[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§ 26. Management by Reporting Committee; One-third of Debate Time on Certain Propositions Allotted to One Opposed]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10249-10299]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
 
Sec. 26. Management by Reporting Committee; One-third of Debate Time on 
    Certain Propositions Allotted to One Opposed

    Most business considered by the House is reported by standing 
committees of the House, and each measure is managed for con

[[Page 10250]]

sideration by the relevant committee.(15) The chairman of a 
committee has the special responsibility, under the rules, to bring to 
the floor or to take measures to bring to the floor any measure 
approved by his committee.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Control may be taken away from the committee by a motion to 
        discharge (see Ch. 18, supra) or by a special order (see 
        Sec. 2, supra).
            If the committee manager loses control of the proposition 
        on the floor, control usually passes to an opposing member of 
        the committee, although it may pass to any Member of the House 
        in opposition. For control passing to the opposition, see 
        Sec. 34, infra.
16. See Sec. Sec. 26.8, 26.9, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First the committee managers, and then the other members of the 
committee in order of seniority, have priority of recognition at all 
stages of consideration.(17) The member of a committee who 
calls up a committee-approved proposition for consideration must be so 
authorized by his committee.(18) The manager for the 
committee has prior rights to recognition in debate and prior rights to 
offer motions expediting the consideration and passage of the 
bill.(19) The manager may yield time which he controls as he 
sees fit,(20) and he may delegate his authority to another 
Member, such as the chairman of the subcommittee concerned with the 
legislation.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 26.1-26.5, infra, for recognition generally, and 
        Sec. Sec. 26.19-26.23, infra, for recognition under the five-
        minute rule.
18. See Sec. Sec. 27.1, 27.2, infra.
19. For the role of the manager, see Sec. 24, supra.
20. See Sec. 26.29, infra.
 1. Any delegation must be communicated to the Chair; see Sec. 26.32, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where a special order does not designate the managers on behalf of 
a committee, or where the designated manager is unavoidably absent, the 
Chair may recognize a committee member in his discretion.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See Sec. Sec. 27.6, 27.7, 28.8, infra. As to power and discretion 
        of Chair generally, see Sec. 9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Committee management extends to the consideration of a conference 
report on the bill in question; the senior manager on the part of the 
House is often the chairman of the legislative committee (or 
subcommittee) with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the original 
bill.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. See Sec. Sec. 26.10-26.12, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recent changes in the rules provide for debate time for a Member 
opposed to certain propositions, where Members recognized on the 
majority and minority party sides both support the proposition. Rule 
XXVIII, clause 1(b) provides: (4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 909a (1995).

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

[[Page 10251]]

        The time allotted for debate on any motion to instruct House 
    conferees shall be equally divided between the majority and 
    minority parties, except that if the proponent of the motion and 
    the Member from the other party are both supporters of the motion, 
    one-third of such debate time shall be allotted to a Member who is 
    opposed to said motion.

    Similarly, the time allotted for debate in the consideration of a 
conference report is equally divided between the majority party and the 
minority party, except that if the floor manager for the majority and 
the floor manager for the minority are both supporters of the 
conference report, one third of such debate time is allotted to a 
Member who is opposed to said conference report.(5) 
Recognition of a Member in opposition does not depend upon party 
affiliation and is within the discretion of the Speaker(6) 
who accords priority in recognition to a member of the conference 
committee.(7) Where the time is divided three ways, the 
right to close debate falls to the majority manager calling up the 
conference report, preceded by the minority manager, preceded in turn 
by the Member in opposition.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
 6. See Sec. Sec. 26.51, 26.52, 26.62, infra.
 7. See Sec. 26.54, infra.
 8. See Sec. 26.57, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b)(1) provides: (9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See House Rules and Manual Sec. 912b (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The time allotted for debate on [an amendment in disagreement] 
    shall be equally divided between the majority party and the 
    minority party, except that if the floor manager for the majority 
    and the floor manager for the minority are both supporters of the 
    original motion offered by the floor manager for the majority to 
    dispose of the amendment, one third of such debate time shall be 
    allotted to a Member who is opposed to said motion.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. As noted above, recognition of a Member in opposition does not 
        depend upon party affiliation and is within the discretion of 
        the Speaker, who accords priority in recognition to a member of 
        the conference committee. The right to close the debate where 
        the time is divided three ways falls to the manager offering 
        the motion. For further discussion of recognition under Rule 
        XXVIII, clause 2, see Sec. Sec. 26.51, 26.52, 26.54, and 26.62, 
        infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Committee powers and procedure as to management of bills, see Ch. 17, 
    supra.
Effect of special orders on committee management, see Sec. 28, infra 
    and Ch. 21, supra (special orders generally).
Management where committee has been discharged from consideration of 
    bill, see Sec. 18, supra.
Prior rights to recognition of members of reporting committee, see 
    Sec. 13, supra.

[[Page 10252]]

                          -------------------Prior Recognition of 
    Committee Members

Sec. 26.1 As a practice of long standing and in the absence of any 
    other considerations, members of a committee reporting a bill are 
    entitled to prior recognition thereon.

    On Feb. 10, 1941,(11) Chairman Clarence Cannon, of 
Missouri, responded to a parliamentary inquiry on the nature of the 
practice of extending priority for recognition to members of the 
committee reporting a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 87 Cong. Rec. 875, 876, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Lyle H.] Boren [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a 
    parliamentary inquiry. I want it thoroughly understood that I 
    recognize fully the custom of members of the committee being 
    recognized ahead of any other Member on the floor, not a member of 
    the committee. I am quite willing to withdraw my amendment for that 
    purpose, but as I understood it the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
    Cooper] rose to make the point of order that my recognition at that 
    time was not in order. I understood the Chair sustained the point 
    of order and recognized the gentleman from New York [Mr. Crowther]. 
    I should like to be enlightened as to under what rule of the House 
    that point of order is sustained after the Chair had recognized me 
    for the purpose of offering an amendment.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Crowther] is a 
    member of the committee reporting the bill and, therefore, entitled 
    to prior recognition.
        Mr. [Jack] Nichols [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Nichols: Is there a rule of the House that gives the 
    members of the committee the right to recognition ahead of other 
    Members of the House? Is that a rule of the House?
        The Chairman: It is a procedure of long standing.
        Mr. Nichols: It is not a rule of the House.
        The Chairman: In the absence of other considerations, members 
    of the committee in charge of the bill are entitled to prior 
    recognition. The rule is essential to expedition in legislation and 
    its importance is too obvious to require justification.

Sec. 26.2 Where more than one Member seeks recognition, the Speaker 
    recognizes the Member in charge or a member of the reporting 
    committee, if he seeks recognition.

    On Nov. 15, 1967,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule a bill reported from the 
Committee on Education and Labor, chaired by Mr. Carl D. Perkins, of 
Kentucky. Mr. Edward J. Gurney, of Florida, sought recognition and

[[Page 10253]]

when Chairman John J. Rooney, of New York, asked for what purpose, he 
(Mr. Gurney) stated he sought recognition to offer an amendment. The 
Chairman then recognized Mr. Perkins to submit a unanimous-consent 
request on closing debate before recognizing Mr. Gurney to offer his 
amendment.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 113 Cong. Rec. 32655, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. See Rule XIV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 753 (1995): 
        ``When two or more Members rise at once, the Speaker shall name 
        the Member who is first to speak. . . .'' See id. at 
        Sec. Sec. 754-757 for the usages and priorities which govern 
        the Chair when two or more Members rise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.3 Although members of the committee reporting a bill under 
    consideration usually have preference of recognition, the power of 
    recognition remains in the discretion of the Chair.

    On July 19, 1967,(14) Chairman Joseph L. Evins, of 
Tennessee, recognized in the Committee of the Whole Mr. Edmond 
Edmondson, of Oklahoma, for a parliamentary inquiry and then recognized 
him to offer an amendment to the pending bill. Mr. William C. Cramer, 
of Florida, made the point of order that William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, 
the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, which 
had reported the bill, had been on his feet seeking recognition to 
offer an amendment at the time and that members of the committee 
reporting the bill had the prior right to be recognized. The Chairman 
overruled the point of order and stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 113 Cong. Rec. 19416, 19417, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair is trying to be fair and trying to recognize Members 
    on both sides. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. McCulloch).

Sec. 26.4 Members of the committee reporting a bill are entitled to 
    prior recognition over the Member who has introduced the bill.

    On July 8, 1937,(15) Chairman Marvin Jones, of Texas, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of recognition on the 
pending bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 81 Cong. Rec. 6946, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, what is the 
    order of priority on the bill? Does the author of the bill precede 
    a member who is not a member of the committee?

        The Chairman: If the Chair understands the rule correctly, the 
    members of the committee which report the bill have preference. 
    After that all members of the Committee of the Whole are on equal 
    standing.

Sec. 26.5 In giving preference of recognition to members of a

[[Page 10254]]

    committee reporting a bill, the Chair does not usually distinguish 
    between members of the full committee and members of the 
    subcommittee.

    On Apr. 7, 1943,(16) Chairman Luther A. Johnson, of 
Texas, recognized Mr. Frank B. Keefe, of Wisconsin, in opposition to a 
pro forma amendment. Mr. Keefe was a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, which had reported the pending bill. Mr. John H. Kerr, 
of North Carolina, objected that he asked to be recognized, as a member 
of the subcommittee which had handled the bill. The Chairman stated as 
follows on the priority of recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 89 Cong. Rec. 3067, 78th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As the Chair understands it, a member of the Committee on 
    Appropriations has the same right as those who are members of that 
    committee who happen to be members of a subcommittee. That is the 
    parliamentary procedure, as the Chair understands it. The Chair has 
    recognized the gentleman from Wisconsin. Had he not done so, he 
    certainly would have recognized the gentleman from North Carolina.

Control of Privileged Resolution

Sec. 26.6 Debate on a privileged resolution is under the hour rule and 
    the committee member recognized to call it up has control of the 
    time.

    On Feb. 27, 1963,(17) Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of 
Maryland, called up by direction of the Committee on House 
Administration House Resolution 164, a privileged resolution providing 
funds for the Committee on Armed Services. Speaker John W. McCormack, 
of Massachusetts, answered a parliamentary inquiry as to control of the 
time for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 109 Cong. Rec. 3051, 3052, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles A.] Halleck [of Indiana]: As I understand it, the 
    gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] has said that he would yield 
    time to Members on the minority side, and that is what we want. If 
    there is another minority Member who wants to be recognized at this 
    time, it would be in order under the rules for that Member to be 
    granted time in order that he might make such statement as he might 
    want to make.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that under the rules of the 
    House and pursuant to custom that has existed from time immemorial, 
    on a resolution of this kind the Member in charge of the resolution 
    has control of the time and he, in turn, yields time. The gentleman 
    from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] in charge of the resolution has yielded 
    10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

    Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, the Majority Leader, then made the

[[Page 10255]]

following statement on distribution of time to the minority:

        Following the statement of the distinguished Speaker of the 
    House, the gentleman from Ohio made the statement that he is in 
    favor of the principle involved here. Of course, the principle is 
    well established under the rules of the House and has been observed 
    by both parties from time immemorial, that the Member recognized to 
    call up the resolution has control of the time under the 1-hour 
    rule. But, I would like to advise the gentleman, as the gentleman 
    from Maryland has, I am sure the gentleman from Maryland will yield 
    at least half of the time to the minority.

