[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§ 29. Yielding Time]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10338-10359]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
 
Sec. 29. Yielding Time

    Where the Member with the floor desires to allow another Member to 
speak during the former's own time, he yields, and the time yielded is 
taken out of his time.(6) Yielding is discretionary with the 
Member in control. And a Member yielded time may speak as many times as 
yielded to, despite the prohibition against speaking more than once to 
the same subject.(7) The Mem

[[Page 10339]]

ber yielding time should stand to protect his right to the 
floor,(8) and the Member who seeks yielded time should 
address the Chair and request the permission of the Member 
speaking.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See Sec. Sec. 29.5-29.7, infra.
            Where a Member who is yielded time does not consume it, the 
        remaining time reverts to the Member who yielded it (see 
        Sec. 29.16, infra).
            If the Member with the floor yields the ``balance'' of his 
        time in the House without moving the previous question, he 
        loses the floor (see Sec. Sec. 29.9, 29.10, infra).
 7. See Sec. 29.4, infra.
            The Member in control is not required to consume or yield 
        all the time he possesses (see Sec. 29.13, infra).
 8. See Sec. 29.8, infra.
 9. See Sec. Sec. 29.1, 29.2, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Member with the floor generally yields for debate only, since in 
yielding for a motion or amendment he may lose the 
floor.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. A Member always loses the floor in yielding for an amendment (see 
        Sec. Sec. 30.7-30.10, infra), unless control of debate on 
        amendments has been placed by unanimous consent in managers, in 
        which case a manager may yield for an amendment without losing 
        control (see Sec. 30.26, infra).
            A motion or amendment may not be made by a Member unless 
        the Member with the floor yields for that purpose (see 
        Sec. Sec. 29.20-29.22, infra). If a Member yields for the 
        motion to adjourn (or the motion that the Committee of the 
        Whole rise), he may resume when the subject matter is again 
        resumed (see 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 5009-5013. For 
        general discussion of proceedings in the Committee of the 
        Whole, see Ch. 19, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principle that a Member may not, in time yielded for debate, 
make a motion or offer an amendment is based on the reasoning that if 
amendments or motions were allowed in time yielded for debate, control 
would shift and the Chair would be deprived of his power of 
recognition.
    A Member yielded time in debate cannot allocate and control that 
time, except by unanimous consent.(11) A Member yielded a 
specific amount of time for debate may not in turn yield a specific 
amount of time for debate to another Member, although he may yield for 
questions and statements.(12) A Member recognized under the 
five-minute rule may not yield to another to offer an amendment, 
although he may yield to another for debate while remaining on his 
feet.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. See Sec. Sec. 31.21, 31.22, 31.27, infra.
12. See Sec. Sec. 31.19, 31.20, 31.27, infra, for restrictions on 
        yielding yielded time.
13. See Sec. Sec. 31.10, 31.11, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although not required to do so by standing rule, majority Members 
controlling all the time under the hour rule, frequently yield one-half 
the time to the minority in order that full debate may 
occur.(14) Under that special procedure, the minority 
manager may yield specific amounts of time to other Members without 
remaining on his feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See, for example, Sec. Sec. 29.15, 29.30, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Cross References
Allocation and use of yielded time, see Sec. 31, infra.

[[Page 10340]]

Interruptions in debate, see Sec. 42, infra.
Losing control generally, see Sec. 33, infra.
Power of Chair over recognition, see Sec. 9, supra.
Yielding of time by committee managers, see Sec. 26, supra.
Yielding of time by manager of proposition, see Sec. 24, supra.
Yielding of time under limitation on five-minute debate, see Sec. 22, 
    supra.                          -------------------

Seeking Yielded Time

Sec. 29.1 A Member desiring the Member with the floor to yield to him 
    should address the Chair for the permission of the Member speaking.

    On June 29, 1956,(15) Chairman Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, sustained a point of order that a Member desiring to 
interrupt another in debate, by asking him to yield, should properly 
address the Chair for the permission of the Member speaking:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 102 Cong. Rec. 11455, 84th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Ralph W.] Gwinn [of New York]: We had no exact testimony 
    on the point before our committee.
        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gwinn: I would like to answer the question of the 
    distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania first.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman of Michigan: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman of Michigan: The point of order is that a Member 
    who seeks recognition must first address the Chair rather than 
    inquire of the Member whether he will yield or not.
        The Chairman: The point of order is sustained. The practice 
    which has grown up here is not a good one. When a request is made 
    for a Member to yield, the request should be made to the Chair, and 
    the Chair in turn submits the request to the speaker having the 
    floor.

--Recognition by Chair

Sec. 29.2 Members are not entitled to the floor until recognized by the 
    Chair even though they may have been yielded time by the Member in 
    charge of the time.

