[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§ 34. Control Passing to Opposition]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10445-10459]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
 
Sec. 34. Control Passing to Opposition

    As noted earlier, when an essential motion made by the Member in 
charge of the bill is decided adversely, the right to prior recognition 
passes to the Member leading the opposition to the motion. Under this 
principle the control of the measure passes to the opposition when the 
House disagrees to the recommendation of the committee reporting the 
bill or when the motion for the previous question on the measure is 
rejected.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. House Rules and Manual Sec. 755 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The opposing side also gains control of some time, but not of the 
pending proposition, where the rules or an agreement provides that on a 
certain question or motion a fixed amount of debate be conducted, 
equally divided between those favoring and those opposing the 
question.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See, for example, Sec. 30.6, supra (where opposition recognized for 
        five minutes on motion to recommit, offeror of motion still 
        retains control and right to yield for amendment).
            See Sec. Sec. 25.3-25.6, supra, for division of time 
        required by rule and Sec. 25.2, supra, for division of time 
        directed by statute.
            The principles of recognition of the opposing side are 
        generally covered in Sec. Sec. 8-23, supra.

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

[[Page 10446]]

                            Cross References
Motion to discharge and management of discharged bill or resolution, 
    see Ch. 18, supra.
Prior right to recognition of opposition after rejection of essential 
    motion, see Sec. 15, supra.
Priority of recognition for opposing debate to committee member, see 
    Sec. 13, supra.
Right of opposition to demand second on motion to suspend the rules, 
    see Ch. 21, supra.
Right of opposition to move to recommit, see Ch. 23, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Effect of Rejection of Essential Motion, Generally

Sec. 34.1 When an essential motion made by the Member in charge of a 
    bill is decided adversely, control passes to the Member leading the 
    opposition to the motion.

    On June 2, 1930,(9) the House was considering the 
passage of a vetoed bill originating in the Senate. A motion to 
postpone consideration of the bill had been made by the chairman of the 
committee managing the bill and had been rejected. Mr. John N. Garner, 
of Texas, stated a parliamentary inquiry whether that motion was not an 
essential motion whose defeat required recognition to pass to the 
minority. Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, discussed the principle 
raised and ruled that the motion to postpone consideration was not an 
essential motion within the meaning of the rule.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 72 Cong. Rec. 9913, 9914, 71st Cong. 2d Sess.
10. For the general requirement that recognition pass to the opposition 
        after the rejection of an essential motion made by the Member 
        in charge of a proposition, see Sec. 15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defeat of Motion To Table Resolution

Sec. 34.2 Where a Member calling up a resolution in the House uses part 
    of his hour of 
    debate and then offers a motion to table the resolution 
    which is defeated, the Chair 
    normally recognizes another Member for an hour of debate; but where 
    no other Member seeks recognition, the Chair may recognize the 
    Member who called up the resolution to control the remainder of his 
    hour of debate.

[[Page 10447]]

    On June 15, 1979,(11) proceedings in the House related 
to House Resolution 291, a resolution of inquiry directing the 
President to provide Members of the House with information on the 
energy situation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 125 Cong. Rec. 15027, 15029, 15030, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I call up the 
    resolution (H. Res. 291), a resolution of inquiry directing the 
    President to provide Members of the House with information on the 
    energy situation, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 291

            Resolved, That the President, to the extent possible, is 
        directed to furnish to the House of Representatives, not later 
        than fifteen days following the adoption of this resolution, 
        full and complete information on the following:
            (1) the existence and percentage 
        of shortages of crude oil and refined petroleum products within 
        the United States and administrative regions; . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. John Brademas (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, at this time I move to table the 
    resolution of inquiry now before the House.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion to table 
    offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the ayes appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, on that 
    I demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    4, nays 338, not voting 92, as follows. . . .
        So the motion to table was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time 
    remains?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman 
    that he has 48 minutes remaining.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Speaker, I will, then, at this time yield 24 
    minutes to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
    Devine), for purposes of debate only.

