[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§ 25. Distribution and Alternation]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10226-10249]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
 
Sec. 25. Distribution and Alternation

    The distribution and alternation of time for debate, where time is 
equally divided or where consideration is proceeding under the five-
minute rule, is governed not only by certain rules but by the 
principles of comity and courtesy between the majority and 
minority.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. Sec. 25.26 et seq., infra, for cases where the rules 
        require the division of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chair may alternate recognition between those favoring and 
opposing the pending proposition where sides are ascertainable; 
(15) similarly, where a propo

[[Page 10227]]

sition is considered pursuant to the terms of a special rule, the rule 
equally divides control of debate between the majority and minority 
sides of the aisle.(16) And when the special rule itself, 
reported by the Committee on Rules, is being considered, the Committee 
on Rules traditionally divides time for debate on the resolution 
between the majority and minority sides of the aisle by the manager of 
the resolution yielding half the time for debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See Sec. Sec. 25.4, 25.7, 25.21, 25.22, infra.
            For the principle of alternation, see House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 756 (1995).
16. See Sec. 28, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Division of time on motions, see Ch. 23, supra.
Motion to allocate time under limitation on five-minute debate not in 
    order, see Sec. 22, supra.
Yielding time, see Sec. Sec. 29, 31, 
    infra.                          -------------------

In Committee of the Whole

Sec. 25.1 During general debate on District of Columbia business in 
    Committee of the Whole after the manager of the bill has consumed 
    his hour of debate and where debate has not been limited, the Chair 
    alternates in recognizing between those for and against the pending 
    legislation, giving preference to members of the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia.

    On Apr. 11, 1932,(17) Chairman Thomas L. Blanton, of 
Texas, answered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition in the Committee 
of the Whole during general debate on a District of Columbia bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 75 Cong. Rec. 7990, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Stafford [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, when 
    the Committee on the District of Columbia has the call and the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union is 
    considering legislation, is it necessary, in gaining recognition, 
    that a Member has to be in opposition to the bill or is any Member 
    whatsoever entitled to one hour's time for general debate?
        The Chairman: From the Chair's experience, gained through 
    having been a member of this committee for over 10 years, he will 
    state that where a bill is called up for general debate on District 
    day in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
    and the chairman of the committee has yielded the floor, a member 
    of the committee opposed to the bill is entitled to recognition 
    over any other member opposed to the bill, and it was the duty of 
    the Chair to ascertain whether there were any members of the 
    committee opposed to the bill who would be entitled to prior 
    recognition. The Chair, having ascertained there were no members of 
    the committee opposed to the bill, took pleasure, under the 
    direction of the gentleman from Wisconsin, in recognizing the 
    gentleman from Mississippi.

[[Page 10228]]

Sec. 25.2 On resolutions disapproving reorganization plans and on 
    motions to discharge a committee from further consideration of such 
    resolutions, debate was equally 
    divided and controlled by those favoring and those opposing the 
    resolution, pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1949.

    On July 19, 1961,(18) Mr. Dante B. Fascell, of Florida, 
called up House Resolution 328, disapproving Reorganization Plan No. 5, 
transmitted to the Congress by the President. Unanimous consent was 
given that debate on the resolution in the Committee of the Whole be 
equally divided and controlled by Mr. Fascell, the proponent of the 
resolution, and Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, of Michigan, the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Government Operations, the reporting 
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 107 Cong. Rec. 12905, 12906, 12932 (two separate requests), 87th 
        Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Aug. 3, 1961,(19) Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, moved to 
discharge the Committee on Government Operations from the further 
consideration of House Resolution 335, disapproving a reorganization 
plan. After Mr. Gross assured Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, that he 
qualified to make the motion since he was in favor of the resolution, 
the Speaker recognized him to open debate and to control 30 minutes, 
and recognized a Member in opposition to the motion to discharge to 
control the following 30 minutes. Mr. Gross was recognized to close 
debate on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at pp. 14548, 14554.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The Reorganization Act of 1949, Public Law 
No. 81-109, provided that debate on a resolution disapproving a 
reorganization plan and debate on a motion to discharge such a 
resolution be equally divided and controlled between those favoring the 
resolution and those opposing it.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 63 Stat. 207, Sec. Sec. 204(b), 205(b). The statute was enacted as 
        an exercise of the rule-making power of the House and Senate, 
        with full recognition of the constitutional right of either 
        House to change such rules at any time. Similar statutes divide 
        debate between those favoring and those opposing approval or 
        disapproval resolutions. For discussion of other statutes 
        prescribing procedures as an exercise of the rule-making power 
        of the House and Senate, see House Rules and Manual Sec. 1013 
        (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under Special Rules

Sec. 25.3 Where, under a special rule, general debate is di

[[Page 10229]]

    vided and controlled by two committees, the Chair may permit the 
    chairman of the primary committee involved to reserve a portion of 
    his allotted time to close general debate, while recognizing the 
    chairman of the other committee to utilize his time.