    On Feb. 28, 1931,(16) Speaker Nicholas Longworth, of 
Ohio, recognized Mr. Thomas A. Jenkins, of Ohio, to move to suspend the 
rules and pass a bill. Mr. John J. O'Connor, of New York, objected that 
he had already been recognized for 30 minutes on a special rule which 
had been called up and read but not debated. The Speaker stated that 
Mr. O'Connor had not been recognized by the Chair for debate and had no 
right to 
the floor. (Mr. O'Connor had been

[[Page 10341]]

yielded time by the Member in charge of the special rule who had not 
been recognized for debate by the Speaker.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 74 Cong. Rec. 6675-77, 71st Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: It is no longer the practice to entertain 
motions to suspend the rules while other business is pending before the 
House.

Speaking From Floor During Yielded Time

Sec. 29.3 In propounding a question in debate to a Member speaking from 
    the well of 
    the House, a Member should speak from a microphone at the majority 
    or minority tables.

    On Mar. 7, 1957,(17) Chairman Brooks Hays, of Arkansas, 
sustained a point of order that a Member seeking to ask a question of a 
Member with the floor and in the well should not seek to propound his 
question from the well:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 103 Cong. Rec. 3268, 85th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. August H. Andersen [of Minnesota]: I will yield for a 
    question, but I refuse to yield for a speech.
        Mr. [George N.] Christopher [of Missouri]: I would like to ask 
    a question.
        Mr. [Clare E.] Hoffman [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, a point of 
    order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hoffman: I ask that the well be cleared.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of 
    order that the well should be cleared. The gentleman will step back 
    to the seats to ask his question.
        Mr. Christopher: I want to ask a question about the 51 million 
    acre base.
        Mr. Hoffman: Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Missouri will suspend. We want 
    to comply strictly with the rules. The gentleman will stand back 
    out of the well, please, while the question is propounded.

Yielding Repeatedly to Same Members

Sec. 29.4 Members may speak in debate on a bill as many times as they 
    are yielded time by those in control of the debate.

    On July 11, 1946,(18) Chairman William M. Whittington, 
of Mississippi, answered a parliamentary inquiry as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 92 Cong. Rec. 8694, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Miss [Jessie] Sumner of Illinois: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        The Chairman: The gentlewoman will state it.
        Miss Sumner of Illinois: The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hays] 
    and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman] have spoken two or three 
    times

[[Page 10342]]

    on this bill during general debate. Is that permissible under the 
    rules of the House?
        The Chairman: The time is within the control of the chairman 
    and the ranking minority member of the committee.
        Miss Sumner of Illinois: May the same person speak two or three 
    times in general debate on the same bill?
        The Chairman: General debate on this bill has been fixed at 16 
    hours, 
    the time equally divided between the chairman and the ranking 
    minority member of the committee. They may yield, once, twice, or 
    as many times as they desire to whom they desire.

Yielded Time Charged to Member With Floor

Sec. 29.5 Yielded time is taken out of the time of the Member with the 
    floor, except for points of order.

    On Apr. 8, 1937,(19) Mr. Arthur H. Greenwood, of 
Indiana, had the floor, having called up by direction of the Committee 
on Rules a privileged resolution. Mr. Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, asked 
Mr. Greenwood to yield for the propounding of a parliamentary inquiry, 
thereby raising a question as to how such time should be charged:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 81 Cong. Rec. 3283, 75th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mapes: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield so that I may 
    submit a parliamentary inquiry, not to be taken out of the 
    gentleman's time?
        Mr. Greenwood: I yield for that purpose.
        The Speaker: (20) If the gentleman yields, it comes 
    out of his time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. William B. Bankhead (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Greenwood: Then I prefer to make my statement. I will not 
    yield for that purpose at this time.
        The Speaker: The Chair will state to the gentleman from 
    Michigan [Mr. Mapes] that the only exception where interruptions 
    are not taken out of the time of the speaker is on points of 
    order.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. For interruptions of the Member with the floor, see Sec. 32, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.6 During consideration of a bill under the five-minute rule, a 
    Member who has the floor may yield to another for a unanimous-
    consent request or a motion to limit debate, but the time consumed 
    thereby comes out of the time of the Member holding the floor.

    On June 11, 1968,(2) Mr. Daniel J. Flood, of 
Pennsylvania, was recognized on a pro forma amendment under the five-
minute rule in the Committee of the Whole. He then yielded to Mr. 
George 
H. Mahon, of Texas, who asked unanimous consent that all debate on the 
pending amendment and

[[Page 10343]]

the substitute amendments thereto close at 5:30. Chairman James G. 
O'Hara, of Michigan, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry by 
Mr. Flood, that the time consumed by the unanimous-consent request came 
out of his (Mr. Flood's) time, since he had yielded for the purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 114 Cong. Rec. 16699, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 1, 1972,(3) Chairman Robert N. Giaimo, of 
Connecticut, stated that time for interruptions, for which a Member 
with the floor under the five-minute rule had yielded, would be taken 
out of his time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 118 Cong. Rec. 19476, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William V.] Chappell [Jr., of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, 
    would the gentleman yield to me?
        Mr. Chappell: I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
        Mr. Staggers: I have asked the gentleman from Florida to yield 
    to me in order to ascertain if we could set a limit of debate on 
    this amendment.
        Having heard the amendment read, it is a very simple amendment, 
    and it can be read again if needed.
        Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from West Virginia?
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Chairman, I object.
        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        Mr. Staggers: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all 
    debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15 
    minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from West Virginia?
        Mr. [H. R.] Gross [of Iowa]: Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Chairman, is this coming out of the gentleman's 
    time?
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that that is correct.

