[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§ 28. Effect of Special Rule]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10305-10338]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
 
Sec. 28. Effect of Special Rule

    Special rules or resolutions reported by the Committee on Rules 
making in order the consideration of a measure, frequently designate 
the Members to control debate. A typical special rule provides that 
debate be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the reporting committee. If the special rule does 
not so provide, the Chair may in his discretion recognize a Member to 
control the time.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See Sec. 28.5, infra. Where the manager designated in a special 
        order is absent, the Chair may recognize another Member to 
        control debate (see Sec. Sec. 28.7, 28.8, infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Special rules may divide control among two or more committees 
(10) and may provide that only committee amendments may be 
offered, thereby limiting opportunity for five-minute 
debate.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 28.14, infra.
11. See Sec. Sec. 77.19, 77.21, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By special rule, general debate may be equally divided between two 
committees jointly reporting the bill.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See, for example, H. Res. 1182, 122 Cong. Rec. 14376, 14377, 94th 
        Cong. 2d Sess., May 19, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Forms
        Form of special rule fixing control of time for debate.

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the 
        Speaker shall recognize Representative Abraham J. Multer, or 
        Representative Carlton R. Sickles, or Representative Charles 
        McC. Mathias, Junior, or Representative Frank J. Horton to move 
        that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole 
        House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
        bill (H.R. 4644). . . . After general debate, which shall be 
        confined to the bill and continue not to exceed five hours, to 
        be equally 
        divided and controlled by one of 
        the aforementioned Members and a Member who is opposed to said 
        bill to be designated by the Speaker, the bill shall be read 
        for amendment under the five-minute rule by titles instead of 
        by sections. . . .(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 25185, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 27, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Form of special rule fixing control of time for debate in the 
    reporting committee and in a designated Member of the House.

                                H. Res. 657

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 10710). . . . After general 
        debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue 
        not to exceed seven hours, six hours to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Ways and Means, and one hour to be controlled by 
        Representative John H. Dent, of Pennsylvania, the bill shall be 
        con

[[Page 10306]]

        sidered as having been read for amendment. . . .(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 119 Cong. Rec. 40489, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 10, 1973.

        Form of special rule fixing control of part of the time for 
    debate in the reporting committee and part of the time in the 
    control of another committee.

                                H. Res. 485

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 10660). . . . After general 
        debate, which shall be confined to the bill, and shall continue 
        not to exceed 5 hours, 3 hours to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Public Works, and 2 hours to be equally divided 
        and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
        the Committee on Ways and Means, the bill shall be read for 
        amendment under the 5-minute rule. . . .(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 102 Cong. Rec. 7110, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 26, 1956. See also 
        115 Cong. Rec. 33308, 91st Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 6, 1969; and 
        107 Cong. Rec. 7378, 87th Cong. 1st Sess., May 4, 1961.

        Form of special rule fixing control of time for debate in 
    members of joint committee.

                                H. Res. 214

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 5645). . . . After general 
        debate, which shall be confined to the bill and continue not to 
        exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the vice 
        chairman and ranking House minority member of the Joint 
        Committee on Atomic Energy, the bill shall be read for 
        amendment under the 5-minute rule. . . .(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 101 Cong. Rec. 5119, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 26, 1955.

        Form of special rule fixing control of time for debate on a 
    motion to suspend the rules.

                                H. Res. 302

            Resolved, That the time for debate on a motion to suspend 
        the rules and pass House Concurrent Resolution 25 shall be 
        extended to 4 hours, such time to be equally divided and 
        controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
        Committee on Foreign Affairs; and said motion to suspend the 
        rules shall be the continuing order of business of the House 
        until finally disposed of.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 89 Cong. Rec. 7646, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 20, 1943. A rule 
        providing extraordinary procedures for a motion to suspend the 
        rules is extremely rare.

        Form of special rule dividing control of time for debate among 
    chairman and ranking minority member of standing committee and 
    chairman of special committee.

                                H. Res. 465

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of H.R. 9195, a bill to amend the National 
        Labor Relations Act, and all points of order against said bill 
        are hereby waived.

[[Page 10307]]

        That after general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
        and continue not to exceed 4 hours, 1 hour to be controlled by 
        the chairman of the Committee on Labor, 1 hour to be controlled 
        by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Labor and 2 
        hours to be controlled by the chairman of the Special Committee 
        to Investigate the National Labor Relations Board, the bill 
        shall be read. . . .(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 86 Cong. Rec. 7506, 76th Cong. 3d Sess., June 4, 1940.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Importance of special rules to consideration generally, see Sec. 2, 
    supra.
Special rules and the order of business, see Ch. 21, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Special Rule as Governing Control of Time for General Debate--Time for 
    Debate Is Obtained From Member Controlling Time

Sec. 28.1 The House, through its adoption of a special rule, and not 
    the Committee of the Whole, controls the distribution of time for 
    general debate in Committee of the Whole; thus, during general 
    debate in Committee of the Whole of 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,(19) during consideration of the Voting 
Rights Act extension (H.R. 6219) in the Committee of the Whole, the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 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.

Sec. 28.2 When debate is pursuant to a special order controlled by 
    designated Members, another Member may speak only if yielded to, 
    and may

[[Page 10308]]

    not request unanimous consent for time for debate.

    On Oct. 14, 1978,(20) the following exchange occurred in 
the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 124 Cong. Rec. 38378, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (1) The time of the 
    gentleman from Texas has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
    consent to proceed for additional seconds.
        Mr. Phillip Burton [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I object.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) 
    has control of the time.
        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 
    additional seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Designated Member (Chairman) Opens Debate

Sec. 28.3 Where the House resolves into the Committee of the Whole to 
    consider a bill pursuant to a resolution designating a committee 
    chairman and its ranking minority member to control debate, the 
    committee chairman is recognized to open debate in the Committee of 
    the Whole.

    On Apr. 26, 1955,(2) the House adopted House Resolution 
214 for the consideration of a bill in the Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 101 Cong. Rec. 5119, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 5645) to authorize the Atomic Energy Commission 
    to construct a modern office building in or near the District of 
    Columbia to serve as its principal office, and all points of order 
    against said bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which 
    shall be confined to the bill and continue not to exceed 1 hour, to 
    be equally divided and controlled by the vice chairman and ranking 
    House minority member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the 
    bill shall be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the 
    conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
    committee 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 amendments thereto to 
    final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
    recommit.

    Carl T. Durham, of North Carolina, the committee vice chairman 
designated in the resolution, moved that the House resolve itself into 
the Committee of the Whole to consider the bill. When the Committee of 
the Whole commenced sitting, Mr. Durham was immediately recognized to 
open debate.

[[Page 10309]]

Bill Made in Order Is Not Necessarily Unfinished Business

Sec. 28.4 Where the House adjourns for the day after having adopted a 
    resolution making in order the consideration of a bill and 
    designating its manager, that bill is not automatically the 
    unfinished business the next day, but must be called up by the 
    designated Member.

