[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§ 30. For Motions or Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 10359-10382]
 
                               CHAPTER 29
 
                        Consideration and Debate
 
             D. CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIME FOR DEBATE
 
Sec. 30. -- For Motions or Amendments

                            Cross References
Amendments generally, see Ch. 27, supra.
Member must be recognized by Chair to offer amendment, see Sec. 19, 
    supra.
Member must be recognized by Chair to offer motion, see Sec. 23, supra.
Motions generally, see Ch. 23, supra.
No motions or amendments in time 
    yielded for debate, see Sec. Sec. 29.20-29.22, 
    supra.                          -------------------

In House: Yielding for Amendment

Sec. 30.1 A pending motion being considered in the House is not subject 
    to amendment unless the Member in control specifically yields for 
    that purpose or unless the previous question is rejected.

    On Oct. 31, 1983,(3) during consideration of a motion to 
instruct conferees on H.R. 3222 (Departments of Commerce, State, and 
Justice appropriations for fiscal 1984) in the House, the following 
proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 129 Cong. Rec. 29963, 29964, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George M.] O'Brien [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. O'Brien moves that the managers on the part of the 
        House in the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
        Houses on the bill, H.R. 3222, be instructed to insist on the 
        House position on the amendment of the Senate numbered 93.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (4) The gentleman from 
    Illinois (Mr. O'Brien) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Robert A. Roe (N.J.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume.

[[Page 10360]]

        Mr. Speaker, this motion instructs the House conferees to 
    insist on the House position on Senate amendment 93, which earmarks 
    $70,155,000 in 
    the bill for the juvenile justice program. . . .
        Mr. [Hank] Brown of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. O'Brien: I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
    Colorado.
        Mr. Brown of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk 
    that I would like to offer in order to amend the motion.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    O'Brien) yield for that purpose?
        Mr. O'Brien: I yield not for the purposes of amendment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Does the gentleman yield for debate 
    only?
        Mr. O'Brien: For debate only, Mr. Speaker.
        Mr. Brown of Colorado: Mr. Speaker, I believe I was yielded to 
    without that limitation, and I would like to offer my amendment No. 
    1 as an amendment to the motion to instruct.
        Mr. O'Brien: In my naivete, I did not anticipate the amendment, 
    Mr. Speaker. However my statement still prevails. I yielded only 
    for comment.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes that the 
    gentleman yielded only for comment, so the Chair is going to 
    sustain the position 
    of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. O'Brien). . . .
        Mr. [Robert S.] Walker [of Pennsylvania]: A parliamentary 
    inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
        Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Colorado wishes 
    to offer his amendment as an amendment to the instructions offered 
    by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. O'Brien), could that be done by 
    defeating the previous question on the motion, thereby giving the 
    gentleman from Colorado an opportunity to offer an amendment?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the previous question is voted 
    down, an amendment would be in order. . . .
        Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
    motion.
        [The previous question was defeated and Mr. Brown offered an 
    amendment.]

Sec. 30.2 Bills requiring consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
    are considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole under 
    the five-minute rule when unanimous consent is granted for their 
    immediate consideration, but when consent is granted for their 
    immediate consideration in the House, debate is under the hour rule 
    and amendments are only in or-der if the Member controlling the 
    time yields for that purpose.

    On Apr. 11, 1974,(5) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, 
responded to an inquiry regarding the consideration of amendments in 
the House as in Committee of the Whole:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 120 Cong. Rec. 10769, 10770, 10771, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [John A.] Blatnik [of Minnesota]: Mr. Speaker, I ask 
    unanimous

[[Page 10361]]

    consent for the immediate consideration in the House of the Senate 
    bill (S. 3062) the Disaster Relief Act Amendments of 1974.
        The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
        The Speaker: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
    from Minnesota? . . .
        Mr. [Richard W.] Mallary [of Vermont]: Mr. Speaker, if a bill 
    is brought up under a unanimous-consent request and considered in 
    the House at this time, would any amendment be in order?
        The Speaker: The Chair will state that since the gentleman is 
    asking that it be considered in the House, the gentleman will then 
    have control of the time.

--Amendment to Committee Amendment

Sec. 30.3 Where there was pending in the House under the hour rule a 
    resolution and 
    a committee amendment in 
    the nature of a substitute, 
    the Chair indicated that an amendment to the committee amendment 
    could be offered only if the manager yielded for that purpose or if 
    the previous question were rejected, and that a motion to recommit 
    with instructions containing a direct amendment could not be 
    offered 
    if the committee substitute were adopted (since it is not in order 
    to further amend a measure already amended in its entirety).

    On Mar. 22, 1983,(6) after House Resolution 127 was 
called up 
for consideration in the House, Speaker Pro Tempore John F. Seiberling, 
of Ohio, responded to several parliamentary inquiries, as indicated 
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 129 Cong. Rec. 6447, 6448, 6455, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Frank] Annunzio [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on House Administration, I call up a privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 127), providing amounts from the contingent 
    fund of the House for expenses of investigations and studies by 
    standing and select committees of the House in the 1st session of 
    the 98th Congress.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 127

            Resolved, That there shall be paid out of the contingent 
        fund of the House in accordance with this primary expense 
        resolution not more than the amount specified in section 2 for 
        investigations and studies by each committee named in such 
        section. . . .
            Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: Strike 
        out all after the resolving clause and insert:

[[Page 10362]]

        That there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the 
        House in accordance with this primary expense resolution not 
        more than the amount specified in section 2 for investigations 
        and studies by each committee named in such section. . . .

            Sec. 2. The committees and amounts referred to in the first 
        section are: Select Committee on Aging, $1,316,057; Committee 
        on Agriculture, $1,322,669; Committee on Armed Services, 
        $1,212,273. . . .

