[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§ 33. Losing or Surrendering Control]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10424-10445]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
 
Sec. 33. Losing or Surrendering Control

    A Member in control of time may voluntarily surrender the floor by 
simply so stating,(15) by withdrawing the measure he is 
managing,(16) or by yielding for the offering of a motion or 
an amendment.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. Sec. 33.10, 33.11, infra.
16. See Sec. 33.3, infra.
            Withdrawal of bills, see Ch. 24, supra.
17. See Sec. 30, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member loses the floor, without the right to resume, if he yields 
for an amendment,(18) if he is ruled out of order for 
disorderly language and is not permitted by the House to proceed in 
order,(19) or if he yields the floor without moving the 
previous question.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. See Sec. Sec. 33.4-33.6, 33.8, infra.
19. See Sec. 33.1, infra.
20. See Sec. Sec. 29.9, 29.10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member may lose the floor if he yields for an ordinary motion, 
but he does not lose the floor if 
he yields for the motion to adjourn (1) or that the 
Committee of the Whole rise, and he does not lose the floor, when 
managing 
a conference report and amendments in disagreement, if a preferential 
motion is offered.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 30.17, supra.
 2. See Sec. 17.38, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Use of previous question, see Ch. 23, supra.
Yielding for amendments, see Sec. 30, supra.
Yielding for motions, see Sec. 30, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Member Called to Order for Unparliamentary Words

Sec. 33.1 A Member called to or-der for words spoken in de-bate is 
    required to take his seat, and where the words are held 
    unparliamentary, he may not proceed without the consent of the 
    House.

    On Oct. 31, 1963,(3) Mr. Edgar Franklin Foreman, of 
Texas, was called to order for referring to another Member of the House 
as a ``pinko.'' Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled that 
``to characterize any Member of the House as a `pinko' is in violation 
of the rules.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 109 Cong. Rec. 20742, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Objection was then made to unanimous-consent requests to explain 
the remarks objected to and to allow Mr. Foreman to proceed in order:

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, I desire to 
    propound a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.

[[Page 10425]]

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the ruling of the 
    Chair was that the use of the word ``pinko'' involves a violation 
    of the rules of the House.
        The Speaker: That is correct.
        Mr. Halleck: Under those circumstances may not the gentleman 
    from Texas be permitted to continue with the balance of his 
    statement?
        The Speaker: Only by permission of the House.
        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
    gentleman from Texas [Mr. Foreman] be permitted to continue with 
    the balance of his statement.
        The Speaker: In order?
        Mr. Halleck: Yes, sir.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Indiana?
        Mr. [John J.] Rooney [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        Mr. [Bruce R.] Alger [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Alger: I do not know the accuracy of Jefferson's Manual in 
    this respect, but it says--and I am reading from the manual:

            Disorderly words are not to be noticed till the Member has 
        finished his speech.

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that in accordance with the 
    custom and under the rules the demand may be made to take down the 
    words during a speech.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. For discussion of the requirement that a Member called to order 
        must take his seat, see Sec. Sec. 49 et seq., infra. A Member 
        whose words are demanded to be taken down may retain the floor 
        by obtaining unanimous consent for the withdrawal of the words 
        (see Sec. 51, infra) or by permission of the House (see 
        Sec. 52, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Irrelevant Remarks

Sec. 33.2 Where a rule provides that debate in the Committee of the 
    Whole shall be confined to the bill, a Member must confine his 
    remarks to the bill and if he continues to talk to other matters 
    after repeated points of order, the Chair will request that he take 
    his seat.

    On Mar. 29, 1944,(5) the Committee of the Whole House on 
the State of the Union was considering H.R. 4257, to expatriate or 
exclude certain persons for evading military service. (The House had 
adopted H. Res. 482 providing for the consideration of the bill in 
Committee of the Whole, general debate to be ``confined to the bill.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 90 Cong. Rec. 3263, 78th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, requested unanimous consent to 
speak out of order, and Mr. Noah M. Mason, of Illinois, objected to the 
request on the ground that ``under the rule adopted by the House, 
debate on this bill is to be restricted to the bill.''

[[Page 10426]]

    Mr. Celler was then called to order twice for speaking on a subject 
irrelevant to the bill, such as the conduct of certain other nations in 
relation to the American war effort. When Mr. Celler continued to speak 
out of order, the following exchange took place (Chairman James 
Domengeaux [La.], presiding):

        Mr. [Adolph J.] Sabath [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.