    On July 19, 1939,(3) after the House had adopted a 
resolution from the Committee on Rules making in order the 
consideration of a bill, Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, 
answered a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 84 Cong. Rec. 9541, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude V.] Parsons [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.

        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Parsons: Mr. Speaker, the House having adopted the rule, is 
    not this bill the unfinished business of the House on tomorrow?
        The Speaker: Not necessarily. The rule adopted by the House 
    makes the bill in order for consideration, but it is not 
    necessarily the unfinished business. It can only come up, after the 
    adoption of the rule, by being called up by the gentleman in charge 
    of the bill.

Control Where Special Rule Does Not Identify Manager

Sec. 28.5 Where a resolution provides that general debate on a bill be 
    ``equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority 
    members'' of a committee, instead of specifying, as is usual 
    practice, that control of debate be exercised by designated members 
    of the committee, the Speaker may recognize any member of the 
    committee to call up the bill and control the time.

    On Sept. 26, 1966,(4) the House adopted House Resolution 
923, making in order the consideration of H.R. 1511, the Economic 
Opportunity Amendments for 1966. The resolution provided that eight 
hours of general debate would be ``equally divided and controlled by 
the majority and minority members of the Committee on Education and 
Labor,'' without specifying, as such resolutions usually do, that 
debate be controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 112 Cong. Rec. 23762, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the adoption of the resolution, Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, recognized Adam C. Powell, of New

[[Page 10310]]

York, Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, to move that 
the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for the 
consideration of the bill.
    In the Committee of the Whole, Chairman Jack Brooks, of Texas, made 
the following decision on recognition for control of general debate:

        Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] will 
    be recognized for 4 hours to control the time for the majority, and 
    the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ayres] is recognized for 4 hours to 
    control the time for the minority.

No Manager Under Special Rule--Proponents of Amendments Opened and 
    Closed Debate

Sec. 28.6 Where an unreported joint resolution was being 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,(5) during consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 247 (to promote U.S. assistance in Central America):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 131 Cong. Rec. 9206, 9231, 9232, 9253, 9254, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (6) 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. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 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.

[[Page 10311]]

        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. . . .
        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.

Effect of Absence or Death of Designated Manager

Sec. 28.7 Where the chairman of a committee and its ranking minority 
    member, named in a resolution to control debate on a bill, are 
    absent and have failed to designate oth-er Members to control the 
    time, the Speaker or Chairman may recognize the next ranking 
    majority and minority members for control of such debate.

    On July 23, 1942,(7) the House adopted a resolution from 
the Committee on Rules providing for debate on a bill to be divided 
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the reporting 
committee, the Committee on Election of the President, Vice President, 
and Representatives 
in Congress. The chairman and ranking minority member both being 
absent, Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled, in response to a 
parliamentary inquiry, that the Chair would recognize the next ranking 
majority member

[[Page 10312]]

and the next ranking minority member to control debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 88 Cong. Rec. 6542-46, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John E.] Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Speaker, we have been unable to 
    find a man in the House on either side who was present when this 
    bill was voted out. A majority of the members of the committee who 
    are here are opposed to the bill. We feel that the time ought to be 
    divided not between the Members who are for the bill but know 
    nothing about it any more than the rest of us, but between the 
    members of the committee who are for the bill and the members of 
    the committee who are opposed to the bill. I would like to have the 
    Chair's ruling on that proposition.
        The Speaker: The Chair thinks the Chair has a rather wide range 
    of latitude here. The Chair could hold and some future Speaker 
    might hold that since the chairman and ranking minority member of 
    the committee are not here there could be no general debate because 
    there was nobody here to control it, but the present occupant of 
    the chair is not going to rule in such a restricted way.

        The Chair is going to recognize the next ranking majority 
    member and the next ranking minority member when the House goes 
    into the Committee of the Whole.

    When the House had resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole, 
Chairman Jere Cooper, of Tennessee, responded as follows to a similar 
inquiry:

        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Rankin of Mississippi: Mr. Chairman, there is not a member 
    of the committee present who was present when this bill was voted 
    out. A majority of the members of the committee who are present are 
    opposed to this bill.
        The Chairman: The Chair will say in response to the 
    parliamentary inquiry, that the Speaker held only a few moments ago 
    that the ranking majority Member, acting as chairman of the 
    committee, and the ranking minority Member present, would have 
    control of the time under the rule that has been adopted for the 
    consideration of the bill.

Sec. 28.8 Where a Member designated in a resolution to call up a bill 
    was deceased, the Speaker recognized another Member in favor of the 
    bill.

    On Oct. 13, 1942,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, 
ruled on a point of order that he had improperly recognized a Member to 
call up a bill:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 88 Cong. Rec. 8080, 77th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: If no Member wishes to be heard on the point of 
    order the Chair is ready to rule.
        A matter not exactly on all fours with this, but similar to it, 
    was ruled on a few weeks ago. On that occasion both the chairman 
    and the ranking mi

[[Page 10313]]

    nority member of the committee were absent. A point of order was 
    made against consideration of the bill because of that fact.
        In ruling on the point of order at that time the Chair made the 
    following statement:

            The Chair thinks the Chair has rather a wide range of 
        latitude here. The Chair could hold, and some future Speaker 
        might hold, that since the chairman and the ranking minority 
        member of the committee are not here there could be no general 
        debate because there was nobody here to control it; but the 
        present occupant of the Chair is not going to rule in such a 
        restricted way.
            The Chair is going to recognize the next ranking majority 
        member and the next ranking minority member when the House goes 
        into the Committee of the Whole.

        We have here even a stronger case than that. The absence of a 
    living Member may be his or her fault; the absence of a dead signer 
    of this petition is not his fault.
        There is a rule followed by the chancery courts which might 
    well be followed here. It is that equity never allows a trust to 
    fail for want of a trustee. Applying that rule to the instant case, 
    the Chair holds that the consideration of this legislation will not 
    be permitted to fail for want of a manager. After all, an act of 
    God ought not, in all good conscience, deprive this House of the 
    right to consider legislation; especially so, since this House has 
    by its vote on the motion to discharge expressed its intent.
        The Chair will recognize some Member other than Mr. Geyer to 
    call up the bill on tomorrow; for, if the Chair were to hold that 
    only Mr. Geyer could have called up this motion, Mr. Geyer being 
    absent not through any act of his own but through an act of God, 
    the Chair would be making such a restricted ruling that now and in 
    the future it might prevent the House of Representatives from 
    working its will.
        The Chair overrules the point of order made by the gentleman 
    from Alabama.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. See the similar rulings of Speaker Rayburn, on the same bill at 88 
        Cong. Rec. 8066, 8120, 77th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 12, 1942.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delegation of Authority by Designated Manager

Sec. 28.9 Where the Member, designated by special rule to be in control 
    of the time for general debate in the Committee of the Whole, is 
    absent from the Chamber, he may designate another Member to control 
    the time in his absence, but the Chair must be informed of this 
    delegation of authority.