        Mr. [William E.] Dannemeyer [of California]: Mr. Speaker, I 
    have a parliamentary inquiry. . . .
        If this Member from California would now offer an amendment to 
    the total in this resolution . . . would that amendment now be in 
    order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would rule that the 
    amendment would be in order if the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Annunzio) would yield to the gentleman from California. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: . . . What if we were successful in defeating 
    the previous question with respect to this issue? If we did, would 
    an amendment to reduce spending consistent with what I stated 
    previously then be in order?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair would advise the gentleman 
    if the previous question were defeated a germane amendment to the 
    committee amendment would be in order at that time. . . .
        Mr. Dannemeyer: I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
    Speaker.
        We have a motion to commit which is available at the conclusion 
    of a matter of this type. Is the procedure under which this process 
    is now considered by the floor such that the motion to commit can 
    be used with instructions to reduce spending by a certain amount or 
    is it a motion to recommit without instructions?
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: If the committee amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute is agreed to no further direct amendment 
    could be made by a motion to recommit.

--Resolution Raising Privileges of House

Sec. 30.4 A Member recognized to debate a resolution raising a question 
    of the privileges of the House controls one hour of debate, and the 
    resolution is not amendable unless he yields for that purpose or 
    unless the previous question is voted down.

    On Feb. 13, 1980,(7) during consideration of House 
Resolution 578 (directing the Committee on Rules to make certain 
inquiries), the following proceedings occurred in the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 126 Cong. Rec. 2768, 2769, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Richard] Bolling [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, I send to the 
    desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 578) and ask for its 
    immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 578

            Resolved, Whereas it was reported in the public press on 
        February 9,

[[Page 10363]]

        1980, that, ``The House of Representatives this week lost a 
        secret effort in court to obtain a ruling that congressmen do 
        not have to respond to federal grand jury subpoenas for House 
        records;'' and . . .
            Whereas such alleged House action involves the conduct of 
        officers and employees of the House, newspaper charges 
        affecting the honor and dignity of the House, and the 
        protection of the constitutional prerogatives of the House when 
        directly questioned in the courts. . . .
            Therefore be it resolved, That the Committee on Rules be 
        instructed to inquire into the truth or falsity of the 
        newspaper account and promptly report back to the House its 
        findings and any recommendations thereon. . . .

        The Speaker: (8) The Chair has examined the 
    resolution and finds that under rule IX and the precedents of the 
    House, the resolution presents the question of the privilege of the 
    House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling) will be recognized 
    for 1 hour.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bolling). 
    . . .
        Mr. Bolling: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my 
    distinguished friend from Arizona 5 minutes for debate only. . . .
        The Speaker: . . . The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Arizona (Mr. Rhodes).

--Privileged Resolution

Sec. 30.5 The Member calling up 
    a privileged resolution from the Committee on Rules controls one 
    hour of debate in the House, and the resolution is not subject to 
    amendment unless the Member in charge yields for that purpose.

    On Feb. 26, 1976,(9) the following proceedings occurred 
in the House relative to calling up a resolution from the Committee on 
Rules:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. 122 Cong. Rec. 4625, 4626, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. Since the 103d 
        Congress, debate on questions of privilege is divided between 
        the proponent and the Majority or Minority Leader. (Rule IX 
        clause 2, as amended Jan. 5, 1993.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Claude] Pepper [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, by direction of 
    the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for 
    its immediate consideration.
        The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                                  H. Res. 868

            Resolved, That Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
        Representatives is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
        following new clause:

            ``7. It shall not be in order to consider any report of a 
        committee unless copies or reproductions of such report have 
        been available to the Members on the floor for at least two 
        hours before the beginning of such consideration. . . .

        Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Speaker: (10) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is to be considered in 
    the House

[[Page 10364]]

    which would preclude an amendment from being offered by any Member.
        The Speaker: It is a rule that comes from the Committee on 
    Rules. It is under the charge of the gentleman handling the 
    resolution.
        Mr. Bauman: So unless the gentleman yields for the purpose of 
    an amendment, none would be in order?
        The Speaker: The gentleman is correct.
        Mr. Bauman: Mr. Speaker, what unanimous-consent request might 
    be entertained in order to allow amendments to be offered 
    generally? Would it be a request to consider it in the House as in 
    the Committee of the Whole?
        The Speaker: No. The gentleman from Florida controls the floor 
    under the 1-hour rule in the House because this is a change in the 
    rules brought to the floor by the Committee on Rules as privileged. 
    Rules changes can be considered in the House.

--Amendments to Motion To Recommit

Sec. 30.6 A Member offering a motion to recommit with instructions 
    controls the floor at the conclusion of the five minutes of debate 
    in opposition to the motion and may yield for an amendment to his 
    motion until such time as the previous question on the motion is 
    moved; the Member speaking in opposition cannot yield for that 
    purpose.

    On July 19, 1973,(11) after the previous question was 
ordered on H.R. 8860, to amend and extend the Agricultural Act of 1970, 
to final passage, Mr. Charles M. Teague, of California, offered a 
motion to recommit with instructions. Pursuant to Rule XVI clause 4, 
Mr. Teague was recognized for five minutes in favor of the motion and 
Mr. William R. Poage, of Texas, was recognized for five minutes in 
opposition to the motion. Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, ruled that 
Mr. Teague, not Mr. Poage, was in control of the motion for the purpose 
of yielding to another Member to offer an amendment to the motion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 119 Cong. Rec. 24967, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Gerald R. Ford [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    distinguished chairman of the committee yield for an amendment to 
    the motion to recommit?
        Mr. Poage: Certainly, I will yield, but I would like to hear 
    the amendment.
        The Speaker: The gentleman is not in order. The gentleman from 
    California (Mr. Teague) has control of the motion to recommit and 
    can yield for that purpose if he desires to do so.
        The gentleman from Texas now has the floor.
        Mr. Poage: Mr. Speaker, I will not yield for a pig in a poke. I 
    want to know what the gentleman is proposing.
        The Speaker: The gentleman cannot yield for that purpose. The 
    gentleman