        Mr. Sabath: The gentleman is not speaking to the bill. He has 
    been admonished several times, he has refused, and I am obliged to 
    make the point of order myself, though I regret it.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained and the gentleman 
    is again requested to confine himself to the bill.
        Mr. Mason: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. How many 
    times do we have to call the gentleman to order and try to get him 
    to confine his remarks to the bill before the privilege of the 
    House is withdrawn?
        The Chairman: This will be the last time. If the gentleman does 
    not proceed in order, he will be requested to take his 
    seat.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Special orders may provide that general debate in the Committee of 
        the Whole be confined to the bill. See generally, for the 
        requirement that debate be confined to the subject matter, 
        Sec. Sec. 35 et seq., infra. Rule XIV clause 1, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 749 (1995) requires that a Member confine himself 
        to the subject under debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Withdrawal of Pending Resolution

Sec. 33.3 The manager of a resolution providing for a special rule, 
    pending when a recess had been declared to await the copy of an 
    engrossed bill, retained the floor, but then withdrew the special 
    rule from consideration.

    On Apr. 8, 1964,(7) the House was considering House 
Resolution 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

[[Page 10427]]

to the inquiry, recognized Mr. Bolling, the manager of the resolution, 
who then withdrew the resolution from consideration.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 7302-04, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
 8. Where a Member consumes part of the hour on a resolution he has 
        offered and then withdraws it, he may be entitled to a full 
        hour when he again offers the resolution (see Sec. 24.8, 
        supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yielding for Amendment

Sec. 33.4 A Member controlling time for debate in the House who yields 
    to another Member to offer an amendment loses the floor and the 
    right to move the previous question.

    On Mar. 13, 1939,(9) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
offered at the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 
113, authorizing a committee investigation. When the previous question 
was rejected, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, ruled that Mr. 
Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, opposed to the resolution, was entitled to 
recognition for one hour. Mr. Mapes inquired whether he could yield to 
another Member to offer an amendment and the Speaker responded that if 
he yielded for an amendment, he would lose control of the floor (and of 
the right to move the previous question).(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 84 Cong. Rec. 2663-73, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. See also 102 Cong. Rec. 6264, 6265, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 12, 
        1956.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 33.5 Where the Member in charge of a resolution under the hour 
    rule yields to another for the purpose of offering an amendment, he 
    loses control of the floor and the sponsor of the amendment is 
    given control.

    On Mar. 27, 1945,(11) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that since the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, controlling 
debate on House Resolution 195, creating a select committee, yielded 
for an amendment to the resolution, he lost the floor and the sponsor 
of the amendment, Mr. Clinton P. Anderson, of New Mexico, gained 
control for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 91 Cong. Rec. 2861, 2862, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 33.6 The Member controlling the time for debate on his motion to 
    instruct House managers at a conference loses the floor if he 
    yields for an amendment.

    On Feb. 8, 1965,(12) Mr. Robert H. Michel, of Illinois, 
was in con

[[Page 10428]]

trol of time for debate on a motion to instruct House managers at a 
conference, which motion he had offered. Mr. Michel yielded for five 
minutes to Mr. Odin Langen, of Minnesota. Mr. Langen then attempted to 
offer an amendment. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
inquired whether Mr. Michel yielded for that purpose and Mr. Michel 
stated that he would yield for the amendment. The Speaker advised Mr. 
Michel:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 111 Cong. Rec. 2099, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will state that the gentleman from Illinois will lose 
    the floor when he yields for that purpose.

    Mr. Michel declined to yield for the offering of the amendment.

Sec. 33.7 The manager of a conference report controlling the floor on a 
    motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement, by yielding to 
    another Member to offer an amendment to his motion, loses the floor 
    and the Member to whom he has yielded controls one hour of debate 
    on his amendment and may move the previous question on his 
    amendment and on the original motion.

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 7933 (the 
Defense Department appropriation bill for fiscal year 1978) in the 
House on Sept. 8, 1977,(13) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 28130-32, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. For current practice 
        regarding control of debate on conference reports and related 
        matters under Rule XXVIII, see, e.g. Sec. 34.15, infra; and 
        see, generally, Sec. 17, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I hope we have 
    had a fair debate on the issues. My motion provides for the 
    continuation of the B-1 program, and I rise in further support of 
    my motion and in opposition to the Addabbo amendment.
        By previous arrangement, in order to be absolutely fair with 
    the House and give the House an opportunity to work its will, I 
    yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Addabbo) for the purpose 
    of offering an amendment.
        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Mahon).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Addabbo to the motion offered by 
        Mr. Mahon: In lieu of the sum proposed to be inserted by said 
        motion insert: ``$6,262,000,000''.