Rejection of Previous Question

Sec. 34.3 If the previous question is voted down on a resolution before 
    the House, control of the measure passes to the opponents of the 
    resolution, and the Chair then recognizes a Member of the minority 
    party, if opposed.

    On July 20, 1939,(13) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
man

[[Page 10448]]

aging a resolution to authorize an investigation, moved the previous 
question on the resolution. Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
answered parliamentary inquiries as to control of the resolution should 
the previous question be rejected:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 84 Cong. Rec. 9591, 9592, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Vito] Marcantonio [of New York]: If the previous question 
    is voted down, will that open up the resolution to amendment?
        The Speaker: Undoubtedly.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Smith of Virginia: If I understand the situation correctly, 
    if the previous question is voted down, the control of the measure 
    would pass to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Keller]; and the 
    resolution would not be open to amendment generally, but only to 
    such amendments as the gentleman from Illinois might yield for. Is 
    my understanding correct, Mr. Speaker?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down, it would 
    not necessarily pass to the gentleman from Illinois; it would pass 
    to the opponents of the resolution. Of course, a representative of 
    the minority would have the first right of recognition.

Sec. 34.4 In response to parliamentary inquiries the Speaker advised 
    that if the previous question on a privileged resolution reported 
    by the Committee on Rules were voted down, the Chair would 
    recognize the Member who appeared to be leading the opposition.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(14) Mr. Claude D. Pepper, of Florida, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution 1013, 
establishing a Select Committee on Standards and Conduct. Mr. Pepper 
was recognized for one hour and offered a committee amendment to the 
resolution, which amendment was agreed to. Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, then answered a series of parliamentary inquiries as 
to the procedure to be followed should Mr. Pepper move the previous 
question and should the motion be defeated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, if the previous 
    question is refused, is it true that then amendments may be offered 
    and further debate may be had on the resolution?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is defeated, then the 
    resolution is open to further consideration and action and debate. 
    . . .
        Mr. [Cornelius E.] Gallagher [of New Jersey]: If the previous 
    question is voted down we will have the option to reopen debate, 
    the resolution will be open for amendment, or it can be tabled. Is 
    that the situation as the Chair understands it?
        The Speaker: If the previous question is voted down on the 
    resolution,

[[Page 10449]]

    the time will be in control of some Member in opposition to it, and 
    it would be open to amendment or to a motion to table.

Sec. 34.5 Where the motion for the previous question on a resolution 
    (reported from the Rules Committee) is rejected, the Chair 
    recognizes the Member who led the opposition to the previous 
    question, who may offer an amendment and is recognized for one 
    hour.

    During consideration of House Resolution 312, waiving points of 
order and providing special procedures during consideration of H.R. 
4390 (the legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 1980) on 
June 13, 1979,(15) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 125 Cong. Rec. 14650, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (16) The question is on ordering the 
    previous question. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, on that I 
    demand the yeas and nays.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.
        The question was taken; and there were--yeas 126, nays 292, not 
    voting 16, as follows: . . .
        [Mr. Delbert L. Latta, of Ohio, who had led the opposition to 
    the previous question was recognized.]
        Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) is recognized 
    for 1 hour.
        Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.

Sec. 34.6 Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
    resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to 
    the Member leading the fight against the previous question, who may 
    offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for 
    debate thereon.

    On May 29, 1980,(17) during consideration of House 
Resolution 682 (providing for consideration of H.R. 7428, public debt 
limit extension), the following proceedings occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 12667, 12668, 12672, 12677, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 682, and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 682

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order

[[Page 10450]]

        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. 7428) to extend the present public debt limit 
        through June 30, 1980. . . .

        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes 
    appeared to have it. . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    74, nays 312, not voting 47, as follows:
        So the previous question was not ordered. . . .
        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland 
    (Mr. Bauman).
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Bauman: Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following: . . .

    A point of order against the amendment based on the germaneness 
rule was sustained.