[[Page 10365]]

    from California can yield for that purpose. . . .
        The Speaker: The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
        Mr. [Wayne L.] Hays [of Ohio]: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Hays: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I do not 
    believe the gentleman from California can yield for this purpose 
    without getting unanimous consent.
        The Speaker: The gentleman can yield for the purpose of an 
    amendment, since he has the floor.
        Mr. Teague of California: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
    distinguished minority leader for the purpose of offering an 
    amendment.
        Mr. Gerald R. Ford: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the 
    motion to recommit.
        Mr. [John E.] Moss [Jr., of California]: Mr. Speaker, a point 
    of order.
        The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
        Mr. Moss: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the time of 
    the gentleman from California has expired.
        The Speaker: That does not keep him from yielding.
        Mr. Moss: He has not got the floor.
        The Speaker: The gentleman from California has the right to 
    yield for an amendment, since he still has the floor as the 
    previous question has not been ordered on the motion to recommit.

--Control of Floor Affected by Yielding for Amendment

Sec. 30.7 Where the Member in charge of a resolution in the House 
    yields to another for the purpose of offering an amendment, he 
    loses control of the floor, and the sponsor of the amendment gains 
    control for an hour.

    On Mar. 27, 1945,(12) the House was considering, as 
unfinished business, House Resolution 195, creating a select committee. 
Mr. Edward E. Cox, of Georgia, the manager of the resolution, was 
recognized and moved the previous question, which was ordered. 
Discussion then ensued on an agreement made by Mr. Cox with Mr. Clinton 
P. Anderson, of New Mexico, that before the resolution was voted on an 
amendment to the resolution would be considered. Mr. Cox therefore 
moved to reconsider the vote on the previous question; on 
reconsideration, the previous question was rejected. Mr. Cox then 
yielded to Mr. Anderson to offer an amendment to the resolution, with 
control of the floor passing to Mr. Anderson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 91 Cong. Rec. 2861, 2862, 79th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Earl E.] Michener [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, the acting 
    chairman of the Committee on Rules having yielded for the offering 
    of an amendment, as I understand the rule, the gentleman from New 
    Mexico now has 1 hour, and the gentleman from Georgia has lost the 
    floor.

[[Page 10366]]

        The Speaker: (13) The gentleman is 
    correct.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
14. See also 102 Cong. Rec. 12922, 12923, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., July 16, 
        1956; and 100 Cong. Rec. 2282, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 25, 
        1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.8 A Member calling up 
    a privileged resolution reported from the Committee on House 
    Administration and in control of the time under the hour rule 
    yielded to the Majority Leader to offer an amendment, the latter 
    thereby gaining control of the floor.

    On Sept. 17, 1965,(15) Mr. Omar T. Burleson, of Texas, 
called up, as privileged by direction of the Committee on House 
Administration, House Resolution 585, dismissing election contests 
against certain Members-elect. Mr. Burleson yielded to the Majority 
Leader, Carl Albert, of Oklahoma, to offer an amendment to the 
resolution. Mr. Albert, having gained control of the time for debate, 
moved the previous question on the resolution. Mr. James G. Fulton, of 
Pennsylvania, then asked for time for debate in opposition to the 
amendment and was advised by Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, that he could not be recognized since he was not yielded 
time by Mr. Albert.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 111 Cong. Rec. 24290, 24291, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.9 Where a Member calling up a bill in the House and in control 
    of the time under the hour rule yields to a minority Member to 
    offer an amendment, he loses control of the floor.

    On Oct. 5, 1962,(16) Mr. Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, called up by unanimous consent S. 3361, on the entry of 
aliens with spe-cial skills. He was recognized by Speaker John W. 
McCormack, of Massachusetts, to control one hour of debate. He then 
yielded to Arch A. Moore, Jr., of West Virginia (a minority Member) to 
offer an amendment, thereby losing control of the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 108 Cong. Rec. 22606-09, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.10 Where a Member in control of the time in opposition to a 
    measure yields to another Member to offer an amendment, he loses 
    control of the floor.

    On Mar. 13, 1939,(17) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
called up at the direction of the Committee on Rules House Resolution

[[Page 10367]]

113, authorizing the Committee on the District of Columbia to 
investigate the milk industry. The previous question was rejected on 
the resolution, and Speaker William B. Bankhead, of Alabama, stated 
that the right to be recognized passed to Carl E. Mapes, of Michigan, a 
Member opposed to the resolution. Mr. Mapes then yielded to Mr. Charles 
A. Halleck, of Indiana, to offer an amendment, Mr. Mapes thereby losing 
control of the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 84 Cong. Rec. 2663-73, 76th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a number of parliamentary inquiries, the Speaker 
explained that a Member, having offered an amendment, could not yield 
to another Member to offer an amendment to his amendment without losing 
the floor.

Sec. 30.11 The manager of a conference report controlling the floor on 
    a motion to dispose of an amendment in disagreement, by yielding to 
    another Member to offer an amendment to his motion, loses the floor 
    and the Member to whom he has yielded controls one hour of debate 
    on his amendment and may move the previous question on his 
    amendment and on the original motion.

    During consideration of the conference report on H.R. 7933 (the 
Defense Department appropriation bill for fiscal year 1978) in the 
House on Sept. 8, 1977,(18) the following proceedings 
occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 123 Cong. Rec. 28130-32, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, I hope we have 
    had a fair debate on the issues. My motion provides for the 
    continuation of the B-1 program, and I rise in further support of 
    my motion and in opposition to the Addabbo amendment.
        By previous arrangement, in order to be absolutely fair with 
    the House and give the House an opportunity to work its will, I 
    yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Addabbo) for the purpose 
    of offering an amendment.
        Mr. [Joseph P.] Addabbo [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
    Mahon).
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Addabbo to the motion offered by 
        Mr. Mahon: In lieu of the sum proposed to be inserted by said 
        motion insert: ``$6,262,000,000''.