Sec. 29.7 If a Member yields for 
    a parliamentary inquiry, the time consumed by the inquiry and the 
    reply is taken out of his time.

    On May 26, 1960,(4) while Mr. Donald R. Matthews, of 
Florida, had the floor, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 106 Cong. Rec. 11267, 11268, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Matthews: Mr. Chairman, the poet, Robert Frost, in his poem 
    ``Road Not Taken,'' starts out with these lines----
        Mr. [Cleveland M.] Bailey [of West Virginia]: Mr. Chairman, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: (5) Does the gentleman from Florida 
    yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. Aime J. Forand (R.I.).

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

[[Page 10344]]

        Mr. Matthews: Will it be taken out of my time?
        The Chairman: It will be taken out of the gentleman's time.
        Mr. Matthews: I regret I cannot yield to my beloved 
    colleague.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 19033, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., July 17, 1967; 
        113 Cong. Rec. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 1, 1967; 111 
        Cong. Rec. 16836, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 25, 1965; and 81 
        Cong. Rec. 3283-90, 75th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 8, 1937.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member Yielding Time Should Stand

Sec. 29.8 A Member recognized in support of an amendment may yield to 
    another for a question or statement, but 
    he must remain standing in order to protect his rights to the 
    floor.

    On Mar. 12, 1964,(7) Chairman Chet Holifield, of 
California, stated a Member recognized on an amendment who yields to 
another should remain standing:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 110 Cong. Rec. 5100, 88th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Thomas J.] Murray [of Tennessee]: Mr. Chairman, I will 
    explain the amendment, I hope to the satisfaction of all.
        Mr. [Thomas B.] Curtis [of Missouri]: I wish to say, if the 
    gentleman will yield further, that this is about 30 pages. Without 
    copies available I believe possibly a recess will be in order.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
    order. The gentleman from Tennessee had the floor, and I have not 
    heard him yield to any Member lately. He is not standing.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Murray] has 
    been recognized by the Chair. We hope the gentleman from Tennessee 
    will maintain his position standing, if he wishes to obtain the 
    attention of the Chamber.
        Mr. Murray: I thank the Chairman. I shall do so.

Effect of Yielding Back Balance of Time on Motion Without Moving 
    Previous Question

Sec. 29.9 If a Member recognized to control one hour on a motion yields 
    back the balance thereof without moving the previous question, 
    another Member may be recognized for one hour.

    On Oct. 10, 1940,(8) Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, laid 
before the House a veto message from the President. Mr. Samuel 
Dickstein, of New York, moved that the message and the bill be referred 
to a House committee. He was recognized for one hour by the Speaker, 
delivered some remarks, and then stated ``I yield back the balance of 
my time.'' Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, asked for recognition in 
opposition to the motion, and the Speaker in

[[Page 10345]]

quired of Mr. Dickstein whether he yielded. When Mr. Dickstein stated 
that he had yielded the floor, Mr. Rankin was recognized for one hour. 
Mr. Dickstein then objected that he had not meant 
to surrender the floor, but the Speaker stated that he had 
affirmatively done so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 86 Cong. Rec. 13522-24, 76th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.10 A Member having yielded the floor without moving the 
    previous question after making a motion, another Member seeking 
    recognition is recognized for one hour.

    On July 5, 1945,(9) Mr. Malcolm C. Tarver, of Georgia, 
offered a motion to correct the permanent Record, in order to 
accurately reflect a colloquy between himself and Mr. John E. Rankin, 
of Mississippi. Mr. Tarver discussed his motion and then yielded the 
floor without moving the previous question. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, recognized Mr. Rankin for one hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 91 Cong. Rec. 7221-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Effect on Time Already Yielded Where Member in Control Loses Floor

Sec. 29.11 A Member in control of the time under the hour rule may 
    yield a portion of his time to another Member, but if he loses the 
    floor (by yielding for an amendment), the time yielded to the other 
    Member is also lost.

    On Nov. 29, 1967,(10) Mr. William R. Anderson, of 
Tennessee, called up by direction of the Committee on Rules House 
Resolution 960, a privileged resolution authorizing travel by members 
of the Committee on Education and Labor, for investigatory purposes; as 
is customary on a Rules Committee resolution, he yielded 30 minutes to 
the minority (Mr. H. Allen Smith, of California). Mr. Anderson then 
yielded to Mr. Durward G. Hall, of Missouri, to offer an amendment, 
thereby surrendering control of the resolution to Mr. Hall. When 
Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, stated that the question 
was on the resolution, a parliamentary inquiry was raised:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 113 Cong. Rec. 34136-38, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [H. Allen] Smith of California: Mr. Speaker, a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state the 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Smith of California: I was yielded 30 minutes a while ago 
    by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Anderson]. Do I not have that 
    time?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.