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Bauman moves to refer House Resolution 682 to the 
        Committee on Rules.

        The Speaker: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman) is 
    recognized for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: The question is on the privileged motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bauman).

    The preferential motion was agreed to.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Upon the rejection of the previous question 
on a special rule from the Committee on Rules, motions un-der Rule XVI, 
clause 4, to refer or to postpone are in order, as well as motions to 
amend and to lay on the table.

Sec. 34.7 Where the House rejects the previous question, the Member who 
    led the opposition thereto is entitled to one hour of debate and is 
    entitled to close debate where he has yielded half of his time to 
    another Member.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 25, 
1981,(19) during consideration of House Resolution 169 
(providing for consideration of H.R. 3982, Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1981):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 127 Cong. Rec. 14065, 14078, 14079, 14081, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 169 and ask 
    for its immediate consideration.

[[Page 10451]]

        The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                                  H. Res. 169

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, any rule of the House to the 
        contrary notwithstanding, 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. 3982) to provide for 
        reconciliation pursuant to section 301 of the first concurrent 
        resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1982. . . .

        The Speaker: (20) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After debate, Mr. Bolling moved the previous question on the 
resolution.

        The Speaker: The question is on ordering the previous question.
        The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
    appeared to have it.
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand 
    the yeas and nays.
        [The previous question was rejected.]
        Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
        Latta: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
        thereof the following: . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Latta) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Latta: Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield to 
    my good friend, the Speaker of the House. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Let the Chair inquire of the gentleman 
    from Ohio, did he . . . yield 30 minutes of the hour to the 
    Speaker?
        Mr. Latta: Right. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: I reserve my 
    right until such time as the gentleman wants to move the previous 
    question.
        Mr. Latta: We have the right under the rules of procedure to 
    close debate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Latta: We have the right to close debate on this issue.
        Mr. O'Neill: I have no requests for time on this side.

--Prior to Adoption of the Rules

Sec. 34.8 Recognition to offer an amendment to a resolution called up 
    prior to the adoption of rules passes to a Member leading the 
    opposition to the resolution if the previous question is rejected.

    On Jan. 10, 1967,(2) at the convening of the 90th 
Congress and before the adoption of standing rules, Mr. Morris K. 
Udall, of Arizona, called up a resolution (H. Res. 1), authorizing the 
Speaker to administer the oath of office to challenged Member-elect 
Adam C.

[[Page 10452]]

Powell, of New York, and referring the question of his final right to a 
seat to a select committee. Pending debate on the resolution, Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries 
on the procedure to be followed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 113 Cong. Rec. 14, 15, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Joe D.] Waggonner [Jr., of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is voted down would, 
    then, under the rules of the House, amendments or substitutes be in 
    order to the resolution offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
    Udall]?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Louisiana [Mr. Waggonner] that any germane amendment may be in 
    order to that particular amendment.
        Mr. Waggonner: Mr. Speaker, one further parliamentary inquiry. 
    . . .
        Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House would the option or 
    priority or a subsequent amendment or a substitute motion lie with 
    the minority?
        The Speaker: . . . [T]he usual procedure of the Chair has been 
    to the effect that the Member who led the fight against the 
    resolution will be recognized.

Rejection of Conference Report

Sec. 34.9 Where a conference report was rejected and the manager of the 
    report did not seek further recognition, the Speaker recognized a 
    minority member of the committee with jurisdiction of the bill to 
    move to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment.

    On Dec. 10, 1969,(3) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, 
manager of a conference report, moved the previous question and the 
House rejected the conference report. When Mr. Patman did not seek 
further recognition, Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
recognized Garry E. Brown, of Michigan, a minority member of the 
Committee on Banking and Currency which had reported the bill, to offer 
a motion to concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 115 Cong. Rec. 38102-06, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 34.10 Where a conference report on a House bill with a Senate 
    amendment is rejected, the Chair directs the Clerk to report the 
    Senate amendment; and if the manager of the report does not seek 
    recognition to offer a motion to dispose of the Senate amendment 
    the Chair recognizes the Member who had led the opposition to the 
    conference report to offer a motion to dispose of the amendment.