        Mr. Addabbo: Mr. Speaker, I will not take the hour. By previous 
    arrangement and agreement with the chairman of the full committee, 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), who has been kind enough to 
    recognize me at this time for the purpose of offering this 
    amendment, the agreement was that I would after offering the 
    substitute move the previous question so that we would have a clear 
    vote on the question of whether or not to fund the B-1. . . .

[[Page 10429]]

        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment to 
    the motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The question is on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Addabbo) to 
    the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.

        Mr. Addabbo: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    202, nays 199, not voting 33. . . .
        So the amendment to the motion was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), as amended.
        The motion, as amended, was agreed to.

--Yielding for Amendment to Amendment

Sec. 33.8 A Member controlling time for debate in the House on his 
    amendment loses control of the floor if he yields for the purpose 
    of having another amendment offered.

    On Mar. 13, 1939,(15) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
of the Committee on Rules called up House Resolution 113, authorizing 
the Committee on the District of Columbia to investigate the milk 
industry in the District. Mr. Smith moved the previous question and it 
was rejected. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, recognized Mr. 
Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, to control one hour of debate in opposition 
to the resolution. In response to numerous parliamentary inquiries, the 
Speaker stated that Mr. Mapes could not accept an amendment to the 
amendment he proposed, or yield to another Member to offer an 
amendment, without losing control of the floor and losing the right to 
move the previous question on the resolution and on his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 84 Cong. Rec. 2663-73, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 33.9 Where a Member calling up a measure in the House offers an 
    amendment and then yields to another Member to offer an amendment 
    to his amendment, he loses the floor and the Member to whom he 
    yielded is recog

[[Page 10430]]

    nized for one hour and may move the previous question on the 
    amendments and on the measure itself.

    On Dec. 6, 1977,(16) the House had under consideration 
House Joint Resolution 662 (continuing appropriations for fiscal 1978) 
when the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 123 Cong. Rec. 38392, 38393, 38400, 38401, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    rule just adopted by the House, I call up the joint resolution 
    (H.J. Res. 662) making further continuing appropriations for the 
    fiscal year 1978, and for other purposes. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (17) The gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Mahon) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume and, Mr. Speaker, during the consideration of House Joint 
    Resolution 662, I shall yield only for the purposes of debate and 
    not for amendment unless I specifically so indicate. . . .
        Second, immediately after I offer my amendment, I will yield to 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel), the ranking minority 
    member of the Labor-HEW Subcommittee and the ranking minority 
    conferee on that appropriation bill for an amendment on the 
    abortion issue. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mahon: On page 2, after line 9, 
        insert the following:
            Such amounts as may be necessary for projects or activities 
        provided for in the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
        Education, and Welfare, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 
        1978 (H.R. 7555), at a rate of operations, and to the extent 
        and in the manner, provided for in such Act as modified by the 
        House of Representatives on August 2, 1977, notwithstanding the 
        provisions of section 106 of this joint resolution.

        amendment offered by mr. michel to the amendment offered by mr. 
                                     mahon

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Michel to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Mahon: At the end of the amendment of the gentleman from 
        Texas strike the period, insert a semicolon, and add the 
        following: ``Provided, That none of the funds provided for in 
        this paragraph shall be used to perform abortions except where 
        the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 
        carried to term; or except for such medical procedures 
        necessary for the victims of forced rape or incest. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel) is recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Mahon), the chairman of our committee, pending 
    which I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendments and 
    the joint resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered.

[[Page 10431]]

        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) to the 
    amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon). . . .
        [The] amendment to the amendment was rejected. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
        The amendment was agreed to.

Chairman of Committee Surrendered Control Where He Opposed Bill

Sec. 33.10 On one occasion, the chairman of a committee, acting at the 
    President's request, introduced a bill, presided over the hearings 
    in committee, reported the bill, applied to the Committee on Rules 
    for a special rule, and moved that the House resolve itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole; when recognized to control one-half of 
    the debate in the Committee, he then announced his opposition to 
    the measure and surrendered management of the bill to the ranking 
    majority member of the committee.

    On June 14, 1967,(18) Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for 
the consideration of House Joint Resolution 559, providing for the 
settlement of a railroad labor dispute. The House had adopted House 
Resolution 511, making in order the consideration of the bill and 
providing that general debate be controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 113 Cong. Rec. 15822, 15823, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        Mr. Chairman, I am here today in a most unusual position. I was 
    requested by the President to introduce the bill we have before us 
    today, and because of my responsibilities as chairman of the 
    committee, I introduced the bill. If the House was to be given an 
    opportunity to work its will on this legislation, it was necessary 
    that hearings begin promptly and continue as expeditiously as 
    possible, and I think the record will bear me out, that the 
    hearings before our committee have been prompt, they have not been 
    delayed in any respect.