    On Jan. 31, 1964,(10) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 7152, the Civil Rights Act of 1963, and conducting 
general debate thereon. The resolution providing for the consideration 
of the bill provided that general debate be divided and controlled by 
the chairman and rank

[[Page 10314]]

ing minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Emanuel Celler, 
of New York, the Chairman of that committee, was absent, prompting the 
following colloquy:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 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: (11) The Chair has to inform the 
    gentleman from North Carolina that the gentleman from New Jersey 
    does not have control of the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 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.

Committee Chairman To Designate Members To Control Two Extra Hours of 
    General Debate; Scope of Debate

Sec. 28.10 Where a special rule provided for the chairman 
    of the Committee on International Relations to designate Members to 
    equally divide and control two extra hours of general debate on 
    a bill in Committee of the Whole, the chairman of 
    said committee informed the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
    of his designation of himself, another Member of the majority party 
    and two Members of the minority party to control one-half hour 
    each; and the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole advised that 
    such debate was not required by the rule to be confined to any 
    particular issue, but to the bill as a whole.

[[Page 10315]]

    On July 31, 1978,(12) Mr. Clement J. Zablocki, of 
Wisconsin, the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, 
made a statement as to the division of control of time for debate 
pursuant to a special rule providing for two extra hours of debate on 
H.R. 12514, foreign aid authorizations for fiscal 1979. The intent 
behind requesting the extra hours had been to afford debate directed at 
the Turkish arms embargo issue, but the rule properly omitted any 
reference to the scope of debate, other than the requirement that all 
general debate be confined to the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 23456, 23457, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, under the rule, it is my 
    understanding that the 1 hour for general debate on the entire 
    bill, that that hour is equally divided between myself and the 
    ranking minority member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
    Broomfield).
        Then the 2 hours that the rule provides for the Greek-Turkey-
    Cyprus is-sue, that there be 1 hour in support of lifting the 
    embargo and 1 hour in opposition, and that the hour in support 
    would be divided between myself and the gentleman from Michigan 
    (Mr. Broomfield), and those in opposition to lifting the embargo 
    would be managed by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) and 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski).

        The Chairman: (13) The Chair will respond to the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) that the Chair has been 
    informed that the gentleman from Wisconsin has designated the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fascell) for 1 hour, and also the 
    gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Derwinski) for 1 hour. The rule, of 
    course, does not confine any such debate to the embargo issue 
    alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Don Fuqua (Fla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extending Control to Additional Members Not Designated in Special Rule

Sec. 28.11 Where a resolution provided for the time for and control of 
    debate on a bill, the Members in control obtained unanimous consent 
    that a part of the time be controlled by a third Member.

    On May 14, 1948,(14) the House was about to resolve 
itself into the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill 
to be considered pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 582, 
fixing five hours of debate to be divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Un-American 
Activities. Charles A. Halleck, of Indiana, the Chairman of the 
committee, and Mr. John S. Wood, of Georgia, the ranking minority 
member of the committee, made

[[Page 10316]]

unanimous-consent requests to permit control of part of the time by a 
third Member:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 94 Cong. Rec. 5847, 5848, 80th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Halleck: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the members 
    of the Committee on Un-American Activities, I ask unanimous consent 
    that of the 2\1/2\ hours to be allocated on this side of the aisle, 
    a total of 45 minutes may be allocated by the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Marcantonio] with the last 30 minutes of the over-all 
    time reserved to the committee.
        The Speaker: (15) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Indiana?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection.
        Mr. Wood: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 45 
    minutes of the time allotted to me to the gentleman from New York 
    [Mr. Marcantonio] in behalf of the opposition to this measure, 
    reserving the last 20 minutes of the time allotted to me.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Georgia?
        There was no objection.

Sec. 28.12 Where a resolution provided that debate should be controlled 
    by the chairman and ranking minority member of a committee, 
    unanimous consent was granted the minority member to yield one-half 
    his time to the control of a third Member.

    On Nov. 12, 1941,(16) the House adopted House Resolution 
334, providing for the consideration in the House of Senate amendments 
to a House bill, and providing that debate be limited to eight hours, 
to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Following the 
conclusion of the debate controlled by the chairman of the committee, 
Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, recognized Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of 
New York, the ranking minority member, for four hours on the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 87 Cong. Rec. 8763-70, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Fish made the following unanimous-consent request, which was 
agreed to by the House:

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that one-half the time 
    allotted to me, or 2 hours, be placed under the control of the 
    gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Richards].

Bill Within Jurisdiction of Two or More Committees

Sec. 28.13 Special rules often provide for control of debate time; as 
    an example, a resolution provided for an open rule for 
    consideration of the authorization (civilian) for the Energy 
    Research and Development Administration, for fiscal 1978, reported 
    from three committees (the initial and two sequential committees), 
    with general debate to

[[Page 10317]]

    be divided and controlled by those three committees.

    House Resolution 657, in the 95th Congress,(17) provided 
for consideration of H.R. 6796, the authorization for fiscal 1978 for 
the Energy Research and Development Administration nonnuclear programs. 
The resolution provided in part that general debate be divided and 
controlled by three reporting committees; that the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science and 
Technology be read as an original bill for amendment by titles instead 
of by sections; and that certain points of order be waived against such 
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 123 Cong. Rec. 28365, 28366, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 9, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 657

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 6796) to authorize 
        appropriations to the Energy Research and Development 
        Administration in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic 
        Energy Act of 1954, section 305 of the Energy Reorganization 
        Act of 1974, and section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy 
        Research and Development Act of 1974, and for 
        other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined 
        to the bill and shall continue not to exceed three hours, two 
        hours to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
        ranking minority member of the Committee on Science and 
        Technology, one-half hour to be equally divided and controlled 
        by 
        the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
        Armed Services, and one-half hour to be equally divided and 
        controlled by 
        the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
        International Relations, the bill shall be read for amendment 
        under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
        the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
        Committee on Science and Technology now printed in italic in 
        the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under 
        the five-minute rule, said substitute shall be read for 
        amendment by titles instead of by sections, and all points of 
        order against said substitute for failure to comply with the 
        provisions of clause 7, rule XVI, clause 5, rule XXI, and 
        section 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 
        93-344) are hereby waived. It shall be in order to consider en 
        bloc the amendments recommended by the Committee on Armed 
        Services to title I of said substitute. At the conclusion of 
        the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee 
        shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
        amendments as may have been adopted, and any Member may demand 
        a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
        Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
        amendment in the nature of 
        a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
        ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
        without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
        or without instructions.

[[Page 10318]]

Sec. 28.14 Where a bill falls within the jurisdiction of two 
    committees, the bill may be considered pursuant to a special rule 
    providing for general debate to be divided between and controlled 
    by those committees.