        Mr. Addabbo: Mr. Speaker, I will not take the hour. By previous 
    arrangement and agreement with the chairman of the full committee, 
    the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), who has been kind enough to 
    recognize me at this time for the purpose of offering this 
    amendment, the agreement was that I would after offering the 
    substitute move the previous question so that we would have a clear 
    vote on the question of whether or not to fund the B-1. . . .

[[Page 10368]]

        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment to 
    the motion.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (19) The question is on the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Addabbo) to 
    the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced 
    that the noes appeared to have it.
        Mr. Addabbo: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
    that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
    quorum is not present.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Evidently a quorum is not present.
        The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
        The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 
    202, nays 199, not voting 33. . . .
        So the amendment to the motion was agreed to.
        The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the motion offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon), as amended.
        The motion, as amended, was agreed to.

Sec. 30.12 Where the manager of a resolution under consideration in the 
    House yields to another Member to offer an amendment, the manager 
    loses control of the floor and the Member offering the amendment is 
    recognized for one hour.

    The following proceedings occurred in the House on June 10, 1980: 
(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 126 Cong. Rec. 13801, 13811, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Speaker: (1) The unfinished business is the 
    further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 660) in the matter 
    of Representative Charles H. Wilson. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Pursuant to the rules of the House and the unanimous-consent 
    agreement, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett) has 12 minutes 
    remaining; the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), has 8 
    minutes remaining; 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Charles H. Wilson), or his 
    designee has 1 hour remaining. . . .
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bennett).
        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Speaker, I yield to 
    the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Foley) for an amendment.
        Mr. [Thomas S.] Foley [of Washington]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Foley: Strike out the second 
        clause of House Resolution 660 and renumber the subsequent 
        clauses accordingly.

        The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington 
    (Mr. Foley) for 1 hour.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Bennett moved the previous ques

[[Page 10369]]

tion on the resolution as amended, although he had lost the floor when 
yielding to Mr. Foley for amendment, when no other Member sought the 
floor.

Sec. 30.13 Where a Member calling up a measure in the House offers an 
    amendment and then yields to another Member to offer an amendment 
    to his amendment, he loses the floor and the Member to whom he 
    yielded is recognized for one hour and may move the previous 
    question on the amendments and on the measure itself.

    On Dec. 6, 1977,(2) the House had under consideration 
House Joint Resolution 662 (continuing appropriations for fiscal 1978) 
when the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 123 Cong. Rec. 38392, 38393, 38400, 38401, 95th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [George H.] Mahon [of Texas]: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the 
    rule just adopted by the House, I call up the joint resolution 
    (H.J. Res. 662) making further continuing appropriations for the 
    fiscal year 1978, and for other purposes. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (3) The gentleman from 
    Texas (Mr. Mahon) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr. (La.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Mahon: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
    consume and, Mr. Speaker, during the consideration of House Joint 
    Resolution 662, I shall yield only for the purposes of debate and 
    not for amendment unless I specifically so indicate. . . .
        Second, immediately after I offer my amendment, I will yield to 
    the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel), the ranking minority 
    member of the Labor-HEW Subcommittee and the ranking minority 
    conferee on that appropriation bill for an amendment on the 
    abortion issue. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Mahon: On page 2, after line 9, 
        insert the following:
            Such amounts as may be necessary for projects or activities 
        provided for in the Departments of Labor, and Health, 
        Education, and Welfare, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 
        1978 (H.R. 7555), at a rate of operations, and to the extent 
        and in the manner, provided for in such Act as modified by the 
        House of Representatives on August 2, 1977, notwithstanding the 
        provisions of section 106 of this joint resolution.

        amendment offered by mr. michel to the amendment offered by mr. 
                                     mahon

        Mr. [Robert H.] Michel [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer an 
    amendment to the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

    Amendment offered by Mr. Michel to the amendment offered by Mr. 
Mahon: At the end of the amendment of the gentleman from Texas strike 
the period, insert a semicolon, and add the following: ``Provided, That 
none of the funds

[[Page 10370]]

provided for in this paragraph shall be used to perform abortions 
except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
were carried to term; or except for such medical procedures necessary 
for the victims of forced rape or incest. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
    Michel) is recognized for 1 hour.
        Mr. Michel: Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman 
    from Texas (Mr. Mahon), the chairman of our committee, pending 
    which I yield myself such time as I may consume. . . .
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendments and 
    the joint resolution.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: Without objection, the previous 
    question is ordered.
        There was no objection.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Michel) to the 
    amendment offered 
    by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon). . . .
        [The] amendment to the amendment was rejected. . . .
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The question is on the amendment 
    offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mahon).
        The amendment was agreed to.

--Offeror of Preferential Motion May Not Move Previous Question in Time 
    Yielded for Debate

Sec. 30.14 A Member who has offered a pending preferential motion to 
    dispose of a Senate amendment in disagreement may not, during time 
    yielded to him for debate only, move the previous question on his 
    motion, thereby depriving the Members in charge of control of the 
    time.

    The proceedings of Dec. 4, 1975, during consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 8069, the Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare and related agencies appropriation bill for fiscal 1976, 
are discussed in Sec. 33.12, infra.

Deferring Recognition to Another To Offer Motion To Dispose of Senate 
    Amendment in Disagreement

Sec. 30.15 The manager of a conference report and amendments reported 
    from conference in disagreement may defer to another member of the 
    committee to offer the initial motion to dispose of an amendment 
    reported in disagreement.