[[Page 10346]]

    Anderson] yielded to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hall] for the 
    purpose of offering an amendment, he surrendered all his time, and 
    the Chair so informed the gentleman from Tennessee.
        Mr. Smith of California: If the gentleman has agreed to yield 
    30 minutes to me, I lose it?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: When the gentleman yielded for the 
    purpose of amendment.

Yielding Is Discretionary

Sec. 29.12 Where debate on a bill is under control of the chairman and 
    ranking minority member of a committee, they may yield as many 
    times 
    as they desire to whomever they desire.

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

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

Sec. 29.13 Where the House by unanimous consent fixed the time for and 
    control of debate, it was held that the Members in control were not 
    required to use or to yield all their available time.

    On Mar. 11, 1941,(12) the House was considering House 
Resolution 131 under the terms of a unanimous-consent request providing 
two hours of debate in the House, dividing control of debate between 
Mr. Sol Bloom, of New York, and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, 
and providing that at the conclusion of such debate the previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the adoption of 
the resolution. After debate, Mr. Bloom asked for a vote on the 
resolution prior to the expiration of the two hours' time, and Mr. 
Martin J. Kennedy, of New York, 
objected on the ground that 


[[Page 10347]]

the unanimous-consent agreement was not being complied with in that two 
hours of debate had not been consumed and Mr. Bloom had refused to 
yield further time. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 87 Cong. Rec. 2177, 2178, 77th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: The unanimous-consent request agreed to yesterday 
    left control of the time in the hands of the gentleman from New 
    York [Mr. Bloom] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish]. At any 
    time those gentlemen do not desire to yield further time, 
    compliance with the request has been had.

Sec. 29.14 A Member calling up a resolution providing for the order of 
    business under the ``21-day rule,'' in effect in 
    the 89th Congress, was recognized for one hour and could yield time 
    as he saw fit, and was not bound by the custom of the Committee on 
    Rules to yield one-half the time to the opposition.

    On Sept. 13, 1965,(13) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
called up, pursuant to the provisions of Rule XI clause 23, House 
Resolution 478, providing for the consideration of H.R. 9460, which had 
been pending before the Committee on Rules for more than 21 calendar 
days without having been reported by the committee. Mr. Howard W. 
Smith, of Virginia, made a point of order against the manner in which 
debate was being conducted on the resolution, claiming that under the 
usual procedure one hour of debate in the House was in order, to be 
equally divided between the majority and minority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 111 Cong. Rec. 23618, 23619, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, ruled as follows:

        The Chair will state that the control of time in the present 
    parliamentary situation rests with the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
    Powell].
        The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Smith] has referred to the 
    action taken on the last resolution. That was a 
    matter within the judgment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
    Patman]. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] has control of 
    the 1 hour and he can dispose of that time as his judgment 
    dictates.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 18076, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26, 1965.
            The 21-day rule was deleted from the rules by H. Res. 7, 
        90th Cong. 1st Sess. (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion To Instruct Conferees: Former Practice

Sec. 29.15 A Member offering a motion to instruct conferees, and in 
    control of the one hour for debate, yielded control of one-half his 
    time to the opposition.

[[Page 10348]]

    On Aug. 8, 1961,(15) the House agreed to a resolution 
taking from the Speaker's table a House bill with a Senate amendment, 
disagreeing to the amendment and requesting a conference with the 
Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 107 Cong. Rec. 14947-49, 87th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. James E. Van Zandt, of Pennsylvania, offered a motion to 
instruct conferees, and Speaker Pro Tempore Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
advised him that he was entitled to one hour of debate on his motion. 
Mr. Van Zandt then stated:

        Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Holifield] 30 minutes and yield 
    myself 13 minutes.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See also 108 Cong. Rec. 18029, 18035, 18036, 87th Cong. 2d Sess., 
        Aug. 29, 1962.
            The Member in control under the hour rule may yield in his 
        discretion for debate. See 97 Cong. Rec. 5435-45, 82d Cong. 1st 
        Sess., May 17, 1951; and 95 Cong. Rec. 11139-45, 81st Cong. 1st 
        Sess., Aug. 9, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: Debate time on any motion to instruct 
conferees is now divided between the majority and minority parties. If 
both are supporters of the motion, one-third of the hour can be 
demanded by a Member opposed to the motion. See H. Res. 5, 101st 
Congress, Jan. 3, 1989. See Sec. 26, supra, for further discussion.

Reversion of Unused Yielded Time

Sec. 29.16 Where a Member in control of a specific amount of time for 
    debate in the House yields part or all of his remaining time to 
    another Member, and the latter does not consume such time, the 
    unused time reverts to the Member who yielded.