[[Page 10453]]

    On Sept. 16, 1977,(4) during proceedings relating to the 
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 5262 (international 
financial institutions), called up by Mr. Henry S. Reuss, of Wisconsin, 
the following occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 123 Cong. Rec. 29597, 29599, 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: (5) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Barbara Jordan (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Harkin).

Rejection of Motion To Dispose of Senate Amendment--Recognition To 
    Offer Successor Motion

Sec. 34.11 Where a motion is made by the Member in charge of a 
    conference report to recede and concur in a Senate amendment with 
    an amendment and the motion is defeated, recognition for a motion 
    to further insist on disagreement passes to a Member opposed.

    On June 26, 1942,(6) Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, the 
Member in charge of a bill reported from conference with amendments in 
disagreement, moved that the House recede and concur with an amendment 
in a Senate amendment in disagreement. The motion was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 88 Cong. Rec. 5637, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, a Member opposed to the Senate 
amendment, then arose to make the motion to further insist on 
disagreement to the Senate amendment, at the same time that Mr. Tarver 
arose to make the same motion. After the question of recognition was 
discussed, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Cannon to make 
the motion:

[[Page 10454]]

        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I desire to submit a parliamentary 
    inquiry. It was my purpose to offer a motion as I have done in 
    connection with the same subject matter on previous occasions. I 
    had risen for the purpose of offering a motion to further insist 
    upon the disagreement of the House to Senate amendments Nos. 90 and 
    91. I wish to inquire whether or not I am privileged, as chairman 
    of the House conferees, to offer that motion?
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, my motion is to further 
    insist.
        Mr. Tarver: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet before the gentleman 
    from Missouri rushed over between me and the microphone and offered 
    his motion.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, it is a long-established 
    rule of procedure that when a vital motion made by the Member in 
    charge of a bill is defeated, the right to prior recognition passes 
    to the opposition. That is the position in which the gentleman 
    finds himself. He has made a major motion. The motion has been 
    defeated. Therefore the right of recognition passes to the 
    opposition, and I ask to be recognized to move to further insist. . 
    . .
        The Speaker: The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman 
    from Missouri has been properly recognized to offer a motion. The 
    gentleman will state his motion.
        Mr. Cannon of Missouri: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House 
    further insist on its disagreement to the Senate amendments.
        The motion was agreed to.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Id. at pp. 5642, 5643.
            The opposition has control only to offer a motion related 
        to the pending amendment in disagreement; control over the 
        conference report and the remaining amendments in disagreement 
        remains with the manager (see Sec. 17.38, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 34.12 Where the House rejects a motion by the manager of a bill to 
    dispose of a Senate amendment remaining in disagreement, 
    recognition to offer another motion is accorded to a Member who led 
    the opposition to the rejected motion.

    On Sept. 30, 1976,(8) Mr. Jack Brooks, of Texas, made 
the following motion with respect to a Senate amendment to H.R. 13367, 
extending the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, the 
Speaker having ruled out the conference report on a point of order and 
directed the Clerk to report the Senate amendments remaining in 
disagreement for disposition by motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 122 Cong. Rec. 34080, 34085, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Brooks moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement and concur in the Senate amendment to the House 
        bill (H.R. 13367) to extend and amend the State and Local 
        Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 and for other purposes, with an 
        amendment as follows:
            In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment insert the following: . . .

[[Page 10455]]

                   Sec. 5. Extension of Program and Funding.

            (a) In General.--Section 105 (relating to funding for 
        revenue sharing) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or (c)'' immediately after ``as provided 
        in subsection (b)'' in subsection (a)(1): . . .