    On May 24, 1984,(4) during consideration of the 
conference report on House Joint Resolution 492 (urgent supplemental 
appropriations for the Department of Agri

[[Page 10371]]

culture) in the House, the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. 130 Cong. Rec. 14254, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

            Mr. Whitten moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 34 and 
        concur therein with an amendment, as follows: . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: (5) The question is on the 
    motion offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. George E. Brown, Jr. (Calif.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The motion was agreed to.
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Clerk will designate amendment No. 
    14.
        The amendment reads as follows:

            Senate amendment No. 14: Page 2, after line 17, insert:

                          CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

            For activities of the Central Intelligence Agency . . . not 
        to exceed $21,000,000. . . .

        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
    from Mississippi (Mr. Whitten).
        Mr. Whitten: Mr. Speaker, on this amendment I yield to the 
    gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Boland).
        Mr. [Edward P.] Boland [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer 
    a motion.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Mr. Boland moves that the House recede from its 
        disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 14 and 
        concur therein with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the 
        matter inserted by said amendment, insert the following:
            No funds are appropriated herein for the Central 
        Intelligence Agency in fiscal year 1984 for the pur-pose . . . 
        of supporting, directly or 
        indirectly, military or paramilitary 
        operations in Nicaragua. . . .

        Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I yield 
    our time to my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Robinson).
        The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
    Boland) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from 
    Virginia (Mr. Robinson) will be recognized for 30 minutes.

    Parliamentarian's Note: Mr. Whitten technically could not ``yield'' 
to Mr. Boland in this instance, since he did not have the floor between 
motions, but simply defer and not seek recognition.

Yielding for Motion To Adjourn

Sec. 30.16 Unless the Member who has control of the floor yields for 
    that purpose, a motion to adjourn is not in order.

    On Oct. 19, 1966,(6) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, ruled that unless Mr. Wayne L. Hays, of Ohio, who had 
the floor in debate on a resolution from the Committee on Rules,

[[Page 10372]]

yielded for that purpose, a motion to adjourn would not be in or-
der.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. 112 Cong. Rec. 27725-27, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
 7. See also 109 Cong. Rec. 10151-65, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 4, 
        1963; 102 Cong. Rec. 6891, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 24, 1956; 
        and 91 Cong. Rec. 7221-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 18, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.17 A Member holding the floor under a reservation of the right 
    to object to a unanimous-consent request yielded to another Member 
    to move to adjourn.

    On Sept. 22, 1965,(8) Mr. Abraham J. Multer, of New 
York, had been recognized to address the House under a special order. 
Mr. Joe D. Waggonner, Jr., of Louisiana, made a point of order that a 
quorum was not present and a call of the House was ordered. After 307 
Members had answered to their names, Speaker John 
W. McCormack, of Massachusetts, stated that without objection further 
proceedings under the call would be dispensed with. Mr. John D. 
Dingell, of Michigan, reserved the right to object and then yielded to 
Mr. Leslie C. Arends, of Illinois, who moved that the House adjourn. 
The Speaker inquired whether Mr. Dingell yielded for that purpose, and 
Mr. Dingell responded in the affirmative. The House rejected the 
motion.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 111 Cong. Rec. 24716, 24717, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
 9. When during debate the Member with the floor yields for the motion 
        that the House adjourn, he does not lose the right to resume 
        when debate is again continued (see 5 Hinds' Precedents 
        Sec. Sec. 5009-5013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under Five-minute Rule: Cannot Yield for Amendment

Sec. 30.18 A Member desiring to offer an amendment under the five-
    minute rule in Committee of the Whole must seek recognition from 
    the Chair, and a Member recognized under the five-minute rule may 
    not yield to another Member to offer an amendment.

    On Sept. 8, 1976,(10) the Committee of the Whole had 
under consideration the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1976 (H.R. 10498) 
when the following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 122 Cong. Rec. 29243, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Paul G.] Rogers [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the requisite number of words.
        Mr. [Elliott] Levitas [of Georgia]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rogers: I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. Levitas: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I would 
    like to offer at this point.

[[Page 10373]]

        The Chairman: (11) The Chair will advise the 
    gentleman from Georgia that the gentleman will have to seek 
    recognition on his own time and in due order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. J. Edward Roush (Ind.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Levitas: I thank the Chairman.
        Mr. Rogers: I yield back the balance of my time.

Sec. 30.19 A Member who has the floor under the five-minute rule in 
    Committee of the Whole may not yield to another Member to offer an 
    amendment, as it is within the sole power of the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole to recognize Members to offer amendments.

    During consideration of the Education Amendments of 1978 (H.R. 15) 
in the Committee of the Whole on July 13, 1978,(12) the 
following exchange occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 124 Cong. Rec. 20653, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Carl D.] Perkins [of Kentucky]: Let me say to the 
    distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) that we have 
    spent about 24 hours on this amendment in the committee. Also we 
    have a substitute amendment here that is agreed to and it will be 
    offered either by the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Corrada) or 
    the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) so that right now I will 
    yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) for the purpose 
    of offering the substitute amendment.
        The Chairman: (13) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman cannot yield to another Member for the purpose of 
    offering an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Robert B. Duncan (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.20 The proponent of an amendment in Committee of the Whole is 
    entitled to five minutes of debate in favor of the amendment before 
    a perfecting amendment may be offered thereto, and he may not yield 
    to another to offer an amendment.

    During consideration of the Department of Defense authorization for 
fiscal year 1985 (H.R. 5167) in the Committee of the Whole on May 31, 
1984,(14) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 130 Cong. Rec. 14648, 98th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William L.] Dickinson [of Alabama]: Mr. Chairman, I offer 
    an amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Dickinson: At the end of this bill 
        insert the following new section:
            Sec. (a). (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
        Act, the amount authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
        1985 for the Air Force for missiles is $7,756,-600,000. . . .