    On Sept. 19, 1966,(17) Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
moved to suspend the rules and pass a bill. He used part of the 20 
minutes available to him under the rules and then yielded the 
``balance'' of his time to Mr. James G. O'Hara, of Michigan. Mr. O'Hara 
delivered a short address and Mr. Powell then yielded time to Mr. John 
H. Dent, of Pennsylvania. Mr. H. R. Gross, of Iowa, made a point of 
order that Mr. Powell had lost control of the floor and Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, overruled the point of order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 112 Cong. Rec. 22933, 22934, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that the 
    gentleman from New York [Mr. Powell] yielded his remaining time to 
    the gentleman from

[[Page 10349]]

    Michigan [Mr. O'Hara] and that he therefore cannot yield time.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Michigan consumed 3 minutes.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York yielded the 
    remainder of his time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'Hara].
        Mr. Powell: Mr. Speaker, may I be heard?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state, when that is done on either 
    side, when a Member does not consume the remainder of the time, 
    control of the remaining time reverts to the Member who has charge 
    of the time.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Gross: When the Member in charge of time yields the 
    remainder of his time to another Member, Mr. Speaker, I would not 
    know how he would then be able to yield time to any other Member.
        The Speaker: The Chair will rule that when the gentleman in 
    control of time yields the remainder of his time to another Member, 
    and the other Member does not use up all the time, then the 
    remainder of the time comes back under the control of the Member 
    who originally had control of the time.

    On Feb. 8, 1972,(18) the House was considering House 
Resolution 164, creating a select committee. Mr. Ray J. Madden, of 
Indiana, was in control of the time under the hour rule. He yielded 10 
minutes to Mr. Cornelius E. Gallagher, of New Jersey; Speaker Carl 
Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled that Mr. Gallagher could not reserve any 
part of that time, and that any part of the 10 minutes not used by him 
reverted to Mr. Madden:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 118 Cong. Rec. 3181-3200, 92d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Madden: Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman 
    from New Jersey (Mr. Gallagher).
        Mr. Gallagher: Mr. Speaker, may I take 5 minutes now and 
    reserve 5 minutes to the end of the debate since it is my bill?
        The Speaker: The gentleman may do that. Without objection, it 
    is so ordered.
        Mr. [Durward G.] Hall [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, reserving the 
    right to object, and I hate to object, but is it in order to have a 
    unanimous-consent request at a time like this when the time is 
    controlled by the members of the Committee on Rules to bring the 
    bill on the floor?
        Mr. Gallagher: I asked for the time to close the debate since 
    there will be objections, and I would like to respond to those 
    objections. It was my understanding that I would have the time at 
    the conclusion of debate.
        Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I submit this is between the gentleman 
    and the man handling the rule, and therefore I must object.
        The Speaker: The Chair will notify the gentleman when 5 minutes 
    are up. . . .
        The Speaker: The gentleman from New Jersey has consumed 5 
    minutes.
        Mr. Gallagher: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 10350]]

        The Speaker: The Chair must advise the gentleman that the time 
    is under the control of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Madden) and 
    the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).
        Mr. Gallagher: Mr. Speaker, I was granted 10 minutes and I 
    reserve the balance of my time.
        Mr. Gross: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman cannot reserve the 
    balance of 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gallagher: I am not speaking under the 5-minute rule.
        Mr. Gross: It does not make any difference. . . .
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Indiana has control of the time 
    and the Chair has so advised the gentleman from New Jersey of that 
    fact.
        If the gentleman from Indiana desires to yield further time at 
    this time he can do so.

Yielding for Reading of Paper

Sec. 29.17 A Member having the floor may yield to another to read a 
    paper without losing the right to the floor.

    On Apr. 25, 1947,(19) Mr. John J. Rooney, of New York, 
had the floor under the five-minute rule in the Committee of the Whole. 
Mr. Rooney yielded to Mrs. Helen Gahagan Douglas, of California, to 
read a statement made by the Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Clare E. 
Hoffman, of Michigan, made the point of order that Mr. Rooney had 
yielded and lost the floor. Chairman Earl C. Michener, of Michigan, 
overruled the point of order and stated that Mr. Rooney still had the 
floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 93 Cong. Rec. 4086, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member Having Special Order Yielded to Member Having Next Special Order

Sec. 29.18 A Member having a special order was permitted, by unanimous 
    consent, to relinquish part of his time to the Member having the 
    next special order.

    On July 11, 1966,(1) Mr. Wright Patman, of Texas, had 
scheduled a special order to address the House, with a special order to 
follow by Mr. Thomas B. Curtis, of Missouri. By unanimous consent, Mr. 
Patman relinquished the floor for five minutes to Mr. Curtis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 112 Cong. Rec. 14988, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of Time Yielded for Debate Only

Sec. 29.19 A Member may not 
    be recognized to offer an amendment in time yielded for debate 
    only.