    During consideration of the Intergovernmental Emergency Assistance 
Act (H.R. 10481) in the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 2, 
1975,(1) the proceedings described above occurred as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 38141, 38166, 38174, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) Pursuant to the rule, general 
    debate will continue for not to exceed 3 hours, 2 hours to be 
    equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing, 
    and 1 hour to be equally divided and controlled between the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
    Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. James G. O'Hara (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashley, chairman 
    of the Committee on Banking, Currency, and Housing] will be 
    recognized for 1 hour; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
    McKinney) will be recognized for 1 hour; the gentleman from Oregon 
    (Mr. Ullman) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Schneebeli) will be recognized for 30 
    minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have no 
    further requests for time and I reserve the balance of my time.
        The Chairman: Under the rule, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
    Ullman) is recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New 
    York (Mr. Conable) is recognized for 30 minutes.
        [Mr. [Al] Ullman [of Oregon] addressed the Committee.]
        Mr. Ashley: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to close 
    debate.

Sec. 25.4 Where a special rule divided the control of general debate on 
    a bill among the chairmen and ranking minority members of two 
    standing committees, the Chairman indicated that he would alternate 
    recognition among all four of the members controlling the time.

    On Sept. 28, 1976,(3) during consideration of the Public 
Disclosure of Lobbying Act of 1976 (H.R. 15) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 122 Cong. Rec. 33044, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (4) Under the rule, the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Flowers) will be recognized for 1 hour, the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Moorhead) will be recognized for 1 hour, the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) will be recognized for 1 hour, 
    and the gentleman from South Caro

[[Page 10230]]

    lina (Mr. Spence) will be recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Flowers).
        Mr. [Walter] Flowers [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire 
    of the Chair if it is the Chairman's intention to alternate among 
    the Members who have control of the time or at least loosely 
    alternate among the Members who have control of the time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will inform the gentleman from Alabama 
    (Mr. Flowers) that the Chair will attempt to alternate among all 
    four of the gentlemen who have control of the time.

Sec. 25.5 Where a special rule provides separate control of general 
    debate time among the chairmen and ranking minority members of two 
    committees, but does not specify the order of recognition, the 
    Chair may in his discretion either alternate recognition among the 
    four Members or permit the primary committee to first utilize most 
    of its time and then permit the manager of the bill to close 
    general debate after the sequential committee uses its time.

    During consideration of the Fair Practices in Automotive Products 
Act (H.R. 5133) in the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 10, 
1982,(5) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 128 Cong. Rec. 29982, 29984, 29985, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    5133) to establish domestic content requirements for motor vehicles 
    sold in the United States, and for other purposes.
        The Speaker: (6) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
    the bill, H.R. 5133, with Mr. Panetta in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: (7) Pursuant to the rule, the first 
    reading of the bill is dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) will 
    be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from North Carolina 
    (Mr. Broyhill) will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman 
    from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and 
    the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) will be recognized for 
    30 minutes.
        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I wish to inquire as to whether the time will run concurrently 
    or whether one committee goes first and the second committee 
    follows.

[[Page 10231]]

        The Chairman: The Chair would interpret the rule to allow each 
    of the respective Members to allot their time respectively without 
    any kind of a pattern, so it could be done interchangeably. . . .
        The Chair would advise the Members that although the time could 
    be used interchangeably that it is the will of those controlling 
    the time that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) and the 
    gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill) use their time first 
    and then the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) and the gentleman 
    from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel).
        Mr. Florio: On that point, Mr. Chairman, it would be my hope to 
    reserve some time to be in a position to take part in the 
    concluding portion of the 2 hours' debate.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is free to do that. . . .
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, am I correct 
    in my understanding that the rule provides that the time may be 
    used alternatively by the several persons who control this time?
        The Chairman: The rule does permit that, the Chair would advise 
    the gentleman, but it does not provide for any necessary order.
        Mr. Dingell: And as the Chair advises, there is no necessary 
    order. It can be used interchangeably, and so forth.
        The Chairman: That is correct.

Sec. 25.6 Where a special rule limiting debate on an amendment under 
    the five-minute rule requires the time thereon to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the proponent of the amendment and a 
    Member opposed thereto, the Chair has discretion in determining 
    which Member to control the time in opposition, and may recognize 
    the majority chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
    the subject matter of an amendment which has been offered by a 
    member of the minority, over the ranking minority member of the 
    full committee managing the bill, to control the time in opposition 
    under the principle of alternation of recognition.