[[Page 10432]]

        In fact we interrupted consideration of a very important piece 
    of health legislation in order to take up this bill. We have heard 
    every witness who wanted to be heard on the legislation. I did this 
    because I felt it to be my responsibility to the House as chairman 
    of the committee.
        Following the conclusion of our hearings I promptly scheduled 
    executive sessions for consideration of the bill and we met as 
    promptly as possible both morning and afternoon and the committee 
    reported the bill to the House.
        Yesterday I went before the Rules Committee as chairman of the 
    committee to present the facts to the Rules Committee and attempt 
    to obtain a rule so that the bill would be considered by the House. 
    I have done these things because I felt it is my responsibility to 
    do so as chairman of the committee.
        Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I was opposed to this bill when I 
    introduced it, and having heard all the witnesses and all the 
    testimony, I am still opposed to it. For that reason I have asked 
    the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] to handle the bill in 
    Committee of the Whole, so that I would 
    be free to express my opposition to it. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes the presentation I desire to make 
    on the bill. At this time I request the gentleman from Maryland 
    [Mr. Friedel], the ranking majority member on the Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce Committee, to take charge of managing the bill on 
    the floor.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The chairman of a committee has the 
responsibility of reporting or causing to be reported any measure 
approved by his committee and taking or causing to be taken steps to 
have the matter considered and voted upon in the House, regardless of 
his personal opposition to the measure.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a 
        (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Chairman of Committee Opposed Bill as Amended

Sec. 33.11 The Committee of the Whole having adopted certain amendments 
    to a bill, the chairman of the committee from which the measure was 
    reported expressed his objections, relinquished control of the bill 
    and subsequently offered a motion that the Committee rise and 
    report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the 
    enacting clause be stricken.

    On July 5, 1956,(20) the Committee of the Whole had 
adopted certain amendments to H.R. 7535, to authorize federal 
assistance to states and local communities in financing an expanded 
program of school construction. Graham A. Barden, of North Carolina, 
who

[[Page 10433]]

was controlling consideration of the bill as the chairman of the 
reporting committee (Education and Labor), then made the following 
statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 102 Cong. Rec. 11849, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. . . .
        I have very definitely reached the conclusion that the American 
    people do not want this legislation in its present form. Certain 
    things have happened to the bill that make it very, very obnoxious 
    and objectionable to the people I represent.
        I never have claimed to be an expert when advocating something 
    that I was sincerely and conscientiously for. I have always felt I 
    would be a complete flop in trying to advocate something I did not 
    believe in and did not advocate. This bill is objectionable to me. 
    It has so many bad features and so many things have been given 
    priority over the consideration of the objective that we set out to 
    accomplish that I must say, in all frankness, to the House I cannot 
    continue in the position here of directing this bill. I feel that 
    someone who can be fairer to the bill in its present shape than I, 
    should handle the bill. I would have to be a much better actor than 
    I now am to proceed in the position of handling this piece of 
    legislation which I cannot support and do not want to pass. For 
    that reason, I want the House to understand my very definite 
    position in the matter. So, with that, I think the House will 
    understand my position and those in a position on the committee to 
    handle the bill will have my cooperation to a certain extent, but 
    no one need to expect any assistance from me or any encouragement 
    for the bill.

    Mr. Barden later offered a motion that the Committee rise and 
report the bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
clause be stricken, which was defeated (the bill itself was later also 
defeated).(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Id. at pp. 11868, 11869.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member Offering Preferential Motion Does Not Gain Control of Time

Sec. 33.12 The time for debate on an amendment reported from conference 
    in disagreement is equally divided between the majority and 
    minority parties under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b), and a Member 
    offering a preferential motion does not thereby gain control of 
    time for debate; nor can the Member who has offered the 
    preferential motion move the previous question during time yielded 
    to him for debate, since that would deprive the Members in charge 
    of control of the time for debate.

    On Dec. 4, 1975,(2) an example of the proposition 
described above occurred in the House during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 8069 (the Department of

[[Page 10434]]

Health, Education, and Welfare and related agencies appropriation 
bill):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 121 Cong. Rec. 38714, 38716, 38717, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Flood moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 72 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter inserted 
        by said amendment, insert the following:
            ``Sec. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall 
        be used to 
        require, directly or indirectly, the transportation of any 
        student to a school other than the school which is nearest or 
        next nearest the student's home. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bauman moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to Senate amendment No. 72 and concur therein.