        Mr. Dickinson (during the reading): Mr. Chairman, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and 
    printed in the Record. . . .

[[Page 10374]]

        There was no objection.
        Mr. [Melvin] Price [of Illinois]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield to me?
        Mr. Dickinson: I am very pleased to yield to the chairman of 
    the committee.
        Mr. Price: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a perfecting 
    amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama. 
    The amendment is at the desk.
        The Chairman: (15) The Chair will make the 
    observation that the gentleman has not yet discussed his amendment. 
    At the conclusion of that discussion, it will then be in order for 
    the gentleman to offer an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Dan Rostenkowski (Ill.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 30.21 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule in Committee 
    of the Whole may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment, 
    as recognition to offer amendments rests in the Chairman of the 
    Committee of the Whole.

    On Apr. 9, 1979, during consideration of H.R. 3324, the 
International Development Cooperation Act of 1979, an amendment was 
under consideration which stated in part as follows: (16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 125 Cong. Rec. 7755, 7756, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. Proceedings 
        relating to the amendment are discussed in more detail in 
        Sec. 19.15, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Amendment offered by Mr. [Robert E.] Bauman [of Maryland]: 
        On page 23, line 10, strike all of Section 303(a) and insert in 
        lieu thereof the following new Section 303:
            ``Sec. 303. (a) Section 533 of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961 is amended to read as follows:
            `` `Sec. 533--Southern Africa Program
            `` `(a) Of the amount authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out this chapter for the fiscal year 1980, $68,000,000 
        shall be available (only) for the countries of southern Africa 
        and for--
            `` `(1) a southern Africa regional refugee support, 
        training, and economic planning program. . . .
            `` `(c) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to 
        carry out the purposes of this section, $20,000,000 shall be 
        made available to the government of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia which is 
        installed in that nation as a result of the election held in 
        April 1979, which election may be evaluated and reported upon 
        by observers as provided for in this section.' ''

    After inquiries as to the precise language intended to be used in 
the amendment, and the effect thereof, Mr. Paul Findley, of Illinois, 
sought to change certain language: (17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 125 Cong. Rec. 7761, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, just to bring this to a head, I ask 
    unanimous consent that the word ``shall'' which appears in two 
    places in the last paragraph of the amendment be changed to 
    ``may.''
        The Chairman: (18) Is there objection to the request 
    of the gentleman from Illinois?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Stephen J.] Solarz [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I object.

[[Page 10375]]

        The Chairman: Objection is heard.
        The gentleman will have to submit an amendment in writing if 
    the Chair is to consider it.
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I move 
    to strike the requisite number of words. . . .
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for the 
    purpose of offering an amendment?
        Mr. Rousselot: Yes.
        Mr. Findley: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman: The Chair will advise the gentleman from Illinois 
    that he will have to seek his own time for the purposes of offering 
    his amendment.

Sec. 30.22 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule in Committee 
    of the Whole may not yield to another Member to offer an amendment, 
    as recognition for amendments is in the Chair.

    During consideration of the Department of Energy Authorization Act 
(H.R. 3000) in the Committee of the Whole on Oct. 18, 
1979,(19) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 125 Cong. Rec. 28814, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Don] Fuqua [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the 
    gentleman from California (Mr. Lagomarsino), for the purpose of 
    offering his amendment.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (20) The Chair will advise 
    the gentleman from Florida that the gentleman from California must 
    seek his own time for the purpose of offering an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Gerry E. Studds (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Does the gentleman from Florida yield back his time?

Sec. 30.23 A Member who has offered an amendment against which a point 
    of order has been reserved may not during his time for debate yield 
    to another Member to offer an amendment to the amendment.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole on 
Mar. 21, 1979: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 125 Cong. Rec. 5779-81, 96th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (2) When the Committee rose on 
    Tuesday, March 20, 1979, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss) 
    had been recognized to offer an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Butler Derrick (S.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Weiss: Page 3, insert after line 5 
        the following:
            Sec. 5. (a) Section 3(b) of the Council on Wage and Price 
        Stability Act is amended by striking out ``Nothing in this 
        Act'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as provided in 
        section 8, nothing in this Act''. . . .

        Mr. [William S.] Moorhead [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    reserve a point of order against the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).

[[Page 10376]]

        The Chairman: The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Moorhead) 
    will be protected on his reservation of the point of order.
        Mr. [Ted] Weiss [of New York]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on 
    the amendment. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I am today offering an amendment to H.R. 2283, 
    the Council on Wage and Price Stability Reauthorization Act.
        My amendment would give the President standby authority to 
    impose wage, price, and related economic controls. . . .
        Mr. [Marc Lincoln] Marks [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Weiss: I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Marks: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to the amendment offered by 
    the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss).
        The Chairman: The Chair will remind the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Marks) that his amendment is not in order at this 
    point. . . .
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Moorhead) has reserved a 
    point of order against the pending amendment. . . .
        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to accept that 
    language [proposed by Mr. Marks] and make it part of my amendment, 
    if that is satisfactory to the Chair. . . .
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that a point of order has 
    been reserved, and the time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
    Weiss) has not expired. It would be improper for the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Marks) to offer his amendment to the amendment at 
    this time.
        Mr. Weiss: . . . I understood that what we had was a 
    reservation of the point of order, and pending that, it is my 
    understanding that the debate could proceed as if in fact there had 
    been no intervention. I would ask if that is accurate.
        The Chairman: But the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
    New York (Mr. Weiss) is the amendment that is pending before the 
    Committee, and that is the subject at this moment.
        Mr. Weiss: That is right, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman: When the Chair disposes of the point of order, 
    then the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marks) may offer his 
    amendment to the amendment, if it remains pending.
        Mr. Weiss: Mr. Chairman, I think what the gentleman from 
    Pennsylvania (Mr. Marks) is asking, if the Chair would permit, is 
    whether I would accept that language, not take it in the form of an 
    amendment but accept it as part of my amendment. I would be pleased 
    to do that.
        The Chairman: The Chair has no jurisdiction over that matter. 
    That is between the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiss) and the 
    gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marks). The modification must be 
    in writing and must be by unanimous consent.