        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
    ask what the allocation of time is on this particular motion.
        The Speaker: (9) The Chair will state that the rule 
    provides, of course, for 30 minutes on a side under consideration 
    of a conference report but the practice has been followed, if the 
    Chair recalls correctly, of allotting 30 minutes to a side on a 
    motion when a conference report is ruled out on a point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under that procedure, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brooks) 
    will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair would inquire who will be handling the matter on the 
    minority side?
        Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, I will be handling time on this side.
        The Speaker: And the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton) will 
    be recognized for 30 minutes for debate only.

    The motion was rejected.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 34092, 94th Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 30, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Horton: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Horton moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        Senate amendment to H.R. 13367, with an amendment as follows: 
        In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
        amendment insert the following: . . .

Sec. 34.13 Upon rejection of a motion offered by the manager of a 
    conference report on an amendment in disagreement, recognition 
    passes to a Member opposed to offer another motion.

    During consideration of H.R. 9375 (supplemental appropriations) in 
the House on Dec. 6, 1977,(11) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 123 Cong. Rec. 38421, 38431, 38432, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) The Clerk will report 
    the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Lucien N. Nedzi (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 43: Page 20, after line 10, insert: 
        Appropriations provided under this heading in the Department of 
        Defense Appropriation Act, 1977, are rescinded in the amount of 
        $462,000,000.

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

            Mr. Mahon moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 43 and concur therein.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon) 
    and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Cederberg) will each be 
    recognized for 30 minutes.

[[Page 10456]]

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon). . . 
    .
        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
        The question was taken; and the Speaker Pro Tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it. . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    166, nays 191, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 74, as follows: . 
    . .
        So the motion was rejected.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        Mr. [B. F.] Sikes [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Sikes moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
        to Senate Amendment No. 43.

--Debate on Successor Motion

Sec. 34.14 Under clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII, the time allotted for 
    debate on an original motion to dispose of 
    disagreement on a Senate amendment is divided equally between 
    majority and minority parties (except that if both floor managers 
    support the motion then one-third of the time may be claimed by an 
    opponent); and where the original motion to dispose of the Senate 
    amendment in disagreement is rejected, the time for debate on a 
    successor motion is also governed by clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII and 
    may be equally divided.

    On Aug. 6, 1993,(13) the House had under consideration 
Senate amendments in disagreement to H.R. 2493 (Agriculture 
appropriations for 1994):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 139 Cong. Rec. p. ____, 103d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Romano L. Mazzoli (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 164: Page 81, after line 12, insert:
            Sec. 730. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
        made available by this Act shall be used by the Secretary of 
        Agriculture to provide a total amount of payments to a person 
        to support the price of honey under section 207 of the 
        Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446h) and section 405A of 
        such Act (7 U.S.C. 1425a) in excess of $50,000 in the 1994 crop 
        year.

                        motion offered by mr. skeen

        Mr. [Joe] Skeen [of New Mexico]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Motion offered by Mr. Skeen:
            Mr. Skeen moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        amendment

[[Page 10457]]

        of the Senate numbered 164 with an amendment as follows: In the 
        matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment, add the 
        following: ``The GAO shall conduct a study and report to 
        Congress on the effectiveness of the program.''

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
    Skeen] is recognized for 30 minutes.
        Mr. [Harris W.] Fawell [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Fawell: First of all, the motion that the gentleman from 
    New Mexico offered was read so fast I did not understand just what 
    it was. But I rise in opposition.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the gentleman is opposed to the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from New Mexico, the gentleman [Mr. 
    Fawell] is entitled to 20 minutes to debate the issue. . . .
        Mr. Fawell: . . . Assuming that this particular motion fails, 
    can the Chair advise me where we will be then?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Another Member will be recognized for 
    another motion on this amendment in disagreement. . . .
        The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New Mexico [Mr. Skeen]. . . .
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were yeas 
    140, nays 274, not voting 19, as follows: . . .
        So the House refused to recede and concur in the amendment of 
    the Senate numbered 164 with an amendment. . . .
        Mr. Fawell: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fawell moves that the House recede and concur in the 
        amendment of the Senate numbered 164 with an amendment as 
        follows: In the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
        amendment, strike ``$50,000'' and insert ``$0''.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Fawell] will be recognized for 30 minutes in support of his motion, 
    and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will be recognized for 
    30 minutes in opposition.