    On Nov. 6, 1969,(18) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, 
called up by the direction of the Committee on Rules and the House 
adopted House Resolution 610, providing for consideration of a bill 
with general debate divided between two House committees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 115 Cong. Rec. 33260-62, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 610

        Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
    in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee 
    of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration 
    of the bill (H.R. 14465) to provide for the expansion and 
    improvement of the Nation's airport and airway system, for the 
    imposition of airport and airway user charges, and for other 
    purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill 
    and shall continue not to exceed four hours, two hours to be 
    equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and two 
    hours to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, title I 
    of the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule.

    After the House had resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
to consider the bill, Chairman Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, made a 
statement on control of the time for general debate:

        Pursuant to the rule, general debate shall continue not to 
    exceed 4 hours, 2 hours to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
    Interstate and Foreign Commerce and 2 hours to be equally divided 
    and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on the 
    Committee on Ways and Means.
        Under the rule, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Staggers) 
    will be recognized for 1 hour and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Springer) will be recognized for 1 hour, controlling the time for 
    general debate on behalf of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign 
    Commerce.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
    Staggers).

    After the conclusion of the two hours of debate controlled by the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, the Chairman made the 
following statement on control of the remaining debate:

        There being no further requests for time on title I, under the 
    rule, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Mills) will be recognized 
    for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Byrnes) will be 
    recognized for 1 hour, controlling the time for general debate for 
    the Committee on Ways and Means.

[[Page 10319]]

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
    Mills).(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Id. at p. 33283.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: H.R. 14465 was reported by the Committee on 
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, title I of the bill concerning 
aviation facilities. The hearings and mark-up of title II, the Airport 
and Airway Revenue Act, were the work product of the Committee on Ways 
and Means. Title I was open to amendment, but title II was subject only 
to amendment by the Committee on Ways and Means.

--Rotating Recognition

Sec. 28.15 Where a special rule 
    divided the control of time 
    for general debate four ways among the chairmen and ranking 
    minority members of two committees, the Chairman of the Committee 
    of 
    the Whole indicated that she would rotate recognition to permit 
    each Member to utilize a portion of his time and then to yield 
    remaining portions to other Members.

    During consideration of H.R. 11656 (to provide that meetings 
of government agencies shall be open to the public) in the Committee of 
the Whole on July 28, 1976,(20) Chairman Yvonne B. Burke, of 
California, made the following statement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 122 Cong. Rec. 24179, 24180, 24182, 24186, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Pursuant to the rule, general debate will 
    continue not to exceed 2 hours, 1 hour to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Government Operations, and 1 hour to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on the Judiciary.
        Under the rule, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Abzug), the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton), the gentleman from Alabama 
    (Mr. Flowers), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Moorhead), 
    will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Abzug).
        Ms. [Bella S.] Abzug [of New York]: Madam Chairman, I yield 
    myself such time as I may consume. . . .
        Mr. [Frank] Horton [of New York]: Madam Chairman, I yield 
    myself such time as I may consume. . . .
        Madam Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. McCloskey).
        The Chairman: If there is no objection, the Chair would like to 
    recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Moorhead) . . . and 
    then come back to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Horton).
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Moorhead) for 30 minutes.
        Mr. [Carlos J.] Moorhead of California: Madam Chairman, I yield 
    myself such time as I may consume.
        Mr. Horton: Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 10320]]

        Mr. Moorhead of California: I yield to the gentleman from New 
    York.
        Mr. Horton: Madam Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state the parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Horton: Madam Chairman, is it the intention of the Chair to 
    rotate?
        The Chairman: Yes, that is the intention of the Chair.
        Mr. Horton: Would the gentleman from California (Mr. Moorhead) 
    then have 30 minutes before I come back to my time?
        The Chairman: The gentleman will probably use a portion of that 
    30 minutes himself. We will then come back to the gentlewoman from 
    New York (Ms. Abzug) and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Horton).
        Mr. Horton: Madam Chairman, I thank the Chair.

--Sequentially Reporting Committees

Sec. 28.16 Where a special rule 
    divides control of debate among a primary reporting committee and 
    six sequentially reporting committees in a designated order, the 
    Chair allocated time only between the chairman and ranking minority 
    member of each committee in the order listed if and when present on 
    the floor, and permitted only the primary committee to reserve a 
    portion of time to close general debate.

    During consideration of the Small Business Innovation Development 
Act (H.R. 4326) in the Committee of the Whole on June 17, 
1982,(1) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 128 Cong. Rec. 13991, 14011, 14015, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: (2) Pursuant to the rule, the first 
    reading of the bill is dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. William M. Brodhead (Mich.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from New York, Mr. LaFalce, will be recognized 
    for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McDade, 
    will be recognized for 30 minutes [both representing the primary 
    committee, the Committee on Small Business], and the following 
    Members [representing six committees which had reported the bill 
    sequentially] for 15 minutes each:
        The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. McDonald;
        The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Dickinson;
        The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell; . . .

        The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Robinson.
        The Chair will attempt to reach the committees engaging in 
    general debate in the order listed, but will at the same time 
    attempt to accommodate Members who cannot be present when called. . 
    . .
        Mr. [Edward F.] Weber of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I have an inquiry. 
    In the absence of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson), will 
    the Chair recognize me to control the time which would have been 
    allocated to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Dickinson)?

[[Page 10321]]

        The Chairman: No; the time belongs to the Armed Services 
    Committee minority.
        The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
    Dickinson) if and when the gentleman is able to be here; but the 
    Chair will recognize Members as indicated in the order in which 
    they are on the list, the order which the Chair read. . . .
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    for 15 minutes on behalf of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. . 
    . .
        All time allocated to the gentleman from Illinois has expired.
        The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 2\1/2\ minutes 
    remaining.
        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
    to reserve my time.
        The Chairman: Under the precedents the gentleman will have to 
    use his time at this point or yield it back.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I will yield to my dear friend from 
    California for 1 minute, and then I will use the balance.
        Before I do so, may I inquire of our good friends on the Small 
    Business Committee----
        The Chairman: As the primary managers of the bill, that 
    committee was able to reserve time and has reserved time under the 
    precedents.
        Mr. Dingell: To continue my inquiry, am I not able to reserve 
    time also?
        The Chairman: The Small Business Committee is the primary 
    manager of the bill, and for that reason the Chair has accorded 
    them the privilege of reserving their time and has not agreed to 
    accord that privilege to any of the other committees.
        Mr. Dingell: Is that in the rule, that forecloses the other 
    committees?
        The Chairman: Under the precedents they have the right to close 
    debate.

Sec. 28.17 The Chairman has allocated time for general debate in 
    Committee of the Whole pursuant to a special rule dividing time 
    among chairmen and ranking minority members of six committees, with 
    the Members recognized in the order listed in the special rule.

