 
Rule XXVIII, a conference report was debatable under the hour rule, 
with the entire time under the control of the Member calling up the 
report. See, for example, the statement of Speaker Sam Rayburn, on June 
23, 1959,(15) that Mr. Albert Rains, of Alabama, would 
control one hour of debate on a conference report he had called up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 105 Cong. Rec. 11599, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 115 Cong. Rec. 
        40451, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 20, 1969.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 99th Congress, the pertinent rule governing conference 
report debate [Rule XXVIII, clause (b)(1)] was amended to provide for a 
three-way division of the hour. If both the majority and minority are 
in favor of the report, a Member opposed is entitled to 20 minutes.

Amendments in Disagreement

Sec. 24.42 Following rejection of a conference report, debate on a 
    motion to dispose of the Senate amendment in disagreement is 
    equally divided between the majority and minority (under the 
    rationale contained in Rule XXVIII clause 2(b) for division of time 
    on a motion to dispose of an amendment reported from conference in 
    disagreement); and, the Member recognized to offer the motion 
    controls the floor and may move the previous question on his 
    motion.

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 5262 
(relating to international financial

[[Page 10218]]

institutions) in the House on Sept. 16, 1977,(16) the 
following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 29597, 29599, 29601, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        So the conference report was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa]: Madam Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Harkin moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the text of the 
        bill (H.R. 5262) to provide for increased participation by the 
        United States in the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
        Development, the International Development Association, the 
        International Finance Corporation, the Asian Development Bank 
        and the Asian Development Funds, and for other purposes, and 
        agree to the same with an amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment insert the following: . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman from 
    Iowa (Mr. Harkin) will be recognized for 30 minutes in support of 
    his motion, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stanton) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin). . . 
    .
        Mr. Harkin: Madam Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    preferential motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the preferential 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin).
        The preferential motion was agreed to.

Sec. 24.43 The stage of disagreement having been reached on a Senate 
    amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House 
    bill, the motion to concur in the Senate amendment takes precedence 
    over a motion to disagree and request a conference, but the Member 
    offering the preferential motion does not thereby obtain control of 
    the time which is controlled by the manager of the bill and is 
    equally divided between the majority and minority.

    On Oct. 13, 1977,(18) the House had under consideration 
H.R. 7555 (Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare 
appropriation bill for fiscal 1978) when the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 33688, 33689, 33693, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 7555) making 
    appropriations for the Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, 
    and Welfare, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
    September 30, 1978, and for other pur

[[Page 10219]]

    poses, with a Senate amendment to the House amendment to Senate 
    amendment numbered 82, disagree to the amendment of the Senate, and 
    request a conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of 
    the two Houses.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Speaker: (19) The Clerk will report the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

                          motion offered by mr. flood

            Mr. Flood moves to take from the Speaker's table the bill 
        H.R. 7555, making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, 
        and Health, Education, and Welfare, and related agencies for 
        the fiscal year ending September 30, 1978, and for other 
        purposes, with a Senate amendment to the House amendment to 
        Senate amendment numbered 82, disagree to the amendment of the 
        Senate, and request a conference with the Senate on the 
        disagreeing votes of the two Houses.

        Mr. [Newton I.] Steers [Jr., of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Steers of Maryland moves that the House concur in the 
        Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment 
        No. 82.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) is in 
    control of the time, and the gentleman is recognized for 30 
    minutes.
        Mr. [John J.] Rhodes [of Arizona]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Steers) made the motion which is being considered by the House, 
    does the gentleman from Maryland not have control of the time?
        The Speaker: In response to the parliamentary inquiry, the 
    preferential motion made by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Steers) does not take the time from the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, who previously had the 
    time under his original motion. The motion was in order. The vote 
    will come first on the preferential motion.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Flood).