    On Feb. 2, 1955,(2) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, 
called up at the direction of the Committee on

[[Page 10351]]

Rules House Resolution 63, authorizing the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs to inspect the Veterans' Administration. Mr. Madden yielded 
three minutes' time for debate to Mrs. Edith Nourse Rogers, of 
Massachusetts. Mrs. Rogers indicated she wished to offer an amendment 
to prohibit the Committee on Veterans' Affairs from investigating any 
matter under investigation by another committee of the House. Mr. 
Madden stated that he did not yield for the purpose of having such an 
amendment offered. Speaker Pro Tempore Robert C. Byrd, of West 
Virginia, ruled that Mrs. Rogers did not have the right to offer an 
amendment in time yielded her for debate only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 101 Cong. Rec. 1076-79, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.20 When a motion to recede from and concur in a Senate 
    amendment is pending, an amendment to the motion may not be offered 
    in time yielded for debate.

    On July 11, 1968,(3) Mrs. Julia Butler Hansen, of 
Washington, offered a motion to recede and concur in a Senate amendment 
following adoption of a conference report on H.R. 17354, the Department 
of the Interior appropriations for fiscal 1969. At his request, Mrs. 
Hansen yielded for debate to Mr. Charles R. Jonas, of North Carolina, 
who then attempted to offer an amendment to the motion. However, Mrs. 
Hansen refused to yield for that motion saying she had yielded only for 
the purpose of debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 114 Cong. Rec. 20683, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.21 A Member may not in time yielded him for general debate move 
    that the Committee of the Whole rise, nor may he yield to another 
    for such motion.

    On Feb. 22, 1950,(4) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
moved, in time yielded him in the Committee of the Whole by Mr. Adam C. 
Powell, of New York, for general debate, that the Committee rise. 
Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruled that that motion was 
not in order, since Mr. Powell had control of the time and since he had 
not yielded time to Mr. Smith for the making of the motion. 
Subsequently, Mr. Hugo S. Sims, Jr., of South Carolina, in time yielded 
for debate by Mr. Powell, yielded to Mr. Smith who again moved that the 
Committee rise, stating he had ``some time of my own.'' The Chairman 
ruled that the motion was not in order, since Mr. Sims was yielded time

[[Page 10352]]

for general debate and could not yield to Mr. Smith for the making of 
the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On appeal, the Chairman's ruling was sustained.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 14121, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1967.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: When the House has vested control of 
general debate in the Committee of the Whole in the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the committee reporting a bill, their 
control of general debate may not be abrogated by another Member moving 
that the Committee rise--unless they yield for that purpose.

--Parliamentary Inquiries in Time Yielded for Debate

Sec. 29.22 Where a Member controlling the time for debate yields to 
    another for debate, the latter may, during the time so yielded, 
    propound a parliamentary inquiry.

    On July 17, 1967,(6) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled that a Member yielded time for debate could within 
that time propound a parliamentary inquiry:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 113 Cong. Rec. 19033, 90th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Samuel N.] Friedel [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 
    minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Adams].
        The Speaker: The gentleman from Washington is recognized.
        Mr. [Brock] Adams: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Friedel: Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
    for the purpose of debate.
        Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman 
    controlling the time whether I may also make a parliamentary 
    inquiry?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that if the gentleman wants 
    to make a parliamentary inquiry, it is within his time. A 
    parliamentary inquiry will take up the time of the gentleman.

Yielding for Parliamentary Inquiry

Sec. 29.23 A Member may not be taken from the floor by a parliamentary 
    inquiry, but he may yield for that purpose.

    On Oct. 8, 1968,(7) Mr. Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, 
called up by direction of the Committee on Rules a resolution providing 
an order of business. Mr. Madden was recognized for one hour, and Mr. 
Gerald R. Ford, of Michigan, attempted to raise a parliamentary 
inquiry. Speaker John W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, indicated that 
Mr. Madden could not be taken off the floor by an inquiry made without 
his consent,

[[Page 10353]]

but that he could yield for that purpose:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 114 Cong. Rec. 30217, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: Does the gentleman from Indiana yield to the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Madden: I do not yield.
        The Speaker: The Chair is asking the gentleman from Indiana if 
    he yields to the gentleman from Michigan for the purpose of making 
    a parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Madden: No.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I demand the right to make a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Madden: I yield.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I make a demand of personal 
    privilege.
        The Speaker: Just a minute. The gentleman from Indiana has 
    yielded to the gentleman from Michigan for the purpose of making a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: I appreciate the delayed recognition by the 
    gentleman from Indiana.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See also 111 Cong. Rec. 17931, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., July 22, 1965; 
        and 106 Cong. Rec. 11267, 11268, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., May 26, 
        1960.
            Where a Member yields to another for a parliamentary 
        inquiry, the time consumed by the inquiry is charged against 
        the yielding Member (see Sec. Sec. 29.5, 29.7, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 29.24 A Member may not be interrupted by another Member for a 
    parliamentary inquiry without his consent and if the Member who has 
    the floor refuses to yield and demands regular order the Chair will 
    not recognize another Member to propound a parliamentary inquiry.

    On July 8, 1975,(9) the proceedings described above 
occurred in the Committee of the Whole, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 121 Cong. Rec. 21628, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John D.] Dingell [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell to the amendment in the 
        nature 
        of a substitute offered by Mr. Hebert: . . .