--Member Offering Pro Forma Amendment May Not Yield for Amendment

Sec. 30.24 A Member offering a pro forma amendment under the five-
    minute rule may not

[[Page 10377]]

    yield to another Member during that time to offer an amendment.

    The following proceedings occurred in the Committee of the Whole 
during consideration of H.R. 6030 (military procurement authorization 
for fiscal year 1983) on July 29, 1982: (3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. 128 Cong. Rec. 18593, 18594, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Charles E.] Bennett [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, I move to 
    strike the last word.
        Mr. [Norman D.] Dicks [of Washington]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield? . . .
        Mr. Bennett: The gentlewoman from Rhode Island (Mrs. 
    Schneider).
        Mrs. [Claudine] Schneider [of Rhode Island]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    have an amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: (4) The gentlewoman will 
    suspend. The gentleman from Florida has the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. Les AuCoin (Oreg.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Bennett: I have the time, Mr. Chairman. I yield to the 
    gentlewoman.
        The Chairman Pro Tempore: The gentleman is yielding to the 
    gentlewoman from Rhode Island for debate only. . . .
        The gentlewoman is not recognized to offer that amendment at 
    this time. The gentleman from Florida has the time.

--Effect of Allocation of Debate Time Under Limitation; Time Fixed and 
    Control Divided

Sec. 30.25 Where debate on an amendment, a substitute therefor and all 
    amendments thereto had been limited and equally divided between 
    proponents of the original amendment and substitute and an opponent 
    prior to the offering of those amendments, the proponent of the 
    substitute was not permitted to offer it during time yielded to him 
    for debate on the original amendment, but the proponent of an 
    amendment to the substitute was permitted to offer it during time 
    yielded by the opponent of the substitute, since amendments were in 
    order at any time during the allocated time and all debate time had 
    been otherwise allocated to other Members.

    On June 18, 1981,(5) the following proceedings occurred 
in the Committee of the Whole during consideration of H.R. 3480, the 
Legal Services Corporation Act Amendments of 1981:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 127 Cong. Rec. 12969-74, 97th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Abraham] Kazen [Jr., of Tex-as]: Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
    amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Kazen: Page 12, strike out lines 
        10 through 16 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
            ``(11) to provide legal assistance for or on behalf of any 
        alien who has not

[[Page 10378]]

        been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United 
        States unless the residence of the alien in the United States 
        is authorized by the Attorney General; or

        The Chairman: (6) In accordance with the prior 
    agreement, under the unanimous-consent agreement, the gentleman 
    from Texas is allocated 15 
    minutes in support of his amendment. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. Matthew F. McHugh (N.Y.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Under the prior agreement . . . the Chair allocates 15 minutes 
    to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) in opposition to this 
    amendment. . . .
        Mr. [Bill] McCollum [of Florida]: Mr. Chairman, will the 
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. [Peter W.] Rodino [Jr., of New Jersey]: I yield to the 
    gentleman from Florida.
        Mr. McCollum: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in opposition to the 
    amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Kazen) if I 
    might, please. . . .
        I have before the desk a substitute amendment, and I would like 
    to offer that substitute at this time.
        The Chairman: The gentleman has been recognized under time 
    controlled by the gentleman from New Jersey.
        Mr. Rodino: I yield to the gentleman for purposes of debate 
    only, and I think the gentleman can offer his amendment on his own 
    time.
        Mr. McCollum: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a 
    substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. McCollum as a substitute for the 
        amendment offered by Mr. Kazen: . . .

        The Chairman: Under prior agreement, by unanimous consent, the 
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) is allocated 15 minutes in 
    support of his amendment. . . .
        Does the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) rise in 
    opposition to the substitute?
        Mr. Rodino: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. . . .
        Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York 
    (Mr. Fish).
        Mr. [Hamilton] Fish [Jr., of New York]: I thank the chairman 
    for yielding.
        Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment offered as 
    a substitute for the amendment.
        The Clerk read as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. Fish 
        to the amendment offered by Mr. McCollum as a substitute for 
        the amendment offered by Mr. Kazen: . . .

Sec. 30.26 Where the Committee of the Whole has by unanimous consent 
    fixed the time for debate on an amendment and divided control of 
    the time, the two Members controlling debate may yield time as in 
    general debate, and Members may offer and debate amendments in the 
    time yielded them for that purpose.

    On July 9, 1965,(7) the Committee of the Whole was 
consid

[[Page 10379]]

ering H.R. 6400, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, pursuant to a 
unanimous-consent agreement fixing debate on the pending amendment at 
two hours and dividing control of the time between Mr. William M. 
McCulloch, of Ohio, the proponent of the amendment, and Emanuel Celler, 
of New York, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. McCulloch, 
who had the floor, yielded to Mr. Robert McClory, of Illinois, who 
offered an amendment and was recognized by Chairman Richard Bolling, of 
Missouri, for five minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 7. 111 Cong. Rec. 16207, 16217, 16218, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Chairman stated, in response to a parliamentary inquiry by Mr. 
Celler that the two Members in control could, under the unanimous-
consent agreement, yield time to other Members and that Members yielded 
to could offer amendments.

--Offering Amendment Where Balance of Time Was Yielded by Unanimous 
    Consent

Sec. 30.27 A Member recognized under the five-minute rule may not yield 
    to another Member to offer an amendment (thereby depriving the 
    Chair of his power of recognition), but he may by unanimous consent 
    yield the balance of his time to another Member who may thereafter 
    offer an amendment.