    On Feb. 25, 1954,(18) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, answered parliamentary inquiries on the control of 
debate on a privileged resolution called up by the chairman of the 
Committee on House Administration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 100 Cong. Rec. 2282, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Karl M.] LeCompte [of Iowa]: Under the rules the Chairman 
    has control of the time.
        The Speaker: The gentleman has 1 hour to yield to whomsoever he 
    desires.
        Mr. LeCompte: And he has control of the matter of offering 
    amendments.
        The Speaker: A committee amendment is now pending. No other 
    amendment can be offered unless the gentleman yields the floor for 
    that purpose.
        Mr. LeCompte: A motion to recommit, of course, belongs to some 
    member of the minority opposed to the resolution. Would any motion 
    except a motion to recommit be in order except by the gentleman in 
    charge of the bill?
        The Speaker: Not unless the gentleman yields for that purpose.
        The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 1 hour.

Responsibility of the Committee Chairman

Sec. 26.7 On one occasion, the chairman of a committee, acting at the 
    President's request, introduced a bill, presided over the hearings 
    in committee, reported the bill, applied to the Committee on Rules 
    for a special order, and moved that the House resolve itself into 
    the Committee of the Whole; when recognized to control one-half of 
    the debate in the committee, he then announced his opposition to 
    the measure and turned over management of the bill to the ranking 
    majority member of the committee.

    On June 14, 1967,(19) Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the

[[Page 10256]]

Whole for the consideration of House Joint Resolution 559, providing 
for the settlement of a railroad labor dispute. The House had adopted 
House Resolution 511, making in order the consideration of the bill and 
providing that general debate be controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 113 Cong. Rec. 15822, 15823, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

        Mr. Chairman, I am here today in a most unusual position. I was 
    requested by the President to introduce the bill we have before us 
    today, and because of my responsibilities as chairman of the 
    committee, I introduced the bill. If the House was to be given an 
    opportunity to work its will on this legislation, it was necessary 
    that hearings begin promptly and continue as expeditiously as 
    possible, and I think the record will bear me out, that the 
    hearings before our committee have been prompt, they have not been 
    delayed in any respect.
        In fact we interrupted consideration of a very important piece 
    of health legislation in order to take up this bill. We have heard 
    every witness who wanted to be heard on the legislation. I did this 
    because I felt it to be my responsibility to the House as chairman 
    of the committee.
        Following the conclusion of our hearings I promptly scheduled 
    executive sessions for consideration of the bill and we met as 
    promptly as possible both morning and afternoon and the committee 
    reported the bill to the House.
        Yesterday I went before the Rules Committee as chairman of the 
    committee to present the facts to the Rules Committee and attempt 
    to obtain a rule so that the bill would be considered by the House. 
    I have done these things because I felt it is my responsibility to 
    do so as chairman of the committee.
        Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I was opposed to this bill when I 
    introduced it, and having heard all the witnesses and all the 
    testimony, I am still opposed to it. For that reason I have asked 
    the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Friedel] to handle the bill in 
    Committee of the Whole, so that I would 
    be free to express my opposition to it. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes the presentation I desire to make 
    on the bill. At this time I request the gentleman from Maryland 
    [Mr. Friedel], the ranking majority member on the Interstate and 
    Foreign Commerce Committee, to take charge of managing the bill on 
    the floor.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The chairman of each committee has 
responsibility of reporting or causing to be reported any measure 
approved by his committee and taking or causing to be taken steps to 
have the matter considered and voted upon in the House, regardless of 
his personal opposition to the measure.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a 
        (1995).
            For an occasion where the chairman of a committee, also the 
        senior manager at conference, called up and managed the 
        conference report, to which he was opposed, see Sec. 24.4, 
        supra.

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

[[Page 10257]]

Effect of Opposition of Committee Chairman

Sec. 26.8 The Committee of the Whole having adopted certain amendments 
    to a bill, the chairman of the committee from which the measure was 
    reported expressed his objections, relinquished control of the bill 
    and subsequently offered a motion that the Committee rise with the 
    recommendation to strike the enacting clause.

    On July 5, 1956,(1) the Committee of the Whole had 
adopted certain amendments to H.R. 7535, 
to authorize federal assistance to states and local communities in 
financing an expanded program of school construction. Graham A. Barden, 
of North Carolina, who was controlling consideration of the bill as the 
chairman of the reporting committee--the Committee on Education and 
Labor--made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 102 Cong. Rec. 11849, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement I should like to make to 
    the House.
        For 22 years I have done my best to be sincere and frank with 
    the membership of this House. I propose to continue that, both in 
    attitude and in practice.
        I have very definitely reached the conclusion that the American 
    people do not want this legislation in its present form. Certain 
    things have happened to the bill that made it very, very obnoxious 
    and objectionable to the people I represent.
        I never have claimed to be an expert when advocating something 
    that I was sincerely and conscientiously for. I have always felt I 
    would be a complete flop in trying to advocate something I did not 
    believe in and did not advocate. This bill is objectionable to me. 
    It has so many bad features and so many things have been given 
    priority over the consideration of the objective that we set out to 
    accomplish that I must say, in all frankness, to the House I cannot 
    continue in the position here of directing this bill. I feel that 
    someone who can be fairer to the bill in its present shape than I, 
    should handle the bill. I would have to be a much better actor than 
    I now am to proceed in the position of handling this piece of 
    legislation which I cannot support and do not want to pass. For 
    that reason, I want the House to understand my very definite 
    position in the matter. So, with that, I think the House will 
    understand my position and those in a position on the committee to 
    handle the bill will have my cooperation to a certain extent, but 
    no one need to expect any assistance from me or any encouragement 
    for the bill.

    Mr. Barden later offered a motion that the Committee of the

[[Page 10258]]

Whole rise and report the bill back to the House with the 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken, which was defeated 
(the bill itself was later defeated).(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Id. at pp. 11868, 11869.
            For an occasion where a senior conference manager, also 
        chairman of a committee, managed a conference report to which 
        he was opposed, see Sec. 24.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duty of Committee Chairman To Report Bill

Sec. 26.9 The provision of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 
    (later adopted as part of the rules of the House) providing that it 
    shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee to report or 
    cause to be reported promptly any measure approved by his committee 
    or to take or cause to be taken necessary steps to bring a matter 
    to a vote, is sufficient authority to call up a bill on Calendar 
    Wednesday.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(3) John Lesinski, of Michigan, 
Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, called up a bill 
under the Calendar Wednesday procedure. Mr. Tom Pickett, of Texas, made 
the point of order that Mr. Lesinski was not entitled to recognition 
for that purpose, not having been expressly authorized by the committee 
to call up the bill under that procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 96 Cong. Rec. 2161, 2162, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Tex-as, overruled the point of order, 
saying:

        The Chair is prepared to rule.
        The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Lesinski] has already stated 
    that the committee did give him this authority. The present 
    occupant of the chair has read the minutes of the committee and 
    thinks the gentleman from Michigan is correct.
        Also the latest rule on this matter is section 133, paragraph 
    (c), of the Legislative Reorganization Act, and there is very good 
    reason for this rule because in times past the chairmen of 
    committees have been known to carry bills around in their pockets 
    for quite a while and not present them.
        The rule is as follows:

            It shall be the duty of the chairman of each such committee 
        to report or cause to be reported promptly to the Senate or 
        House of Representatives, as the case may be, any measure 
        approved by his committee and to take or cause to be taken 
        steps to bring the matter to a vote.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. The statute cited was later adopted as part of the standing rules; 
        see Rule XI clause 2(l)(1)(A), House Rules and Manual Sec. 713a 
        (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conference Reports

Sec. 26.10 Under a former practice, a conference report was

[[Page 10259]]

    called up by the chairman of one committee, who controlled one-half 
    hour on one title of the bill, and then yielded to the chairman of 
    another committee to control one-half hour on the other title and 
    to move the previous question.

    On May 13, 1970,(5) Mr. Harley O. Staggers, of West 
Virginia, called up a conference report on H.R. 14465, the Airport and 
Airway Development and Revenue Acts of 1970. The managers on the part 
of the House had been appointed from two House committees, since title 
1 of the bill dealt with airport authorizations, within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and 
title 2 dealt with raising revenue for airport construction, within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 116 Cong. Rec. 15291-97, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce had reported the 
bill in the House, and Mr. Staggers, Chairman of that committee, 
therefore called up the conference report for consideration. He 
controlled one-half hour of debate on title 1, within the jurisdiction 
of his committee. He then yielded to Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, 
Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, to control one-half hour 
of debate on title 2 of the bill. Mr. Mills moved the previous question 
on the report.
    Parliamentarian's Note: Under the present Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a), 
debate on a conference report is equally divided between the majority 
and the minority parties (see Sec. 26.12, infra).

Sec. 26.11 A conference report was filed and called up by a junior 
    member of the conference committee, where the senior manager at the 
    conference (who was also 
    the chairman of the legislative committee involved) was temporarily 
    absent and unable to be present on the floor.

    On Dec. 23, 1969,(6) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Thomas L. Ashley, of Ohio, a junior 
member of the conference committee on H.R. 4293, to provide for 
continuation of authority for regulation of exports, to file the 
conference report and to call it up. The senior member of the 
conference committee, Wright Patman, of Texas, also Chairman of

[[Page 10260]]

the Committee on Banking and Currency, which had jurisdiction over the 
subject matter of the bill, was unavoidably absent from the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 115 Cong. Rec. 40982-84, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.12 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,(7) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 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 
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 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.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. For division of debate on a conference report, see Rule XXVIII 
        clause 2(a), House Rules and Manual Sec. 912a (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

District of Columbia Business

Sec. 26.13 During consideration of District of Columbia business in 
    Committee of the Whole, 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,(9) Chairman Thomas L. Blanton, of 
Texas, an

[[Page 10261]]

swered a parliamentary inquiry on recognition in the Committee of the 
Whole during general debate on a District of Columbia bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 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.

Committee Amendments

Sec. 26.14 In recognizing members of the committee reporting a bill, 
    the Chair generally recognizes a member in fa-vor of a committee 
    amendment prior to recognizing a member thereof who is opposed.

    On Jan. 30, 1957,(10) House Joint Resolution 1311, to 
authorize the President to cooperate with nations of the Middle East, 
was being considered in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to a 
resolution permitting only committee amendments (Committee on Foreign 
Affairs). A committee amendment was offered, and Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of 
Ohio, a member of the committee, rose to seek recognition for debate in 
opposition to the amendment. A point of order having been made against 
that procedure, Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, extended 
recognition to Mr. Frank M. Coffin, of Maine, a member of the committee 
who authorized and supported the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 103 Cong. Rec. 1311, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.15 Where a privileged resolution is reported by the Committee 
    on Rules, with committee amendments, the amendments are reported 
    and may be acted upon before the Member managing the resolution is 
    recognized for debate thereon.

[[Page 10262]]

    On Aug. 19, 1964,(11) the Committee on Rules reported 
House Resolution 845, providing for the consideration of H.R. 11926, 
limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts in apportionment cases, 
which bill had not been reported by the committee to which referred. 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, directed the Clerk, after 
the reading of the resolution, to read the committee amendments. The 
amendments were then agreed to and the Speaker recognized Mr. Howard W. 
Smith, of Virginia, the manager of the resolution, for one hour of 
debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 110 Cong. Rec. 20213, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: This is the normal procedure in the case of 
technical or perfecting amendments to a resolution considered under the 
hour rule. Alternatively, the proponent of the resolution may proceed 
in debate while an amendment thereto is pending. This procedure is 
followed where the amendment is controversial or is in the nature of a 
substitute.

Sec. 26.16 When a bill is being considered under a closed rule 
    permitting only committee amendments, only two five-minute speeches 
    are in order, one in support of the committee amendment and one in 
    opposition, and the Chair gives preference in recognition to 
    members of the committee reporting the bill.

    On May 18, 1960,(12) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 5, the Foreign Investment Tax Act of 1960, reported by 
the Committee on Ways and Means, pursuant to the provisions of House 
Resolution 468, permitting only amendments offered at the direction of 
said committee. Chairman William H. Natcher, of Kentucky, stated in 
response to a parliamentary inquiry that only five minutes for and five 
minutes against the bill were in order, and that committee members had 
pri-or rights to debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 106 Cong. Rec. 10576, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: I rise in 
    opposition to the amendment, and I oppose the legislation in 
    general.
        Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Bailey: On what ground may I get recognition for the 
    purpose of opposing the legislation?
        The Chairman: The Chair recognized the gentleman from Louisiana 
    [Mr. Boggs] for 5 minutes in support of

[[Page 10263]]

    the committee amendment, so the gentleman from Louisiana would have 
    to yield to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia.
        Mr. Bailey: At the expiration of the 5 minutes allowed the 
    gentleman from Louisiana, may I be recognized to discuss the 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: If no other member of the committee rises in 
    opposition to the amendment, the Chair will recognize the 
    gentleman.

Sec. 26.17 The time for debate having been fixed by motion on 
    amendments to a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
    the Chair may by unanimous consent recognize the same committee 
    member in opposition to each amendment offered where no other 
    member of the committee seeks such recognition.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(13) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, answered a parliamentary inquiry after the Committee of the 
Whole had agreed to a motion limiting debate on amendments to a 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 96 Cong. Rec. 1691, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Under what precedent or 
    ruling is the Chair recognizing a certain member of the committee 
    for 1 minute in opposition to each amendment being offered? That 
    was not included in the motion. Had it been included in the motion, 
    it would have been subject to a point of order.
        The Chairman: The Chair is trying to be fair in the conduct of 
    the committee, and the only gentleman that has arisen on the 
    opposite side has been the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray]. 
    There was no point of order raised at the time that I announced 
    that I would recognize the committee for 1 minute in rebuttal to 
    each amendment.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: But the gentleman from South Dakota 
    got up at the time the Chair proposed to recognize the gentleman 
    from Tennessee a second time. Obviously, when the committee avails 
    itself of the opportunity to make a motion to limit debate it, in a 
    sense, is closing debate, and unless it does seek to limit time and 
    is successful in so doing, in principle it forfeits that courtesy. 
    The Members who have proposed amendments here have been waiting all 
    afternoon to be heard, and if the committee adopted the procedure 
    of seeking to close debate on 20 minutes' notice, with 10 
    amendments pending, it would seem as a matter of courtesy that the 
    committee should restrain itself to one member of the committee who 
    might have been on his feet, but to recognize one gentleman a 
    succession of times seems entirely out of keeping with the spirit 
    of closing debate.
        The Chairman: The Chairman, in the list of names, also read the 
    name of the committee. If the Chair was so inclined, the Chair 
    could recognize two Members for 5 minutes each on amendments, on 
    each side, and that would preclude the others from having

[[Page 10264]]

    any voice in the amendments that are pending, or in the debate.
        Mr. Case of South Dakota: That, of course, is true, the Chair 
    could do that. But, ordinarily, under the precedents always 
    followed in the House, when time is closed on amendments, the time 
    is divided among those who are seeking to offer amendments, and 
    unless the motion specifically reserves time to the committee, it 
    has been the precedent to divide the time among those who are 
    seeking to offer amendments.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that the committee is entitled to 
    a rebuttal on any amendment that is offered, and has so announced, 
    and there was no point of order made at the time. The Chair 
    sustains its present position.

Priorities Under the Five-minute Rule

Sec. 26.18 Recognition of Members to offer amendments under the five-
    minute rule in the Committee of the Whole is within the discretion 
    of the Chair, and he may extend preference to members of the 
    committee which reported the bill according to seniority.

    On July 21, 1949,(14) Chairman Eugene J. Keogh, of New 
York, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of recognition for 
amendments under the five-minute rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 95 Cong. Rec. 9936, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James P.] Sutton [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen: Mr. Chairman, is it not the custom during 
    debate under the 5-minute rule for the Chair in recognizing Members 
    to alternate from side to side? At least I suggest to the Chair 
    that that would be the fair procedure. The Chair has recognized 
    three Democrats in a row.
        The Chairman: The Chair will say to the gentleman that the 
    matter of recognition of members of the committee is within the 
    discretion of the Chair. The Chair has undertaken to follow as 
    closely as possible the seniority of those Members.
        Mr. [Clifford R.] Hope [of Kansas]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hope: For the information of the Chair, the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin, who has been seeking recognition, has been a Member of 
    the House for 10 years, and the gentleman from Tennessee is a 
    Member whose service began only this year.
        The Chairman: The Chair would refer the gentleman to the 
    official list of the members of the committee, which the Chair has 
    before him.
        The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman 
    from Tennessee.

[[Page 10265]]

Sec. 26.19 Recognition under the five-minute rule in the Committee of 
    the Whole is within the discretion of the Chair, and the Chair is 
    not required in every instance to recognize members of the 
    legislative committee reporting the bill in order of their 
    seniority.

    On Oct. 2, 1969,(15) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering under the five-minute rule H.R. 14000, military procurement 
authorization. Chairman Daniel D. Rostenkowski, of Illinois, recognized 
Mr. Charles H. Wilson, of California, a member of the Committee on 
Armed Services which had reported the bill, to offer an amendment. Mr. 
Lucien N. Nedzi, of Michigan, inquired whether members of the committee 
were not supposed to be recognized in the order of their seniority. The 
Chairman responded ``That is a matter for the Chair's discretion'' and 
proceeded to recognize Mr. Wilson for his amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 115 Cong. Rec. 28101, 28102, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.20 During amendment of 
    a bill in Committee of the Whole, the Chairman first recognizes 
    members of the committee reporting the bill, if on their feet 
    seeking recognition.

    On June 29, 1939,(16) Chairman Jere Cooper, of 
Tennessee, ruled that although a Member had been recognized to offer an 
amendment, the Chairman would in his discretion first recognize members 
of the committee reporting the bill, if on their feet seeking 
recognition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 84 Cong. Rec. 8311, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold] Knutson [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
    amendment at the Clerk's desk which I would like to offer at this 
    time.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Knutson: Strike out all of section 
        1 and insert the following--

        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York] (interrupting the 
    reading of the amendment): Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for 
    the committee members to be recognized first to offer amendments?

        Mr. Knutson: I have already been recognized.
        The Chairman: If there is any member of the committee seeking 
    recognition, he is entitled to recognition.
        Mr. Fish: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized.
        Mr. Knutson: I already have the floor, and have been 
    recognized.
        Mr. H. Carl Andersen [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, the 
    gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Knutson] has already been recognized.
        The Chairman: Recognition is in the discretion of the Chair, 
    and the Chair will recognize members of the committee first. Does 
    the acting chairman of the committee seek recognition?

[[Page 10266]]

        Mr. [Sol] Bloom [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
    ask whether the committee amendments to section 1 have been agreed 
    to?
        The Chairman: The only one the Chair knows about is the one 
    appearing in the print of the bill, and that has been agreed to.
        Mr. Bloom: In line 16, there is a committee amendment.
        Mr. Knutson: Mr. Chairman, I was recognized by the Chair.
        The Chairman: The Chair feels that inasmuch as members of the 
    committee were not on their feet and the gentleman from Minnesota 
    had been recognized, the gentleman is entitled to recognition.

Sec. 26.21 In recognizing members of the committee reporting a bill to 
    offer amendments in the Committee of the Whole, the Chairman has 
    discretion whether to first recognize a minority or majority 
    member.

    On June 4, 1948,(17) while the Committee of the Whole 
was considering H.R. 6801, the foreign aid appropriation bill, for 
amendment, Chairman W. Sterling Cole, of New York, recognized Everett 
M. Dirksen, of Illinois (a majority member) to offer an amendment. Mr. 
Clarence Cannon, of Missouri, objected that the minority was entitled 
to recognition to move to amend the bill. The Chairman responded:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 94 Cong. Rec. 7189, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rules of the House, any member of the committee may 
    offer an amendment, and it is in the discretion of the Chair as to 
    which member shall be recognized.

Sec. 26.22 A member of the committee in charge of a bill is entitled to 
    close debate on an amendment under consideration in the Committee 
    of the Whole where the debate has been limited and equally divided 
    among that Member and other Members.

    On May 22, 1956,(18) Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, 
ruled that the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, manager of 
the pending bill, H.R. 11319, was entitled to close debate on a pending 
amendment (where a request had been agreed to to limit debate on the 
amendment to 20 minutes, divided and controlled by that Member and 
three others):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 102 Cong. Rec. 8741, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair 
    recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cole].
        Mr. [W. Sterling] Cole: Mr. Chairman, I understood that I was 
    to have 5 minutes to close the debate on this amendment.

[[Page 10267]]

        The Chairman: The Chair was not of that understanding. It is 
    the understanding of the Chair that the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Taber] would have 5 minutes to close the debate.
        Mr. Cole: The request was that the gentleman from New York will 
    close the debate. I also qualify under that characterization, being 
    in support of the amendment; and, under the rules of the House, it 
    is my understanding that I would be recognized to close the debate.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from New York 
    that a member of the committee is entitled to close the debate if 
    he so desires.
        Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Taber] desire to be 
    recognized to close the debate?
        Mr. [John] Taber: I desire to close.
        The Chairman: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Cole].

Reservation of Time for Committee

Sec. 26.23 Where the Committee of the Whole fixes the time for debate 
    on all amendments to a pending amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, the Chair in counting those seeking recognition may 
    without objection allot a portion of the time on each amendment to 
    the committee reporting the bill.

    On Feb. 8, 1950,(19) the Committee of the Whole fixed 
time for 
debate on amendments to a committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute. Chairman Chet Holifield, of California, then 
indicated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, that the Chair would 
recognize a committee member in opposition to each amendment offered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 96 Cong. Rec. 1691, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Control of Time by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 26.24 Under the five-minute rule, control of the time for debate 
    may be allotted by unanimous consent but not by motion.

    On May 11, 1949,(20) during five-minute debate in the 
Committee of the Whole, Mr. Brent Spence, of Kentucky, moved to limit 
five-minute debate on a pending section and amendments thereto, and to 
allocate the remaining time. Chairman Albert A. Gore, of Tennessee, 
sustained a point of order against the motion, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 95 Cong. Rec. 6055, 6056, 81st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on section 1 
    and all amendments thereto conclude at 3:30

[[Page 10268]]

    and that the time be equally divided among those Members who asked 
    for time and that the last 5 minutes be assigned to the committee.
        Mr. [Francis H.] Case of South Dakota: Mr. Chairman . . . the 
    Committee of the Whole cannot allot time that way. That is in the 
    discretion of the House of Representatives and not the committee. 
    It must be by unanimous consent.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained.

Sec. 26.25 By unanimous consent, the Committee of the Whole provided 
    for two hours of debate on a pending amendment (thereby abrogating 
    the five-minute rule) and vested control of such time in the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the committee that had 
    reported the bill.

    On July 8, 1965,(1) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering the Civil Rights Act of 1965, H.R. 6400. Mr. William M. 
McCulloch, of Ohio, offered an amendment, and the Committee agreed to 
the following unanimous-consent request allocating the time for debate 
on the amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 111 Cong. Rec. 16036-38, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on the so-called McCulloch 
    substitute and all amendments thereto be limited to 2 hours, and 
    that such time be equally divided and controlled by myself and the 
    gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch].

    Parliamentarian's Note: Where a unanimous-consent agreement for 
control of time for debate on an amendment has been fixed, the 
proponent is first recognized for debate.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Where the time for and control of debate on an amendment has been 
        fixed by unanimous consent, the motion that the Committee rise 
        with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken is 
        in order and privileged, and the Member so moving and the 
        Members rising in opposition are entitled to recognition for 
        five minutes. Time on the motion is not taken from the time 
        remaining under the unanimous-consent limitation unless the 
        limitation is to a time certain or unless the limitation has 
        the effect of closing further debate on the bill (as with an 
        amendment 
        in the nature of a substitute being 
        considered as an original bill). See 
        111 Cong. Rec. 16227, 16228, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 9, 
        1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.26 The Committee of the Whole, by unanimous consent, limited 
    debate to 30 minutes on a pending motion to strike and provided 
    that the time should be divided equally between the managers of the 
    bill, who would in turn yield time to both

[[Page 10269]]

    proponents and opponents of the motion.

    On Aug. 4, 1966,(3) while the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 14765, the Civil Rights Act of 1966, the Committee 
agreed to a unanimous-consent request on the time and control of debate 
on motion to strike:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 112 Cong. Rec. 18207, 18208, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: The unanimous-consent request 
    is that when the Committee resumes consideration of the bill, H.R. 
    14765, after the recess tonight the first order of business shall 
    be after 30 minutes of debate a vote on the Moore amendment to 
    strike out title IV and, in the event that amendment is defeated, 
    the Committee shall then continue the consideration of title IV.
        Mr. [John Bell] Williams [of Mississippi]: Do I understand that 
    the gentleman dropped that portion in which he provided for a 
    division of time equally between the proponents and opponents?
        Mr. Albert: No. That is included. Fifteen minutes shall be 
    under the control of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rodino] and 
    15 minutes under the control of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    McCulloch]. I think it is well understood that they will yield the 
    time to both proponents and opponents of the Moore amendment.
        Mr. Williams: By gentleman's agreement?
        Mr. Albert: Yes.
        Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation.
        The Chairman: (4) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.

Hour Rule Limitations

Sec. 26.27 Although the chairman and ranking minority member of a 
    committee or subcommittee may be given control of more than one 
    hour of the time for general debate, they are still limited in 
    their own presentations by the hour rule and may proceed for a 
    longer time only by unanimous consent.

    On July 29, 1969,(5) the House agreed to a unanimous-
consent request by Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of Pennsylvania, that the House 
resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of 
H.R. 13111, Labor and HEW appropriations, and that general debate be 
limited to three hours, to be equally divided and controlled by Mr. 
Flood, Chairman of the Subcommittee on HEW of the Committee on 
Appropriations and by Mr. Robert H. Michel, of Illinois, the ranking 
minority member of that subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 115 Cong. Rec. 21174-78, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Flood commenced debate, and Chairman Chet Holifield, of

[[Page 10270]]

California, later advised him that he himself had consumed one hour.
    By unanimous consent, at the request of Mr. William H. Natcher, of 
Kentucky, Mr. Flood was allowed to continue for 10 additional minutes.

Yielding Time by Committee Managers

Sec. 26.28 Where debate on a bill is under control of the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of a committee, they may yield as many 
    times as they desire to whomever they desire.

    On July 11, 1946,(6) Chairman William M. Whittington, of 
Mississippi, answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 92 Cong. Rec. 8694, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Miss [Jessie] Sumner of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman will state it.
        Miss Sumner of Illinois: The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hays] 
    and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] have spoken two or three 
    times on this bill during general debate. Is that permissible under 
    the rules of the House?
        The Chairman: The time is within the control of the chairman 
    and the ranking minority member of the committee.
        Miss Sumner of Illinois: May the same person speak two or three 
    times in general debate on the same bill?
        The Chairman: General debate on this bill has been fixed at 16 
    hours, the time equally divided between the chairman and the 
    ranking minority member of the committee. They may yield once, 
    twice, or as many times as they desire to whom they desire.

General Debate Time

Sec. 26.29 The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, in control 
    of one-half the time for general debate on a civil rights bill, 
    yielded one-half of that time to another majority member of his 
    committee.

    On Jan. 21, 1964,(7) the House adopted House Resolution 
616, providing for consideration of H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 
1963, and providing that 10 hours of general debate thereon be divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. When the House resolved itself into the 
Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill, Emanuel 
Celler, of New York, the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 1516, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Chairman, at the outset may I say that I shall yield one-
    half of my

[[Page 10271]]

    time, namely, 2\1/2\ hours, to the distinguished gentleman from 
    Louisiana [Mr. Willis].

Sec. 26.30 Where a bill is considered pursuant to a resolution which 
    gives control of part of the general debate to the chairman of the 
    committee reporting the bill, he may delegate control of that time 
    to another; but such delegation is not effective unless 
    communicated to the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.

    On Jan. 31, 1964,(8) the Committee of the Whole was 
conducting general debate on H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963. 
The resolution providing for the consideration of the bill provided 
that general debate be divided 
and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary. Emanuel Celler, of New York, the 
Chairman of the committee, was absent, and the following colloquy and 
point of order transpired:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 110 Cong. Rec. 1538, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Basil L.] Whitener [of North Carolina]: If the gentleman 
    will get me more time, I will be glad to yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Rodino: I will give the gentleman 1 extra minute.
        Mr. Whitener: I yield to the gentleman, but please do not take 
    more than 1 minute.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair has to inform the 
    gentleman from North Carolina that the gentleman from New Jersey 
    does not have control of the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Eugene J. Keogh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Whitener: Then, Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully decline 
    to yield to the gentleman. . . .
        Mr. [Byron G.] Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the point of order.
        Mr. Rogers of Colorado: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New 
    Jersey is now in charge of the time in the absence of the chairman, 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler].
        The Chairman: The Chair was not informed that the gentleman 
    from New York is absent nor is the Chair informed that the 
    gentleman from New Jersey is now in charge of the time.
        The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.

        Mr. Whitener: I thank the Chairman. . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes, and I wish 
    to state I am acting for the chairman of the Committee on the 
    Judiciary who asked me to take charge of the time for him in his 
    absence.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.

Sec. 26.31 During general debate in Committee of the Whole of

[[Page 10272]]

    a bill being considered under a special rule providing that the 
    time be controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
    the committee reporting the bill, additional time must be yielded 
    by the members controlling the time and may not be 
    obtained by unanimous consent.

    On June 2, 1975,(10) during consideration of the Voting 
Rights Act extension (H.R. 6219) in the Committee of the Whole, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 121 Cong. Rec. 16285, 16286, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman Pro Tempore:  The time of the gentleman has 
    expired.
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I would ask 
    unanimous consent to continue for an additional 5 minutes.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Edwards) has 
    control of the time. Does the gentleman from California wish to 
    yield additional time to the gentleman from Texas? . . .
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The time of the gentleman has 
    expired.
        Mr. Gonzalez: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
    allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman will suspend. The Chair 
    must advise the gentleman that under the rule that request is not 
    in order.

--Reserving Time To Close

Sec. 26.32 Where, under a special rule, general debate is divided 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,(11) the proceedings described above occurred as 
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 121 Cong. Rec. 38141, 38166, 38174, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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.

[[Page 10273]]

    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.

Disciplinary Resolution

Sec. 26.33 After the chairman of a special committee to investigate the 
    right of a Member-elect to be sworn was recognized for one hour on 
    a resolution relating thereto, he obtained an additional hour by 
    unanimous consent, and then yielded one-half of his time, for 
    debate only, to the ranking minority member of the special 
    committee; the Speaker declared that both the chairman and the 
    ranking minority member controlled the further allocation of time.

    On Mar. 1, 1967,(13) Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
Chairman of the select committee, appointed pursuant to House 
Resolution 1 of the 90th Congress to investigate the right of Member-
elect Adam C. Powell, of New York, to be sworn, called up House 
Resolution 278 relating thereto. Mr. Celler, after being recognized by 
Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, for one hour, requested 
that the time be extended for one additional hour, which was agreed to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 113 Cong. Rec. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Celler then yielded one-half of his time, for debate only, to 
Mr. Arch A. Moore, Jr., of West 
Virginia, the ranking minority member of the special committee. Both 
were declared by the Speaker to be in control of the allocation of 
time.

Under Suspension--Management of House Bill With Senate Amendments

Sec. 26.34 The Speaker normally recognizes the chairman of the 
    committee or subcommittee with jurisdiction over the subject matter 
    of a House bill to move to suspend the rules and agree to a 
    resolution taking the bill with Senate amendments from the 
    Speaker's table and agreeing to the Senate amendments.

[[Page 10274]]

    On Aug. 27, 1962,(14) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Oren Harris, of Arkansas, Chairman of the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to move to suspend the 
rules and agree to House Resolution 769:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 108 Cong. Rec. 17671, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the bill H.R. 11040, with the Senate amendments thereto, be, and 
    the same is hereby taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that 
    the Senate amendment be, and the same is hereby, agreed to.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 11040, the Communications Satellite 
Act of 1962, was within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce.

Sec. 26.35 The Speaker normally recognizes the chairman of the 
    committee or subcommittee with jurisdiction to move to suspend the 
    rules and agree to a resolution taking a House bill with Senate 
    amendments from the Speaker's table, disagreeing to 
    Senate amendments, and requesting a conference.

    On Oct. 1, 1962,(15) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Thomas J. Murray, of Tennessee, Chairman of 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to suspend the rules 
and agree to House Resolution 818:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 108 Cong. Rec. 21528, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
    the bill H.R. 7927, with the Senate amendment thereto, be, and the 
    same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table, to the end that the 
    Senate amendment be, and the same hereby is, disagreed to and a 
    conference is requested with the Senate upon the disagreeing votes 
    of the two Houses thereon.

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 7927, the Postal Rate and Postal Pay 
Act of 1962, was within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Post 
Office and Civil Service.

--Member Opposed to Motion

Sec. 26.36 Under clause 2 of Rule XXVII,(16) a Member 
    opposed to a motion to suspend the rules is entitled to control 20 
    minutes of debate in opposi

[[Page 10275]]

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

    During consideration of the Equal Access Act (H.R. 5345) in the 
House on May 15, 1984,(17) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 130 Cong. Rec. 12214, 12215, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                   H.R. 5345

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

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) . . . The gentleman 
    from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins) will be recognized for 20 minutes and 
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. William F. Goodling, ranking 
    minority member of Committee on Education and Labor] will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Unanimous-consent Requests To Dispose of Senate Amendments

Sec. 26.37 The Speaker, in response to a parliamentary 
    inquiry, indicated that only 
    the chairman of the committee having jurisdiction of the subject 
    matter of a bill, amended by the Senate and on the Speaker's table, 
    would be recognized to ask unani

[[Page 10276]]

    mous consent to take it from the table, disagree to the amendment 
    and ask for a conference.

    On Sept. 1, 1960,(19) Mr. Charles A. Halleck, of 
Indiana, raised a parliamentary inquiry on the disposition of a House 
bill with a Senate amendment which had been returned to the House and 
was on the Speaker's table. Mr. Halleck inquired whether it would be in 
order to submit 
a unanimous-consent request to take the bill from the table, disagree 
to the Senate amendment, and send the bill to conference. Speaker Sam 
Rayburn, of Texas, responded that such a request could only be made by 
the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the bill [Harold 
D. Cooley, of North Carolina].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 106 Cong. Rec. 18920, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.38 The Speaker may decline to recognize a Member for a 
    unanimous-consent request to take a bill from the Speaker's table 
    and concur in certain Senate amendments, where such a request is 
    made without the authorization of the chairman of the reporting 
    committee.

    On July 31, 1969,(20) Mr. Hale Boggs, of Louisiana, 
asked unanimous consent to take the bill H.R. 9951 from the Speaker's 
table and to concur in the Senate amendments thereto. Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, refused recognition for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 115 Cong. Rec. 21691, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair will state that at this time the Chair 
    does not recognize the gentleman from Louisiana for that purpose.
        The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is at present 
    appearing before the Committee on Rules seeking a rule and Members 
    have been told that there would be no further business tonight.
        The Chair does not want to enter into an argument with any 
    Member, particularly the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana 
    whom I admire very much. But the Chair has stated that the Chair 
    does not recognize the gentleman for that purpose.

Calendar Wednesday

Sec. 26.39 A Member managing a bill on Calendar Wednesday must be 
    authorized and directed to call it up by the committee with 
    jurisdiction.

    On Feb. 24, 1937,(1) Speaker Pro Tempore William J. 
Driver, of Arkansas, responded to a parliamentary inquiry during the 
Calendar Wednesday call of committees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 81 Cong. Rec. 1562, 1563, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, where a bill 
    has

[[Page 10277]]

    been reported favorably by a committee, and the chairman of the 
    committee is authorized to call the bill up on Calendar Wednesday, 
    when the chairman absents himself from the floor, and when other 
    members of the committee are present, is it proper for one of the 
    other members to call up the bill?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state to the gentleman 
    that under the rules only the chairman or the member designated by 
    the committee is authorized to call up a bill.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. See also 92 Cong. Rec. 8590, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., July 10, 1946; 
        and 87 Cong. Rec. 5047, 77th Cong. 1st Sess., June 11, 1941.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.40 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,(3) 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 indicated 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.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 81 Cong. Rec. 3456, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
 4. 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 procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veto

Sec. 26.41 Debate on the question of overriding a Presidential veto is 
    normally controlled by the chairman of the committee which had 
    reported the bill to the House.

    On Sept. 7, 1978,(5) the Speaker announced the 
unfinished business of the House, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 28343, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (6) The unfinished business is the 
    further consideration of the veto message of the President on the 
    bill H.R. 10929, to authorize appro

[[Page 10278]]

    priations for fiscal year 1979 for procurement of aircraft, 
    missiles, naval vessels, tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, and 
    other weapons and for research, development, test and evaluation 
    for the Armed Forces, to prescribe the authorized personnel 
    strength for each active duty component and the Selected Reserve of 
    each Reserve component of the Armed Forces and for civilian 
    personnel of the Department of Defense, to authorize the military 
    training student loads, to authorize appropriations for civil 
    defense, and for other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question is: Will the House on reconsideration pass the 
    bill, the objections of the President to the contrary 
    notwithstanding?
        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Price) is recognized for 1 
    hour.
        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 
    such time as I may require.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Speaker and Majority Leader 
supported the veto, Chairman Price who opposed the veto was recognized 
to control the debate, as is the normal practice. For an instance where 
the Majority Leader was recognized to control the debate on overriding 
the President's veto of an appropriations bill, see Sec. 26.42, infra.

Sec. 26.42 While the Speaker normally recognizes the chairman of the 
    committee or subcommittee which reported the bill to control the 
    debate on a veto message on that bill, the Speaker on one occasion 
    recognized the Majority Leader to control debate on the question of 
    overriding the President's veto of an appropriation bill.

    On Aug. 16, 1972,(7) the Speaker brought up for 
consideration a veto message from the President, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 118 Cong. Rec. 28415, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker laid before the House the following veto message 
    from the President of the United States:
        To the House of Representatives:

            Today, I must return without my approval H.R. 15417, the 
        appropriations bill for the Department of Labor, the Department 
        of Health, Education and Welfare and certain related agencies. 
        . . .

        The Speaker: (8) The question is, Will the House, on 
    reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to 
    the contrary notwithstanding?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [the majority 
    leader].
        Mr. [Hale] Boggs [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I shall say only 
    a few words and then move the previous question.

Amendments

Sec. 26.43 The proponent of an amendment may be recognized to control 
    the time in opposition to a substitute 


[[Page 10279]]

    offered therefor, but a member of the committee reporting the bill 
    has priority of 
    recognition to control such time.

    On May 4, 1983,(9) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 13 (nuclear weapons freeze) in the Committee of the Whole, 
the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding priority of 
recognition for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 129 Cong. Rec. 11074, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dicks as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Levitas: In view of the matter 
        proposed to be inserted, insert the following: ``with 
        negotiators proceeding immediately to pursuing reductions.''. . 
        . .

        Mr. [Elliott H.] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        My parliamentary inquiry is twofold, Mr. Chairman.
        The first is that under the rule if I am opposed to the 
    amendment being offered as a substitute for my amendment, can I be 
    recognized in opposition thereto?
        My second inquiry is: Is the substitute open for amendment?
        The Chairman: (10) The answer to the second question 
    is the substitute is open for amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        It is appropriate under the rules to offer an amendment. In 
    terms of whom the Chair recognizes in opposition, the Chair would 
    be inclined to recognize a member of the committee, if a member of 
    the committee seeks recognition in opposition to the amendment.
        If a committee member does not seek recognition for that 
    purpose the Chair would be inclined to recognize the gentleman.

Sec. 26.44 Where a special rule governing consideration of 
    a bill in Committee of the Whole provides that debate on each 
    amendment be equally divided between the proponent and a Member 
    opposed thereto, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole will 
    recognize the chairman of the committee managing the bill to 
    control the time in opposition if he states he is opposed, and the 
    Chair cannot at a later time question his qualifications to speak 
    in opposition.

    On May 4, 1983,(11) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and 
reduction in nuclear weapons, pursuant to a special rule agreed to on 
Mar. 16 (12) and a special rule

[[Page 10280]]

providing for additional procedures for consideration (including the 
equal division of debate time) agreed to on May 4.(13) Mr. 
Clement J. Zablocki, of Wisconsin, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, was recognized in opposition to an amendment. Mr. Zablocki 
discussed the amendment as it had been modified by unanimous consent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 129 Cong. Rec. 11066, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
12. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
13. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, in order that we can continue the 
    debate in proper order, and with an understanding of the amendment, 
    as modified by unanimous consent, I ask that the Clerk re-read the 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Chairman: The clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Page 5, line 8, immediately before the period, insert ``, 
        with such reductions to be achieved within a reasonable period 
        of time as determined by negotiations.''

        Mr. Zablocki: . . . I must say at the very outset, as the 
    amendment has been offered, I have no problems with the amendment. 
    But I am concerned [that] in the explanation of your amendment you 
    go further and it does cause some concern whether you intend your 
    amendment to be so interpreted.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that in the remaining 13 minutes 
    of my time in opposition, technically in opposition, to the 
    amendment we could have a clarifying dialog with the gentleman from 
    Georgia.
        Mr. [James A.] Courter [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) has the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Courter: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for 
    the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry?
        Mr. Zablocki: I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey for the 
    purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Courter: My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is as 
    follows:
        It is my understanding that the proponent of the amendment, the 
    gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Levitas) is recognized for 15 minutes, 
    and then someone could be recognized if they, in fact, oppose it.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) rose initially 
    indicating that he was against the amendment, was recognized for 15 
    minutes, and during his monolog has indicated that, in fact, he is 
    not opposed to it. Should he be recognized for the balance of his 
    time?
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The Chair cannot question the 
    gentleman's qualifications. The Chair did ask the question if he 
    rose in opposition to the amendment, and the Chairman so stated. 
    Therefore, he controls the time.

Unreported Joint Resolution

Sec. 26.45 Where an unreported joint resolution was being

[[Page 10281]]

    considered under a special ``modified closed'' rule in Committee of 
    the Whole permitting no general debate and the consideration of 
    only two amendments in the nature of a substitute with 
    debate thereon divided between a proponent and an opponent, the 
    proponents (or the designee of a proponent) of the amendments were 
    permitted to open and close debate pursuant to clause 6 of Rule 
    XIV, since there was no ``manager'' of the joint resolution.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Apr. 24, 1985,(15) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 247 (to promote U.S. assistance in Central America):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 131 Cong. Rec. 9206, 9231, 9232, 9253, 9254, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (16) No amendments are in order except 
    the following amendments, which shall be considered as having been 
    read, shall be considered only in the following order, and shall 
    not be subject to amendment: First, the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute printed in the Congressional Record of April 22, 1985, 
    by, and if offered by, Representative Hamilton of Indiana; and said 
    amendment shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by Representative Hamilton and a 
    member opposed thereto; and second, the amendment in the nature of 
    a substitute printed in the Congressional Record of April 22, 1985, 
    by, and if offered by, Representative Michel or his designee, and 
    said amendment shall be debatable for not to exceed 2 hours, to be 
    equally divided and controlled by Representative Michel or his 
    designee and a Member opposed thereto. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to 
    the rule, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. . . .
        The Chairman: Pursuant to House Resolution 136, the amendment 
    is considered as having been read.
        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) will be recognized for 
    1 hour, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 1 hour. . . .
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Chairman, I should like to designate the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) to make the allocation of 
    time on our side of the aisle.

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) is 
    designated to control the time for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel). . . .
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) has 7 minutes 
    remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Barnes) has 6\1/4\ 
    minutes remaining.
        Mr. [Michael D.] Barnes [of Maryland]: Mr. Chairman, we have 
    three very brief speakers.
        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: If the gentleman 
    would go ahead with those, we will wind up with one, our final 
    speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel). . . .
        The Chairman: The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
    Barnes) has expired. . . .

[[Page 10282]]

        Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time now to 
    yield the balance of our time to the minority leader, the gentleman 
    from Illinois (Mr. Michel).

    Parliamentarian's Note: Ordinarily in Committee of the Whole under 
the five-minute rule notwithstanding clause 6 of Rule XIV (which 
permits the proposer of a proposition to close debate), the manager of 
the bill under the precedents is given the right to close debate on an 
amendment. But in the above instance, there was no manager of the bill 
under the special rule.

Sec. 26.46 Where a special rule adopted by the House limits debate on 
    an amendment to be controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and 
    prohibits amendments thereto, the Chair may in his discretion 
    recognize the manager of the bill if opposed and there is no 
    requirement for recognition of the minority party.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 18, 1986,(17) during consideration of H.R. 4868 (Anti-
Apartheid Act of 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 132 Cong. Rec. 14275, 14276, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (18) Under the rule, the gentleman 
    from California (Mr. Dellums) will be recognized for 30 minutes, 
    and a Member opposed to the amendment will be recognized for 30 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Bob Traxler (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 10283]]

    the purposes of opposition. Is that correct?
        The Chairman: The Chair would state that the procedures of the 
    House are governed by its rules, but more importantly in this 
    instance, by the rule adopted by the House as reported from the 
    Committee.

Motions To Instruct

Sec. 26.47 Under Rule XXVIII, clause 1(b), debate on any motion to 
    instruct conferees is equally divided between majority and minority 
    parties or among them and an opponent; but where the previous 
    question is rejected on a motion to instruct, a separate hour of 
    debate on any amendment to the motion is fully controlled by the 
    proponent of the amendment under the hour rule (Rule XIV, clause 
    2), as the manager of the original motion loses the floor.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Oct. 3, 
1989,(19) during consideration of H.R. 3026 (District of 
Columbia appropriations for fiscal year 1990):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 135 Cong. Rec. 22859, 22862, 22863, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
    3026) making appropriations for the government of the District of 
    Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part 
    against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending 
    September 30, 1990, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments 
    thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the 
    conference asked by the Senate.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (20) Is there objection to 
    the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William J. Hughes (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Green] is recognized for 30 minutes in support his motion. . . .
        Mr. Green: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion to instruct. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on ordering the 
    previous question.
        [The previous question was rejected.]
        Mr. Dixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I understand now that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Dannemeyer] intends to offer an amendment to the motion offered by 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Green].

[[Page 10284]]

        My question is: Under the offering will I receive part of the 
    time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the gentleman 
    from California [Mr. Dixon] that 1 hour would be allotted to the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Dannemeyer]. He would have to yield 
    time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]. . . .
        The Clerk read as follows:

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

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

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

Time Divided Three Ways

Sec. 26.48 Pursuant to clause 2(b) of Rule XXVIII, debate on 
    a motion to dispose of an amendment reported from conference in 
    disagreement is equally divided between the majority and minority 
    parties, unless the minority Member favors the motion, in which 
    event one third of the time is allocated to a Member opposed.

    The following exchange occurred in the House on Aug. 1, 
1985,(1) during consideration of the conference report on 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 (the first concurrent resolution on the 
budget for fiscal year 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 131 Cong. Rec. 22638, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (2) Under the rules, the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Gray) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
    gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Frank: Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) 
    opposed to the bill?
        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed 
    to the bill.

[[Page 10285]]

        Mr. Frank: Mr. Speaker, I believe then that under rule XXVIII, 
    a Member in opposition to the bill is entitled to 20 minutes.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct. Under the rule, the 
    gentleman is entitled to one-third of the time.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gray) will be recognized 
    for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
    (Mr. Frank) will be recognized for 20 minutes.

Sec. 26.49 Pursuant to clause 2(a) of Rule XXVIII, where the floor 
    managers for the majority and minority parties on a conference 
    report are both supporters thereof, a Member opposed may be 
    recognized for one third of the debate time and it is within the 
    discretion of the Chair as to which Member is recognized in 
    opposition; such recognition does not depend upon party 
    affiliation, and the time in opposition may be divided by unanimous 
    consent or yielded by the Member recognized.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Dec. 11, 
1985,(3) during consideration of the conference report on 
House Joint Resolution 372 (the public debt limit increase):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 131 Cong. Rec. 36069, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    the order of the House of Tuesday, December 10, 1985, I call up the 
    conference report on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 372), 
    increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) Pursuant to the order 
    of the House of Tuesday, December 10, 1985, the conference report 
    is considered as having been read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Lawrence J. Smith (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rostenkowski) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
    Duncan) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, did I hear the Speaker say that the time 
    would be divided between the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan)?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman heard correctly.
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, [is the gentleman] from Tennessee 
    opposed to the legislation?
        Mr. [John J.] Duncan [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I am not 
    opposed to the legislation.

[[Page 10286]]

        Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, that being the case, I ask under rule 
    XXVIII, since the rules provide that those in opposition be 
    entitled to 20 minutes, I would ask that I be assigned that 20-
    minute time block.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises that the gentleman 
    is correct, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rostenkowski) will 
    be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
    Duncan) will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        Mr. Duncan: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
        Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, did I understand there is to be 
    additional time assigned to those who oppose the conference report? 
    If I understand correctly, we have some people on our side.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Obey) is opposed, and he will control the 20 minutes time.
        Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Crane is also opposed. We would 
    expect equal time, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Crane is on the committee, and 
    he would expect equal time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise that the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin is also on the conference committee.
        Mr. Duncan: No, Mr. Speaker, he is not on the Committee on Ways 
    and Means. Mr. Crane is.
        We would expect, and I am for the proposal, and he is in 
    opposition.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, 60 minutes is 
    allotted: 20 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, 20 minutes to 
    the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), and 20 minutes to one 
    Member opposed, in this case the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
    Obey).
        Mr. [Philip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Crane: Mr. Speaker, I am on the committee; I rose, 
    registered my objection, and I do not know whether that was heard 
    in the din of the crowd here tonight, but I would at least ask the 
    Speaker to permit a division of that time. I am opposed to the 
    bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise that the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin was on his feet and was recognized, in the 
    Chair's discretion and was granted the 20 minutes of the 60.
        Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, I think 
    that the gentleman would be entitled to half of that; otherwise, I 
    think everyone wants to be fair; that I would ask unanimous consent 
    that he be granted that.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise that the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) can yield whatever time that he 
    may desire.
        Mr. Duncan: Would Mr. Obey yield half of that to our side?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Tennessee poses a 
    question to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin has the 20 minutes; the gentleman 
    from Tennessee wishes to know if he would grant half of that to the 
    minority.

[[Page 10287]]

        Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the rule requires that 
    those who are opposed grant the time to the opposition party. I 
    will certainly make certain that people are recognized, but I would 
    appreciate it if they could come to me and let me know that they 
    want to speak.
        Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Crane 
    have the same amount of time that the majority has and that he may 
    control that time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Tennessee?
        Mr. Obey: I object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski).

Sec. 26.50 Pursuant to clause 2(a) of Rule XXVIII, it is within the 
    discretion of the Speaker as to which Member is recognized to 
    control 20 minutes of debate in opposition to a conference report 
    (where the minority manager is not opposed), and such recognition 
    does not depend on party affiliation.

    On Dec. 16, 1985,(5) after the conference report on 
House Joint Resolution 456 (making further continuing appropriations 
for fiscal 1986) was called up in the House, the Speaker Pro Tempore 
allocated time for debate in support and in opposition, as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 131 Cong. Rec. 36716, 36717, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the order of the House of today, I call up the conference report 
    on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 456) making further continuing 
    appropriations for the fiscal year 1986, and for other purposes, 
    and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (6) This conference report 
    is being considered pursuant to the unanimous consent request 
    granted earlier today, which the Clerk will read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Whitten asked unanimous consent that it shall be in 
        order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
        at any time on Monday, December 16, or any day thereafter, to 
        consider the conference report and amendments in disagreement 
        and motions to dispose of said amendments on House Joint 
        Resolution 456 subject to the availability of said conference 
        report and motions to dispose of amendments in disagreement for 
        at least 1 hour, that all points of order be waived against the 
        conference report and amendments in disagreement and motions to 
        dispose of said amendments, and that said conference report and 
        amendments in disagreement be considered as having been read 
        when called up for consideration. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) will be recognized for 30 minutes.