    On May 15, 1986,(3) the House agreed to a special rule, 
as follows, for consideration of H.R. 4800, the Omnibus Trade Bill of 
1986:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 132 Cong. Rec. 10954, 10955, 10963, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                H. Res. 456

        Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
    resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of Rule XXIII, 
    declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    4800) to enhance the competitiveness of American industry; and for 
    other purposes, and the first reading of the bill shall be 
    dispensed with. All points of order against the consideration of 
    the bill are hereby waived. After general debate, which shall be 
    confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed three and 
    one-half hours, with one hour to be equally

[[Page 10322]]

    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Ways and Means, with 30 minutes to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, with 30 minutes to be equally 
    divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
    of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, with 30 
    minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, 
    with 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
    Agriculture, and with 30 minutes to be equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on Energy and Commerce, the bill shall be considered as 
    having been read for amendment under the five-minute rule. . . .

    The Chairman (4) on May 20, 1986,(5) 
allocated time for general debate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
 5. 132 Cong. Rec. 11373, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: Pursuant to the rule, the first reading of the 
    bill is dispensed with.
        Under the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rostenkowski) 
    will be recognized for 30 minutes; the gentleman from Tennessee 
    (Mr. Duncan) will be recognized for 30 minutes; the gentleman from 
    Washington (Mr. Bonker) will be recognized for 15 minutes; the 
    gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Roth) will be recognized for 15 
    minutes; the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St Germain) will be 
    recognized for 15 minutes; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie) will 
    be recognized for 15 minutes; the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Hawkins) will be recognized for 15 minutes; the gentleman from 
    Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) will be recognized for 15 minutes, the 
    gentleman from Texas (Mr. de la Garza) will be recognized for 15 
    minutes; the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) will be recognized 
    for 15 minutes; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will be 
    recognized for 15 minutes; and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Lent) will be recognized for 15 minutes.
        The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
    Gibbons) on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski).

--Where Special Rule Does Not Specify Order of Recognition

Sec. 28.18 Where a special rule provides separate control of general 
    debate time among the chairmen and ranking minority members of two 
    committees, but does not specify the order of recognition, the 
    Chair may in his discretion either alternate recognition among the 
    four Members or permit the primary committee to first utilize most 
    of its time and then permit the manager of the bill to close 
    general debate

[[Page 10323]]

    after the sequential committee uses its time.

    During consideration of the Fair Practices in Automotive Products 
Act (H.R. 5133) in the Committee of the Whole on Dec. 10, 
1982,(6) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 128 Cong. Rec. 29982, 29984, 29985, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: Mr. Speaker, I move that 
    the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on 
    the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
    5133) to establish domestic content requirements for motor vehicles 
    sold in the United States, and for other purposes.
        The Speaker: (7) The question is on the motion 
    offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of 
    the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of 
    the bill, H.R. 5133, with Mr. Panetta in the chair.
        The Clerk read the title of the bill.
        The Chairman: (8) Pursuant to the rule, the first 
    reading of the bill is dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Leon E. Panetta (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) will 
    be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman from North Carolina 
    (Mr. Broyhill) will be recognized for 30 minutes, the gentleman 
    from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and 
    the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel) will be recognized for 
    30 minutes.
        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        I wish to inquire as to whether the time will run concurrently 
    or whether one committee goes first and the second committee 
    follows.
        The Chairman: The Chair would interpret the rule to allow each 
    of the respective Members to allot their time respectively without 
    any kind of a pattern, so it could be done interchangeably. . . .
        The Chair would advise the Members that although the time could 
    be used interchangeably that it is the will of those controlling 
    the time that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) and the 
    gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Broyhill) use their time first 
    and then the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gibbons) and the gentleman 
    from Minnesota (Mr. Frenzel).
        Mr. Florio: On that point, Mr. Chairman, it would be my hope to 
    reserve some time to be in a position to take part in the 
    concluding portion of the 2 hours' debate.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is free to do that. . . .

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, am I correct 
    in my understanding that the rule provides that the time may be 
    used alternatively by the several persons who control this time?
        The Chairman: The rule does permit that, the Chair would advise 
    the gentleman, but it does not provide for any necessary order.
        Mr. Dingell: And as the Chair advises, there is no necessary 
    order. It

[[Page 10324]]

    can be used interchangeably, and so forth.
        The Chairman: That is correct.

--Time for General Debate Allocated to Primary Committee Was 
    Reallocated by Unanimous Consent

Sec. 28.19 By unanimous consent in the Committee of the Whole, general 
    debate which had been allocated only to the primary committee 
    pursuant to a special rule adopted by the House was reallocated to 
    the chairmen and ranking minority members of three committees to 
    which the bill had been sequentially referred, to permit them to 
    yield portions of time.

    During consideration of the Water Resources Conservation Act (H.R. 
6) in the Committee of the Whole on Nov. 5, 1985,(9) the 
following proceedings occurred:

 9. 131 Cong. Rec. 30462, 99th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (10) Pursuant to the rule, the first 
    reading of the bill is dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Frederick C. Boucher (Va.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Howard) will 
    be recognized for 1 hour and 45 minutes and the gentleman from 
    Minnesota (Mr. Stangland) will be recognized for 1 hour and 45 
    minutes.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
    Howard).
        Mr. [James J.] Howard [of New Jersey]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 
    minutes of my time to the chairman of the Committee on Merchant 
    Marine and Fisheries, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) 
    or his designee, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
    yield that time as he wishes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New Jersey?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Howard: Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the 
    chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the 
    gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Udall) or his designee, and I ask 
    unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield that time as he 
    wishes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New Jersey?
        There was no objection.
        Mr. Howard: Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the chairman of 
    the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Rostenkowski) or his designee, and I ask unanimous consent that he 
    be allowed to yield that time as he wishes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from New Jersey?
        There was no objection.

Effect of Modified Closed Rule Permitting Amendment in Nature of 
    Substitute and Substitute Therefor, With Separate Hour of Debate on 
    Each Substitute

Sec. 28.20 Where a ``modified closed'' rule permitted only

[[Page 10325]]

    one amendment in the nature of a substitute and one substitute 
    therefor, and divided a separate hour of debate on each substitute 
    between the same two Members, the Chair permitted the total time to 
    be accumulated and consumed before putting the question on the 
    substitute.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
June 10, 1982,(11) during consideration of the first 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1983 (H. Con. Res. 
352):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 128 Cong. Rec. 13387, 13390, 13395, 13399, 13409, 97th Cong. 2d 
        Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (12) All time for general debate has 
    expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XXIII, the concurrent resolution 
    is considered as having been read for amendment and open for 
    amendment at any point.
        The concurrent resolution is as follows:

            Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
        concurring), That--

         TITLE I--REVISION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED 
                STATES GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1982 . . .