    The proposition described above was demonstrated in the Committee 
of the Whole on Oct. 30, 1975,(8) during consideration of 
H.R. 8603, the Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1975:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. 121 Cong. Rec. 34442, 94th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (Mr. Cohen asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
    his remarks.)
        Mr. [Pierre S.] du Pont [IV, of Delaware]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. [William S.] Cohen [of Maine]: I yield to the gentleman 
    from Delaware.
        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
        The Chairman: (9) The Chair will state that the 
    gentleman from Maine cannot yield for the purpose of the gentleman 
    from Delaware offering an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. Walter Flowers (Ala.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. Cohen: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the 
    balance of my time to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. du Pont).
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Maine?
        There was no objection.
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Delaware is recognized for 2 
    minutes.

                      amendment offered by mr. du pont

        Mr. du Pont: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 10380]]

        The Clerk read the amendment as follows:

            Amendment offered by Mr. du Pont: Page 32, immediately 
        after line 26, add the following new section:
            Sec. 16. (a) Chapter 6 of title 39, United States Code, is 
        amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: 
        . . .

Member in Control Does Not Yield to Another To Offer Preferential 
    Motion

Sec. 30.28 A Member controlling the floor under the five-minute rule 
    may not yield 
    to another Member to offer 
    a preferential motion, but must relinquish the floor by yielding 
    back his time or withdrawing his amendment by unanimous consent; 
    the Member offering the preferential motion must then seek 
    recognition in his own right.

    During consideration of H.R. 6942 (International Security and 
Development Cooperation Act of 1980) in the Committee of the Whole on 
May 28, 1980,(10) the following proceedings occurred:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 126 Cong. Rec. 12558, 12559, 96th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chairman: (11) Are there further amendments to 
    title I?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Elliott H. Levitas (Ga.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [William S.] Broomfield [of Michigan]: Mr. Chairman, I 
    offer an amendment. . . .
        The Chairman: The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) is 
    recognized for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
        Mr. [Clement J.] Zablocki [of Wisconsin]: Mr. Chairman, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Broomfield: I am glad to yield to the chairman of the 
    committee.
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I note that the hour of 7:30 has 
    arrived.
        I have advised all of the members of the committee who have 
    inquired that we would rise at 7:30. I am sure the gentleman from 
    Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) will not be offended if he will be the 
    first Member recognized when the committee reconvenes for the 
    purpose of considering his amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
        The Chairman: The Chair will state that the gentleman is out of 
    order until the gentleman from Michigan yields back his time or the 
    amendment is withdrawn.
        Does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) ask unanimous 
    consent to withdraw his amendment, without prejudice, and with the 
    right to offer it again?
        Mr. Broomfield: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent, 
    with that understanding, to withdraw my amendment.
        The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the 
    gentleman from Michigan?
        Mr. [John H.] Rousselot [of California]: Mr. Chairman, I have a 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The Chairman: The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
    inquiry.
        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Chairman, why does the gentleman have to 
    withdraw

[[Page 10381]]

    his amendment? It can be before us for consideration tomorrow.
        The Chairman: The Chair had already recognized the gentleman 
    from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) for 5 minutes and the motion to rise 
    could not take him from the floor.
        Mr. Rousselot: Mr. Chairman, then the amendment offered by the 
    gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Broomfield) will be first in order 
    tomorrow, is that right?
        The Chairman: The Chair will rule that the amendment is still 
    pending. The gentleman's amendment will be pending tomorrow; if the 
    gentleman now yields back his time and the motion to rise is then 
    offered.
        Mr. Rousselot: I thank the Chair. So the gentleman does not 
    have to withdraw his amendment.
        The Chairman: That is correct. The gentleman from Michigan has 
    yielded back his time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
    Wisconsin (Mr. Zablocki).
        Mr. Zablocki: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
    rise.
        The motion was agreed to.

Yielding Time for Motion That Committee of the Whole Rise

Sec. 30.29 For a motion to be made in yielded time, the time must have 
    been yielded for that purpose; thus, 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,(12) Mr. Howard W. Smith, of Virginia, 
moved that the Committee of the Whole rise; this motion was made in 
time yielded him in the Committee by Mr. Adam C. Powell, of New York, 
for general debate. Chairman Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, ruled 
that the 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.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 96 Cong. Rec. 2178, 81st Cong. 2d Sess.
13. See also 113 Cong. Rec. 14121, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., May 25, 1967; 
        109 Cong. Rec. 10151-65, 88th Cong. 1st Sess., June 4, 1963; 
        102 Cong. Rec. 6891, 84th Cong. 2d Sess., Apr. 24, 1956; and 91 
        Cong. Rec. 7221-25, 79th Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 18, 1945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Member Recognized for One-minute Speech Could Not Yield for Request To 
    Restore Bill to Private Calendar

Sec. 30.30 The Speaker declined to permit a Member recognized for a 
    one-minute speech to yield to another Member to make a request to 
    restore a bill to the Private Calendar (which the House had 
    previously agreed, by unanimous consent, should be passed over).

[[Page 10382]]

    On July 15, 1968,(14) Speaker John W. McCormack, of 
Massachusetts, recognized Mr. William L. Hungate, of Missouri, to make 
a one-minute speech. Mr. Hungate then asked unanimous consent that a 
bill previously stricken from the Private Calendar be restored thereto, 
and the Speaker ruled that he could not entertain that request. Mr. 
Hungate then proceeded for one minute and yielded to Mr. Thomas J. 
Meskill, of Connecticut, who moved that the same bill be restored to 
the Private Calendar. The Speaker ruled that he had not recognized Mr. 
Hungate for the purpose of yielding to Mr. Meskill for the motion, and 
that the motion was not in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 114 Cong. Rec. 21326, 90th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------