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment about which my 
    colleagues have received communications in the last few days from 
    the Sierra Club and from other nationwide conservation 
    organizations. . . .
        Mr. [Don] Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of 
    order to the germaneness of this amendment.
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I do not yield for the point of 
    order. The point of order is too late.

        The Chairman: (10) The Chair rules that the point of 
    order is too late.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.

[[Page 10354]]

        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, may we have the regular order. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) refuses 
    to yield.
        Mr. Young of Alaska: Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        The Chairman: That could only be made before the gentleman from 
    Michigan was recognized with respect to his amendment. . . .
        Mr. Dingell: Mr. Chairman, I ask for the regular order.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) refuses 
    to yield.
        Under regular order, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
    is recognized.

Time Yielded for Unanimous-consent Request; Debate Un-der Reservation 
    of Objection

Sec. 29.25 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,(11) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 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: (12) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Wyche Fowler, Jr. (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interruption for Point of Order

Sec. 29.26 A Member having the floor may not be interrupted by another 
    Member raising a parliamentary inquiry unless he yields for that 
    purpose, but the Chair must permit an interruption to rule on any

[[Page 10355]]

    point of order raised during debate.

    On Dec. 18, 1987,(13) during consideration of a 
privileged resolution (H. Res. 335, disciplining a Member) in the 
House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 133 Cong. Rec. 36266, 36271, 100th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Julian C.] Dixon [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I call up a 
    privileged resolution (H. Res. 335) in the matter of Representative 
    Austin J. Murphy, and ask for its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                H. Res. 335

            Resolved, That the House of Representatives adopt the 
        report by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct dated 
        December 16, 1987, in the matter of Representative Austin J. 
        Murphy of Pennsylvania. . . .

        Mr. [Newt] Gingrich [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I commend the 
    committee for its report and its recommendation. . . .
        This committee's earlier report on the gentleman from Rhode 
    Island should be reexamined with this new yardstick. The 
    committee's letter on the gentlewoman from Ohio should be 
    scrutinized with this new yardstick. The admission of $24,000 in 
    election law violations by the gentleman from California should be 
    held up to this new yardstick.
        Finally, the numerous allegations about the Speaker must be----
        Mr. [Tommy F.] Robinson [of Arkansas]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (14) The gentleman will 
    state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Dave McCurdy (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were here today to hear 
    a very serious charge against one of our colleagues from 
    Pennsylvania, not from California or other States.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman suspend? Does the 
    gentleman from Georgia yield?
        Mr. Gingrich: No, I do not yield, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his point of 
    order.
        Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that we are 
    here to consider the committee's report against our colleague 
    Austin Murphy and not against other Members today that the charges 
    have not been substantiated or presented to the committee.
        Mr. Gingrich: Would the Chair----
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Will the gentleman suspend?
        The [gentleman] will yield on the point of order.
        On the debate currently ongoing, there can be references made 
    to other cases reported by the committee, not by individual or by 
    name. The gentleman from Georgia, as the Chair understands, has not 
    mentioned other individuals and the gentleman from Arkansas----
        Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, he has, too.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman may compare disciplinary 
    actions reported by the committee and should confine his remarks to 
    the matters before the House.

[[Page 10356]]

One Recognized for Parliamentary Inquiry May Not Yield

Sec. 29.27 Recognition for a parliamentary inquiry is within the 
    discretion of the Chair, and a Member so recognized may not yield 
    to other Members.

    On Mar. 16, 1988,(15) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 134 Cong. Rec. 4084, 4085, 100th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Judd] Gregg [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I was just in my office viewing the proceedings 
    here, and during one of the proceedings, when the gentleman from 
    California [Mr. Dornan] was addressing the House, it was drawn to 
    my attention that the Speaker requested that Mr. Dornan's 
    microphone be turned off, upon which Mr. Dornan's microphone was 
    turned off.
        Mr. Speaker, my inquiry of the Chair is: Under what rule does 
    the Speaker decide to gag opposite Members of the House? . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (16) The Chair is referring 
    to Mr. Dornan. He requested permission of the Chair to proceed for 
    1 minute, and that permission was granted by the House. Mr. Dornan 
    grossly exceeded the limits and abused the privilege far in excess 
    of 1 minute, and the Chair proceeded to 
    restore order and decorum to the House. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Gary L. Ackerman (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gregg: . . . I have not heard the Chair respond to my 
    inquiry which is what ruling is the Chair referring to which allows 
    him to turn off the microphone of a Member who has the floor?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Clause 2 of rule I.
        Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that that rule be read. I 
    would ask that that rule be read, Mr. Speaker. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: It reads, 2. He shall preserve order 
    and decorum, and, in case of disturbance or disorderly conduct in 
    the galleries, or in the lobby, may cause the same to be cleared. . 
    . .
        Mr. Gregg: My parliamentary inquiry is that I want to know how 
    the Chair can specifically turn off the microphone and what rule 
    the Chair does it under, because the Chair has not answered that 
    question.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair has responded to the 
    parliamentary inquiry of the gentleman from New Hampshire.
        Mr. Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time, and yield to the 
    gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Martin]. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair advises that a Member may 
    not yield time to another Member under a parliamentary inquiry.