Sec. 24.44 While the manager of 
    a conference report controls the majority time on all motions with 
    respect to an amendment in disagreement where he has offered an 
    initial motion and sought recognition to control time for debate, 
    he does not necessarily control the majority time on a motion to 
    concur with an amendment offered after the House has voted to 
    recede (a motion to recede and concur having been divided), if: (1) 
    the manager's original motion was to insist, which has been 
    preempted by adoption of the motion to recede, and (2) the manager 
    did not seek recognition to control debate time on the

[[Page 10220]]

    motion to recede and concur when it was offered, but allowed the 
    Chair to immediately put the question on receding; in such case, 
    the proponent of the preferential motion to concur with an 
    amendment may be recognized to control one-half the time and a 
    Member of the other party one-half the time under the hour rule as 
    required by Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b).

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 1, 
1982,(20) during consideration of House Joint Resolution 599 
(continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1983):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 128 Cong. Rec. 27295-97, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 83: Page 19, after line 2, insert:
            Sec. 151. (a) Section 4109 of title 5, United States Code 
        is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
        subsection:
            ``(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1) of this section, 
        the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, may pay an 
        individual training to be an air traffic controller . . . at 
        the applicable rate of basic pay for the hours of training 
        officially ordered or approved in excess of forty hours in an 
        administrative workweek.''. . . .

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 83.

        Mr. [Lawrence] Coughlin [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Coughlin moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 83 and 
        concur therein.

        Mr. [William D.] Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I demand a 
    division of the question.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question will be divided.
        The Chair will state that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten) has the time. Does the gentleman wish to use his time for 
    debate now?
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin).
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman from Mississippi does 
    not seek to control debate time, the Chair will put the question on 
    receding.
        The question is, will the House recede from its disagreement to 
    Senate amendment No. 83?
        The House receded from its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 
    83.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: For what purpose does the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Ford) seek recognition?

        Mr. Ford of Michigan: Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential 
    motion.

[[Page 10221]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Ford moves that the House concur in Senate amendment 
        numbered 83 with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, insert the 
        following: . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Since the House has receded, the 
    gentleman from Mississippi's original motion has been preempted and 
    he did not seek to control time therefore the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Ford) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) will be recognized for 
    30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ford).

Concur in Senate Amendment

Sec. 24.45 A Member making a unanimous-consent request to concur in 
    Senate amendments is not entitled to recognition to control debate 
    on the request; another Member who reserved the right to object to 
    the request should be recognized.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 11, 
1984,(2) during consideration of H.R. 5386 (payment rates 
for routine home care and other services included in hospice rates). 
The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means asked unanimous consent 
to take the House bill with the Senate amendment from the Speaker's 
table and concur in the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 130 Cong. Rec. 32304, 32305, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Conable, the ranking member, reserved the right to object, but 
before entertaining the reservation, the Speaker Pro Tempore 
(3) directed the reading of the Senate amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Frank Harrison (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk proceeded to read as follows:

            Amendment: Page 2, after line 14, insert:

                     ``public pension offset provisions.''

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois] (during the reading): Mr. 
    Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate amendment be 
    considered as read and printed in the Record.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Illinois?
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski) is recognized.
        Mr. Rostenkowski: Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5386 passed the House of 
    Representatives unanimously on October 1, 1984. . . .
        Mr. [Barber B.] Conable [Jr., of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I have 
    a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, under what procedure is the chairman now 
    proceeding? Has he been recognized for a specific period of time? . 
    . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois asked 
    unani

[[Page 10222]]

    mous consent to have the Senate amendment considered as read and 
    printed in the Record. The Chair put the unanimous-consent request 
    and at that point heard no reservation and in error recognized the 
    gentleman from Illinois but the Chair should recognize the 
    gentleman from New York under his reservation to the original 
    request.

Sec. 24.46 A motion to concur in 
    a Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a 
    House measure, the stage of disagreement having been reached, is 
    debatable for one hour equally divided between the majority and 
    minority parties.

    The proceedings of Nov. 6, 1985,(4) illustrate the 
principle that a motion to concur in a 
Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House 
measure, the stage of disagreement having been reached, is debatable 
for one hour equally divided between majority and minority parties 
(pursuant to rule XXVIII, clause 2).(5) This precedent in 
effect overrules that of Jan. 27, 1976,(6) which had 
indicated that the Member offering a preferential motion controls the 
entire hour where the amendment is not reported from conference in 
disagreement. The proceedings of Nov. 6, 1985, relating to House Joint 
Resolution 372, to increase the public debt limit, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 131 Cong. Rec. 30852, 30853, 30863, 30864, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a et seq. (1995).
 6. See 122 Cong. Rec. 1035-1057, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. (conference 
        report on H.R. 9861).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        A message from the Senate by Mr. Sparrow, one of its clerks, 
    announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of 
    conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
    amendments of the Senate to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 372) 
    entitled ``Joint resolution increasing the statutory limit on the 
    public debt.''
        The message also announced that the Senate concurs in first 
    House amendment to Senate amendment No. 1.
        The message also announced that the Senate concurs in second 
    House amendment to Senate amendment No. 1, with an amendment.
        The message also announced that the Senate concurs in House 
    amendment to Senate amendment No. 2, with an amendment.
        Mr. [Richard A.] Gephardt [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that when the House considers the Senate 
    amendments to the House amendments to the Senate amendments to 
    House Joint Resolution 372, it first consider motions to dispose of 
    the Senate amendment to the House amendment to Senate amendment No. 
    2.
        The Speaker: (7) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).

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

[[Page 10223]]

        There was no objection.

                  preferential motion offered by mr. mack

        Mr. [Connie] Mack [III, of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mack moves to take from the Speaker's table House Joint 
        Resolution 372, with the Senate amendment to the House 
        amendment to Senate amendment No. 2 and to concur in the Senate 
        amendment as follows:
            Senate amendment to House amendment to Senate amendment No. 
        2.
             In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        amendment of the House of Representatives, insert:

                     TITLE II--DEFICIT REDUCTION PROCEDURES

                  sec. 201. short title and table of contents.

            (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Balanced 
        Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985''. . . .

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Gephardt) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack). . . 
    .
        Mr. Mack: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Mack: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my question is to find 
    out whether the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) has 30 
    minutes, as I do, or do I control the hour?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack) has 30 
    minutes, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) has 30 
    minutes.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The motion in this instance, to concur in a 
Senate amendment to a House amendment to a Senate amendment to a House 
measure, the stage of disagreement having been reached, is preferential 
to a motion to disagree and request a conference. When the above 
message was received from the Senate, the Speaker was obliged to 
recognize Mr. Mack, a minority member with the most preferential motion 
to dispose of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment, although he could have first recognized Mr. Gephardt, to 
move to disagree and request a conference, subject to recognition of 
Mr. Mack with an immediate preferential motion to concur.

Sec. 24.47 Debate on a motion to dispose of an amendment reported from 
    conference in disagreement is equally divided between the majority 
    and minority parties under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b), and where the 
    manager of the conference report making the motion does not 
    immediately seek recognition for debate, the Chair neverthe

[[Page 10224]]

    less allocates 30 minutes to him and may recognize a minority 
    Member at that time for 30 minutes.

    The House having under consideration the bill H.R. 7797 (relating 
to foreign assistance appropriations for fiscal year 1978) on Oct. 18, 
1977,(8) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 123 Cong. Rec. 34112, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Long of Maryland moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 74 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: Restore the 
        matter stricken by said amendment, amended to read as follows:
            ``Sec. 503C. Of the funds appropriated or made available 
        pursuant to this Act, not more than $18,100,000 shall be used 
        for military assistance, not more than $1,850,000 shall be used 
        for foreign military credit sales, and not more than $700,000 
        shall be used for international military education and training 
        to the Government of the Philippines.''. . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) . . . Does the 
    gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) seek recognition?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I do not, at this time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Young) desire to be recognized.
        Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I do.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long) 
    and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will be recognized for 
    30 minutes each.

Sec. 24.48 Prior to the amendment to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b) in the 
    92d Congress (providing that debate on an amendment in disagreement 
    be divided between the majority and minority parties), debate on an 
    amendment reported from conference in disagreement was under the 
    hour rule and the Member calling up the conference report was in 
    control of the debate on motions disposing of each amendment.

    On Aug. 1, 1962,(10) Mr. John E. Fogarty, of Rhode 
Island, called up a conference report with Senate amendments in 
disagreement. During consideration of the amendment, Speaker Pro 
Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, answered a parliamentary inquiry put 
by Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 108 Cong. Rec. 15294, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Is the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Fogarty] 
    going to explain any of these amendments?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is within the discretion of the 
    gentleman.

[[Page 10225]]

        Mr. Gross: A further parliamentary inquiry. Does not the 
    gentleman have an hour on each of these amendments?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has if he desires to use 
    it.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See also 108 Cong. Rec. 23432-43, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 
        1962.
            For a discussion of propositions and motions considered 
        under the hour rule, see Sec. 68, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: House Resolution 1153, which was adopted on 
Oct. 13, 1972, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., to become effective at the end of 
the 92d Congress, amended Rule XXVIII by requiring that 
debate on amendments reported from conference in disagreement be 
equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority parties.

Sec. 24.49 As each amendment in disagreement between the House and 
    Senate is reported, the Chair recognizes the Member handling the 
    conference report to offer a motion relating to that amendment; and 
    even though another Member offers a preferential motion relating to 
    that amendment which is considered by the House, the Member 
    offering the initial motion remains in control of the debate under 
    the hour rule.

    On Oct. 24, 1967,(12) Mr. Joseph L. Evins, of Tennessee, 
was handling a conference report being considered by the House on H.R. 
9960, the independent offices appropriation for fiscal 1968. As each 
amendment in disagreement was reported, Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Evins to make a motion in regard to that 
amendment. On amendments 58 and 59, Mr. Evins moved that the House 
insist on its disagreement. Mr. Robert N. Giaimo, of Connecticut, then 
made the preferential motion that the House recede and concur in those 
amendments. The House rejected Mr. Giaimo's motion and the Speaker 
again recognized Mr. Evins as the Member in control of the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 29837, 29838, 29842, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b), as 
amended in the 92d and 99th Congresses, the hour of debate would under 
current practice be divided and controlled by the majority (the Member 
calling up the report) and the minority, and, perhaps, by a Member 
opposed, if both the majority and minority are in agreement.

Sec. 24.50 Where the proponent of a motion to recede and con

[[Page 10226]]

    cur in a Senate amendment failed to seek recognition to debate the 
    motion, the Chair recognized the Member handling the conference 
    report (no other motion being pending).

    On May 14, 1963,(13) the House was considering a 
conference report and Senate amendments in disagreement, called up and 
managed by Mr. Albert Thomas, of Texas. Mr. Robert R. Barry, of New 
York, offered a preferential motion that the House recede and concur in 
a certain amendment in disagreement. A division of the question was 
demanded and Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that 
the question was on receding from disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 109 Cong. Rec. 8506, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Thomas then raised a parliamentary inquiry:

        Mr. Speaker, is it in order for the chairman of the House 
    conferees to make a short statement at this time on it?

    The Speaker answered that the motion was debatable, and since Mr. 
Barry did not seek recognition, the Speaker recognized Mr. Thomas on 
the motion. In answer to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Barry, the 
proponent of the motion, the Speaker stated that Mr. Thomas had control 
of time on the motion since he had been recognized.
    Parliamentarian's Note: In this case, Mr. Thomas had offered an 
initial motion (to recede and concur with an amendment) which was ruled 
out of order. Usually, the manager will offer an initial motion which 
remains pending if a preferential motion is offered, and the manager 
controls the majority time on the preferential motion.