    Under a former practice, if the initial motion to dispose of the 
amendment in disagreement was rejected, the time for debate on a 
subsequent motion was under the hour rule and entirely within the 
control of the Member of the opposition recognized to make the motion. 
Thus, on July 19, 1977,(15) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 7554 (Housing and Urban Development and 
independent agencies appropriation bill for fiscal 1978) in the House, 
it was demonstrated that, where a motion to dispose of an amendment 
reported from conference in disagreement, offered by the manager of the 
conference report, is rejected, the Speaker recognizes a Member leading 
the

[[Page 10458]]

opposition to offer another motion to dispose of the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 123 Cong. Rec. 23668, 23669, 23678, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Clerk will report 
    the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Norman Y. Mineta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 24: Page 17, line 11, strike out 
        ``$2,943,600,- 000'' and insert ``$3,013,000,000''.

        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts] [manager of the 
    conference report]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Boland moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of the 
        sum proposed by said amendment insert ``$2,995,300,000''.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Boland) is recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Coughlin) is recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Boland).
        Mr. Boland: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume. . . .
        Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
    to amendment No. 24. . . .
        [After debate, the motion was rejected.]
        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Fuqua moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 24 and concur therein.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fuqua) 
    is recognized for 60 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Fuqua: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The motion was agreed to.

Sec. 34.15 Division of time for debate provided in clause 2(b) of Rule 
    XXVIII between the majority and minority party on an amendment 
    reported from conference in disagreement applies to a second motion 
    to dispose of the Senate amendment upon defeat of the first, and 
    where the second motion is offered by a minority Member, the Chair 
    may allocate one-half of the time to him and one-half to a majority 
    Member later to be designated, notwithstanding earlier control of 
    time by the manager of the conference report and the ranking 
    minority member on the initial motion.

    During consideration of the supplemental appropriations and 
rescission bill for fiscal year 1980 (H.R. 7542) in the House on July 
2, 1980,(17) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 18357, 18359, 18360, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.

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

[[Page 10459]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Long), to concur 
    with the Senate amendment numbered 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Paul Simon (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Bauman moves to recede and concur in the amendment of 
        the Senate (No. 95) with an amendment as follows: In lieu of 
        the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment insert the 
        following:

                                   CHAPTER VI

                               FOREIGN OPERATIONS

                      Funds Appropriated to the President

                       international disaster assistance

            For an additional amount to carry out the provisions of 
        Section 491 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, 
        $43,000,000 to remain available until expended. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland is 
    recognized. . . .
        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    preferential motion.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I have been recognized, I believe. . . 
    .
        Mr. Long of Maryland: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet for a 
    preferential motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: On this motion the gentleman from 
    Maryland (Mr. Bauman) has the time. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas P.] O'Neill [Jr., of Massachusetts]: . . . I offer 
    a preferential motion that is at the desk.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, I did not yield to the gentleman to 
    offer a motion.
        Mr. O'Neill: I was recognized.
        Mr. Bauman: Well, I did not yield for that purpose, Mr. 
    Speaker. I control the time, do I not?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Bauman) has 30 minutes, the majority side has 30 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Bauman: My parliamentary inquiry is that the Chair stated a 
    moment ago that the time on a preferential motion to concur with an 
    amendment is divided between the majority and the minority. Is it 
    not controlled by the maker of the motion? Only amendments in 
    disagreement are divided.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The practice of the House is clearly 
    on a motion of this type after an initial motion has been rejected 
    on an amendment reported from conference in disagreement that the 
    time is divided between the majority and the minority parties.





[[Page 10461]]