Yielding Blocks of Time--Further Yielding by Member to Whom Time 
    Yielded

Sec. 29.28 A Member yielded time by the manager of a proposition in the 
    House may yield a block of time to another Member by unanimous 
    consent only.

[[Page 10357]]

    During consideration of the conference report on the Energy 
Security Act (S. 932) in the House on June 26, 1980,(17) the 
following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 126 Cong. Rec. 16889, 16897, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (18) Pursuant to House 
    Resolution 728 and the rules of the House, the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Moorhead) will be recognized for 2 hours, and the 
    gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. McKinney) will be recognized for 2 
    hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Bruce F. Vento (Minn.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
    Moorhead). . . .
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous consent that I may be permitted to yield 5 minutes to the 
    gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Perkins).
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Washington?
        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead of Pennsylvania: Reserving the right 
    to object, Mr. Speaker, at this time I intended to yield a block of 
    20 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) for the 
    purpose of yielding, debating, reserving his time, and yielding 
    back his time.
        Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Is there objection to the request of 
    the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley)?
        There was no objection.

    Parliamentarian's Note: An exception to this principle is during 
debate on special orders from the Committee on Rules, where the manager 
normally yields 30 minutes to the minority member, who in turn is 
permitted to yield blocks of time to other Members without remaining on 
his feet. And where time is divided by the House rules, each Member can 
yield blocks of time.

Sec. 29.29 A Member recognized in opposition to a motion to discharge a 
    committee may not yield his time for debate to another to be 
    yielded by the other Member.

    On June 11, 1945,(19) Mr. Vito Marcantonio, of New York, 
called up the motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the 
further consideration of House Resolution 139, providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 7, the antipoll tax bill. Speaker Sam Rayburn, of 
Texas, stated that Mr. Marcantonio would be recognized for 10 minutes 
in favor of the motion and that Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, would be 
recognized for 10 minutes in opposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 91 Cong. Rec. 5892-96, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Cox yielded to Mr. John E. Rankin, of Mississippi, who inquired 
whether he could be yielded the balance of Mr. Cox's time, with the 
privilege of yielding to

[[Page 10358]]

others. Mr. Cox yielded Mr. Rankin the balance of his time, but Speaker 
Rayburn stated that Mr. Cox and not Mr. Rankin would control the 
distribution of the time.

Sec. 29.30 The Member in charge of time for debate yielded one-half the 
    time to a minority Member who was permitted, by unanimous consent, 
    to further yield that time.

    On Mar. 12, 1963,(20) Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York, 
asked unanimous consent for the consideration of H.R. 4374, to bestow 
citizenship on Sir Winston Churchill. Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. H. 
R. Gross, of Iowa, that Mr. Celler was entitled to one hour of debate, 
to be yielded as he desired. The House then agreed to the following 
unanimous-consent request stated by Mr. Celler:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 109 Cong. Rec. 3993, 88th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 30 minutes to the 
    gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Poff], and that he may yield such time 
    as he desires.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Richard H. Poff was a minority Member of 
the House.

Five-minute Debate--Yielding Time Allocated Under Limitation on Debate

Sec. 29.31 A limitation on time for debate on a pending amendment and 
    all amendments thereto in effect abrogates the five-minute rule and 
    the Chair, at his discretion, may allocate time to all Members 
    desiring to speak, whether or not they have previously spoken on 
    the amendment; Members to whom time has been allocated may by 
    unanimous consent yield their time to another Member.

    On Oct. 1, 1975,(1) during consideration of the 
Department of Defense appropriation bill (H.R. 9861) in the Committee 
of the Whole, the proceedings described above occurred as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 121 Cong. Rec. 31074, 31075, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. Chairman, I had misjudged before the desire of the House at 
    an earlier time to try to limit debate to 30 minutes. I want to be 
    sure that no one is denied the opportunity to speak. I ask 
    unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all 
    amendments thereto conclude in 15 minutes.
        The Chairman: (2) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Texas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).

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

[[Page 10359]]

        There was no objection. . . .
        Mr. [Burt L.] Talcott [of California]: Mr. Chairman, may I 
    inquire whether or not the Members who have already spoken on this 
    amendment may speak again during limited time?
        The Chairman: When time is limited, Members are permitted to 
    speak again under the allocation of time.
        Mr. Talcott: And they can yield their time to other Members?
        The Chairman: That is a unanimous-consent request. . . .
        Mr. [Barry] Goldwater [Jr., of California]: . . . I ask 
    unanimous consent that the time be extended another 15 minutes.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from California?
        Mr. [Andrew J.] Hinshaw [of California]: Mr. Chairman, 
    reserving the right to object, if we were to accede to the 
    unanimous-consent request, would that open the door for additional 
    Members to stand up to seek additional time?
        The Chairman: The Chair has already announced his allocation of 
    time.