        Mr. [Delbert L.] Latta [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 
    496, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as 
    having been read. . . .
        Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) will be 
    recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) 
    will be recognized for 30 minutes. . . .
        Mr. [James R.] Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment as a substitute for the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute.
        The Chairman: Pursuant to the provision of House Resolution 
    496, the amendment in the nature of a substitute is considered as 
    having been read. . . .
        Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 496, the 
    gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Jones) will be recognized for 30 
    minutes and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) will be recognized 
    for 30 minutes. . . .
        Mr. Jones of Oklahoma: Mr. Chairman, in order to resolve the 
    technicalities, I will use 30 minutes on the Jones substitute 
    first, and the remaining 30 minutes on the Latta substitute. I 
    think we have agreed to alternate back and forth the total hour we 
    have. . . .
        Mr. [Ralph] Regula [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Regula: What is the situation at the moment? Have we 
    completed with the first hour, that is, in effect, the debate on 
    the Jones substitute?
        The Chairman: In effect, the Chair has. The Chair believes, and 
    it has been treating the time as a fungible

[[Page 10326]]

    commodity. The total time has been allocated as to both amendments. 
    In effect, the gentleman from Ohio has remaining to himself to 
    yield, 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Oklahoma has 29 minutes 
    remaining.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Jones, Chairman of the Budget 
Committee, was permitted to close debate.

Special Rule Prohibiting Amendments to Amendment--Time Consumed Under 
    Reservation of Objection to Unanimous-consent Request To Offer 
    Amendment

Sec. 28.21 Where the Committee of the Whole is considering an amendment 
    under a ``modified closed'' rule permitting only one amendment and 
    no amendments thereto, and equally dividing the debate time on the 
    amendment, time consumed under a reservation of objection to a 
    unanimous-consent request to offer an amendment to the pending 
    amendment comes out of the time controlled by the Member yielding 
    for that request.

    During consideration of House Joint Resolution 413 (further 
continuing appropriations for fiscal 1984) in the Committee of the 
Whole on Nov. 10, 1983,(13) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 32120, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Chairman, I yield 
    2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
        Mr. [Gerald B.] Solomon [of New York]: . . . Mr. Chairman, in 
    just a moment I will be asking unanimous consent to offer an 
    amendment which will reduce the amount of economic aid that we give 
    to Zimbabwe by $30 million. . . .
        Mr. [Thomas J.] Huckaby [of Louisiana]: Mr. Chairman, reserving 
    the right to object, is it my understanding that there is $75 
    million that is earmarked for Zimbabwe in the Wright amendment, and 
    that Zimbabwe is also the country that has consistently supported 
    the Cuban troops in Angola?

        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (14) The Chair would 
    inform the Members that the debate on the reservation will have to 
    come out of allotted time which is controlled by the gentleman from 
    Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expiration of Time on Amendment Did Not Preclude Amendment to Amendment 
    and Debate Thereon

Sec. 28.22 Where a special rule governing consideration of a bill in 
    Committee of the Whole limits debate on each amendment or on each

[[Page 10327]]

    amendment thereto to a specific amount of time, equally divided and 
    controlled, the expiration of time on an amendment does not 
    preclude the offering of an amendment thereto, debatable under such 
    time limitation.

    On May 4, 1983,(15) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and 
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being 
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar. 
16,(16) and a special rule providing for additional 
procedures for consideration, agreed to on May 4.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 129 Cong. Rec. 11086, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. (including 
        the division of time as described above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: (18) The Clerk will report the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Solarz to the amendment offered by 
        Mr. Hunter: In the section proposed to be added to the 
        resolution by the Hunter amendment, strike out all that follows 
        ``prevent'' through ``crews'' and insert in lieu thereof 
        ``safety-related improvements in strategic bombers''.

        Mr. [Robert E.] Badham [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    point of order.
        Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that all time for the proponents 
    and all time for the opponents of the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), has been used up.
        Is it not true, under the rule, that we must now vote on that 
    amendment?
        The Chairman: No. The Chair will advise the gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Badham), that it is true that all time relative to 
    the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
    Hunter), for and against, has expired, but under the rule another 
    amendment can be offered, and is being offered, and 15 minutes are 
    allocated to the proponent of the amendment and 15 minutes are 
    allocated to an opponent of the amendment.

Speaker and Minority Leader Permitted To Speak by Unanimous Consent 
    Where Special Rule Prohibited Pro Forma Amendments

Sec. 28.23 Where a special rule prohibited the offering of pro forma 
    amendments for the purpose of debate in Committee of the Whole, the 
    Speaker and Minority Leader were nevertheless permitted, by 
    unanimous consent, to speak for five minutes each

[[Page 10328]]

    near the conclusion of the amendment process in Committee of the 
    Whole.

    On May 4, 1983,(19) the Committee of the Whole had under 
consideration House Joint Resolution 13, calling for a freeze and 
reduction in nuclear weapons. House Joint Resolution 13 was being 
considered pursuant to a special rule agreed to on Mar. 
16,(20) and a special rule providing for additional 
procedures for consideration, including a prohibition on pro forma 
amendments offered for the purpose of debate, agreed to on May 
4.(1) The following proceedings took place:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 129 Cong. Rec. 11094, 11095, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
20. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
 1. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, after 
    consultation with the leadership on both sides, and with my friend, 
    the gentleman from Wisconsin, Chairman Zablocki, we have agreed 
    upon a procedure in a spirit of bipartisanship to expedite 
    consideration of this legislation to which we have devoted more 
    than 45 hours of debate, and I would say historic debate. . . .
        The agreement is that we will go directly to final passage. I 
    will not offer a substitute. I will offer a straight motion to 
    recommit. Then we can go to final passage. . . .
        Mr. [James C.] Wright [Jr., of Texas]: . . . It is my 
    understanding that the mutual agreement encompasses the proposition 
    that those committee amendments of a technical nature will be 
    accepted, and that there will be no debate on those or any other 
    substance, and since a motion to recommit without instructions is 
    not debatable in the full House, we must have an agreement that 
    encompasses permitting 10 minutes, 5 minutes to each side, 5 
    minutes for the minority leader, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel), and the concluding 5 minutes for the Speaker. Those would 
    be the only speeches remaining. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the minority leader, 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel), may be permitted, after 
    the adoption of the committee amendments, 5 minutes, and that then 
    the Speaker may be permitted 5 minutes to conclude the entire 
    debate.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        There was no objection. . . .
        The Chairman: The Clerk will report the remaining committee 
    amendment to the preamble.
        The Clerk read as follows: . . .
        The committee amendment to the preamble was agreed to.
        The Chairman: Under the previous unanimous-consent agreement, 
    the Chair will now recognize the distinguished minority leader for 
    5 minutes.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Broomfield had indicated that he would 
not offer his amendment in

[[Page 10329]]

the nature of a substitute for the preamble and resolution, which was 
subject to two hours of consideration for amendment after disposition 
of amendments to the preamble under a two-hour limit.

Priority of Recognition in Opposition to Amendment Accorded to Minority 
    Member of Reporting Committee

Sec. 28.24 Where a special rule limited debate time on amendments to be 
    controlled by a proponent and opponent, the Chair accorded priority 
    of recognition in opposition to an amendment to 
    a minority Member of one 
    of the reporting committees over a majority Member not on any 
    reporting committee.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Apr. 29, 1987,(3) during consideration of the Trade Reform 
Act of 1987 (H.R. 3):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 133 Cong. Rec. 10488, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (4) The Clerk will designate the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Anthony C. Beilenson (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The text of the amendment is as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Pepper: On page 278, after line 
        23, add the following section:
            Sec. 199. The USTR shall request that all relevant agencies 
        prepare appropriate recommendations for improving the 
        enforcement of restrictions on importation of articles from 
        Cuba. . . .