        The Speaker: (3) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, who has the right to 
    the time under the motion?
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has 30 
    minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 30 
    minutes. The time is controlled by the committee leadership on each 
    side, and they are not taken from the floor by a preferential 
    motion. . . .
        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I yield such 
    time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).
        Mr. Bauman: The gentleman from Maryland has made his case and 
    if the gentleman would like to concur in the stand taken by the 
    majority party in favor of busing he can do that. I do not concur.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I demand the question be divided.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood) has 
    the floor and the Chair is trying to let the gentleman be heard.
        Mr. Flood: Mr. Speaker, I demand a division.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded. My time has not 
    expired.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has time for debate only.
        Mr. Bauman: No; Mr. Speaker, it was not yielded for debate 
    only.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland has 15 seconds.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The Speaker: The gentleman was yielded to for debate only. The 
    gentleman from Illinois had no authority under clause 2, rule 
    XXVIII to yield for any other purpose but debate.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Debate on a motion that the House recede 
from its disagreement to a Senate amendment and concur is under the 
hour rule. In the above instance, the motion to recede and concur was 
divided.(4) If the mo

[[Page 10435]]

tion is so divided, the hour rule applies to each motion 
separately.(5) Thus, technically, the Bauman motion to 
concur could have been debated under the hour rule, since the request 
for division of the question was made prior to the ordering of the 
previous question. Control of the time, however, would have remained 
with the majority and minority under the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 121 Cong. Rec. 38717, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 5. See 86 Cong. Rec. 5889, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., May 9, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whether or not the division demand was made before or after the 
ordering of the previous question on the motion to recede and concur, 
the preferential motion offered by Mr. Flood to concur with an 
amendment could have been debated under the hour rule equally divided, 
since it was a separate motion not affected by ordering the previous 
question on the motion to recede and concur.
    Had the Bauman motion to concur been rejected, the motion to concur 
with another amendment would have been in order, and preferential to a 
motion to insist on disagreement.

Sec. 33.13 Time for debate on motions to dispose of amendments in 
    disagreement is equally divided, under Rule XXVIII clause 2(b), 
    between the majority and minority party; and if a minority Member 
    has been designated by his party to control time, another minority 
    Member who offers a preferential motion does not thereby gain 
    control of the time given to the minority.

    On May 14, 1975,(6) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 4881 (7) in the House, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 121 Cong. Rec. 14385, 14386, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
 7. The Emergency Employment Appropriations for fiscal year 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (8) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 61: Page 41, line 9, insert:

                       ``Federal Railroad Administration

                ``rail transportation improvement and employment

            ``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads 
        by providing funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving 
        railroad roadbeds and facilities, $700,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mahon moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 61.

[[Page 10436]]

                  preferential motion offered by mr. conte

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

            Mr. Conte moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to Senate amendment Number 61 and concur therein with an 
        amendment, as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be 
        inserted by the Senate, insert the following:

                                 ``CHAPTER VIII

                         ``Department of Transportation

                       ``federal railroad administration

            ``For payment of financial assistance to assist railroads 
        by providing funds for repairing, rehabilitating, and improving 
        railroad roadbeds and facilities, $200,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, how is the time divided?
        The Speaker: The time is divided equally between the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Mahon), who has 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. Michel) who has 30 minutes or such small fraction 
    thereof as he may decide to use.

Sec. 33.14 The offering of a preferential motion cannot deprive the 
    Member making an original motion (to dispose of a Senate amendment) 
    of control of the floor for debate, and the Chair will recognize 
    the Member controlling the floor when a preferential motion is 
    offered.

    During consideration of the foreign assistance appropriation bill 
(H.R. 7797) in the House on Oct. 18, 1977,(9) the following 
motions were offered:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 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.''. . .

        Mr. [C. W.] Young of Florida: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Young of Florida moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 74 and 
        concur therein.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The Chair recognizes 
    the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. William H. Natcher (Ky.).

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

[[Page 10437]]

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although during the above proceedings Mr. 
Young moved the previous question on his preferential motion, 
ordinarily the maker of a preferential motion should not be permitted 
to move the previous question thereon, since he does not gain the floor 
for any purpose other than to offer the motion. The manager of the bill 
should be the one recognized to move the previous question on the 
motion.
    Although, as in the above instance, the minority Member controlling 
half the time on a motion on an amendment in disagreement may make a 
preferential motion during his time for debate, the more usual practice 
is that the preferential motion be made either before or after the hour 
of debate on the initial motion.