    On Sept. 24, 1984,(8) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration House Joint Resolution 648 (continuing 
appropriations) when an amendment was offered as indicated below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 130 Cong. Rec. 26769, 26770, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Hank] Brown of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (9) The Clerk will designate the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Colorado: Page 2, line 
        24, strike out the period at the end of section 101(b) and 
        insert in lieu thereof the following: ``: Provided, That 2 
        percent of the aggregate amount of new

[[Page 10232]]

        budget authority provided for in each of the first three titles 
        of H.R. 
        6237 shall be withheld from obli-gation . . . .

        The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 588, the amendment 
    is considered as having been read.
        The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown) will be recognized for 
    15 minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Brown). . 
    . .
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I rise 
    in opposition to the amendment.
        Mr. [Clarence D.] Long of Maryland: Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The Chair is required to choose between these two 
    distinguished gentlemen and would prefer to alternate the parties 
    in this case.
        The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Long). The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 15 minutes in 
    opposition to the amendment.

Five-minute Rule

Sec. 25.7 In the Committee of the Whole, during consideration of an 
    appropriation bill un-der the five-minute rule, the Chairman 
    customarily alternates recognition between the majority and 
    minority sides of the aisle and in so doing may extend prior 
    recognition first to members of the relevant subcommittee then to 
    members of the full committee and then to Members who have been on 
    their feet seeking recognition.

    On July 30, 1969,(10) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, made an announcement on the order of recognition during 
consideration under the five-minute rule of 
H.R. 13111, appropriations for the Health, Education, and Welfare and 
Labor Departments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 115 Cong. Rec. 21420, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair might state, under the procedures of the House, he is 
    trying to recognize first members of the subcommittee on 
    appropriations handling the bill and second general members of the 
    Committee on Appropriations. It is his intention to go back and 
    forth to each side of the aisle to recognize Members who have been 
    standing and seeking recognition the longest. . . .

Sec. 25.8 Where the Committee of the Whole has, by motion, agreed to 
    limit all debate on a section and all amendments thereto, the Chair 
    generally divides the time equally among those who indicate, by 
    standing when the motion is made, that they desire recognition; but 
    the matter of recognition is largely within the discretion of the 
    Chair and he may continue to recognize each Member who

[[Page 10233]]

    seeks recognition for five minutes until the time for debate has 
    been exhausted.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 111 Cong. Rec. 17961, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 25.9 Where debate on a bill and all amendments thereto is limited 
    to a time certain, the five-minute rule is abrogated, and the Chair 
    may choose either to allocate the time among those Members standing 
    and desiring to speak, or choose to recognize only Members wishing 
    to offer amendments and to oppose amendments; such decisions are 
    largely within the discretion of the Chair who may decline to 
    recognize Members more than one time under the limitation and may 
    refuse to permit Members to divide their allotted time so as to 
    speak to several of the amendments which are to be offered.

    On May 6, 1970,(12) after the Committee of the Whole had 
agreed to close debate on a pending bill and amendments thereto at a 
certain hour, Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, answered a 
parliamentary inquiry as to whether he would, in his discretion, allow 
certain Members to speak:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 116 Cong. Rec. 14466, 14467, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel S.] Stratton [of New York]: Under the limitation of 
    debate imposed by the House a moment ago, is there any restriction 
    on those Members who will be permitted to speak on amendments, 
    either for or against, between now and 7 o'clock?
        The Chairman: The Chair will endeavor to divide the time 
    equally among the proponents and the opponents of those who have 
    amendments. . . .
        Mr. Stratton: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Stratton: Under the limitation of debate, is it permissible 
    for a Member to speak twice within his allotted time either for or 
    against two specific amendments?
        The Chairman: The Chair will recognize the gentleman for one 
    time in support of or in opposition to an amendment.
        Mr. Stratton: But not more than once?
        The Chairman: No; not more than once.

Sec. 25.10 Where the Committee of the Whole agrees to terminate all 
    debate on an amendment at a certain time, the Chair divides the 
    time remaining among those Members who indicate a desire to speak; 
    and if free time remains after these Members have been recognized, 
    the

[[Page 10234]]

    Chair may recognize Members who have not spoken to the amendment or 
    Members who were recognized for less than five minutes under the 
    limitation of time.

    On Mar. 17, 1960,(13) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a request that all debate on the pending amendment close at 3:50 
p.m. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, recognized under the 
limitation Members who had indicated they wished to speak. When those 
Members had spoken, time still remained and the Chairman recognized for 
debate Members who were not standing seeking recognition when the 
limitation was agreed to. The Chair answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 106 Cong. Rec. 5911, 5914, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James C.] Davis of Georgia: Was not the time fixed for 
    this debate, and was not the time limited to those who were 
    standing on their feet seeking recognition?
        The Chairman: The time was fixed at 3:50. The Chair made a list 
    of the names of those Members who indicated they desired to speak. 
    However, the thing that governs is the time that was fixed in the 
    unanimous-consent request made by the gentleman from New York, but 
    because the time has not arrived when debate will end, the Chair 
    will recognize those Members who seek recognition.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
    inquiry.

        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Davis of Georgia: Does that limitation then of 2 minutes 
    apply to me, or could I have some of this additional time?
        The Chairman: Yes, the gentleman could be recognized again if 
    he sought recognition.

Sec. 25.11 Where the Committee of the Whole has limited debate under 
    the five-minute rule to a time certain and 
    an equal division of the remaining time among all the 
    Members seeking recognition would severely restrict each Member in 
    his presentation, the Chair may in his discretion equally allocate 
    the time between two Members on opposing sides of the question to 
    be yielded by them.

    On June 14, 1977,(14) it was demonstrated that a 
limitation of debate on amendments in the Committee of the Whole to a 
time certain in effect abrogates the five-minute rule; and decisions 
regarding the division of the remaining time and the order of 
recognition are largely within the discretion of the Chair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 123 Cong. Rec. 18826, 18833, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Tom] Bevill [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I move that all 
    debate on these amendments and all amend

[[Page 10235]]

    ments thereto, cease at 4 o'clock and 45 minutes p.m.
        The Chairman: (15) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bevill).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair has before him a list of more than 25 
    Members to occupy the next 10 minutes. It has been suggested that 
    it would be possible for the Chair to recognize the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Bevill) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte) to allocate those 10 minutes.
        Accordingly, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Alabama (Mr. Bevill) for 5 minutes.
        Mr. John T. Myers [of Indiana]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. John T. Myers: How did the Chair make that decision?
        The Chairman: The Chair has the authority to allocate time 
    under a limitation, and it is obvious to the Chair that this is the 
    most rational way to handle the 10 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Conte).

Sec. 25.12 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole agreed 
    that, on a general appropriations bill considered as read and open 
    to amendment at any point, debate under the five-minute rule should 
    terminate at a time certain, with 30 minutes of the time remaining 
    for debate to be allowed on a particular amendment and to 
    be equally divided and controlled.

    On Sept. 22, 1983,(16) the following proceedings 
occurred in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 
3913 (the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services 
appropriations for fiscal year 1984):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 25407, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William H.] Natcher [of Kentucky]: Mr. Chairman, at this 
    time 
    I would ask unanimous consent that 
    all debate on the bill and all amendments thereto conclude not 
    later than 3:30. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, the motion does not, however, 
    include the 30 minutes for the abortion debate that I thought the 
    gentleman from Illinois was assured of? . . .
        Mr. Natcher: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask that debate conclude not later than 
    3:30 with 30 minutes of the time to be allocated to the amendment 
    pertaining to abortion. . . .
        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Reserving the right to object, 
    Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure I understand

[[Page 10236]]

    what the gentleman just said. My understanding is that in that 30 
    minutes the time will be divided equally 
    between those who agree with Mr. 
    Hyde and those who agree with the 
    gentleman from Oregon (Mr. AuCoin)? . . .
        Mr. Natcher: . . . The gentleman (Mr. AuCoin) is correct. . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (17) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Abraham Kazen, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Sec. 25.13 Where debate under the five-minute rule on a bill and all 
    amendments thereto has been limited by motion to a time certain 
    (with approximately 90 minutes remaining) the Chair may in his 
    discretion continue to recognize Members under the five-minute 
    rule, according priority to members of the committee reporting the 
    bill, instead of allocating time between proponents and opponents 
    or among all Members standing, where it cannot be determined what 
    amendments will be offered.

    On July 29, 1983,(18) during consideration of the 
International Monetary Fund authorization (H.R. 2957) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the Chair responded 
to several parliamentary inquir-ies regarding recognition following 
agreement to a motion to limit debate to a time certain:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 129 Cong. Rec. 21649, 21650, 21659, 21660, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill, H.R. 2957, be 
    considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
    any point.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Rhode Island?
        There was no objection.
        The text of title IV and title V is as follows:

                  TITLE IV--INTERNATIONAL LENDING SUPERVISION

            Sec. 401. This title may be cited as the ``International 
        Lending Supervision Act of 1983''. . . .

        Mr. St Germain: I have a motion, Mr. Chairman. . . .
        I now move that all debate on the bill, H.R. 2957, and all 
    amendments thereto, cease at 12 o'clock noon. . . .
        Mr. [Ed] Bethune [of Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary inquiry is for the Chair to 
    please state the process by which we will do our business from now 
    until the time is cut off. . . .
        Mr. [Stephen L.] Neal [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, would 
    it not be in order at this time to ask that the time be divided 
    between the proponents and the opponents of this measure, since 
    there is a limitation on the time?
        The Chairman: (19) The Chair believes not, because 
    the time has been

[[Page 10237]]

    limited on the entire bill. It would be very difficult to allocate 
    time to any one particular party or two parties when the Chair has 
    no knowledge of the amendments that will be offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Donald J. Pease (Ohio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Neal: Mr. Chairman, is it not true that members of the 
    committee should be given preference in terms of recognition?
        The Chairman: That is true. At the time the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania was recognized, he was the only one seeking 
    recognition.

Sec. 25.14 In recognizing Members to move to strike the last word under 
    the five-minute rule, the Chair attempts to alternate between 
    majority and minority Members; but the Chair has no knowledge as to 
    whether specific Members oppose or support the pending proposition 
    and therefore cannot strictly alternate between both sides of the 
    question.

    On June 7, 1984,(20) during consideration of H.R. 5504 
(Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1984) 
in the Committee of the Whole, the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 130 Cong. Rec. 15423, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Massachusetts (Mr. Shannon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Dan Daniel (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Chairman, is it not customary to choose 
    Members opposed and supporting the amendment in some kind of rough 
    order?
        The Chairman: The Chair is attempting to be fair. What the 
    Chair is doing is alternating between the two sides.
        Mr. Frenzel: I thank the Chair.

In House

Sec. 25.15 Where the previous question is ordered on a debatable motion 
    without debate, a Member may demand the right to debate; and the 40 
    minutes permitted under the rule is divided between the person 
    demanding the time and some Member who represents the opposing view 
    of the question.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(2) the previous question was ordered, 
without debate, on the motion to approve the Journal, as read. Speaker 
John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated, in response to 
a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, that 
pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 3, any Member could de

[[Page 10238]]

mand the right to debate the motion since it was debatable and since 
the previous question had been ordered without debate. The Speaker 
recognized Mr. Hall for 20 minutes and then recognized for 20 minutes 
Mr. Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, representing the opposing view of the 
question.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 23602, 23604-06, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 3. Rule XXVII clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 907 (1995) also 
        requires a division of time on the motion to suspend the rules. 
        Other House rules similarly require a division of the time for 
        debate between those favoring and those opposing the motion or 
        question. See, for example, Rule XVI clause 4, House Rules and 
        Manual Sec. 782 (1995) (motion to recommit with instructions); 
        Rule XXVIII, clauses 4 and 5 House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. Sec. 913b and 913c (1995) (motion to reject nongermane 
        matter agreed to by the Senate, if included in a conference 
        report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 25.16 In recognizing a Member to control time for debate in 
    opposition to a bill taken away from a committee through the 
    operation of the discharge rule on 
    a special order pending in 
    the Committee on Rules, 
    the Speaker recognizes the chairman of the committee having 
    jurisdiction of the subject matter if he is opposed to the bill 
    considered pursuant to the adopted resolution.

    On Aug. 14, 1950, the House agreed to a motion to discharge the 
Committee on Rules from the further consideration of a resolution 
making in order the consideration of a bill within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. The resolution, which 
was then adopted, provided that the bill be considered on the following 
day. On Aug. 15, 1950, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows 
on recognition to control time for debate in opposition to the bill:

        Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 667, the Chair 
    designates the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray], chairman of 
    the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to control time for 
    debate in opposition to the bill H.R. 8195.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 12543, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 25.17 House debate on the confirmation of Vice President-designate 
    Rockefeller was limited to 6 hours and was equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary (both of whom favored the nomination), 
    and Robert W. Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin (a majority member of the 
    Judiciary Committee who opposed the nomination).

[[Page 10239]]

    The following resolution was reported on Dec. 19, 1974: 
(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 41419, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 1519

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order 
    to move, clause 28(d)(4) of rule XI 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 resolution (H. Res. 1511) confirming Nelson A. 
    Rockefeller as Vice President of the United States. After general 
    debate, which shall be confined to the resolution and shall 
    continue not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, and Representative Robert W. 
    Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin, the Committee shall rise and report the 
    resolution to the House, and the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption or 
    rejection.

    House Resolution 1519, after the customary hour of debate, was 
agreed to.(6) The House then resolved into the Committee of 
the Whole for consideration of House Resolution 1511, confirming Nelson 
A. Rockefeller as Vice President of the United States. After debate as 
provided for in House Resolution 1519, the Committee rose, and House 
Resolution 1511 was agreed to by a vote of 287 yeas, 128 nays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 120 Cong. Rec. 41425, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 19, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On Dec. 6, 1973,(7) House Resolution 738, providing for 
consideration of the resolution confirming the nomination of Mr. Gerald 
R. Ford as Vice President of the United States, contained the following 
provisions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. See 119 Cong. Rec. 39807, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 738

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move, clause 27(d)(4) of rule XI 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 resolution (H. Res. 735) confirming 
        the nomination of Gerald R. Ford, of the State of Michigan, to 
        be Vice President of the United States. After general debate, 
        which shall be confined to the resolution and shall continue 
        not to exceed six hours, to be equally divided and controlled 
        by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
        the Judiciary, the Committee shall rise and report the 
        resolution to the House, and the previous question shall be 
        considered as ordered on the resolution to final passage.
After House Resolution 738 was agreed to,(8) and debate 
proceeded in Committee of the Whole in accordance therewith, the 
Committee rose; and the House agreed to House Resolution 735 con

[[Page 10240]]

firming Mr. Ford as Vice President of the United States.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 119 Cong. Rec. 39812, 39813, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 6, 1973.
 9. See 119 Cong. Rec. 39899, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 6, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 25.18 By unanimous consent the House extended for an additional 30 
    minutes the time for debate on a special order from the Committee 
    on Rules (with the understanding that such time would be equally 
    divided and controlled).

    The proceedings of July 29, 1977,(10) relating to House 
consideration of House Resolution 727 (providing for consideration of 
H.R. 8444, the National Energy Act of 1977) were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 123 Cong. Rec. 25653-55, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                  H. Res. 727

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move . . . that the House resolve itself 
        into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
        for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8444) to establish a 
        comprehensive national energy policy. . . .

        The Speaker: (11) The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
    Bolling) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Anderson), and pending that, I yield myself such 
    time as I may consume. . . .
        Mr. [John B.] Anderson of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent at this time that in addition to the 1 hour of 
    debate provided for in this resolution, House Resolution 727, the 
    time for debate be extended for an additional 30 minutes.
        Mr. Speaker, there is some precedent for this. Before the Chair 
    puts the request, I would like to state very briefly that there is 
    some precedent on very important resolutions for an extension of 
    the normal amount of time that is used for debate. Just a couple of 
    weeks ago the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss) made a similar 
    request at the time we were considering a resolution for the Select 
    Committee on Intelligence.
        Very frankly, I have had more requests for time on this rule 
    from my side of the aisle than I can accommodate within the 30 
    minutes that has been allotted to the minority. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate 
    on this resolution be extended for 30 minutes.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Illinois? . . .
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that an additional 15 minutes 
    will be allotted to each side.

[[Page 10241]]

Sec. 25.19 While alternation of recognition between the majority and 
    minority Members controlling debate in the House, or continued 
    recognition of that Member having the most time remaining, are two 
    customary factors governing recognition by the Chair, neither 
    factor is binding on the Chair, who may exercise discretion in 
    conferring recognition where control has been equally divided, and 
    may entertain a motion for the previous question by the manager of 
    the measure if neither side seeks to yield further time.

    On June 23, 1983,(12) Speaker Pro Tempore Jim Moody, of 
Wisconsin, responded to several parliamentary inquiries regarding 
procedures for recognition. The proceedings in the House during 
consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 91 (revising the fiscal 
1983 congressional budget and setting forth the fiscal 1984 budget) 
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 129 Cong. Rec. 17089, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Does the gentlewoman seek recognition?
        Mrs. [Lynn] Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, could the Chair 
    inform us how much time each side of the aisle has remaining?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Oklahoma has 35 
    minutes left and the gentleman from Ohio has 21\1/2\ minutes left.
        Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Then we will allow the other side of 
    the aisle to catch up.
        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Does the gentlewoman want to 
    yield back her time?
        Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, I am reserving the 
    balance of my time.
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Our side just spoke. If the gentlewoman 
    does not want to use her time and have her side go forward, the 
    gentlewoman can reserve her time and we can reserve ours and we can 
    dispense with the rest of the debate.
        Mrs. Martin of Illinois: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the outstanding 
    chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma, will he then yield that time 
    to us?
        Well, we will reserve our time for now and await the 
    gentleman's decision.
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, I would like to state a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Speaker, if we reserve our time, is 
    the previous question then in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman restate the 
    question?
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: The gentlewoman has reserved her time. 
    If we reserve our time, is the previous question then in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If neither side yields time, the Chair 
    will en

[[Page 10242]]

    tertain a motion for the previous question from the manager of the 
    motion.
        Mr. [E. G.] Shuster [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Shuster: Mr. Speaker, if not the rules of the House, is it 
    not the tradition of the House that the side with the most time 
    remaining takes the floor?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: That is one variable. Alternating from 
    side to side is another tradition of the House.

Sec. 25.20 The Speaker, in announcing a new policy for recognition for 
    one-minute speeches and for special-or-der requests, indicated that 
    he would: (1) alternate recognition between majority and minority 
    Members in the order in which they seek recognition; (2) recognize 
    Members for special-order speeches first who want to address the 
    House for five minutes or less, alternating between majority and 
    minority Members, otherwise in the order in which permission was 
    granted; and (3) then recognize Members who wish to address the 
    House for longer than five minutes and up to one hour, alternating 
    between majority and minority Members in the order in which 
    permission was granted by the House.

    For discussion of the announcement by the Speaker on Aug. 8, 
1984,(13) and for other precedents relating to recognition 
for special-order requests and one-minute speeches, see, generally, 
Sec. 10, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. See Sec. 10.48, supra, discussing the proceedings at 130 Cong. Rec. 
        22963, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 25.21 On Calendar Wednesday, debate on bills considered in the 
    Committee of 
    the Whole is limited to two hours, one hour controlled by the 
    Member in charge of the bill and one hour by the ranking minority 
    member of the committee who is opposed to the bill.

    On Apr. 14, 1937,(14) Chairman J. Mark Wilcox, of 
Florida, stated in response to a parliamentary inquiry that debate on a 
bill (called up under the Calendar Wednesday procedure) in the 
Committee of the Whole would be limited to two hours, one hour to be 
controlled by the chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce, and one hour to be controlled by the ranking minority 
committee member opposed to the bill. The Chairman indi

[[Page 10243]]

cated he would recognize in opposition Mr. Pehr G. Holmes, of 
Massachusetts, who assured the Chairman that he was the most senior 
minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce who 
was opposed to the bill.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 81 Cong. Rec. 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. See also 92 Cong. Rec. 8590, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 10, 1946.
            Rule XXIV clause 7, House Rules and Manual Sec. 897 (1995) 
        governs 
        the consideration of bills called up 
        by committees under the Calendar Wednesday procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspension

Sec. 25.22 Alternation of recognition is generally but not necessarily 
    followed during the 40 minutes of debate on a motion to suspend the 
    rules where the proponent of the motion and the Member demanding a 
    second equally control the time.

    On Sept. 20, 1961,(16) Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill. After a second was ordered, 
Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 107 Cong. Rec. 20491, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I understand that under the rules it is not necessary to rotate 
    time under a suspension of the rules.

    The Speaker Pro Tempore, John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, 
responded ``That is correct.''
    On Apr. 16, 1962,(17) Mr. James Roosevelt, of 
California, moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill. Speaker Pro 
Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated, in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry by Mr. Gross, that under suspension of the rules 
it was not necessary to rotate the time between opposing and favoring 
sides of the question.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 108 Cong. Rec. 6682, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
18. The practice of alternation is not necessarily followed where a 
        limited time is controlled by Members, as in the 40 minutes' 
        debate for suspension of the rules and after the previous 
        question has been ordered without debate on a debatable motion 
        (see 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 1442).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: A second is no longer required on a motion 
to suspend the rules.

Sec. 25.23 Where a Member controls the time for debate on a motion to 
    suspend the rules, the manner in which he allocates his time is not 
    within the province of the Chair.

    On Dec. 15, 1969,(19) Mr. Robert W. Kastenmeier, of 
Wisconsin, moved to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 14646, granting the 
consent of Congress to an interstate compact. Speaker John W.

[[Page 10244]]

McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Burt L. Talcott, of 
California, who stated that he was opposed to the bill, to demand a 
second and to control the 20 minutes of debate in opposition to the 
bill. When Mr. Kastenmeier and Mr. Talcott each had one minute of 
debate remaining, Mr. Lester L. Wolff, of New York, made a point of 
order against the allocation of time by Mr. Talcott; the Speaker 
overruled the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 115 Cong. Rec. 39029, 39034, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Wolff: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Wolff: The gentleman from California (Mr. Talcott) when he 
    was asked whether or not he opposed the legislation, said that he 
    did. However, he has not yielded any time whatsoever to any 
    opponents of the bill.
        The Speaker: That is not within the province of the 
    Chair.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 19953, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 21, 1963 
        (after recognition of seconder for 20 minutes of debate on 
        motion to suspend the rules, the Chair refused to entertain 
        unanimous-consent request for additional allotment of time to 
        opposition); 105 Cong. Rec. 10810, 86th Cong. 1st Sess., June 
        15, 1959 (a member may not speak to a motion to suspend the 
        rules unless yielded time by mover or seconder of the motion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: A second is no longer required on a motion 
to suspend the rules.

Sec. 25.24 By unanimous consent, the 20 minutes debate allotted a 
    Member demanding a second (under a former practice) on a motion to 
    suspend the rules was transferred to another Member.

    On Apr. 20, 1970,(1) Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of Kentucky, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 10666, to establish a national 
commission on libraries and informational science. Mr. John R. 
Dellenback, of Oregon, demanded a second (thereby being entitled to 
control the 20 minutes of debate in opposition to the motion). Mr. 
Dellenback later requested that the debate time allotted him be 
transferred to another Member in opposition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 116 Cong. Rec. 12415, 12416, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Dellenback: Mr. Speaker, while I demanded the second, which 
    was ordered, I ask unanimous consent that control of the time be 
    transferred to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reid).
        The Speaker: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oregon?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: A second is no longer required on a motion 
to suspend the rules.

Sec. 25.25 While the manager of a motion to suspend the rules

[[Page 10245]]

    has the right to close debate thereon, the Chair attempts to evenly 
    alternate recognition between the majority and minority in order 
    that a comparable amount of time remains for closing speakers on 
    both sides.

    On Oct. 2, 1984,(3) during consideration of the balanced 
budget bill (H.R. 6300) in the House, the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 130 Cong. Rec. 28517, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        I have 9 minutes remaining. The chairman of the Committee on 
    the Budget has 13 more minutes remaining. After I yield this next 
    point, I will have 7 minutes remaining.
        I would request the Chair, in fairness, to proceed with the 
    other side until the time is in more balance as we get closer to 
    the closing of debate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The Chair would 
    announce that the Chair is not trying to have this debate conducted 
    in an unfair manner. The Chair will allow the gentleman from 
    Oklahoma to have the chance to yield to a speaker to close debate 
    and, therefore, the Chair will try to keep the division of time as 
    near even as possible, given the consideration that the gentleman 
    from Oklahoma have the opportunity to end the debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conference Reports

Sec. 25.26 One hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and 
    minority parties, is permitted on a conference report; and where 
    conferees have been appointed from two committees of the House, the 
    Speaker recognizes one of the minority Members (not necessarily a 
    member of the same committee as the Member controlling the majority 
    time) to control 30 minutes of debate.

    On Jan. 19, 1972,(5) Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, Chairman of 
the Committee on House Administration, called up a conference report on 
S. 382, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1972. Conferees on the 
part of the House had been appointed from two House committees with 
jurisdiction over the bill, the Committee on House Administration and 
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 118 Cong. Rec. 319, 320, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, recognized Mr. Hays for 30 
minutes of debate to control time for the majority. He recognized Mr. 
William L. Springer, of Illinois, ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to control 30 minutes of 
debate for the minority.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Springer controlled the minority

[[Page 10246]]

time although he had resigned as a conferee on the bill, and even 
though Mr. Samuel L. Devine, of Ohio, ranking minority member of the 
Committee on House Administration and a conferee on the bill, was on 
the floor and participated in debate. Under normal practice, the 
Members controlling the time for debate on a conference report are 
among those who served as House managers in conference.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. For division of debate on a conference report, see Rule XXVIII 
        clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912(a) (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 25.27 Where a Member opposed to a section of a 
    conference report (containing nongermane Senate language) demanded 
    a separate vote on the section pursuant to a special order 
    permitting such procedure, that Member and the Member calling up 
    the conference report were each recognized for 20 minutes of debate 
    on a motion to strike that section pursuant to Rule XX clause 1. 
    After the House agreed to retain the section it then considered the 
    entire conference report, with the Member calling up the report and 
    a member 
    of the minority party each being recognized for 30 minutes under 
    Rule XXVIII clause 2.

    On Nov. 10, 1971,(7) Mr. F. Edward Hebert, of Louisiana, 
called up a conference report. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated 
that the special order under which the report was being considered, 
House Resolution 696, provided that a separate vote could be demanded 
on certain sections of the conference report. Mr. Donald M. Fraser, of 
Minnesota, demanded a separate vote on section 503 of 
the report pursuant to the special order and pursuant to Rule XX clause 
1 of the House rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 117 Cong. Rec. 40483, 40489, 40490, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Speaker then stated the order of recognition pending the 
separate vote:

        Under clause 1 of Rule XX, 40 minutes of debate are permitted 
    before a separate vote is taken on a nongermane Senate amendment, 
    one-half of such time in favor of, and one-half in opposition to 
    the amendment.
        Pursuant to that rule, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
    Hebert] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Minnesota [Mr. Fraser] will be recognized for 20 minutes.

    The House agreed to the section after 40 minutes of debate.
    The House then considered the entire conference report, and the 
Speaker stated that one hour of debate would be had, the Member calling 
up the report, Mr. Hebert, to be recognized for 30 minutes,

[[Page 10247]]

and a Member of the minority party, Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, 
to be recognized for 30 minutes.

Sec. 25.28 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,(8) an example of the proposition 
described above occurred in the House during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 8069 (the Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare and related agencies appropriation bill):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 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: (9) The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Pennsylvania (Mr. Flood).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 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.

[[Page 10248]]

        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.(10) If the motion is so divided, the hour rule 
applies to each motion separately.(11) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 38717, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. 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. 25.29 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

[[Page 10249]]

    does not thereby gain control of the time given to the minority.

    On May 14, 1975,(12) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 4881(13) in the House, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 121 Cong. Rec. 14385, 14386, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. The Emergency Employment Appropriations for fiscal year 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (14) The Clerk will report the next 
    amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 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.

                  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.