        Mr. [William V.] Alexander [of 
    Arkansas]: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair state how the time will be 
    divided on the amendment that has been read?
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Pepper] will be 
    entitled to 15 minutes and a Member in opposition will be entitled 
    to 15 minutes.
        Mr. Alexander: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment, and 
    I would request that that time be assigned to me, if some Member of 
    the committee is not opposed.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Arkansas 
    if there is someone else on the committee who seeks time in 
    opposition, the Chair would designate that person in opposition.
        Does the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] seek time in 
    opposition?
        Mr. [Bill] Frenzel [of Minnesota]: Mr. Chairman, I am opposed 
    to the amendment, and I also seek time in opposition.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Frenzel] will 
    have 15 minutes in opposition.

Manager of Bill Recognized in Opposition to Amendment

Sec. 28.25 Where a special rule limits debate on designated amendments 
    and allocates time between the proponent and an opponent, the man

[[Page 10330]]

    ager of the bill will be recognized to control debate in opposition 
    to the amendment if he qualifies as opposed.

    On Dec. 1, 1982,(5) during consideration of H.R. 6995 
(Federal Trade Commission Authorization Act) in the Committee of the 
Whole, the Chair responded to an inquiry regarding debate, as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 128 Cong. Rec. 28235, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James T.] Broyhill [of North Carolina]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry with respect to the procedure followed 
    here.
        It is my understanding that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
    Florio) [the manager of the bill] will control the time in 
    opposition to the Luken amendment; is that correct?
        The Chairman: (6) If the gentleman is opposed to the 
    amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [James J.] Florio [of New Jersey]: I am, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Florio) will 
    therefore be recognized to control the time in opposition to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio.

Sec. 28.26 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,(7) during consideration of H.R. 4868 (Anti-
Apartheid Act of 1986):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 132 Cong. Rec. 14275, 14276, 99th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (8) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 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

[[Page 10331]]

    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 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.

--If Manager States Opposition, Chair Does Not Later Question 
    Qualification To Speak in Opposition

Sec. 28.27 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,(9) 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 (10) and a special rule providing for additional 
procedures for consideration (including the equal division of debate 
time) agreed to on May 4.(11) 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 129 Cong. Rec. 11066, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
10. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
11. 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.

[[Page 10332]]

        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: (12) The gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki) has the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 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.

Effect Where Member Recognized in Opposition Yields Back All Time

Sec. 28.28 Where debate on an amendment has been limited and equally 
    divided between the proponent and a Member opposed, and the Chair 
    has recognized the only Member seeking recognition in opposition to 
    the amendment, no objection lies against that Member subsequently 
    yielding back all the time in opposition.

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

[[Page 10333]]

16,(14) and a special rule providing for additional 
procedures for consideration, agreed to on May 4.(15) Mr. 
William S. Broomfield, of Michigan, rose in opposition (16) 
to an amendment (17) offered by Mr. Henry J. Hyde, of 
Illinois, to a substitute amendment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 129 Cong. Rec. 11077, 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
14. H. Res. 138, 129 Cong. Rec. 5666, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
15. H. Res. 179, 129 Cong. Rec. 11037, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
16. 129 Cong. Rec. 11078, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
17. Id. at p. 11077.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
    amendment.
        The Chairman: (18) The gentleman is recognized for 
    15 minutes in opposition to the amendment, for purposes of debate 
    only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Broomfield: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
    time.
        Mr. Hyde: Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and 
    request a vote.
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, we have 
    15 minutes in order to oppose the amendment?
        The Chairman: No one stood up on that side of the aisle, and 
    the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) represented to the 
    Chair that he opposed the amendment and was recognized for 15 
    minutes in opposition, and he yielded back the balance of his time, 
    as did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). . . .
        Mr. [Les] AuCoin [of Oregon]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, my inquiry is this: This side, which opposes the 
    amendment, has been foreclosed an opportunity, not on this 
    amendment but on the previous amendment, to have 15 minutes in 
    opposition to the amendment because a Member on that side who voted 
    against an amendment that was hostile to the exact amendment said 
    he was opposed to it.
        My parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, is that in order?
        The Chairman: As the Chair previously explained, no one on the 
    majority side of the aisle rose in opposition to that amendment. 
    The Chair looked to the other side of the aisle and the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) rose, represented that he was in 
    opposition to the amendment and was recognized.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Had another Member also been seeking to 
control time in opposition at the time the first Member was recognized 
and yielded back, the Chair would have allocated the time to that 
Member so that it could have been utilized.

Yielding Repeatedly to Same Member

Sec. 28.29 Where a special rule provides for the control of time in 
    debate on a bill, the Member in charge may yield time to the same 
    Member 
    on two or more occasions 
    notwithstanding Rule XIV, clause 6.

[[Page 10334]]

    On Mar. 23, 1933,(19) the Committee of the Whole was 
considering H.R. 3342, the District of Columbia beer bill, pursuant to 
the terms of a special rule dividing control of time for general debate 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
the District of Columbia. Chairman Marvin Jones, 
of Texas, ruled as follows on 
the application of the prohibition against speaking twice to a bill 
being considered under a special order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 77 Cong. Rec. 822, 73d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Edward W.] Goss [of Connecticut]: Mr. Chairman, I am 
    making a point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Goss: Section 6, Rule XIV, states that no Member shall 
    speak more than once to the same question without leave of the 
    House. Does this apply to debate under a special rule where the 
    time is in the control of both sides?
        The Chairman: The rule under which this bill is considered 
    states that the time shall be equally divided and controlled by the 
    chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
    District of Columbia. This, being a special rule, would, in so far 
    as it is in conflict with, suspend the other rules of the House, 
    and the gentleman can be recognized if he is yielded time in the 
    regular way.

Time Yielded Is Utilized or Yielded Back--Reservation of Yielded Time 
    as Requiring Unanimous Consent

Sec. 28.30 Where a special rule adopted by the House divides control of 
    general debate in Committee of the Whole between the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of the committee reporting the bill, time 
    yielded to third Members must be utilized or yielded back and may 
    only be reserved for allocation by such third Member by unanimous 
    consent.

    During consideration of the Olympic Coin Act (S. 1230) in the 
Committee of the Whole on May 20, 1982,(20) the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 128 Cong. Rec. 10766, 10767, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (1) Pursuant to the rule, the first 
    reading of the bill is dispensed with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the rule, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St 
    Germain) will be recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from Ohio 
    (Mr. Wylie) will be recognized for 1 hour.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. St 
    Germain).
        Mr. [Fernand J.] St Germain [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    yield one-half hour to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Annunzio). 
    . . .