Sec. 33.15 The motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment 
    reported back from conference in disagreement takes precedence over 
    a motion to insist on disagreement thereto, but the proponent of 
    the preferential motion does not thereby gain control of the time 
    for debate.

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 14238 (the 
legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 1977) in the House on 
Sept. 22, 1976,(11) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 122 Cong. Rec. 31899, 31900, 31902, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (12) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 56: Page 35, line 1 insert:

                  restoration of west central front of capitol

            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Architect 
        of the Capitol, under the direction of the Senate and House 
        Office Building Commissions acting jointly, is directed to 
        restore the West Central Front of the United States Capitol 
        (without change of location or change of the present 
        architectural appearance thereof), $25,000,000. . . .

        Mr. [George E.] Shipley [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Shipley moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 56.

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion to recede and concur in the Senate amendment 
    No. 56 to the legislative appropriation conference report.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Stratton moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate number 56 and 
        concur therein.

[[Page 10438]]

        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, will the distinguished gentleman 
    from Illinois, the chairman, yield me 5 minutes.
        Mr. Shipley: I yield the gentleman from New York 5 minutes. . . 
    .
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Yates) wishes to offer a substitute motion to recede and concur 
    with an amendment striking the cost plus fixed fee contract.
        Is it in order for that motion to be offered if I withdraw my 
    motion?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that the gentleman may offer 
    his motion if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Stratton) withdraws 
    his preferential motion. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: . . . Would a motion to recede and concur with an 
    amendment be a preferential motion?
        The Speaker: It would be preferential over a motion to insist 
    on disagreement. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: . . . I withdraw my motion. . . .
        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Speaker: The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves on amendment 56 to recede and concur with 
        the Senate on amendment No. 56 with an amendment as follows: On 
        page 35, line 11, strike out the words ``including cost-plus-
        fixed-fee contracts''. . . .

        Mr. Shipley: Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Yates).

Sec. 33.16 Although the motion to concur in a Senate amendment takes 
    precedence over the motion to disagree where the stage of 
    disagreement has been reached, the Member offering the preferential 
    motion does not thereby gain control of the time for debate, which 
    remains in the control of the manager of the bill under the hour 
    rule.

    On Nov. 29, 1977,(13) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 123 Cong. Rec. 38033, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Daniel J.] Flood [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I move to 
    take from the Speaker's desk 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 the amendment of 
    the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of the 
    Senate No. 82, and disagree thereto.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendment to 
    the Senate amendment No. 82, as follows:

            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate numbered 
        82, insert the following:
            Sec. 209. None of the funds contained in this Act shall be 
        used to perform abortions: . . .

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.

[[Page 10439]]

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Mahon moves that the House concur in the amendment of 
        the Senate to the amendment of the House to the amendment of 
        the Senate numbered 82. . . .

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

    Parliamentarian's Note: Debate on a motion to dispose of a Senate 
amendment which has not been reported from conference in disagreement 
but which is otherwise before the House, the stage of disagreement 
having been reached, is under the control of the manager of the bill 
under the hour rule and is not divided between the majority and 
minority parties under clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII.

Member in Control of General Debate Loses Control Only if Time Is 
    Yielded Back

Sec. 33.17 A Member controlling time for general debate in Committee of 
    the Whole loses the right to consume such time only if it is 
    yielded back, and not pursuant to any informal agreement on 
    management of time that may be reached by the managers of the bill.

    During consideration of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 
1982 (H.R. 7357) in the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 16, 
1982,(15) the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 128 Cong. Rec. 31809, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) For what purpose does the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) rise?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George] Miller of California: For the purpose of 
    clarification, Mr. Chairman. It was my understanding under the 
    agreement reached earlier today, that if you did not use your full 
    allotment of your time in these 2 hours, you would lose it, and 
    that tomorrow we would have 3 hours of debate, an hour remaining 
    for Education and Labor, an hour remaining for Judiciary, and an 
    hour for Agriculture.
        The Chairman: The Chair advises the gentleman from California 
    that the only way you would lose your time, you would have to yield 
    it back.

    Parliamentarian's Note: If a case arose where no Member controlling 
general debate sought recognition to consume time or to move that the 
Committee rise, the Chair could, after requesting the managers whether 
they sought time, direct the Clerk to read the bill for amendment under 
the five-minute rule.

Time Yielded Back by One to Whom Time Was Yielded Reverts to Member in 
    Control

Sec. 33.18 Debate time yielded back by a Member to whom

[[Page 10440]]

    time was yielded under the hour rule reverts to the Member in 
    control of the hour.

