[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§ 27. Designation of Managers]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10299-10305]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
 
Sec. 27. Designation of Managers

    The Members designated to control debate on a bill are normally 
chosen (formally or informally) by the committee reporting 
it.(10) However, managers are sometimes designated by 
special rule from the Committee on Rules,(11) or by the 
Chair if the proposition is not being considered pursuant to special 
rule, although the Chair seeks assurance that the matter has been 
cleared with the committee.(12) If the special rule does not 
specifically designate the Members in control, or if the designated 
managers are absent and have not designated other Members to manage the 
measure, the Chair may in his discretion recognize a committee member 
to control debate.(13) Management of a

[[Page 10300]]

bill may also be fixed by unanimous consent.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. Sec. 27.1, 27.2, infra.
11. See Sec. 28, infra. The reporting committee, in applying to the 
        Committee on Rules for a special order, will often indicate the 
        managers of general debate.
12. See Sec. Sec. 24.35-24.39, supra, for the Chair's designation of 
        Members to control debate on an appropriation bill.
13. See Sec. Sec. 27.6, 27.7, infra.
14. See Sec. Sec. 27.3, 27.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If control of a measure is taken away from the committee majority, 
the Chair recognizes someone opposed, preferably a ranking minority 
member of the committee, to control the time.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. See, for example, Sec. 27.5, infra, for management of a discharged 
        bill.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Designation of Member by Committee

Sec. 27.1 Where the chairman or member of a committee has been 
    designated and authorized by the committee to call up a bill, no 
    other Member may take such action.

    On Feb. 24, 1937,(16) Speaker Pro Tempore William J. 
Driver, of Arkansas, answered a parliamentary inquiry preceding the 
call of committees on Calendar Wednesday:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 81 Cong. Rec. 1562, 1563, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl C.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, where a bill has 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.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See also Sec. 26.9, supra (authority of committee chairman to call 
        up business on Calendar Wednesday).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 27.2 Only a member of the Committee on Rules designated by it to 
    call up a special rule from the committee may be recognized for 
    that purpose, unless the rule has been on the calendar for seven 
    legislative days without action.

    On June 6, 1940,(18) Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New 
York, sought recognition to call up for consideration a resolution from 
the Committee on Rules providing for the consideration of a bill. 
Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, inquired whether Mr. Fish had 
been authorized to call up the resolution and Mr. Fish stated he had 
not. He asserted that calling up such a resolution was ``the privilege 
of any member of the Rules Committee.'' The

[[Page 10301]]

Speaker declined to recognize Mr. Fish for that purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 7706, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The Chair cannot recognize the gentleman from New 
    York to call up the resolution unless the record shows he was 
    authorized to do so by the Rules Committee. The Chair would be 
    authorized to recognize the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Colmer] 
    to call up the rule in the event the resolution offered by the 
    gentleman from New York, which was the unfinished business, is not 
    called up.
        Mr. Fish: Will the Chair permit me to read this rule?
        The Speaker: The Chair would be glad to hear the gentleman.
        Mr. Fish: Rule XI reads as follows:

            It shall always be in order to call up for consideration a 
        report from the Committee on Rules (except it shall not be 
        called up for consideration on the same day it is presented to 
        the House, unless so determined by a vote of not less than two-
        thirds of the Members voting).

        I submit, according to that rule and the reading of that rule, 
    Mr. Speaker, that any member of the Rules Committee can call up the 
    rule, but it would require the membership of the House to act upon 
    it by a two-thirds vote in order to obtain consideration.
        The Speaker: The precedents are all to the effect that only a 
    Member authorized by the Rules Committee can call up a rule, unless 
    the rule has been on the calendar for 7 legislative days without 
    action.
        Mr. Fish: Of course, there is nothing to that effect in the 
    reading of the rule.
        The Speaker: The Chair is relying upon the precedents in such 
    instances.

Designation by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 27.3 The Committee of the Whole may agree by unanimous consent 
    that debate on an amendment be limited to a certain amount of time, 
    to be divided and controlled by certain majority and minority 
    Members.

    On May 26, 1966,(19) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to a unanimous-consent request for the limit and control of time on an 
amendment to H.R. 13712, the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 112 Cong. Rec. 11608, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Adam C.] Powell [of New York]: I renew my request so that 
    there will be no misunderstanding. I ask unanimous consent that the 
    debate on this amendment be limited to 60 minutes, 30 minutes on 
    each side. The gentleman now in the well has control of the time on 
    his side. If the unanimous-consent request is approved, the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania will have control of the time on this 
    side.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The agreement proposed by Mr. Powell 
divided control between the proponent of the amendment and the 
subcommittee chairman handling the bill.
    On May 10, 1966,(20) the Committee of the Whole agreed 
to 


[[Page 10302]]

a unanimous-consent request regarding the time for and control of 
debate on an amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Id. at p. 10232.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl] Albert [of Oklahoma]: Mr. Chairman, for the purpose 
    of clarification, would it be in order for the gentleman from 
    Tennessee to ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be 
    confined to 20 minutes on each side, the 20 minutes on this side to 
    be controlled by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Evins] and the 
    20 minutes on the Republican side by the gentleman from North 
    Carolina [Mr. Jonas]?
        Mr. [Joseph L.] Evins: Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
    majority leader for the suggestion and now make the unanimous-
    consent request accordingly.
        The Chairman: (1) Without objection, it is so 
    ordered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Richard Bolling (Mo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Evins of Tennessee: Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
    gentleman from California [Mr. Cohelan].