[[Page 10335]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Annunzio) has 
    consumed 12 minutes.
        The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from Rhode Island, 
    would he be amenable to yielding further at a later time to the 
    gentleman from Illinois?
        Mr. St Germain: I yielded the gentleman 30 minutes under our 
    agreement.
        The gentleman from Illinois may proceed and have his other 
    speakers speak. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair would observe from a procedural point 
    of view that the gentleman has been yielded 30 minutes which he may 
    use now or yield back as he so desires.
        Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, I reserve the 
    balance of my time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman is not able to reserve the balance 
    of the time yielded to him by the gentleman from Rhode Island 
    unless the gentleman from Rhode Island agrees to yield further at a 
    later time.
        Mr. [Chalmers P.] Wylie [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        What I had intended to do was yield 20 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Paul), who takes a similar position as the 
    gentleman from Illinois. I understand the gentleman from Illinois' 
    position and my parliamentary inquiry is, may I yield 30 minutes of 
    my time, which I had agreed to do, to the gentleman from Texas at 
    this time and allow the gentleman from Illinois to use his 30 
    minutes in exchange with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul)?
        The Chairman: The Chair in response would advise the gentleman 
    from Ohio that while he may yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) may use that 
    time but may not reserve portions of that time for subsequent 
    yielding except by unanimous consent. . . .
        Does the gentleman from Illinois ask unanimous consent to be 
    able to yield portions of the remaining 18 minutes he has available 
    to him at subsequent times during the course of the general debate?
        Mr. Annunzio: Yes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Illinois?
        There was no objection.

Motions Permitted by Special Rule

Sec. 28.31 A special rule agreed to by the House for consideration of a 
    bill permitted motions by the chairman of the committee reporting 
    the bill to limit debate, including allocation of time under the 
    limitation, and to consider the remainder of the bill or any titles 
    thereof read and open to amendment.

    On Dec. 9, 1981,(2) Mr. Anthony C. Beilenson, of 
California, called up House Resolution 291 (providing for consideration 
of H.R. 3566, international security and

[[Page 10336]]

development assistance authorizations for fiscal 1982 and 1983) in the 
House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 127 Cong. Rec. 30193, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Beilenson: Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
    Rules, I call up House Resolution 291 and ask for its immediate 
    consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 291

            Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
        shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into 
        the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for 
        the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3566) to authorize 
        appropriations for the fiscal years 1982 and 1983 for 
        international security and development assistance and for the 
        Peace Corps, and for other purposes, the first reading of the 
        bill shall be dispensed with . . . . After general debate, 
        which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to 
        exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the 
        chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
        Foreign Affairs, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
        under the five-minute rule by titles instead of by sections, 
        and each title shall be considered as having been read. It 
        shall be in order at any time while the bill is being 
        considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for the 
        chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to move to limit 
        debate on the pending portion of the bill and to provide in 
        said motion for the allocation of time under the limitation on 
        the pending portion of the bill, or on amendments, or on 
        amendments to amendments, thereto. It shall also be in order at 
        any time while the bill is being considered for amendment under 
        the five-minute rule for the chairman of the Committee on 
        Foreign Affairs to move that the remainder of the bill, or any 
        title thereof, be considered as having been read and open to 
        amendment. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill 
        for amendment, the Committee 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 amendments thereto to final passage without 
        intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Control of Debate on Resolutions Relating to Committee Structure

Sec. 28.32 On one occasion, debate on a resolution reported from the 
    Committee on Rules amending the rules of the House to make 
    permanent the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was placed 
    in the control of the latter committee pursuant to a special rule.

    On Apr. 3, 1968,(3) Mr. Richard Bolling, of Missouri, 
called up in the House by direction of the Committee on Rules House 
Resolution 1119, making in order in the Committee of the Whole the 
consideration of House Resolution 1099, also reported from the 
Committee on Rules, which resolution amended the Rules of the House to 
make permanent the Com

[[Page 10337]]

mittee on Standards of Official Conduct. House Resolution 1119 provided 
that there be two hours of debate on House Resolution 1099 to be 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 8776, 8777, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California, a member of the Committee on 
Rules, explained the resolution as follows:

        The resolution could have come to the floor of the House 
    without a rule, which would have limited debate to 1 hour, 30 
    minutes on each side, and a vote would then be taken up or down on 
    the resolution.
        But the Rules Committee felt the members of the committee 
    should have an opportunity to be heard, with the result that we 
    have reported a separate resolution providing for 2 hours of 
    general debate, 1 hour on each side, and the resolution will be 
    open for amendment. Had we just reported the resolution, it would 
    be tantamount to a closed rule under which amendments could not be 
    offered. The Rules Committee does not like to report closed rules 
    as a general practice, and does so only in a few instances, usually 
    on tax bills.
        Amendments will probably be offered. . . .

Debate on Confirmation of Vice President-designate Divided Three Ways

Sec. 28.33 House debate on the confirmation of Vice President-designate 
    Rockefeller was limited to 6 hours and was equally divided and 
    controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
    Committee on the Judiciary (both of whom favored the nomination), 
    and Robert W. Kastenmeier, of Wisconsin (a majority member of the 
    Judiciary Committee who opposed the nomination).

    For discussion of House Resolution 1519, providing for the 
consideration of the resolution confirming Nelson A. Rockefeller as 
Vice President, see Sec. 25.17, supra.

Five Conference Reports Considered En Bloc

Sec. 28.34 Pursuant to a special rule providing for four hours of 
    debate on five conference reports considered en bloc in the House, 
    equally divided between the majority and minority, with one hour to 
    be confined to debate on one 
    of the five reports (Natural 
    Gas Policy), the Speaker recognized the chairman and ranking 
    minority member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Energy for one-half hour 
    each for the first hour, to be confined to debate on the natural 
    gas conference report, and then recognized

[[Page 10338]]

    them for one and one-half hour each on the remaining reports.

    On Oct. 14, 1978,(4) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 124 Cong. Rec. 38349, 38350, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas L.] Ashley [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
    House Resolution 1434, I call up the conference reports on the 
    bills [H.R. 4018, Public Utility Rates; H.R. 5037, Energy 
    Conservation; H.R. 5146, Coal Conversion; H.R. 5289, Natural Gas 
    Policy; and H.R. 5263, Energy Tax]. . . .
        The Clerk read the titles of the bills.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) Pursuant to House 
    Resolution 1434, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) will be 
    recognized for 2 hours and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Anderson) will be recognized for 2 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. William H. Natcher (Ky.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ashley) 
    and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Anderson) for 30 minutes to 
    debate the conference report on H.R. 5289. . . .
        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: May I . . . inquire of 
    the Chair whether the first hour of debate is to be directed to the 
    natural gas conference report and not to the other four conference 
    reports?

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Only to the natural gas conference report?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Would it be out of order to discuss the other parts 
    during that time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman that the Chair would have to rule as points along that 
    line are brought to the attention of the Chair.
        Mr. Bauman: I thank the Speaker.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would like to advise the 
    gentleman that the resolution provides the first hour of which 
    shall be confined solely to the conference report on the bill H.R. 
    5289.