    During consideration of House Resolution 97 (to seat Richard D. 
McIntyre as a Member from Indiana) in the House on Mar. 4, 
1985,(17) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 131 Cong. Rec. 4277, 4282, 4283, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                   H. Res. 97

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

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) . . . The Chair 
    recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Alexander).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I move 
    that the resolution be referred to the Committee on House 
    Administration. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is entitled to 1 hour 
    under that motion, during which time the gentleman from Arkansas 
    controls the time. . . .
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would yield 30 minutes for 
    purposes of debate only, to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel). . . .
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois has 
    consumed 10 minutes. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) has 
    20 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Alexander) has 10 minutes remaining.
        Does the gentleman from Illinois desire to yield additional 
    time?
        Mr. Michel: I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker. . 
    . .
        Mr. Alexander: How much time do I have remaining?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has 25 minutes 
    remaining.
        Mr. Alexander: I thank the Chair.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right with one remaining 
    speaker.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman yielded back the 
    balance of his time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the Chair state that the gentleman 
    from Il

[[Page 10441]]

    linois--the Chair understood the gentleman from Illinois to yield 
    back the balance of his time.

--Member to Whom Time Was Yielded May Not Reserve a Portion

Sec. 33.19 A Member to whom time was yielded under the hour rule in the 
    House may not, except by unanimous consent, reserve a portion of 
    that time to himself; the unused time reverts to the Member 
    controlling the hour who may subsequently yield further time to 
    that Member.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Feb. 8, 
1972,(19) during consideration of House Resolution 164 
(creating a select committee on privacy, human values, and democratic 
institutions):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 118 Cong. Rec. 3181-84, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ray J.] Madden [of Indiana]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 164 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                               H. Res. 164 . . .

            Whereas the full significance and the effects of technology 
        on society and on the operations of industry and Government are 
        largely un-known . . . .
            Resolved, That there is hereby created a select committee 
        to be known as the Select Committee on Privacy, Human Values, 
        and Democratic In-stitutions. . . .

        Mr. Madden: Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Gallagher).
        Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, may 
    I take 5 minutes now and reserve 5 minutes to the end of the debate 
    since it is my bill?
        The Speaker: (20) The gentleman may do that. Without 
    objection, it is so ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object . . . is it in order to have a unanimous-consent 
    request at a time like this when the time is controlled by the 
    members of the Committee on Rules. . . ?
        Mr. Gallagher: . . . It was my understanding that I would have 
    the time at the conclusion of debate.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I submit this is between the gentleman 
    and the man handling the rule, and therefore I must object.
        The Speaker: The Chair will notify the gentleman when 5 minutes 
    are up. . . .
        The gentleman from New Jersey has consumed 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gallagher: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
        The Speaker: . . . The gentleman from Indiana has control of 
    the time. . . .

        If the gentleman from Indiana desires to yield further time at 
    this time he can do so.

[[Page 10442]]

Under Trade Act: Member Controlling Time in Opposition May Not Be 
    Compelled To Use Less Than Time Allotted

Sec. 33.20 Debate on an implementing revenue bill must 
    be equally divided and controlled among those favoring and those 
    opposing the bill under section 151(f)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974, 
    and unanimous consent is required 
    to divide the time between 
    the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the 
    committee if both favor the 
    bill; in the absence of such 
    a unanimous-consent agreement, a Member opposed to the bill is 
    entitled to control 10 hours of debate in opposition, with priority 
    of recognition to opposing members of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means; and the Member recognized to control the time in opposition 
    may not be compelled to use less than that amount of time unless 
    the Committee rises and the House limits further debate in the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    During consideration of the Trade Agreement Act of 1979 (H.R. 4537) 
in the House on July 10, 1979,(1) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 17812, 17813, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 
    151(f) of Public Law 93-618, the Trade Act of 1974, 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. 4537) to 
    approve and implement the trade agreements negotiated under the 
    Trade Act of 1974, and for other purposes, and pending that motion, 
    Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general debate on the 
    bill be equally divided and controlled between the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Conable) and myself. . . .
        The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Ullman)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object. . . .
        I take this reservation for the purpose of propounding a 
    parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.
        The rule, section 151, before consideration says:

            Debate in the House of Representatives on an implementing 
        bill or approval resolution shall be limited to not more than 
        20 hours which shall be divided equally between those favoring 
        and those opposing the bill or resolution. . . .