Sec. 27.4 Where all time for debate on an amendment and all amendments 
    thereto is limited and, by unanimous consent, placed in control of 
    the proponent of the amendment and of the chairman of the committee 
    (in opposition), the Chair first recognizes the proponent of the 
    amendment.

    On July 9, 1965,(2) the unfinished business in the 
Committee of the Whole was H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
Chairman Richard Bolling, of Missouri, made the following statement on 
the order of recognition, the committee having limited and divided, on 
the prior day, time for debate on a pending amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 111 Cong. Rec. 16207, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        When the Committee rose on yesterday, there was pending the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] as a 
    substitute for the committee amendment.
        It was agreed that all time for debate on the so-called 
    McCulloch substitute and all amendments thereto would be limited to 
    2 hours, such time to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] and the gentleman from Ohio 
    [Mr. McCulloch]. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the Chair 
    recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McCulloch] in support of 
    his amendment.

    Parliamentarian's Note: The time limitation and the agreement on 
control of time abrogated the five-minute rule. Under the agreement, 
the two Members controlling debate could yield for debate or for 
amendments.

Manager of Discharged Bill

Sec. 27.5 Where a motion to discharge a committee has been agreed to, 
    the proponents of that motion are entitled to prior recognition for 
    the purpose of managing the bill.

[[Page 10303]]

    On June 14, 1932,(3) Speaker Pro Tempore Henry T. 
Rainey, of Illinois, answered a parliamentary inquiry on the order of 
recognition on a bill discharged from committee. The proceedings were 
as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 75 Cong. Rec. 12911, 72d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles R.] Crisp [of Georgia]: The House yesterday 
    discharged the Committee on Rules from the consideration of a 
    resolution making it a special order to consider the adjuster-
    service compensation bill. The House then adopted the resolution 
    which makes it today in order as a special order to consider that 
    bill. The House having voted in favor of the proponents of the 
    legislation and the Ways and Means Committee having made an adverse 
    report on it, the effect of the vote of the House is to turn down 
    the Ways and Means Committee and place control of that legislation 
    in the hands of its friends. Under these circumstances and under 
    the parliamentary rules and procedure of the House, are not the 
    friends of the legislation entitled to have charge of the bill when 
    we go into Committee of the Whole to consider it and to have the 
    management of the measure on the floor?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The proponents and the friends of the 
    bill will, of course, have charge of it from now on.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Consideration of bills on which a motion to discharge has prevailed 
        is governed by Rule XXVII clause 3, House Rules and Manual 
        Sec. 908 (1995).
            The Speaker may recognize any Member who signed a discharge 
        petition to offer the discharge motion (see Sec. 9.51, supra), 
        and points of order as to who should control the discharged 
        bill should be made when the question of consideration is 
        moved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: The discharged and adopted special rule 
read as follows:

                            House Resolution 220

        Resolved, That upon the day succeeding the adoption of this 
    resolution a special order be, and is hereby, created by the House 
    of Representatives for the consideration of H.R. 7726, 
    notwithstanding the adverse report on said bill. That on said day 
    the Speaker shall recognize the Representative from the first 
    district of Texas, Wright Patman, to call up H.R. 7726, a bill to 
    provide for the immediate payment to veterans of the face value of 
    their adjusted-service certificates, as a special order of 
    business, and to move that the House resolve itself into the 
    Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the 
    consideration of the said H.R. 7726. After general debate, which 
    shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed four 
    hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the Member of the 
    House requesting a rule for the considering of the said H.R. 7726 
    and a Member of the House who is opposed to the said H.R. 7726, to 
    be designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be read for amendment 
    under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the 
    bill for amendment the committee

[[Page 10304]]

    shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
    may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be 
    considered as ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to 
    final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit. The special order shall be a continuing order until the 
    bill is finally disposed of.

Manager of Conference Report

Sec. 27.6 Recognition for calling up a conference report is within the 
    discretion of the Chair, and the Speaker may recognize a junior 
    member of the conference committee to manage a report when the 
    senior House conferee is unable to be present on the floor.

    On Dec. 23, 1969,(5) 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 the 
Committee on Banking and Currency with jurisdiction over the subject 
matter of the bill, 
was unavoidably absent from the floor.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 115 Cong. Rec. 40982-84, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
 6. Parliamentarian's Note: The manager of a conference report is 
        normally the senior member of the conference committee and the 
        chairman of the legislative committee or subcommittee with 
        jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 27.7 The Speaker recognized the ranking majority member of a 
    committee, and not the chairman thereof, also a conferee, to call 
    up a conference report, when the chairman was opposed to the 
    measure under consideration.

    On July 17, 1967,(7) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. Samuel N. Friedel, of Maryland, ranking 
majority member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to 
call up a conference report on Senate Joint Resolution 81, providing 
for the settlement of a railway labor dispute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 113 Cong. Rec. 19032, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Harley O. Staggers, of West Virginia, 
Chairman of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and a 
conferee on the bill, was not recognized to call up the report because 
he was opposed to the bill. Mr. Staggers did not manage

[[Page 10305]]

consideration of the joint resolution in the House but had turned 
control over to Mr. Friedel.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See Mr. Staggers' statement at 113 Cong. Rec. 15822, 15823, 90th 
        Cong. 1st Sess., June 14, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------