[[Page 10288]]

        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 
    20 minutes recognition in opposition because the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) is for the bill. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Massachusetts is for the 
    bill, under the rule I ask for the 20 minutes to be allotted to a 
    Member in opposition, when both the chairman and the ranking 
    minority Member are in support of the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has that right.
        The time will be divided in this fashion: The gentleman from 
    Mississippi (Mr. Whitten) will be recognized for 20 minutes; the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte) will be recognized for 20 
    minutes; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes.
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the minority has just been effectively 
    frozen out of controlling any of the time, when I was seeking 
    recognition to take the 20 minutes. The Chair has denied, then, the 
    minority the opportunity to control our portion of the time.
        Can the Chair explain why Members on this side were not 
    recognized? I, too, am opposed to the bill and should have been 
    entitled to the 20 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that recognition 
    of one Member who is opposed is in the Speaker's discretion, and 
    the Speaker tries always to be fair.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) may yield time as 
    he 
    wishes. . . .
        The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Conte), the minority 
    side, will 
    be recognized for 20 minutes; the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who is opposed, will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes; and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
    Whitten) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
        The procedure under which we are proceeding was agreed upon 
    earlier today, and the Chair will be guided by the will of the 
    House, which was stated earlier today.

Sec. 26.51 Recognition of one Member to control twenty minutes of 
    debate in opposition to a conference report under Rule XXVIII, 
    clause 2(a), does not depend upon party affiliation and is within 
    the discretion of the Chair, and the time in opposition may be 
    divided by unanimous consent or yielded by the Member recognized.

    On Dec. 11, 1985,(7) it was demonstrated that, where the 
floor managers for the majority and minority parties on a conference 
report are both supporters thereof, a Member opposed may be recognized 
for one third of the debate time, and it is within the discretion of 
the Chair as to which Member is recognized in opposi

[[Page 10289]]

tion. The proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 131 Cong. Rec. 36069, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    the order of the House of Tuesday, December 10, 1985, I call up the 
    conference report on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 372), 
    increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.
        The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (8) Pursuant to the order 
    of the House of Tuesday, December 10, 1985, the conference report 
    is considered as having been read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Lawrence J. Smith (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
    Duncan] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        Mr. [David R.] Obey [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Tennessee opposed to the 
    legislation?
        Mr. [John J.] Duncan [of Tennessee]: Mr. Speaker, I am not 
    opposed to the legislation.
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, that being the case, I ask under rule 
    XXVIII, since the rules provide that those in opposition be 
    entitled to 20 minutes, I would ask that I be assigned that 20-
    minute time block.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises that the gentleman 
    is correct, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] will 
    be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
    Duncan] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, did I understand there is to be 
    additional time assigned to those who oppose the conference report? 
    If I understand correctly, we have some people on our side.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
    Obey] is opposed, and he will control the 20 minutes time.
        Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Crane is also opposed. We would 
    expect equal time, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Crane is on the [Committee on 
    Ways and Means] and he would expect equal time. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rule, 60 minutes is 
    allotted: 20 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, 20 minutes to 
    the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], and 20 minutes to one 
    Member opposed, in this case the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
    Obey]. . . .

        Mr. [Philip M.] Crane [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I am on the 
    committee . . . I would at least ask the Speaker to permit a 
    division of that time. I am opposed to the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will advise that the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin was on his feet and was recognized, in the 
    Chair's discretion and was granted the 20 minutes of the 60.
        Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, I think 
    that the gentleman would be entitled to half of that; otherwise, I 
    think everyone wants to be fair; that I would ask unanimous consent 
    that he be granted that.

[[Page 10290]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise that the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] can yield whatever time that he 
    may desire.
        Mr. Duncan: Would Mr. Obey yield half of that to our side?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: . . . The gentleman from Wisconsin has 
    the 20 minutes; the gentleman from Tennessee wishes to know if he 
    would grant half of that to the minority.
        Mr. Obey: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the rule requires that 
    those who are opposed grant the time to the opposition party. I 
    will certainly make certain that people are recognized, but I would 
    appreciate it if they could come to me and let me know that they 
    want to speak.
        Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Crane 
    have the same amount of time that the majority has and that he may 
    control that time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Tennessee?
        Mr. Obey: I object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Rostenkowski].

Sec. 26.52 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a), it is within the 
    discretion of the Speaker as to which Member is recognized to 
    control 20 minutes of debate in opposition to a conference report 
    (where the minority manager is not opposed to the report), and such 
    recognition does not depend on party affiliation.

    On Dec. 16, 1985,(9) after the conference report on 
House Joint Resolution 456 (continuing appropriations for fiscal year 
1986) 
was called up for consideration in 
the House, the Chair exercised 
his discretion in announcing the Members to be recognized to control 
debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 131 Cong. Rec. 26716, 36717, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie] L. Whitten [of Mississippi]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant 
    to the order of the House of today, I call up the conference report 
    on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 456) making further continuing 
    appropriations for the fiscal year 1986, and for other purposes, 
    and ask for its immediate consideration. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (10) The gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] will be recognized for 30 minutes and the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] will be recognized for 30 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Dale E. Kildee (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Barney] Frank [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, is the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] opposed to the bill?
        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: No. I signed the 
    conference report.
        Mr. Frank: Mr. Speaker, I ask for 20 minutes recognition in 
    opposition because the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] is 
    for the bill. . . .

[[Page 10291]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman has that right.
        The time will be divided in this fashion: The gentleman from 
    Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] will be recognized for 20 minutes; the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] will be recognized for 20 
    minutes; and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: . . . Can the Chair 
    explain why Members on this side were not recognized? I, too, am 
    opposed to the bill and should haved been entitled to the 20 
    minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair will state that recognition 
    of one Member who is opposed is in the Speaker's discretion, and 
    the Speaker tries always to be fair.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] may yield time as 
    he 
    wishes.

Sec. 26.53 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a), a Member who is 
    opposed to a conference report may obtain one-third of the debate 
    thereon if both the majority and minority managers oppose the 
    conference report, but not if the minority manager states he or she 
    is opposed to the conference report.

    On Oct. 15, 1986,(11) preceding consideration of the 
conference report on S. 2638 (Department of Defense authorization for 
fiscal 1987) in the House, the Chair announced the division of time for 
debate thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 132 Cong. Rec. 31515, 31516, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (12) Pursuant to House 
    Resolution 591, the conference report is considered as having been 
    read. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mrs. [Patricia] Schroeder [of Colorado]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to 
    make a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentlewoman from Colorado will 
    state her point of order.
        Mrs. Schroeder: Mr. Speaker, un-der the rule my understanding 
    is that if neither of the gentlemen are opposed to the bill, and as 
    I am opposed to the bill, I am entitled to one-third of the time.
        Mr. Speaker, I would like to demand 20 minutes of the time.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from Alabama opposed 
    to the bill?
        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    reluctantly oppose it. I do oppose it.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman opposes the bill; 
    therefore the gentleman is entitled to the time.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Aspin] will be recognized for 
    30 minutes, and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Dickinson] will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes.

Sec. 26.54 While recognition of one Member to control one-third of the 
    debate time in opposition to a conference

[[Page 10292]]

    report pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a), does not depend on 
    party affiliation and is within the discretion of the Speaker, the 
    Speaker will give priority in recognition to a conferee seeking to 
    control that time.

    On Dec. 21, 1987,(13) prior to the filing of the 
conference report on House Joint Resolution 395 (making continuing 
appropriations) in the House, the Speaker responded to a parliamentary 
inquiry regarding division of debate time on the report:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 133 Cong. Rec. 37093, 37516, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        [D]oes the rule provide that 20 minutes will be allotted to an 
    opponent to the conference report?
        The Speaker: (14) If someone is opposed, and the 
    managers are not opposed, then that member could be entitled to 20 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed and I make such a 
    demand. . . .
        Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: On that right under the House 
    rules for a third of the time, a member of the committee, the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Mrazek] was going to request the 
    opposition time, [while] the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota 
    [Mr. Frenzel] is not a member of the committee. We would hope that 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Mrazek], a member of the 
    committee, would be awarded under the rules of the House that right 
    for a third of the time. . . .

    After the conference report was called up for consideration, the 
following exchange occurred:

        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I renew my previous request.
        Mr. [Robert J.] Mrazek [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I am in 
    opposition to the resolution, and I would also request 20 minutes 
    of time in opposition to the resolution. . . .
        The Speaker: Then the two gentlemen seeking recognition, the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Mrazek] and the gentleman from 
    Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel], both are opposed to the conference report?
        Mr. Mrazek: That is correct.
        Mr. Frenzel: I am opposed.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New York [Mr. Mrazek] as a 
    conferee on the conference report would have priority and the Chair 
    will declare that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] will 
    be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
    Conte] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    New York [Mr. Mrazek] will be recognized for 20 minutes.

Sec. 26.55 The Chair will not allocate control of debate time on a 
    conference report until the report has been, first, filed and 
    called up for consideration.

    Prior to the filing of the conference report on House Joint Res

[[Page 10293]]

olution 395 (continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1988) in the 
House on Dec. 21, 1987,(15) the Speaker responded to a 
parliamentary inquiry regarding division of debate time thereon:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 133 Cong. Rec. 37095, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        [D]oes the rule provide that 20 minutes will be allotted to an 
    opponent to the conference report?
        The Speaker: (16) If someone is opposed, and the 
    managers are not opposed, then that Member could be entitled to 20 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Frenzel: Mr. Speaker, I am opposed and I make such a 
    demand.
        The Speaker: The conference report, the Chair would advise the 
    gentleman, has not yet been filed. If the gentleman will withhold 
    his request, the conference report will be filed and called up 
    first and the gentleman's rights will be protected.

Sec. 26.56 Control of debate time on a conference report can be re-
    allocated by unanimous consent.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on Dec. 21, 
1987,(17) subsequent to the filing of the conference report 
on House Joint Resolution 395 (continuing appropriations for fiscal 
year 1988):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 133 Cong. Rec. 37094, 37516, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Jamie L.] Whitten [of Mississippi] submitted the . . . 
    conference report on the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 395) making 
    further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
    September 30, 1988, and for other purposes. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I renew my 
    previous request [for 20 minutes of time].
        Mr. [Robert J.] Mrazek [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I am in 
    opposition to the resolution, and I would also request 20 minutes 
    of time in opposition to the resolution. . . .
        The Speaker: (18) The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Mrazek] as a conferee on the conference report would have priority 
    and the Chair will declare that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
    Whitten] will be recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and 
    the gentleman from New York [Mr. Mrazek] will be recognized for 20 
    minutes. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. James C. Wright, Jr. (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, there 
    are two sides, one for, and one against. Under the ruling of the 
    Chair, those who are for it have 30 minutes and those opposed have 
    20 minutes.
        My question is, Is that fair?
        The Speaker: The Chair will respond that this is what the rule 
    provides. . . .
        There will be 20 minutes on the part of the majority, 20 
    minutes on the part of the minority, and 20 minutes on the

[[Page 10294]]

    part of the designated individual Member who has qualified on the 
    ground that he opposes the conference report.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Speaker, may I make a unanimous-consent 
    request?
        The Speaker: The gentleman may state it.
        Mr. Dannemeyer: Mr. Speaker, I make a unanimous-consent request 
    that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] be given 15 
    minutes, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Conte] be given 15 
    minutes, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] be given 15 
    minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Mrazek] be given 15 
    minutes.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from California?
        Mr. [Sam M.] Gibbons [of Florida]: I object, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker: Objection is heard.

Sec. 26.57 Where debate on a conference report is controlled by three 
    Members pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(a), the right to close 
    debate belongs to the majority manager calling up the conference 
    report, preceded by the minority manager; thus, under Rule XXVIII, 
    clause 2, the right to close debate is accorded in the reverse or-
    der of recognition for opening that debate, and does not depend 
    upon the amount of time reserved by any of those Members for their 
    concluding remarks.

    On Aug. 4, 1989,(19) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 1278 (Financial Institutions Reform Act of 
1989) in the House, the Speaker announced the remaining time for debate 
on the report and also stated the order of recognition to close debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 135 Cong. Rec. 19294, 19295, 19301, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (20) The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Gonzalez] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Ohio [Mr. Wylie] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Thomas S. Foley (Wash.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
    opposition to the report and seek time, pursuant to House rule 
    XXVIII.
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I am not 
    opposed to the conference report.
        Mr. [Henry B.] Gonzalez [of Tex-as]: Mr. Speaker, I do not 
    oppose the conference report.
        The Speaker: Neither manager is opposed to the conference 
    report. Therefore, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Wylie] will 
    be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Rostenkowski] will be recognized for 20 minutes. . . .
        The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] has 10\1/2\ minutes 
    remaining, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Wylie] has 9\1/2\ minutes 
    remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] has 
    13 minutes remaining.

[[Page 10295]]

        Mr. Rostenkowski: Mr. Speaker, if my arithmetic is correct, the 
    opponents have as much time as we do.
        I reserve the balance of my time.
        The Speaker: The order in which the Members may close will be 
    the gentleman from Illinois first, the gentleman from Ohio second, 
    and the gentleman from Texas last. . . .
        The Chair will inform the Members and the managers that each 
    has the right to reserve one speech each for the closing.
        The gentleman from Texas, if he wishes, can reserve all that 
    time at this time and make one speech of 10\1/2\ minutes, or he can 
    reserve any part of it until the end of the debate.
        If the gentleman from Ohio wishes to do that, he may reserve 
    all of his time to immediately precede the gentleman from Texas. At 
    that point, the gentleman from Illinois would have to expend all of 
    his time in one statement.
        The right of the gentleman from Texas will be preserved to end 
    the debate with any amount of time the gentleman wishes.

Sec. 26.58 Where pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b), time for debate 
    on a motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement is divided 
    equally among the majority and minority managers (both of whom 
    favor its adoption) and a Member opposed, the manager of the motion 
    may not move the previous question until the other Members have 
    consumed or yielded back all of their time.

    On Oct. 3, 1989,(1) the House had under consideration a 
motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement. Time for debate on 
the motion was divided equally among the majority and minority 
managers, and a Member opposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 135 Cong. Rec. 22835, 22836, 22842, 101st Cong. 1st Sess. 
        (Proceedings relating to H.R. 2788, Interior and Related 
        Agencies Appropriations for 1990.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Sidney R.] Yates [of Illinois]: Madam Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Yates moves that the House recede from its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 153 and concur therein 
        with an amendment, as follows: In lieu of 
        the matter proposed by said amendment, insert the following: 
        ``: ``Provided, That--
            A. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated for the 
        National Endowment for the Arts or the National Endowment for 
        the Humanities may be used to promote . . . materials which in 
        the judgment of the National Endowment for the Arts or the 
        National Endowment for the Humanities may be considered obscene 
        . . . .''

        Mr. [Dana] Rohrabacher [of California]: Madam Speaker, I would 
    ask to be recognized in opposition to the motion for 20 minutes.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (2) The Chair will inquire 
    is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] opposed to the motion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Patricia Schroeder (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: No, I am not, Madam Speaker.

[[Page 10296]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Then the gentleman from California 
    [Mr. Rohrabacher], who is opposed to the motion, would be entitled 
    to 20 minutes.
        The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], then, would have 20 
    minutes, 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] would have 20 
    minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] would have 20 
    minutes on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
    Yates]. . . .
        Mr. Yates: . . . Madam Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois moves the 
    previous question on this motion. Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered.
        All those in favor of the gentleman's motion will say ``aye,'' 
    those opposed say ``no.'' The gentleman's amendment is hereby 
    agreed to.
        The Clerk will designate the next amendment in disagreement. . 
    . .
        Mr. Rohrabacher: Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. 
    . . .
        Did I not have 1 minute of debate left?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman's motion for the 
    previous question was not in order unless the gentleman from 
    California yielded back his time.
        [The Chair vacated the order for the previous question and the 
    adoption of the motion.]

Sec. 26.59 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2, a Member opposed to a 
    conference report may control one-third 
    of the debate time thereon where both the majority and minority 
    party managers are in favor of the conference 
    report, but a Member opposed may control one-half the time only by 
    unanimous consent.

    On Sept. 25, 1986,(3) during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 3838 (the Tax Reform Act of 1986), the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 132 Cong. Rec. 26202, 26203, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Dan] Rostenkowski [of Illinois]: Madam Speaker, pursuant 
    to the order of the House of September 9, 1986, I call up the 
    conference report on the bill (H.R. 3838), to reform the Internal 
    Revenue laws of the United States. . . .
        Mr. [William R.] Archer [Jr., of Texas]: Madam Speaker, under 
    clause 2, rule XXVIII, I demand one-third of the debate time as the 
    leader of the opposition to the bill.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from 
    Texas [Mr. Archer] will be recognized for 1 hour, the gentleman 
    from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] will be recognized for 1 hour and the 
    gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkowski] will be recognized for 1 
    hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Cathy Long (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Archer: Madam Speaker, I have a unanimous-consent request. 
    Inasmuch as I understand all of the time that is going to be used 
    by both the majority and minority, their 2 hours, will be assigned 
    only to those Members who are for the bill, and inasmuch as

[[Page 10297]]

    it is a far simpler task timewise to make the arguments for the 
    bill than to make the arguments against the bill, I ask unanimous 
    consent that the opposition be granted an additional hour so as to 
    equalize the time for and against the bill, in the name of 
    fairness.
        Mr. [Gerald D.] Kleczka [of Wisconsin]: Madam Speaker, I 
    object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Archer: Madam Speaker, I have another unanimous-consent 
    request. That request is that if the time allotted today on the 
    agenda is not extended, both the majority and the minority code 15 
    minutes to the opposition of their time so that once again the time 
    would be equalized within the 3-hour period.
        Mr. Kleczka: Madam Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Objection is heard.

Sec. 26.60 Where control of time for debate on a motion to dispose of 
    disagreement on a Senate amendment is allotted among more than two 
    Members, the Chair recognizes each to close his time in the reverse 
    order of the original allocation.

    See the proceedings of Nov. 21, 1989,(5) relating to a 
motion to dispose of disagreement on a Senate amendment to the Medicare 
Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See 135 Cong. Rec. 30809, 30814, 101st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 26.61 While a Member by 
    offering a preferential motion to dispose of a Senate amendment in 
    disagreement cannot thereby gain separate debate time thereon, he 
    may by rising in opposition to the original motion control one-
    third of the debate thereon under Rule XXVIII, clause 2(b), where 
    both the major-ity and minority party floor managers are in favor 
    of the original motion.

    During consideration of the conference report on House Joint 
Resolution 738 (continuing appropriations) in the House on Oct. 15, 
1986,(6) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 132 Cong. Rec. 32116, 32117, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (7) The Clerk will 
    designate the next amendment in disagreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Marty Russo (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 60: Page 61, line 19, strike the 
        following language:
            Sec. 143. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any 
        other Act shall be used for the processing of any application 
        for a certificate of label approval for imported distilled 
        spirits, malt beverages, or wine

[[Page 10298]]

        under section 205(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, 
        unless each application is accompanied by appropriate 
        documentation.

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

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House insist on its disagreement 
        to the amendment of the Senate numbered 60.

        Mr. [Mike] Lowry of Washington: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    preferential motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Lowry of Washington moves that the House recede from 
        its disagreement to Senate amendment No. 60 and concur therein.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman form Mississippi [Mr. 
    Whitten] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from 
    Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
        Mr. Lowry of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Lowry of Washington: Mr. Speaker, my point of parliamentary 
    inquiry would be on the division of time, on which point I would 
    request the customary one-third if both managers of the bill are of 
    the opposite position from mine.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
    Regula] in favor of the motion?
        Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
    Lowry] qualifies and is entitled to 20 minutes.
        The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Whitten] will be recognized 
    for 20 minutes; the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] will be 
    recognized for 20 minutes; and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
    Lowry] will be recognized for 20 minutes.

Sec. 26.62 Pursuant to Rule XXVIII, clause 2, recognition to control 
    one-third of debate time in opposition to a conference report where 
    both the majority and minority managers are in favor of the report 
    does not depend upon party affiliation, but is accorded to the 
    senior member of the reporting committee in opposition regardless 
    of party affiliation.

    On Oct. 15, 1986,(8) after the conference report on S. 
1200 (Immigration Reform and Control Act) was called up for 
consideration in the House, the following exchange occurred regarding 
division of the time for debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 132 Cong. Rec. 31630, 31631, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I call 
    up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1200) to amend the 
    Immigration and Nationality Act to effectively control unauthorized 
    immigration to the United States and for other purposes. . . .

[[Page 10299]]

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (9) The gentleman from New 
    Jersey [Mr. Rodino] will be recognized for 30 minutes, the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Lungren] will be recognized for 30 
    minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Kenneth J. Gray (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Edwards of California: Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
    opposition to the bill.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from California [Mr. 
    Edwards] opposed to the conference report?
        Mr. Edwards of California: I am opposed to the conference 
    report, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
    Rodino] opposed to the conference report?
        Mr. Rodino: No, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Under the rules, the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Edwards], the senior member of the originally 
    reporting committee, is entitled to 20 minutes.
        Mr. [F. James] Sensenbrenner [Jr., of Wisconsin]: Mr. Speaker, 
    I rise to a point of order. I believe that the member of the 
    minority would have preference to control the 20 minutes in 
    opposition to the conference report under the precedents of the 
    House and rule XXVIII, clause 2(b).
        I am opposed to the conference report, Mr. Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would state to the 
    distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin under a ruling this year 
    recognition goes to the opposition on the issue but not necessarily 
    the minority party in the House; and under the rules the Chair is 
    constrained to recognize the senior member of the Judiciary 
    Committee.