        My query to the Chair as a part of my reservation is, if the 
    unanimous-consent request of the chairman is granted can the 
    chairman then move

[[Page 10443]]

    to terminate debate at any time during the course of debate before 
    the 20 hours have expired?
        The Speaker: Reading the statute a motion further to limit the 
    debate shall not be debatable, and that would be made in the House, 
    either now or later, and not in the Committee of the Whole.
        Mr. Ashbrook: Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to 
    object, if the gentleman from Ohio were to be recognized as 
    opposing the bill, does the gentleman have the absolute right to 
    the 10 hours regardless of the time that would be taken on the 
    other side?
        The Speaker: Unless all general debate were further limited by 
    the House a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who is 
    opposed to the bill could seek to control the 10 hours of time. The 
    gentleman would be entitled to the 10 hours unless a request came 
    from a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who would be in 
    opposition. . . .
        Mr. Ashbrook: I thank the Speaker.
        I ask this for a very specific purpose. Further reserving the 
    right to object, it is my understanding then that the gentleman 
    from Oregon could not foreclose debate as long as whoever controls 
    the opposition time still has part of the 10 hours remaining. Is 
    that correct, under the statute providing for consideration of this 
    trade bill? . . .
        The Speaker: Not unless the committee rose and the House 
    limited all debate.
        A motion to limit general debate would not be entertained in 
    the Committee of the Whole and the Chair cannot foresee something 
    of that nature happening.

Effect of Rejection of Previous Question on Motion To Instruct 
    Conferees

Sec. 33.21 Under Rule XXVIII, clause 1(b), debate on any motion to 
    instruct conferees is equally divided between majority and minority 
    parties or among them and an opponent; but where the previous 
    question is rejected on a motion to instruct, a separate hour of 
    debate on any amendment to the motion is fully controlled by the 
    proponent of the amendment under the hour rule (Rule XIV, clause 
    2), as the manager of the original motion loses the floor.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 3, 
1989,(3) during consideration of H.R. 3026 (District of 
Columbia appropriations for fiscal year 1990):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 135 Cong. Rec. 22859, 22862, 22863, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
            For further discussion of Rule XXVIII, see Sec. 26, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
    3026) making appropriations for the government of the District of 
    Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part 
    against the revenues of said District

[[Page 10444]]

    for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, and for other 
    purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate 
    amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Bill] Green [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion 
    to instruct.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Green moves that the managers on the part of the House, 
        at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
        the bill H.R. 3026, be instructed to agree to the amendment of 
        the Senate numbered 3.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Green] is recognized for 30 minutes in support his motion. . . .
        Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion to instruct. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
        [The previous question was rejected.]
        Mr. Dixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I understand now that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Dannemeyer] intends to offer an amendment to the motion offered by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Green].
        My question is: Under the offering will I receive part of the 
    time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman 
    from California [Mr. Dixon] that 1 hour would be allotted to the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer]. He would have to yield 
    time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dannemeyer to the motion to 
        instruct: At the end of the pending motion, strike the period, 
        insert a semicolon, and add the following language: ``; 
        Provided further that the conferees be instructed to agree to 
        the provisions contained in Senate amendment numbered 22.''

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Dannemeyer] is recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    yield one-half of the time to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Dixon], for purposes of debate only.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The control of debate in the above instance 
is to be distinguished from debate on motions in the House to dispose 
of amendments in disagreement. In the latter case, although the manager 
of the original motion might lose the floor upon defeat of his motion, 
debate on a subsequent motion is nevertheless divided under Rule 
XXVIII, clause 2(b). It is only debate on amendments to such motions, 
when pending, that is not divided.

[[Page 10445]]

Member in Control Must Remain Standing--Member Inadvertently Seated 
    Himself

Sec. 33.22 While a Member controlling the floor in debate must remain 
    standing, a Member who inadvertently seats himself and then 
    immediately stands again before the Chair recognizes another Member 
    may be permitted to retain control of the floor.

    On Oct. 19, 1977,(5) the following proceedings occurred 
in 
the Committee of the Whole during consideration of the Energy 
Transportation Security Act of 1977 (H.R. 1037):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 123 Cong. Rec. 34220, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George E.] Danielson [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I make 
    the point of order that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    McCloskey) seated himself and thereby yielded back the balance of 
    his time.
        The Chairman: (6) The Chair adopts a commonsense 
    interpretation of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Morris K. Udall (Ariz.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Danielson: Mr. Chairman, I ask for regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from California (Mr. McCloskey) was 
    back up on his feet almost immediately and indicated that he wanted 
    to continue his colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Murphy).
        Does the gentleman from California (Mr. McCloskey) desire to 
    yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy)?
        Mr. [Paul N.] McCloskey [Jr., of California]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    desire to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy).